Lords Chamber

Thursday 11th September 2025

(began 1 day ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Supporting progress on the world's first plastic pollution treaty
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Question. First Oral Question. Baroness Alexander.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I ask the question standing in my name on the Order
11:08
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. UK is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution and a strong proponent for an ambitious global treaty, at the negotiations in August, the UK worked with our partners to push for strong robot measures, effective measures own fermentation and the ability for the treaty to develop over time. We are disappointed that no agreement was reached that the UK remains committed to reach an agreement when negotiations resume.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for her answer, as she says, in light of the rejection of any limits on plastic production by Saudi Arabia, Russia, production by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the United States, at the recent committee, will the recent committee, will the government consider, along with other high and countries, moving other high and countries, moving from the current consensus decision making process to one on a voting making process to one on a voting basis at the international committee to accelerate progress? Finally, to accelerate progress? Finally, given that the UK itself has one of the highest plastic waste levels per person globally, including UK person globally, including UK households throwing away 60 items per week, when will the government
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:18
None Portrait Oral questions: Improving UK-EU trade conditions for the arts and creative industries, including touring musicians
-

I beg leave to ask the question Paper.
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the noble Lord is really right to flag the issue at youth unemployment. The fact it has been rising over the last three years. Although it is probably worth noting there is a ways a higher rate of unemployment for young people than for older age groups but mainly because they tend to have higher rates of unemployment because they are more likely to cycle in and out of the labour market around the age of starting into work. The trend is one we need to watch and he is absolutely right to raise that.

He is right to raise both the fiscal context but in some respects the real reason I want to do something about this is not just for my colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, keen though she will be. We do not want any young person leaving school and not being able to start with the opportunity to learn more to work. We tried various things in different government so we have now decided we are not having anyone left behind. We are developing the Youth Guarantee with the clear commitment every young person should be earning or learning.

We have got people out there trying different parts of the country, working at what works, working out what works in their locality with their young people and their employers. As to transforming apprenticeships, investing in greater support for young people and making sure we are identifying where those people are worried risk of frankly if they are not in education, employment or training at 18 or 19 that is a real risk that the future. We need to find them and the future.

We need to find them and The number of young The number of young people, The number of young people, 16 The number of young people, 16 to 24, who are out of everything is not 24, who are out of everything is not just a personal and moral challenge but a societal and economic but a societal and economic disaster, we really do need to make this one of the absolute pillars of this government policy in the next three years. Also, I pay tribute to him, he was a performing Minister in the last government and did lots of work in this area, and learnt a lot from him.

He is right, this is both a scandal and a challenge for the economy, the difficulty we have is trying to work out, how do we reach young people if they are not engaged in society, I was speaking to youth work he said one thing she's worried about is there is a range of young people who are simply off grid, it is not just that we are not aware of them, they are not on benefits, they are simply disappearing, part of our job is to find out where they are, some of the trailblazers in different parts of the country, they are looking at how do you track down young people not on the radar and support them, engage in the spaces.

And trying to find creative ways, I talked to young people, school did not work for them, but there may be a possibility that different kinds of apprenticeships, work experience, might draw them back in. Our job is to find these young people, work out what will make the difference what will make the difference I welcome and commends the Minister's passion and commitment, I recently met with around 100 young people as part of the work we are people as part of the work we are doing, the number one concern is the impact of technology and AI on their future jobs.

There is no robust research in the United States on the research in the United States on the impact of AI on entry-level jobs, is the government aware of the research and intending to commission research and intending to commission research on the UK likely impact of artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence and strategies that might emerge? He raises an interesting point, I'm glad to hear him talking to individuals, I am always interested to hear more. I learnt a lot more from what young people say than anyone else.

He has raised an important point about AI, we are starting to witness the impact of AI in the labour market, there is uncertainty over both the scale of the impact and the government is planning a whole range of plausible outcomes, a lot of work is going on in government, most forecasters project that in the end, AI will lead to a net increase in employment. Our job is to make sure that... When you get this kind of change in the labour market, the people who lose out most is those at the margins, we need to try to make sure that those are given the skills to succeed.

We are investing in transforming apprenticeships, looking at ways to give young people a chance into some of the new areas, giving them skills to get into that, we are conscious and working on it. we are conscious and working on it.
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:39
None Portrait Oral questions: Representations to the government of Nepal following the recent protests about the ban on social media
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

are investing in. I paid to ask the question standing in my name on the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. And I declare my interest. Paper. And I declare my interest.
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – committee stage (day 6)
-

House to be in committee on the planning and instruction bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the House do not resume into a committee upon the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. The question is that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". The I wanted to remind noble Lords we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wanted to remind noble Lords we have a large number of groups on this bill to get through. Whilst this is a Committee stage I do rise this is a Committee stage I do rise to remind noble Lords of the guidance and companion of 8.81 on speeches at amending stages. On speeches at amending stages. On bills. Members taking part in debate at amending stages should not use their speech simply to summarise or their speech simply to summarise or impede at length points made by others.

They should not make Second Reading speeches or make discursive interventions. Which are not interventions. Which are not relevant to the amendment or amendments under discussion. Whilst there have been many important there have been many important contributions from all sides of the House, part of our recent debate have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments. So we can make progress on the remaining groups I therefore ask for all noble Lords to ensure their remarks on further amendments are relevant to the topic under discussion and brief.
12:16
Baroness Whitaker Portrait Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-
-
In clause 52, amendment 145. this six day of committee of this hugely important bill. The set of amendments which may appear rather niche to some but I suggest are fundamental to our national values. I speak to amendments 145, 173, 174, 175 and 176 in my name and those of the Right Reverend Prelate, Bishop of Manchester who regrets he cannot be here and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle for amendment 145. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

I'm very grateful for their support. I am also very grateful to friends, families and Travellers for their advice and to the Public bills for the heroic efforts to get our requirements within the scope of this bill. All of these amendments address the gap in our understanding of the population of the United Kingdom. Centuries-old existence of a small number of fellow citizens, some gypsies and travellers who traditional way of life and culture is to live in their communities or in caravans. The fact they may reside in a different pattern from the majority does not lessen their citizenship as the law has attested.

There rentals of caravans and associated amenities on the site as their permanent residence thus means they should be entitled to standards of provision just as much as those who live in Brixton -- bricks and mortar on a street. The omission of general knowledge -- acknowledgement of their way of life has meant there is a significant shortage of sites and the conditions they are obliged to live in can easily be and are markedly inferior, insecure, dangerous, polluted and the cause of multiple disadvantages.

To say nothing of the damage all of this does to social cohesion. So these amendments are the way to close that gap. Amendment 145 makes it clear the gypsy and traveller sites must be considered within the strategically important housing sites identified in spatial developing strategies. Amendment 173 firms up the courage obligation -- current obligation on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers so plans and planning strategies, including the all- important new spatial development platitudes -- strategies never omit the need for sites again.

This local authorities could not ignore the excellent guidance so far produced by this government and must observe any further guidance. This is of particular importance reported them to the inconsistent approaches and methodologies and assessment of needs which has resulted in such marked inequalities of provision. Amendment 100 and Amendment 124 -- 174 clarifies the role of government in advising or developing guidance. So that Parliament has a proper opportunity to debate what is best. Amendment 145 creates a similar framework for local authorities to ensure they meet the assessed need for sites in their area in the role in planning and development and infrastructure.

It is essential there are needs for both private and socially rented pictures for travelling purposes as well as permanent. Finally amendment 176 addresses the failure to date of many local authorities to meet the assessed need for gypsy and traveller sites by giving the Secretary of State the power to make them do it. And carrying out their functions in relation to planning and development and infrastructure. In conclusion these amendments together would outlast recognise the validity of that small gypsy and traveller population which follows the traditional way of life as full citizens.

They would go far to eliminate the neighbourhood friction that comes from having to live on unauthorised sites. And perhaps most poignantly of all they would enable proper education for the children who suffer so markedly and in so many ways from the insecurity of constantly being evicted. It would remove a very long-standing injustice to adopt these amendments. I very much hope my noble friend will do that or devise amendments which achieve the same ends. which achieve the same ends.
12:21
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Amendment proposed, page 73, line

**** Possible New Speaker ****

21. At end inserted the words as printed on the Marshalled list. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker who has long been the House as champion in these areas and provides champion in these areas and provides us with great leadership. I was pleased to attach my name to amendment 145, also supported by The Lord Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lady Baroness Bakewell. I noble Lady Baroness Bakewell. I would have attached it to all of the others if there had been time.

I am just in the context of this going to just in the context of this going to say noble Lord to follow the Oxford dictionary of National biography on weekends they focused on, the biography they focused on was a biography they focused on was a naming -- a lady by the name of Elizabeth Hanning who was one of the most celebrated terminal cases of most celebrated terminal cases of the 18th century. She was a mason who disappear for a month and said she had been kidnapped.

And a woman she had been kidnapped. And a woman identified then as what would now describe as a gypsy was being depicted as being responsible for depicted as being responsible for that. If you read the account now it that. If you read the account now it was very obvious this was simply a case of 18th-century prejudice. I reference that because it focuses on how long gypsies but particularly traveller people have been a part of our communities, part of our lives and how long the prejudice has gone on.

I know in the 21st century what these amendments seek to achieve is to make sure we end some of that prejudice at least in the structure of our law. We cannot was address people's attitudes in your Lordships house but we can address the law. And make sure there is provision for the housing needs that are so crucial. The noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker has a ready set out most of the technical points in this -- already set out most of the technical points in this.

I will add one more which is what this is aiming to do is ensure we have A- level of accommodation needs provision for gypsy, Roma and traveller people and accommodation needs across the country and there is the same standards. Some noble Lords might suggest I am often talking about the need for local devolution and local decision- making. What we also want is a basic level of standard which is what these amendments provide. Across the country. That does not mean of course a local authority could not go better above the basic standard.

This is saying there have to be standards and has to be provision. standards and has to be provision. And that has to be crucial standard. And that has to be crucial standard.
12:24
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I want to speak to the scope of amendments, particularly 145, one My Lords, I want to speak to the scope of amendments, particularly 145, 147 and 175. As far as amendment 145 is concerned which requires there to be an assessment I am not sure this clause is actually needed, this amendment is actually needed. I have many plans through the local planning system and it has had been an integral part of our system and in fact the inspector has written to us in many well more than one occasion to say look the plans for building, houses, businesses and other environmental must be alongside and equal with the requirements to settle, gypsy and traveller sites.

The sense of amendment 145 of what it is seeking to achieve is already done and I have the scales in my back to prove it. As a leader I have taken my responsibilities as part of the population very serious. One of the very last steps I took as leader in my authority when I joined your Lordships house was to commit £1.8 million, a significant proportion to a complete refurbishment and upgrade of a transit site which when it returned to us from the long lease it was knocked back into shape and made decent.

No-one underestimates the importance of this more than I. I know the guidance is listed in amendment 175 but I need to tell your Lordships the custom and practice and the effect of these assessments has changed since COVID. It evolves through a mission creep, well-meaning in a systematic overstatement of local requirements as opposed to previous assessment. I would just like to draw your attention to some of the methodological changes. It is important because amendment 174 contemplates a restatement of the way in which we make these assessments.

And I think it is important to labour for the House like to lay before the House how the methodology has changed. There has been a reduction in travelling since COVID. Evidentially the use of transit sites has reduced. And the annual caravan count supports this assertion. The new methodologies we seem to be sleepwalking into place significantly less regard and importance to the caravan count which is a system that is supported -- has supported the population over many years and has to the test of time.

But there have been other methodological changes as well. Instead of the face-to-face teams where previously consultants engaged and have been undertaken has switched to telephone interviews. So instead of the rigour and observation of the family circumstance, history of travelling, the custom and practice now is to simply ask youngsters would you like a house? It is capturing once not needs. With leading questions. This is the point we really need to focus on. There needs to be more rigour there.

And is leading to a systematic over account. Youngsters, asking them whether they would like to have a house and they say yes and eventually they get together, then you have got what was initially two, the real need is only one if they got together and are living in the same dwelling house. I do not want to go through every single enumeration of all the changes but I do think we need to recognise the change in methodology since COVID and the apparent increase which is needed as part of those changes and also misunderstanding of the confusion between needs and wants.

This is important because as to my opening remarks, the inspector plays opening remarks, the inspector plays enormous weight -- places enormous weight on having a gypsy and traveller assessment alongside other parts of the local plan, if there has been a systematic overstatement in this representation then otherwise good plans, local plans could get sent back to the drawing board on a false premise. As the leader of the District Councils' Network, I would call and I cannot render the precise example but I do recall other districts where that was suffered, they'd suffer that indignity.

It is not for the families concerned -- it is not good for the families concerned to have misrepresentation it is not good for the local economy and it is not good for the national economy in the consequence of stopping building. We must have accounts and the methods must be robust and evidently based and we need to get back to the system as it was tried and tested rather than sleepwalking situation we have had.
12:29
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Arise very briefly just to support this group of amendments. Brought by Baroness Whitaker and supported by the Bishop of Manchester, Baroness Bennett and I speak on behalf of Baroness Bakewell who has signed her name to all of the amendments in this group. I will not take a lot of your Lordships time. It is a pleasure to support this amendment make these amendments and I thank Baroness Whitaker and others for bringing these forward. It is essential in terms of this bill and what we do that all communities and all sections of society are included.

It is important we make sure the bill represents the needs of the traveller and the gypsy communities. It is important and it is -- it is important that it is done. Amendment 145 makes explicit what is currently uncertain in the bill. As gypsy and traveller sites must be recognised as part of the housing needs whether for strategic development plans being drawn up. We leave this need for clarity is absolute and without it there is danger these communities will fall through the cracks and their needs will not be properly met and accounted for.

Amendments 173 and 174 seek to establish a statutory duty the local authorities to assess gypsy and traveller accommodation needs. And to conduct those assessments according to clear and consistent national guidance. This amendment is vital. We need consistency in methodologies which often vary from area to area. These assessments are subject to criticism and there is worry about incoherence and there is worry about incoherence To make sure that these obligations are carried out fairly and done equitably across all communities.

Amendment 17 places a statutory duty to meet identified needs which is particularly important, such a duty simply does not happen without this duty. We have seen a real decline, only 30 sites have been built since only 30 sites have been built since we had the change in the 1994 provision. Amendment 176 simply ensures accountability, it prevents local authorities setting aside their obligations, and I think this is important, for Lord Hunt, who is not in his place, he made a similar point when we have a discussion on local area community in Japan.

I think it is important, and essential in the current climate, that these powers are set in statutory law. There is certainty across local authorities and accountability for all local authorities to deliver. Our planning and instruction needs to take account of everybody in society, all communities need to be represented and protected and these are vital amendments to ensure that actually happens, takes place and is... Local bodies and other bodies are accountable.
12:32
12:33
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak on this group of amendments very briefly. On these benches, we fully recognise the importance of ensuring gypsy and traveller communities have access to appropriate accommodation. However, bluntly, we do not believe these amendments are the right way forward. Local authorities already have duties, under existing planning and housing law, to assess accommodation needs across their communities, including those of gypsies and travellers. To impose further statutory duties of the kind envisaged in these amendments risks, we believe, unnecessary duplication and centralisation, adding bureaucracy without improving outcomes.

We believe the better course is to ensure that the current framework is properly enforced, rather than creating new and overlapping obligations and for that reason, we cannot offer our support to these amendments, nevertheless,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we look forward to the reply. My Lords, I will turn to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I will turn to amendments 145, 173, 174, 175 pounds amendments 145, 173, 174, 175 pounds 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, my noble friend, passionate advocate for the provision of gypsy and for the provision of gypsy and traveller sites, I was happy to debate this with her yesterday during the debate on a Robson law and we had many meetings on the and we had many meetings on the subject, I would like to state, I agree with the need to ensure there are sufficient provisions of the site for gypsies and travellers and Lord Lansley is right to make the
12:35
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Lansley is right to make the distinction between show people and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller's. I believe local authorities can make a distinction between the two, if that is not right, I will correct that in writing, but I believe that is the case, local authorities have the ability to do that. Amendment 145 requires special developing strategies to specify the distribution of the sites, however, under new section 12 D, the bill would allow for special developing strategies to specify describe housing needs for gypsies and travellers, provided the strategic planning authority considers the issue to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.

The new clause refers to any other kind of housing, the provision of which, the strategic planning authority does consider to be part of their strategic consideration. Amendment 173, 174, 15 and 176 seek to introduce measures into the Bill that will require an assessment of gypsy and traveller accommodation needs to inform local plans and development strategies. The amendment is unnecessary, there is an existing duty in section 8 of the Housing act upon local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of those people residing in or resorting to districts with respect of provision of caravan sites or houseboats.

This provision covers gypsies and travellers, furthermore, planning policies clear, a local planning... Local planning authorities should use a robust, evidence-based to establish the accommodation needs and inform the preparation of local plans and decisions. In doing so, they should pay attention to early and effective community engagement with both settled and traveller communities and they should work collaboratively with neighbouring authorities. We have committed to a further review of planning policy for traveller sites this year, as part of which, any further changes, including the need for guidance, will be considered and I can assure the noble Lord, we will not be sleepwalking, they will be evidence-based with clear consultation with all relevant bodies, including the community themselves.

As housing legislation, planning policy in the bill, already adequately support the provision of traveller sites, I would ask the noble Baroness to bake leaved with the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Bennett, for her support and the support given in a very late amendment to the last committee for the principles of this group, by my the principles of this group, by my noble friend, Baroness Warwick, very late at night, I commend the action taken by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his own at Local Authority, but the evidence that I have seen does not confirm what he
12:38
12:40
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

146. I rise to speak to amendment 146

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 146 on behalf of my noble friend. Amendment 146 would require special Amendment 146 would require special developed strategies to any revision streams within areas that outline specific measures to protect them from environmental harm and impose a clear responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance talks to environments. Amendment 354 would decimate in river upstream as a protected site, amendment one. In, in the name of the Bishop of knowledge, require strategies to identify talks to.

I wish to speak to amendment 152 in the name of my noble friend, which seeks to ensure that animal welfare is considered in spatial development strategies, this amendment response to the concerns raised by the Animal Sentience Committee in the June 2025 letter to ministers, highlighting that the Bill does not pay due regard to the welfare of the Centene animals. It is crucial that our planning framework acknowledges and integrates animal welfare as a key consideration alongside environmental protection.

These amendments are of vital importance, recognise an urgent need for bespoke protections, there is not any key environment assets, but they are moving into heritage. I'm grateful to see many noble Lords across this House expressing the same concerns and recognising the unique value of these. I wish to speak briefly to these. I wish to speak briefly to amendment 148 and 150. An amendment 178 in the name of the noble Lord. Amendment 148 and 150 seek to ensure that the strategies include explicit policies to protect talks and take account of wildlife.

Amendment 178 will ensure that local plans align with land-use framework. Talks are not merely beautiful and iconic features of our landscape, they are symbols of cultural heritage. Often described as England's rainforests, they are ecologically rich and uniquely venerable. Yet they face increasing threats from development, pollution and the escalating impact of climate change. Tragically, none of England's rivers, including trucks, meet the standard of good health. This offers opportunity to embed the protections, identified the talks to Restoration strategy, into our planning system.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill should ensure that growth is paired with protections for these habitats, especially given that, across the south and east of England, talks to are heavily impacted by a obstruction and wastewater headphones. In conclusion, may I ask the noble Lady the Minister what assessment has been made of environment agencies event monitoring dataset, particularly regarding the role of talks in achieving the target to restore these. I look forward to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response and I beg to move. Amendment proposed, at end insert
12:44
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. I rise to both amendment 147 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to both amendment 147 and amendment 148. Both of which deal amendment 148. Both of which deal with the issue of chalk stream. Can I give the apology of The Lord Bishop who is in Papa New Guinea. If he were here, I know he would wish to thank The Earl of Caithness for their support of his amendments. their support of his amendments. There are many noble Lords who know lots about talks, it was interesting to hear the Minister last week say that she knows about them because she has a chalk to in Stevenage.

They are pristine water conditions and stable temperature our homes to some of our most endangered species including roles, the crayfish and kingfishers. They really do need our protection. I am not going to go into the issue of where the protections come from, that was covered by the noble Lord, but I want to say, in the Commons, when this was raised, the Minister said this was necessary. I would like to content that is the wrong approach, the recent that it was unnecessary to have these protections, that the Minister gave, was that they had protection in local nature recovery strategies.

For those familiar, we know that chalk streams across counties. Local strategies are specific to individual areas. They cannot deliver the protection that they need to cover across county boundary. The second reason, there boundary. The second reason, there What we are seeing is that unless Chalk Streams (Protection) Bill specific protection, then they are going to deteriorate further. And there are only 220 of these talks to in the you -- chalk streams in the UK.

We have a certain percentage in the UK and of those 220, even they are not protected well enough. Over the summer when we were on recess there was a very interesting piece on one of the broadsheets about the River Avon which is a chalk's which comes across both Wiltshire and Hampshire. It has been seen there is significant decrease in wildlife and invertebrates. Yet that is meant to have some form of protection through the existing protected site system. the existing protected site system.

It is just not working. This is not the first time we have talked about them in this House. We come to it every time as an Environment Bill. And it is a really, not just from an environmental perspective but as the noble Lord Blencathra said, it is cultural and from a heritage point of view, they are important. If the government is serious about showing it really wants to do something and protect the environment, now is the time to accept the amendments on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chalk streams. Arise to support my noble friend,
12:47
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise to support my noble friend, lawn and patio -- Lord Blencathra lawn and patio -- Lord Blencathra and Lord Bellingham who will speak later in this group and other noble Lords and their amendment in 146. I agree with everything that has been set. So your Lordships my -- may wonder why I am so keen to support amendment 147 in the name of the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, my noble friend Lord Caithness of the noble Baroness Lady Parminter and who has just spoken.

Most effectively. I declare an interest as an owner of a short stretch of the river in Hertfordshire. I hope the Minister will not suggest the Right Reverend Prelate amendment 147 is not necessary but I very much hope she will consider the arguments for special protection of chalk streams as was accepted by the government and supported by your Lordships' House in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Two years ago during the passage of that act I introduced an amendment which was designed to support the Chalk Streams (Protection) Bill of repackage.

And provide protection for our beautiful talks to as a specific, unique and precious natural resource. I was delighted at that time the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage put her name to my amendment and spoke in support of it. I hope the Minister will not it. I hope the Minister will not mind if I quote from what she said.. I have been lucky enough to live in the wonderful county of Hertfordshire for my life. If those of you who are not aware Hertfordshire contains over 20% of the world's unique and special, natural and precious chalk streams and the noble Baroness continued, if our chalks were buildings, they would be Unesco heritage sites.

Let us protect them as though they were. Like the noble Baroness I was brought up and lived in Hertfordshire and I was delighted she understood the necessities of chalk streams which have suffered from pollution and access of obstruction. The Lord Caine F also supported my amendment. We successfully persuaded my noble friend to introduce a government amendment which broadly achieve the same purpose. However I would ask the Minister if the government can confirm it intends to set explicit outcomes as to the protection of chalk streams as specified in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act.

The last government had endorsed the one big which put forward by the catchment-based initiative. Treat protection and priority status for chalks. -- Chalk streams. The government could the Minister tell the House if the government intends to maintain priority status for chalk streams. The cover chalk streams strategy is very clear that the special status is needed for these globally ran and locally precious treasures. But progress on the strategy has been disappointing. Although there has been a petition, do not abandon the chalk streams strategy which secured enough signatures to require a government amendment, government response.

The Petitions Committee of another place has requested an updated response to that petition. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter has very well explained why chalk streams need special protection so I will not repeat the points she has so ably made just now. But my Lords, I would say to take specific account of chalk streams in spatial develop strategies would allow local authorities to provide a safety net to protect them from the indirect impact of development where other regimes have failed to do so.

By taking chalk streams into account, this should facilitate the actions so desperately needed to curb additional demand for water and make sure appropriate wastewater infrastructure is in place before development occurs. The rivers trust are right in also calling for chalk streams to be defined as irreplaceable habitats. This would minimise direct harm from development. And it would encourage enhancement of chalk streams through the biodiversity net gain regime. The noble Baroness, the Minister supported these arguments in the levelling up and regeneration act.

I look forward to hearing if she still supports them with regard to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill before your Lordships now. My Lords, I rise chiefly to
12:52
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise chiefly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise chiefly to concentrate on amendment 140 -- 150 to which I also attach my name. Also to briefly comment, the noble Lady, Baroness Parminter very Baroness Parminter very comprehensively introduced 148 and indeed we have majored on chalk streams and you will hear a lot more about them. I will cross-reference an earlier contribute and I made this week to recent research about the river in petition. And to the amount of plastics and fibreglass fibres that have just been discovered in new research in the chalk stream.

Permissible activities, that is what this amendment addresses. We do not know where those fibres are coming from in the river. We desperately need to think about what activities we can afford to allow and what the planning commission can be for those chalk streams. The extraction of water is obviously a but we have to think about pollution and we have to be applying proportionally principal to these crucial environments. Amendment 150 says a spatial develop strategy must take account of local dive sites.

-- Local wildlife sites. This is crucially important in this terribly nature depleted country. There are a very precise count, 43,992 local wildlife sites. Only 15% of them were know their status. This is what the Wildlife Trusts say. Triple SIs have greater legal protection. We know very often that does not work with these local wildlife sites too often fall under the radar and are insufficiently considered. There are significant stepping stones for wildlife to get from one environment to the other and parts of corridors that enable wildlife communities to mix for diversity and all of the other crucial factors there.

It is crucial the spatial element strategy take these into account. I thing this also cross-references, I will to speak briefly strongly in favour of the 152Z a and commend the noble Lady Baroness Hodgson for bringing this amendment. In the noble Lady I am sure will introduce it shortly but it is about the welfare of being considered. In spatial develop and strategies. I will reference thinking about light pollution, noise pollution, again the cutting off of corridors and isolating populations. These are the things human development are doing we are not sufficiently considering the welfare.

Which very much relates to the local wildlife sites as well.
12:55
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move amendment 152 Said A and I shall also speak to amendment 216A. I hope the noble Lords will not think I am in any way discourteous but I think there has been a transposition of numbers on 216 Said A. I cannot find any such amendment in the Marshalled list. I think what was meant was 261 A and I'm not surprised if anyone has become confused with the amount of amendments so I will speak to both.

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure the overall welfare and sentience of animals both wild and domesticated is systematically considered within the new planning frameworks established by this bill. Amendment 152 Said A dress as the spatial develop and strategies and amendment 261 A addresses it from environmental delivery purposes. We all understand the government objectives within this bill to streamline the planning system to deliver unnecessary -- the necessary infrastructure and build homes. Of course these are the vital aims. The bill does contain significant omission these amendments are designed to address, it is entirely silent on the welfare of the individual sentience animals living within the environment we seek to develop.

This is not simply my opinion. It is also the view of the Animal Sentience Committee, the independent expert body established to advise on whether the government policy pays proper regard to the welfare of sentience animals. In their letter to Ministers this June the committee expressed significant concern about this bill. The committee warned under the current proposals, existing animals not just species of high conservation concern but also common species like rabbits, voles and wrens face severe negative impact. They may be killed directly by machinery, they may be killed indirectly if their boroughs or food sources are destroyed or or food sources are destroyed or there may be displaced to highly uncertain futures.

Furthermore planning decisions will have a long-term impact upon millions of wild and companion animals. The committee warned the bill appears to conceptualise biodiversity or the environment as abstract entities without recognising these are populated by individual animals, capable of experiencing pain, distress and suffering. Animal welfare is aligned with but distinct from species conservation. Rather than protecting species at a population level it is about improving well-being and the individual level -- at the individual level. It is interesting these amendments were grouped by the government with others on the protection of river and chalk streams today.

Rather emphasising the committees concern or biodiversity on the environment is being considered as one, Jinderis group. Conscious of the time allotted to the bill I did not request to de-group on this occasion. But can assure the Minister I will be at the next stage of the bill if the government does not give due consideration. The Animal Sentience Committee's concerns have been echoed by other animal welfare committees and the UK Centre for animal law and my amendments are designed to implement the recommendations of the Animal Sentience Committee in a constructive and proportionate manner.

They are not intended to block development but to ensure how we build is done responsibly and humanely. Amendment 152 Said They would require spatial develop and strategies consider animal welfare. It does not mandate specific outcomes and it provides flexibilities for planning authorities in practice it can mean things like extremely impacted development on wildlife movement corridors and roosting or breeding sites at the consent planning stage. Specifying bird safe lighting and leasing standards for all tool site buildings and appropriate refuge areas with food and shelter for animals displaced during construction.

Amendment 261 A requires the environmental development plans drawn up by natural England also pay due regard to welfare for all animals. This is about practical steps in the delivery stage, things like ensuring thorough preconstruction cheques for hedgehogs or ground nesting birds, avoiding key breeding seasons or requiring humane relocation of animals were Hamas unaffordable. -- Harm is unavoidable. I hope Ministers will give serious thought to what nonlegislative policy limits they can make in order to address concerns of animals and the Animal Sentience Committee.

This could include for example making a commitment the Secretary of State will include due regard for animal welfare as a prescribed matter. Spatial develop and strategies are mentioning animal welfare in the regulations that they will establish the natural England's duties when preparing environmental delivery plans. They could also see voluntary guidelines on wild animal welfare friendly approaches to planning, infrastructure development and building. This could build on guidance that has been moved elsewhere such as the chartered institute of ecologies and environmental management good practice guidelines for habitats and species with a specific form and focus on welfare.

I hope the government does have a sincere commitment to animal welfare and therefore they will feel able to accept these amendments. I beg to accept these amendments. I beg to
13:00
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I speak to my amendment and thank the noble Baroness and Lord Grantchester for their support. Grantchester for their support. There are -- they are around local plans. As we all know, when it comes to planning, local plans are really the infrastructure, the plumbing, of decisions of whether stuff happens or not locally. And how they relate to Local Nature Recovery Strategies and to Land Use Framework's. I and to Land Use Framework's. I rather hesitate about speaking about Land Use Framework's, I've never talked about them in this House before, with the noble Baroness opposite, who is known as the world expert in this area.

But I will attempt and I'm sure she will put me right on any detail I have wrong in subsequent contribution. But there are two sorts of revolutionary things happening or about to happen in the area of how we use our land here in England in particular. First of all, Local Nature Recovery Strategies, that were part of the very enlightened Conservative Environment Act, that are now being implemented. Local authorities, primarily, have been the responsible authorities or Local Nature Recovery Strategies.

And going to this process at the moment. A handful of them have in agreed by DEFRA and signed off. And hopefully the remaining 20 or so will do fairly soon. And they are all around making sure or the attempt to ensure that nature, the decline of nature in our nation, which we are all too aware of, is not only reversed but becomes very, very positive in terms as we move towards targets such as 30 later in the decade.

And on Land Use Framework's. At the moment, being in a position where that is under consultation, we are expecting recommendations to come out from government. And we have there the wish, I think again of us all, to ensure that land is used in appropriate ways. That there is multiuse. And that dilemmas or what is sometimes seen as conflicts, such as between food security and Nature Recovery Network country side, are not that at all. But they work together to the benefit of everybody.

-- Nature recovery in our countryside. For those two areas of policy, nature recovery and land used to be successful, which I'm sure this government and the Minister want all of those to be. Then they need to be delivered. And delivery is a key issue and a key challenge. And one of the core fundamental ways that they can be delivered, and they will not be delivered if it is not the case, if they are integrated into and taken well account in terms of local plans.

That is what this amendment is asking. Huge amounts of work have gone into Local Nature Recovery Strategys across England in terms of consultation, the work of local authorities, the work of environmental groups, the work of landowners and farmers, all of that's been enthusiastic, has been positive. The delivery cannot happen if we are not part of our planning infrastructure. What I would ask the Minister is we are not suggesting that this amendment is totally perfect I will clearly fall on the floor if she accepted this amendment as it is.

But the question I would ask the Government and the Minister is how will they ensure that these two key planks of previous and present government policy, how will the government and the Minister ensure that they can be delivered, they can be implemented through local plans?
13:05
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I support everything that the noble Lord Teverson has just said about amendment 178, apart from his remarks about my expertise in Land Use Frameworks. I'm not expert, I'm just old, and I have been round the block for so long promoting the idea of Land Use Frameworks that people get confused about whether I actually know anything about them. Absolutely, Lord Teverson hit the nail on the head. We have got quite a number of new plans concerning land and nature around at the moment, invented by various pieces of legislation and policy.

And it is absolutely vital that local plans which are a key vehicle take account of them, otherwise, what is the point of doing them? Local plans are absolutely essential vehicles for delivery of the Land Use Framework and nature recovery strategies, which Lord Teverson has ably pointed out the value of. So I would just add my question to the Minister, as to whether local plans will be required to comply with the Land Use Framework and Local Nature Recovery Strategies and if not, what the delivery vehicles will be for implementing these important plans that we have only just agreed important and are now being worked through? Because if there is no implementation vehicle, what is the point in doing them? It would be good also to hear from the Minister what the latest is on the Land Use Framework.

The Conservative Party opposite when in government promised me the Land Use Framework by Christmas 2022. And then by Christmas 2023. The Labour Government went out to consultation fairly public after the election, before Christmas 2024. And I was delighted yesterday to hear the new Secretary of State in DEFRA endorse the importance of the Land Use Framework under her new regime. So, we are again getting pretty close to Christmas. And I wonder whether the noble Lady the Minister will be able to say whether we might see the next version by Christmas 2025? version by Christmas 2025?
13:07
Baroness Helic Portrait Baroness Helic (Conservative)
-
-
... Amendment 152ZA and... Table by my noble friend Lady Hodgson, this would aware -- require plans to take proper account of animal welfare Dentists Act 2022. This is not about adding extra bureaucracy, it is about recognising the truth that we often ignore, not just about where we place bricks and mortar, it is about the choices we make, the land habitat and the creatures that depend upon them. At present there is a gap in what is promised and what is delivered.

University of Sheffield has shown that a new development, 83% of hedgerow highways, three quarters of that and bird boxes and most half of the promised hedges never materialised. He specifies planning plans were found dead and not planted at all. Fine words in planning documents but in practice animals are left without space or shelter. This is why Animal Sentience Committee warning must be heeded, its formal response of 27 June issue, the committee rightly stressed that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill conceptualises biodiversity as an environmental good but ignores the lived experience of sentient animals will be displaced, harmed and killed during the construction.

Image it gave was serious. A bulldozer driving unburied animals alive, with promises of a new set to be built never to be seen. The committee has made good and sensible recommendations of welfare and timetables and practical measures timetables and practical measures like SWIFT bricks. The case of brown Head Teachers us what happens when welfare is absent from the statute book. -- Brown hare. Hare is now indeed decline because we felt to legislate for a season.

Hundreds of thousands are killed and left to die and population is down by 80% in certain areas. If that can happen to such a cherished and loved animal, we should not be surprised that less visible creatures fair even worse.... Risk levies being paid at the expense of animal welfare impact. This Bill risks directly impacting protecting species, bats, birds, badgers and hares, uprooted from the habitats, distressed and destroyed altogether. Conservation is not only about biodiversity, it cannot exist without animal welfare. We must do better.

Yes, there is a need for new homes and better infrastructure, but we also want living hedgerows, driving trees, wildlife corridors actually function and a countryside that remains arrive -- alive. These amendments do not hold back growth but simply holders to a higher standard of responsibility. By adopting them we show that planning for the future is not just about housing numbers but about the kind of country we wish to be. One that values progress but not at the expense of wildlife. One that builds for people, while safeguarding the animals who share our land.
13:10
13:12
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
I rise to support amendment 147 about talks. Because I was brought up in... And I have been studying some of the streams there for a very long time. And as other noble Lords have said, they are the most one bits of the countryside, with Clearwater, which comes and goes that it is usually there. -- clear water. I got particularly involved in it when I was trying to oppose some of the work that HS2 was doing and trying to drill a tunnel underneath the chalks to just the Amersham -- just near Amersham.

And the Cheltenham Society, who I think led the opposition, were very keen that HS2 actually put some boreholes down to check what the ground was like, to make sure that drilling a tunnel quite close underneath talks to would not have any adverse effect on the chalks. -- Underneath the With HS2 being the organisation they were, they said it was fine, they would know everything that happened and we will not have any special rejection apart from the normal tunnel construction.

And of course, they were wrong, and when the tunnel was built underneath the stream just west of Amersham, contamination started, the water levels dropped and there was a lack of water supply in some places. And they said, oh dear, did nothing about it, it is all right now, I think it has all been solved. But my point is that if this amendment had been on the statute book 10 years ago, I think the local people and the experts would have taken much more credibility in attacking a government organisation and trying to build a tunnel then has happened so far.

So I think there are many examples, there are problem many other examples that noble Lords have mentioned, but I do think it is a very important thing that we map these chalks to make sure they are looked after because they are very, very special. very special.
13:15
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak in favour of amendment one for six, which I'm a co-signature, 17 and 148. And I'm going to be very brief. Because we have already heard from three noble Baroness who have made very powerful contributions, the noble Lord Lancaster, Mr Chen Chad and just now, Viscount Berkeley. -- 146, which I'm closing the cheque, 147 and 148. And the noble Baroness who has worked very closely on this when she was co-chair of... Years ago. As the noble Lord pointed out, 85% of the chalk streams are in the UK and they face multiple threats.

Including a really good example from the noble Lord Berkeley. Very few meet good ecological standards. And what we are seeing is a series of irreplaceable habitats being put at grave risk. Most people when they grave risk. Most people when they Think about Dorset, Hampshire... Norfolk is often forgot about. It has a very famous chalk stream. There are a number in my own constituency, including the upper constituency, including the upper We have heard absolutely overwhelming reports of consensus on the national importance of these.

We have also heard wholly conclusive evidence of the threats. What I say to your Lordships house and to the Minister is we now have a golden opportunity to actually take action and do something about it and I hope very much therefore that the Government will support and find a way of implementing into the bill incorporating into the bill if not the exact wording of 146 and 147 may be their own wording and to make sure we actually take action now. sure we actually take action now.
13:17
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
Put my name to amendment 147 but before I come to that I would like to say how much out support of the Noble Lord has said. We need this jigsaw of plans and ideas to actually work on the ground. The advantage behind my Noble Friend and advantage behind my Noble Friend and the Noble Lady is that most of what I was going to say has already been said. But I would just reiterate that key point that we are all failing to look after our national treasure of Chalk Streams Bill to we have only got about 280 in this country that run from West Dorset to Yorkshire, but they represent 85% of the chalk streams in the world.

The chalk are paying the price and in the busiest areas of the country and the building next to the Chalk Streams Bill and the new development in terms of additional requirements and discharges. Not only 17% of chocs water bodies are achieving high or good status under the framework, it is clear that further work is needed to protect them. The noble Baroness, the Noble Lady Baroness Bennett mentioned the recent work of Brighton University. One of the interesting things about that research and I hope the Minister has read it is the amount of tyre particles that were found, so can the Minister please confirm that any development and infrastructure including transport will not create further pathways for contaminated surface water and road run off? The chocs to and books that feed them.

Special status is needed for these rare and locally precious treasures to drive investment and ensure protection and restoration. An the Noble Lady baroness Farmington mentioned that local recovery status. She is absolutely right, that is not, in itself, good enough. And there are streams in Norfolk and Suffolk that are not included within this. And they cannot account for a catchment wide approach, as talks to often span multiple local areas. It is vitally important that the local authorities should work together.

If we are going to shave our Chalk Streams Bill and that is why the special strategy is important. And in conclusion these low energy globally important systems cannot simply be moved and certainly not re-created elsewhere. Offsetting any impact by approaches such as the Nature Restoration Fund is impossible because of the practical, sensible solution is to deliver greater protection where they are and include them in any special development plan. When I was in opposition I was very pleased to work with the noble Baroness the Minister on chalk streams.

We worked together well and I say successfully first of the tables have now turned. It is now up to the Minister with us you will work with us. you will work with us.
13:21
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support several of the amendments here and speak to them. 146 is obviously the lead in this group and, in essence, I think this is the right approach, as has been said about the importance of Chalk Streams Bill. I used to live near a chocs to the River test and as a minister I have visited many. I think it is also right in particular I welcome the speech given by the Noble Lord Tennyson and also the noble Baroness about the importance of both local nature recovery strategies and land-use frameworks.

Now, my noble friend's Viscount Trenchard and the noble Earl have just gently teased the Minister because it is often easy to say things in opposition and then all of a sudden with that reality times Government, however, in response to what the noble Baroness the honourable lady was asking about the land-use framework, I think it is a couple of years ago now I had written quite a substantial L UF, and one of the departments that was very concerned about it at the time was to look concerned about the impact it could have on housebuilding when we are actually trying to get a combination of food security, develop mental poles, and the like.

Good news is that Steve agreed, the Secretary of State of DEFRA until a few days ago, put out this consultation and is now of course Secretary of State at MHC LG. I hope that in his new department he will not put a barrier in the way of the land use framework and together with the new Secretary of State Emma Reynolds this can be published as quickly as possible. I'm conscious that the new Secretary of State wants to look at these things but I'm sure that Emma Reynolds will trust the judgement of Steve Reid and have an excellent land use framework which absolutely should be incorporated in Spatial should be incorporated in Spatial Development Strategies stop in terms of I would say more about L and RS but I think it is going to be absolutely one of the most critical things that will happen as a consequence of the local Government, therefore it is absolutely a no- brainer that they should have that as an integral part of it.

What I wanted to do was ask a question, I appreciate moving this amendment, tabling this amendment, the noble Baroness Lady Grender can't respond, but I will pick it up separately anyway. And it is about the permissible activities. And I just wanted to give a bit of clarity of thinking on that. What I would not want the SES strategy to start getting into is the nitty-gritty of where there are existing rights, whether that is about obstruction rights, there are already some challenges the car which a lot of landowners and farmers will be going through in 2027 when there is going to be a significant reduction in obstruction and I am not convinced while the people putting together the SDS should be aware of that, they need to think carefully about how that interplay goes, so while it should be considered I am not sure the SDS should be the way of permitting this to happen.

I may have misinterpreted the actual amendment. The other thing, of course, that matters most and this is one of the reasons why the test is the best place in the world to go fishing for various kinds of trout is the fact that it is a chalk stream. Now, it is fishing that actually got Philip Sharkey into the whole issue about water. And my honourable friend Charles Walker who used to be an MP until the last election when he retired happens to be his birthday today, so happy birthday to Charles.

But I have often found it is angling that are very protective of those rights but also very substantially concerned about water. The reason I say that, my Noble Friend, sorry, forgive me, one of my Noble Friend has just referred to the importance of the good eco-status. And actually one of the principal measures the environment agency has in assessing eco-status is the size of fish. It is a classic measure. And as a consequence, there is a reason for that and that is why people are so involved, so I would be nervous if the special strategy started to get involved in aspects of licensing in that regard.

In terms of amendment 354, although my Noble Friend Viscount Trenchard has tabled 355 which I think is more strategic, although it is going to be debated in the group later, I think this in one fell swoop would give the protection status to rivers which, at that moment, only about 11% of chocs have that formal designation, so I think it is a clever device in order to achieve the outcomes which I believe your Lordships would want. In that regard, I wish the Minister well in making sure that the new Secretary of State gives a clean bill to what he proposed in his previous role and that we get the land use framework as a welcome Christmas present for not only this House but also for the country at large.
13:26
13:27
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I very much hope when considering how to implement what I hope will be an agreement with these amendments that the Government pays close attention to gather much better data than they have at the moment. The financial strictures on the Environmental Agency of the last couple of decades has meant that their water quality monitoring is a long way short of what it should be. And I will take this opportunity to praise my brother for what he and other farmers in the river Wylie in Wiltshire have done to create their own farmer owned laboratory to monitor water quality and to take action which has considerably improved it.

There is a lot that can be done but you can't take decisions on how things are going to affect rivers, unless you are really collecting good data, and that is not happening at that moment and the Government will work with farmers to collect better data, I think they will find that they get better results from this and other aspects of their environmental policy. The other aspect that I want to raise is please can we end this snobbish definition of chalk streams that seems to have crept to the Government during the last Government.

I wish to put in a plea which is Eastbourne chocs to. These little shocks to that occur in odd places around the escarpment are really important parts of the natural tapestry of life. They need protection just as much as the test origin. The chalk should be a definition of watertight and water quality, not can they catch a big trout in it? trout in it?
13:29
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, as ever in your Lordships house a very interesting Lordships house a very interesting and wide-ranging debate on this series of amendments. And I would like to thank noble Lords for tabling amendments on the very up on topics of the protection of rivers, wildlife, and animal welfare. Could I just pick up a couple of general points first? The Noble Lord Lancaster mentioned the environment agency's dataset assessment. I will reply to him on that in writing if that is OK because I do not have the latest update on that, but I will get back to him.

At the noble Baroness Parmenter said that there was a chalk in Stevenage, I hope I did not say that because that would not be accurate. There is a chocs just outside of Stevenage which is in the village of Aston which is in Hertfordshire which is where I think I remember commenting that I visited with Fergal Sharkey if you months before the election. And we had a very listing discussion with Mr Sharkey about talks to their, but it is not typically there, it is just outside of the borough.

So, turning first to amendments 146, 147 and 148, which also cut to add new requirements on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection of streams. And I would point out to the Noble Lord that I am not responsible for the definition of Chalk Streams Bill I am sure it is not just to do with how big the size of the trout are that you can catch in them but there is a very much more scientific method than that of defining Chalk Streams Bill.

And I do wish to under them the government's commitment to restoring and protecting Chalk Streams Bill to Chalk Streams Bill a source of national pride, as one of Britain's most nature rich habitats, they support one of our rarest wildlife, from chalk someone to tread, their home to beloved and endangered species. There are just 260 Chalk Streams Bill in the world, and is one of our peers targeted, 85% of those are in this country. Which I think we can all be proud Which I think we can all be proud The government is taking action to protect the site.

New projections in the Water (Special Measures) Bill act allow us to hold water companies to account, ensuring chalk stream habitat preserver future generations and I was delighted to see that following the discussions we had during the course of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. We are also prioritising action in investment for chalk streams. Water companies will invest £2 billion over the next five years to deliver more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream as part of our Plan for Change. We are reducing the use of harmful extractions by an estimated 126 million ill daily, protecting vital water flows to these fragile ecosystems.

-- Litres daily. I did visit the chalk stream at standalone farm in Letchworth during the summer recess and it was almost dry. And I think we do have to do continue to monitor the water flow in our chalk streams, it still looks beautiful, but it is a real issue for us. In addition, our Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan ensures that chalk streams receive priority protection as part of a record investment to improve nearly 3,000 storm overflows nationwide. Within our planning system, chalk streams are already recognised my decision- makers as valued landscapes and habitats of biodiversity value.

These wildlife rich habitats provide key ecosystem services and benefits for national -- natural capital and should be identified and safeguarded through local plans. I'm just going to make a response now to the noble Lord Trenchard comments. About action that was taken previously. There was a chalk stream recovery pack issued, announced by the previous government. That is now out of step with our very ambitious program of water reforms. Since the general election, we have launched branch reform to revolutionise the water industry and clean up our water environment, which is the measures that I was just referring to.

In terms of the updated response to the petition, I do not know the answer to that question, I will follow that up with DEFRA colleagues and reply to him in writing, if that is OK. Local Nature Recovery Strategies offer a mechanism for identifying and improving chalk stream habitats. As they won the most valuable areas for nature. Drawing on key environmental evidence, such as river basin management plans. Under new section 12 D 11 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, spatial development strategies are already required to take account of relevant Local Nature Recovery Strategies.

The Earl of Caithness mentioned road ran off into chalk streams. Again, I do not know the exact answer to that question, so I will respond to the noble Earl in writing. Where chalk stream protection is of strategic importance, new section 12 D one makes clear that spatial development strategies must include policies on land use and development. I was grateful to the noble Lord Lansley for his suggestion about a footnote into the NPPS. I will take that back to the department. Mike NPPF.

Can I say to the noble Lord locus, it is great to hear about that initiative on the part of his brother and other farmers. -- Lord Lucas. We welcome that sort of data on water quality. Turning next to amendment 150, which seeks to replace similar requirement on strategic planning authorities in relation to local wildlife sites. As mentioned previously, spatial of element strategies are required to take account of Local Nature Recovery Strategies. Strategic planning authorities already have to take account of local wildlife sites in relation to the strategy area.

Local Nature Recovery Strategies should identify areas of particular importance for diversity and DEFRA statutory guidance clearly states that this should include all existing local wildlife sites where possible. It is our view that local plans are best placed to include policies protecting the site from development. The National Planning Policy Framework requires plans to identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally identified sites of importance to biodiversity.

Planning practice guidance gives further direction as to how playmaker should select and protect local wildlife sites. Turning next to amendment 178, which seeks to ensure that local plans can provide with Land Use Framework and nature recovery strategies. In terms of the Land Use Framework, and I'm grateful to my noble friend for her contributions, as ever, on these discussions was consulted on between January and April this year. And the responses and the workshop the back, subsequent workshop feedback, currently being analysed and will inform the production of the Land Use Framework.

Which is going to be produced, I'm sorry to say this, in due course. But I will ask the officials it is not my department, as noble Lords will be aware, but I will ask my noble friend, the Minister for DEFRA, if there is any date on timing for this. -- Any update. Noble Lord are quite right to say we now have the former Secretary of State for DEFRA as our Secretary of State, so there is a nice join up there. I share the noble Lord Teverson's desire that local plans prepared by local planning authorities should help to protect and restore land which is vital for nature recovery while fulfilling our ambitions to deliver the homes in infra structure that we know our country so desperately needs.

The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value. The framework also sets out that local plan should identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife rich habitats and wider ecological networks. Furthermore, the environment act 2021 introduced Local Nature Recovery Strategies which are now being rolled out across England. The spatial strategies for environmental and I developed in partnership with local stakeholders and enable strategic authorities to agree a set of priorities for nature recovery.

They map both the most valuable existing areas for nature which are often underpinned by other protections in the planning system, and areas that could become of particular importance for biodiversity. Government published new guidance in debris 2025, setting out the important role of Local Nature Recovery Strategies in the planning system plan making ample decision- making. -- February 2025. Under the provisions in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, expected to come into force later this year, local planning authorities will need to take relevant Local Nature Recovery Strategies into account when preparing plans.

These provisions apply not only to local plans but also to neighbourhood plans and importantly, they are proposed to apply to new style spatial development strategies by clause 52 of this bill. Government remains of the view we need to avoid a binding relationship between local nature recovery's strategies and plans, star making needs to consider all the issues facing the local area and community, tested through vigorous requirements for consultation and examination. It is conceivable that in some cases the plan making process may conclude that an aspect of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy needs to be addressed in a different way, so a degree of flexibility is needed to allow for that.

Under the new system for preparing local plans, is that out in our February 2025 response to the consultation on implementation and plan making reforms, local planning authorities will be required to prepare a statement of compliance, which will include details of compliance with relevant plan making legislation, including how the emerging local client has taken account of relevant Local Nature Recovery Strategies. In conclusion, I agree plan should be informed Local Nature Recovery Strategies and the future Land Use Framework as I reiterate that the legal and policy framework to appropriately enable this are appropriately enable this are already in place.

For these reasons, I would kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. I now turn to amendment 354, table by the noble Lord... That would add any river stream to the definition of a protected site for the definition of the Nature Restoration Fund. It has been developed to provide an alternative route to discharging existing statutory environmental obligations that would either be required of developers in relation to protected sites. The Nature Restoration Fund will facilitate a strategic approach to discharging those existing obligations but it will only apply where existing legal obligations are in place and where feature is already designated as part of a protected site under the relevant legislation.

As many in this House will be aware, there is an existing process for designating protected sides based on scientific evidence and the advice of Natural England, which ensures that those waterways that need protection will receive it. We believe that the question of the designation of site is best considered do this existing process with input from relevant experts on the basis of the relevant need of a given site. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, I would hope the noble Lord would agree that the designation of sites sits outside the scope of part three of the Bill and will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Turning to amendment 156ZA, and 126 essay, I apologise for the Miss numbering on the list, I thank the noble Baroness for amendment 261A, that would add that and EDP must pay due regard to the welfare of animals the definition in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2020 do. An amendment 152ZA, which would require strategic planning authorities to have regard to the effect of the proposed development strategy on animal welfare. Can I say that some developers do this incredibly well. I visited a site in Nottingham recently where very detailed and specific provision have been made to accommodate the nocturnal habits of hedgehogs.

That was a very... And the developers made a very big feature of this and it was really good to see that they had taken account of that. They had also engendered a great deal of interest from the locals schoolchildren, it was in a village, just outside the village, the local schoolchildren had taken a great interest in it as well. So it is great to see when developers do this. Government recognises consent on animal welfare and are grateful to the Animal Sentience Committee for the recent letter on this Bill.

My officials are going to be meeting with the committee to consider this further. However, we do not consider the amendment 261A to be necessary, the amendment 261A to be necessary, as we already expect ways in which a policy may impact on animal welfare to be considered when formulating and incrementing policy. This may include EDPs, which we would expect to consider and appropriately take into account potential animal welfare impact alongside other relevant factors. With regard to amendment 152ZA, I do not think it is necessary that a requirement that strategic planning authorities need to have regard to the effect of their proposed spatial development strategy on animal welfare.

Animal welfare is not generally considered strategic planning issue. And further, if the strategic planning authority this further animal welfare issues are of strategic importance because of its area, then it could consider policies relating to the use development of land as it affects animal welfare under the terms of clause 52, which will exert new section 12 D or into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Although I think such a conclusion seems unlikely. I would be happy to look at the non- legislative options the noble Baroness suggested and I'm sure I noble friend the Minister for DEFRA and I will be happy to meet with her to discuss those.

Therefore I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
13:43
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, ungrateful all noble Lords who have spoken today with such clarity, conviction and genuine concern for the future are vowing. -- I am right. All of which thoughtful, constructive and a shared desire to see our planning... I'm particular grateful to I noble friend bringing forward amendment 146 and MM 147, both amendment highlight the special importance of our rivers and in particular our chalk streams, an issue that is clearly resonated. -- Amendment 147. If the Minister and the government should take on all the excellent contribution from this site, perhaps you would take on contributions from our noble friend, nor Berkeley, spoke about the importance of chalk streams and the noble Lady the Baroness Baroness Young of Old Scone, she may deny being expert that her am I noble friend Lord Goldsmith other two top experts in this House on all aspects of biodiversity.

One. 147 calling for Local Nature Recovery Strategies are key. Local Nature Recovery Strategies would inevitably involve chalk streams. By implication, the noble Baroness is entirely in support of what we said about chalk streams, just as I completely support her in protecting ancient woodlands. Chalk streams are not only rare ecological... I should say to the noble Lord Teverson, there are 48 Local Nature Recovery Strategies and that are only four that have been announced at the moment, maybe five... So there are about 44 still to go and DEFRA hopes they will be concluded by the end of this year.

Chalk streams are not only rare ecological rich, they are an iconic feature of English landscape and found predominantly today in the south any still England and they are globally unique ecosystems. They are clear, mineral rich waters that support remarkable biodiversity of wildlife and hold environmental value and I get amongst our most valuable... Vulnerable, valuable and vulnerable natural assets. Planning policy, I suggest, must play a role in protecting the sensitive habitats. Development need not come at the expense of our natural water systems.

The amendments we have all discussed today do not seek to hinder progress but rather to amend the duty of care within our planning frameworks, to ensure spatial develop strategies proper consider the presence and condition of rivers and chalk streams. This is not about imposing unnecessary burdens, it is about enabling strategic authorities to plan with full awareness of the environmental context which takes place. I have been encouraged by the thoughtful and collaborative toe of today's debate, we can carry that spirit forward as work to refine the Bill and ensure it delivers for both people and the natural places we all value so deeply.

In the meantime, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment be withdrawn. The Amendment 147, Bishop of Norwich, Amendment 147, Bishop of Norwich, not moved. Amendment 148, Baroness not moved. Amendment 148, Baroness Grender, not moved. Amendment 148 a, Grender, not moved. Amendment 148 a, Lord Jamieson, not moved. Amendment 149, Baroness Bennett, not moved. 149, Baroness Bennett, not moved. Amendment 150, not moved.

Amendment 150 Z a, Lord Jamieson.
13:48
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

150 Z a, Lord Jamieson. My Lords, the two amendments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the two amendments in my name, 150 ZB concern coherency in my name, 150 ZB concern coherency in the permit. In 167 in the name of another friend Lord Banner covers a similar ground. This bill rightly proposes that the strategy should be aligned with national policies. That is entirely proper but it is equally applicable that the whole planning framework the pyramid you might say of national policy guidance, Spatial Development Strategies, local plans, is coherent. We must not have a situation where they contradict one another.

Where an application applies with one part of the system and is rejected for failing to comply with another. An issue that, and I declare my interest as a member, the previous government's London plan review identified that the conflicts between the London plan and local borough plans caused issues. Amendment 150 said a mix is clear that a local plan must not be inconsistent with the relevant spatial strategy this does not mean a top-down approach and does not mean that local plans have to be applicable, quite the opposite, they will be tailored to local areas, they may go further in key respects, they will provide much of the detail of a high-level spatial strategy that cannot and should not cover.

Equally, those developing special strategies should be building upon existing local plans, not cutting across them. I also know from my experience as a counsellor having bomb the scars of the local plan that took eight years to deliver that one of the greatest challenges in plan making is the constant shifting of the planning landscape. New regulations and guidance arriving partway through the process, forcing local authorities to retrace their steps and start again, causing serious delays. My amendment, therefore, proposes a point of stability that once a local authority has reached regulation 18 stage, that is where you go out and consult on the broad strategy with residents and others of its plan and that is typically around about 1/3, that is typically around about 1/3, sorry, a 1/3, sorry, 1/2 of the way through to submission, but any subsequent changes resulting from a new spatial strategy should not require the authority to start again.

In other words, the clock stops. And then it would obviously when the local planners then reviewed again in five years it would take into account the new local commissary, the new Spatial Development Strategy. That gives the certainty to the council to complete their work. Amendment 150Z follows the same principle for neighbourhood plans, again, it would require the neighbourhood plans not being consistent with the local plan will stop at, again, this is not a top- down instruction. Neighbourhood plans will, rightly, reflect local priorities .they may also go further, for instance by allocating more housing where there is a specific local need.

Or by setting local priorities that speak to the character of the area. Local plans, in turn, should build on the work already undertaken by neighbourhood forums and parish councils. Excuse me. But here there needs to be a fair transition were a new local plan is adopted partway through the preparation of the plan, my amendment provides that there should be a 12 month window which the had plan can be completed in on the basis of the previous local plan that strikes the right balance and gives community certainty, avoid wasted effort, and ensure that local plans and neighbourhood plans can evolve instead.

Let's be clear these amendments are not about diluting localism. On the contrary, they are about safeguarding. Ensuring a coherent planning pyramid that does not weaken distinctiveness, it strengthens trust in the system and ensure that local voices are heard within a coherent framework by national strategic local and neighbourhood priorities reinforced rather than contradict each other. That, I submit, is the only way we can achieve genuine consistency in infrastructure planning and sustainable development while observing the vital principle of local voice and local choice.

I so move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, in clause 52

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, in clause 52 page 74 at line 17 at end insert page 74 at line 17 at end insert that words as printed on the Marshall list. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment be agreed to. My Lords, amendment 157, 150 ZB is the name of that Noble Lord
13:53
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Jamieson which he has very helpfully introduced takes us into the question of neighbourhood plans and development plans and my amendments to which I wish to speak which are in this group all relate to neighbourhood plans plus the additional issue that I will raise in a moment. So, those amendments I speak to 154161 and one moment. So, those amendments I speak to 154161 and 163. We are in the territory of revisiting questions which we debated in the course of the levy regeneration bill.

But in that act as it was passed the first amendment as it was passed the first amendment 154 relates to what is presently in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act section 97 of schedule seven, it is a part of schedule seven. Noble Lords will recall schedule seven has a wide-ranging of planning and plan making related provisions. Rather than none of those, I don't think any of those have been brought in to force. The purpose of amendment 154 is to extract, I have extracted the provision within schedule seven of the levelling up act.

That allowed the levelling up act. That allowed for the production of neighbourhood priorities statements. Neighbourhood priorities statements would enable neighbourhoods, they call neighbourhood bodies, which are parishes, town councils, neighbourhood forums, to provide user local matters such as development, nature, for the purposes of this bill it would include, for example, environmental delivery plans as they emerge. The location, the amount of distribution of housing and the location of housing facilities and infrastructure, all of which will be relevant to local planning agencies.

This is intended not to be a neighbourhood movement plan, as such, but to enable neighbourhoods to comment on what are, in fact, wider plan making issues. And it be eight more accessible format for neighbourhood views on development and not to require neighbourhoods necessarily to have incorporated issues and comments on issues in their neighbourhoods plan, it is to allow neighbourhoods to have priorities, their priorities, stated in relation to the wider development issues. So, it would not, the neighbourhood priorities statement would not, for example, be subject to an independent examination, no require that referendum.

There would be a means for neighbourhoods to engage with these Spatial Development Strategies. And local plan making and the processes involved and, potentially, ensure an overall increase in the engagement of neighbourhoods with plan making first and I do keep coming back to the central importance of the plan making process. We are all, I know, in our various guises, both as councillors and council leaders and also members of Parliament disappointed and often find it incredibly frustrating that for so many individuals and sometimes even parishes and communities they have not engaged thoroughly with the plan making process, and then, subsequently, wish to object to what develop movement proposals are brought forward, consistent and in accordance with the development plan.

So, I think this is an important opportunity to have neighbourhood priorities statements. It is also, I think, thoroughly consistent with emerging Government policy. The English do and community empowerment bill presently in The Other Place provides in clause 58 of that bill for, and I quote, local authorities in England must make appropriate arrangements to secure the effect of Governments of neighbourhood area. This bill provides in general terms for a structure of governance and often offers no detail commissary, that bill, the English Devolution Bill community empowerment bill provides for a structure of governance for neighbourhoods, it gives us no detail on what functions may be confirmed on such neighbourhood Government structures.

This amendment would positively equip the forthcoming even English to and community empowerment bill with a very clear function for such neighbourhood governance to provide such a key function. And to that extent I commend it to Ministers as consistent with their imaging policies in support of those Governments they can start to fill in the detail of what the Labour Governments can achieve. Let me just into amendment 161 and 163 step 161 relates to the provisions in section 98 and also 100 commissary, these two amendments to sections 98 and 100 of the levelling up generation act.

Those sections have also not been brought in to force. Section 98 had the effect of providing detail about the content of a neighbourhood plan. Some noble Lords who follow these matters about develop movement plans will be aware that the legislation, as it stands at the moment, which is, essentially, section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 includes processes around the development of a neighbourhood plan, but not any information as to the content of the plan.

My Noble Friend Baroness Scott of pipework on the front bench will recall taking these measures through the House. The purpose was a very clear one which was, I think, partly endorsed that it would be extremely helpful to parishes and town councils and the like when they are preparing a developers plan to know what content it should provide for and I will not go through it in detail, but it does principally, include the amount, type and location and Department of related land-use, infrastructure requirements, the need for affordable housing, and the importance of design and reflecting on design.

All of which are absolutely considerations which, in our debates on the hill we have determined are very important. And which they have develop movement plans to the provision would allow the neighbourhoods, the neighbourhoods of movement plan to contribute to exactly these issues. contribute to exactly these issues. I think that amendment 163 is about bringing sections 98 and 100 into force. Now, section 100 in addition to that under amendment 163 what I am also asking is that we should amend section 100, bring it into force and then 163, amendment 161 then immense it in order to bring it into consistency with this bill by including amongst the relevant plans that are to be included in the power to require assistance under section 100 of the packed to include specialty strategies and I think it is really important that we bring into force in this Bill, through this bill, a provision which was intended to replace the old duty to cooperate, which has disappeared.

And I think a central part of the process of enabling plan making to be successful and the same applies in... Development plans, is that those making plans, the authorities, should be able to seek the assistance of other authorities and public Roddy's in their plan making processes. -- Public bodies. And I hope Ministers see the benefit of that. Of course these amendments would not be necessary if the Minister would say that they are going to proceed to bring into force sections 98 and 100 of the levelling up act.

Section 100 I cannot understand why they have not done so. Because it seems to me to be an essential part of the process of assisting in the plan making process. Final point I would just make on section 98, section 98 three, if it were brought into force, would also assist in relation to the point which I think my noble friend Lord Banner is going to move on to discuss, which is the consistency of neighbourhood development plan making with national policy. Because section 98 subsection 3 provides that neighbourhood development plans must be consistent with national development management policies.

Which is the noble Lady the Minister kindly told us are to be expected to be published for consultation before be published for consultation before

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the end of this year. I rise to speak to amendment 167, which stands in my name. Which would require future neighbourhood plans require future neighbourhood plans to be consistent with national planning, in particular the National
14:03
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
planning, in particular the National Planning Policy Framework. Neighbourhood plans once made form part of the statutory development plan in accordance with which planning decisions must be made, unless there are other material considerations indicating to the contrary. Typically for their first five years, the neighbourhood plans attract the protection of paragraph 14 of the NPPS. Under which even where the tilt balance of paragraph 11 D2 applies, even when the proposed of element is consistent with the NPPS and even where there is a lack of a five year housing land supply a development which could conflict with the enable plan could conflict with the enable plan A neighbourhood plan only has to have regard to national policy, not be consistent with it.

There is a world of difference between the two. I'm sure the noble Lady the Minister will have regard to everything we say in this debate but I daresay not everything she says in her response will be consistent with it. There is a world of difference. Neighbourhood plans do of course have a role to play in what my noble friend Lord Jamieson called the Pyramid of planning policy, in giving effect to national and district policy. But they should not be able to undermine it.

Yet that is what currently can happen and in my experience on the coalface of planning decision- making, as an advocate in planning proceedings, does happen with real regularity. For example, a neighbourhood plan can have regard to NPPS policies on greenfield of to NPPS policies on greenfield of element. -- NPPF. Then can make it harder to get permission on greenfield sites. Neighbourhood plans can self-imposed a harrowing requirement for the area which is inconsistent with NPPF the Standard method for assisting housing need, thereby downplaying housing needs within the area and stifling necessary growth.

Now with the greater direction in relation to planning policy from central government under this government, something which I have more sympathy then perhaps some of the other colleagues on this side of the House. But with that greater direction from the centre, the risk of neighbourhood plans undermining national policy is even greater. national policy is even greater. This tends, in my insecure variance -- in my experience, tend to be where planning authorities are well resourced. Areas that are wealthy, where the affordability gap is greater so the need new affordable home is particularly severe.

It is in those kinds of areas where neighbourhood plans tend to have the most effect on delivering necessary growth. My amendment 167 would eliminate this issue by putting neighbourhood plans in their proper place in the hierarchy of planning policy, not letting the tail wag the dog, as so often happens. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley, that section 98 three would also help in relation to national development management policies. That was still leave... In relation to the NPPF.

I also endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Jamieson on his amendment. Jamieson on his amendment.
14:07
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I have amendment 185M, which proposes a vital duty to ensure due consideration of neighbourhood plans. And I'm delighted we are spending time on discussions in this Bill in considering the importance of neighbourhood plans. Because they represent the heart and soul of local communities, aspirations for their areas. They are often painstakingly developed by local people, reflecting often... Local people often without much in the way of expert advice. The plans reflect the needs and character and priorities they want for their area.

However, without an adequate statutory backing, these plans risk being marginalised by larger scale development decisions. So, if adopted, 185M would achieve two important outcomes. First of all, that the planning authority, which including the Secretary of State, must give due consideration to any neighbourhood plan or any draft neighbourhood plan when making a decision on an application or tannin content. -- Planning consent. It does seem to me that unless that happens, the voices of local residents, as expressed in the neighbourhood plan, not merely just there but are factored into major development decisions.

And maybe that is where I am differing from the noble Lord Banner and others in this group of amendments. The other outcome I think that would happen with this amendment would be that the Secretary of State would only commit a variation to a neighbourhood man if the variation is clearly justifiable and unlikely to compromise the overall intention of the neighbourhood plan that has been proposed in a clear manner. So been proposed in a clear manner.

So the provision of safeguards in the amendment, the integrity of neighbourhoods plans preventing arbitrary or poorly considered alterations that could undermine their community driven objectives. So, I suppose in the end it depends how we look at planning. We have had two analogies today about a planning hierarchy, the noble Lord banner and the pyramid from the noble Lord Jamieson. -- Lord Banner. I do wonder whether using those images makes us think that the important bit is the apex, where as what I would use a different analogy, I think.

Which is, you use our road system, so we know the big N PPM, strategic plans and local plans are like major roads and motorways, what gets us from one place to another other local lanes and the byways. And that is the neighbourhood plans, those are the ones that matter to people. So let's... Once you start thinking of pyramids and hierarchies, I think we tend to think of the top of the pyramid being the important bit when actually it is the foundation.

So, I have probably said what I need to say about those. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord Lansley, I am in broad agreement with him. Because we went through all those in the levelling up and whatever the levelling up and whatever bill... It is important that public bodies are assisting reply making, if you don't, where does that end, really? -- Assisting planned making. The issue the noble Lord Lansley is trying to get us to think about is that too frequently, in my experience, local people only engage in planning when it comes to practical application on the table for a planning decision.

Housing sites, commercial developer, whatever it is. And unfortunately, the starting point, I often as a local councillor will say to people, well, this is a housing site that is already in the local plan, therefore principle of development has been determined. And often they will say, well, where was I saying this? And I will go through what iron others have tried to engage with them and letting them know what the proposals were. -- What I and others. But the difficulty often people find is that this is a sort of theoretical plan, at a strategic level, great exhaustive proposals for transport, infrastructure or where commercial development or housing would take place.

It is a theoretical one, as is local planning, even when it is allocation of site. And I think people struggle to engage at that level. So I do think we do, in this era of thinking about creation of strategic planning and local authority, local plans, I do think we need to think about very carefully how that information is transmitted to the public. And the proposals amendment in an earlier set of amendments on this Bill, probably two or three days ago, was about the digital modelling that can our car.

And I do think that would bring to life for people what land use planning and allocation of sites would bring. So, that is my only difficulty with the argument that the noble Lord Lansley has. However, the collective impact of all these amendments I think create a more integrated and responsive planning integrated and responsive planning system. If we want to put local communities at the heart of engaging and taking part in responsible decision-making about what happens where they live, neighbourhood planning must be at the heart of that.

Because it enables proper democratic participation and making decisions about their area for their future. I do hope the noble Baroness the Minister will give it the the Minister will give it the positive note. -- Positive nod. positive note. -- Positive nod.
14:15
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
All their enemies in this group are between spatial planning and the neighbour planning system and I do take the point that this must be a coherent system. -- All the amendments. To big up the noble Lord Jamieson point about the scars on our back of local planned livery, the crazy situation that we found ourselves in Stevenage of having three years of consultation on our local plan, three week public inquiry which is quite unusual, and then having the plan held up for 452 days on holding direction is exactly the kind of thing we have got to get over these delays and glitches in Turn first amendment 150 Z8 and 150 to be tabled by the Noble Lord Jamieson.

These and seek to ensure that local plans and neighbourhood plans once the special neighbourhood strategies in place are consistent with SDS. More significantly, the amendments also propose that any local plan that is already under production and has reached at least regulation 18 consultation stage or a neighbourhood plan produced within one year of an SDS does not have to be consistent with the SDS. My Lords, we have been clear we expect local plans to be consistent with spatial develop movement strategies. Firstly, under provisions already contained in the levelling up regeneration act 2023 and due to be commenced with the start of the local plan system, local plans would already have to be in conformity at these mirror relations in relation to the existing system in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Neighbourhood plans have to be in general conformity with strategic policies in the development plan, including policies in any adopted Spatial Development Strategy. Second, to allow the plan that has reached regulation 18 stage which is a relatively early stage in the planning process does not need to be consistent with an SDS, could significantly weaken the value of producing the SDS. Given the time it would then take to produce the next local plan to be consistent with the SDS. Third, having different plans, potentially in conflict, can only serve to reduce clarity for those proposing develop movement and preparing planning applications.

Commenting on or determining the applications. Especially if those plans have all been produced in the recent past as these amendments would allow. Fourth, there is established planning practice guidance that would provide for the preparation of neighbourhood plans when a local plan is emerging at the same time. This advises the plan making bodies to take a proactive approach to sharing evidence and working collaboratively to minimise any policy conflicts and to produce complement to plans and we expect the same approach to be taken SDS is being prepared at similar times.

Turning to amendment 154 tabled by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Noble Lord, OK. I am just seeking this for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am just seeking this for clarity as the noble Baroness knows many of us are Local Government Act these scores of changes. The implication of the noble Baronesses implication of the noble Baronesses response is that in practical terms someone would not be going to regulation 18 stage in their local plan until the war very clear as to what the Spatial Development Strategy was going to be. And that potentially means that you end up potentially means that you end up having a cascade of plans that are entirely dependent on specialty strategy and therefore you will strategy and therefore you will delay local plans and potentially

**** Possible New Speaker ****

neighbourhood plans. Well I hope I made it clear that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well I hope I made it clear that as an SDS is in preparation the evidence-based is be used in the evidence-based is be used in the policy being used will become apparent and that is the collaboration between the different elements of the plan making process that is critical here. And suggesting that we might hold up the suggesting that we might hold up the provision of a plan. Is not correct because as they get to regulation 18 stage it is quite an early stage.

And would we don't want to weaken the production of the SDS through the production of the SDS through making them wait given the time it would take to produce the next local plan to be consistent with the SDS, so the evidence that is going forward for the SDS would be very clear and if there is good collaboration between all parts of the system they should not need to wait for them to be finalised either before or after they get to regulation 18 stage.

And I hope that is clear. If you want to talk about some more we are happy to do so. Turning to amendment one amendment 154 tabled by the Noble Lord this would create a powerful neighbourhood planning group to produce neighbourhood statements as the Noble Lord knows provision for these is one of the many measures first included in the levelling up and new generation act and we are mindful of the scale of reform to the planning system with which we are asking local authorities to engage.

Later in the year we intend to set out the detail of our reforms to the system of local plans and we are very wary of introducing further complexity into the new system before it has been allowed to become established. If we were to do so, we would risk undermining both the local planning reform and the neighbourhood planning statements with overstressed planning authorities, at probably failing to give them the consideration they would deserve. For this reason the government's current priority for neighbourhood planning system is in maintaining existing rights for communities in the new context of strategic and reformed plans, as we were talking about just now and the refund to neighbourhood planning, including with a to commence the relevant provisions in schedule seven to the levelling up regeneration acts once the wider reforms have taken effect.

Turning next to amendment 164 and 163 which proposed to amend the power to require assistance for certain plan making in the levelling up regeneration act and to commence that power in section 98 which makes provision guarding the contents and neighbourhood plans, the Noble Lord will I hope pleased to hear that so far as spatial strategies are concerned we are entirely in agreement.For of schedule three to the bill gives effect to his proposal to add specialty strategies to the list of plans were assistance can be required.

When it comes to neighbourhood plans, however, I am afraid I must disappoint the Noble Lord, this is not designed for neighbourhood plans. It is intended to cover plan making and far greater geographic scale and to obtain assistance on issues with which no voluntary planning group could be expected to grapple, no matter what the extent of the assistance. His point about provisions for support to neighbourhood governance and the English and community engagement are noted, but I believe they are intended for a much wider remit in panic no doubt we will debate what that might be during the course of the English Devolution Bill.

Neighbourhood plans are not supposed to be local plans in miniature, and they should not be treated as such. As far as commencement of section 98 and 100 of the levelling up regeneration act are concerned I hope that the Noble Lord would be reassured that they will be recommenced alongside our wider reforms which we think will allow other legislative changes to be viewed in the round, rather than having to be pieced together over time. I tend to amendment 167 in the name of the Noble Lord banner and IM very grateful as always for his constructive engagement and all of the engagement, including this one.

He raised concern at second reading about the potential for neighbourhood plans to conflict with national policy, especially in relation to development on the land. Let me reassure the House that neighbourhood plans cannot be used to prevent housing develop movement and they cannot designate land, nor can they unilaterally ignore national policy. The test of having regard is as I hesitate to discuss this with the lawyer of such evidence as the Noble Lord but having regard to the blister was one across planning and beyond.

It requires serious consideration of the policy and its objectives and irrational basis for the departure. The starting point for any such test, including neighbourhood, is that that regard should see the To be followed. This point among other should be rigorously tested by the examiner during the public examination of the neighbourhood plan. We think this is the right balance, national policy is designed to be flexible. It must be because local circumstances are very widely varying and it is important that fax ability is maintained. I now turn to amendment 185 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock which is concerned with seeking to enter a requirement into the development of consent process for a Secretary of State to consider the neighbourhood plan when making a decision on a nationally significant project and to allow her to limit variations, him, sorry, this was, obviously, a him, sorry, this was, obviously, a note that was written before the change of the Secretary of State.

While I agree it is essential that Labour plans inform the government's decision making on these projects, is not necessary to deliver that outcome. As the housing minister said in The Other Place, the DCO process has been designed to enable timely decisions to be taken on nationally significant infrastructure projects, taking account of national priority as well as local impacts. The neighbourhood plans give communities the ability to shape the development and the use of land at local level and play an important role in the planning system. For applications, the national policy statements are a primary policy framework and they set out the need for guidance for promoters and assessment criteria and guidance for decision making.

and guidance for decision making. The planning act 2008 provides ample opportunities for local opportunities and local authorities which I know is the key concern. As part of the decision-making process the Secretary of State must have regard to matters considered both important and relevant. This can include matters of local significance. Local communities can make representations as part of the examination process which can address whether proposals can apply with or impact issues of concern in relevant neighbourhood plans.

Local authorities are also fully engaged in the DCM process and are invited to submit local impact report setting out potential impact for the project. Secretary of State must also have regard to the impact report in deciding an application. As a matter of law, the Secretary of State must decide any application for a DCO in accordance with any relevant national policy statement, except to the extent that any limited statutory exemption applies. limited statutory exemption applies. Where there is no relevant national policy statement in effect, the Secretary of State must have regard to specify matters.

Excuse me one to specify matters. Excuse me one moment. Including the local impact report and any other matters which the Secretary of State considers both important and relevant to the decision. These safeguards which are already embedded in the statutory process are sufficient to ensure that Secretaries of State take account of existing development plans, including neighbourhood plans as a breakdown. Where there is a relevant national statement in effect, this amendment could serve to frustrate on the Secretary of State to determine an application in accordance with the MPS.

This amendment would add another unnecessary requirement of the process which is contradictory to the government's ambitions of streamlining the planning process into decision-making process. Furthermore, the Secretary of State currently has no role in approving neighbourhood plans. It would therefore not be appropriate to enable him to make variations to them as this is, rightly, a decision for communities. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw their amendments. Could I invite her to consider if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I invite her to consider if amendment 167 they require amendment 167 they require consistency with the NPPF that is considered to be too onerous, to considered to be too onerous, to consider a middle ground of general conformity. That language was language used back in the day of the strategies, local developments and general conformity with RSS, so that general conformity with RSS, so that is an established formula, if we consider it by the court already and consider it by the court already and it has a stronger direction to have regard to, but at least the degree regard to, but at least the degree of that mark my Netflix I fear the Noble Lady the Minister and the Noble Lady the Minister and the Government colleagues overestimate the rigour of the neighbourhood planning examination process and the tend to be made or they are done tend to be made or they are done independent planning and tend to be done by consultants who are in the business of examining neighbourhood plans, therefore have a degree of incentive that tends not to involve incentive that tends not to involve hearing the papers and they tend to hearing the papers and they tend to give planning authorities a very wide margin of appreciation and practice, so it is a lot easier for the tanning to depart from national policy and in practice they may appear to be on paper would be my experience.

I would encourage the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government to consider that Medway ground between that and report stage. I am grateful to the Noble Lord for that suggestion and I will take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for that suggestion and I will take that back in reply to it in writing. Can I start by thanking the noble
14:29
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I start by thanking the noble Baroness the Minister for her reply. And if I might reiterate what my And if I might reiterate what my Noble Friend has said earlier, it appears that she has had regard for our comments. But her response is not consistent with our proposals. And hence I am disappointed with that response and we will take some time to carefully consider these areas and disagreements. Our focus will be on how the planning system could deliver the 1.5 million homes that the Government has promised.

And how these can be quality homes that people need and that are part of communities and serve those of communities and serve those communities. Turning to amendments 154, 161, 163, tabled by Mike Noble Friend Lord Lansley, the benefits of the neighbourhood priority statement, and I completely agree with his comments producing a neighbourhood plan can be quite onerous, but actually coming up with a statement of priorities can be done much more readily and can be much more helpful.

On the bench as we continue to believe the Government should move swiftly to commence large waves of levelling up the regeneration act that has long been a consistent position on the side of the House and it remains so today. In fact, many of those that had been brought into fruition may not be debating so much in this chamber over the last week and chamber over the last week and The acting steps forward, covering a wide range of reforms, despite that ambition, many of the core delivery mechanisms already on the statute book within Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 remain and commenced or only partially so.

Increasingly sector voices are critical of the Government for seeking to legislate three new planning bills, rather than simply using the powers they already hold. using the powers they already hold. -- Through new planning bills. Can the Minister set out clearly for the House which areas of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government are willing to commence during this parliament? As I have acknowledged earlier,... I thank the noble Lord for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I did write to him during the course of the previous bill, to set out what provisions and which ones out what provisions and which ones were going to be implemented and rough dates when they would come rough dates when they would come forward. So, I hope he has received that letter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, I will review my correspondence. I may have missed it that I will double check and I apologise if that is the case. As I acknowledged earlier, amendment As I acknowledged earlier, amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner covers a similar round Lord Banner covers a similar round to my own amendments. We are grateful for my noble friend grateful for my noble friend contribution and for his determination to drive forward housebuilding and ensure a consistency across the planning consistency across the planning system.

His wisdom on these issues is something we will continue to lean on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Can I through the mechanism of interrupting him just say to the interrupting him just say to the noble Lady the Minister, it would be jolly helpful to have sight of those jolly helpful to have sight of those details about when some of these commencement orders might be made. Because as my noble friend said, we could save ourselves an awful lot of trouble at report if we knew that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moving on to amendment 185 in the name of the noble Baroness pinning and before I comment on it, I might and before I comment on it, I might just comment on my view of the period. -- Baroness Pinnock. The pyramid needs its foundation and is built from the ground up. I tend to take that view, rather than the helicopter view. The amendment requires that neighbourhood plans be requires that neighbourhood plans be given consideration in the local plan, a similar point again to my own, that local plan should be built

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on neighbourhood plans. That, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 150ZB. Not to move. 15, Amendment 150ZB. Not to move. 15, 150 A stop not moved. 151, not 150 A stop not moved. 151, not moved. Amendment 151A, not moved. moved. Amendment 151A, not moved. Amendment 152, not moved. 152ZA, not moved. Amendment 152A, not moved. Amendment 153, not moved. Amendment 153A. Not moved.

Amendment 154, not moved. The question is that clause 52 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. content". The contents have it. Amendment 155, not moved. Amendment 156, not moved. Amendment 157.
14:35
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My lords, I beg to move amendment 157 and thank the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for putting her name to it. This amendment seeks to provide local planning authorities with a clear duty and power to protect land that plays a vital role in shaping both our environment and defining our communities. It would require councils to identify within two years the land most in need of protection. And crucially, offer long-term certainty to its designation as green belt for the next 20 years.

On these benches we do recognise that the government has set out in their plans for the green belt in the NPPF but where we differ is in the forcing of local authorities to release greenbelt land. What is at stake here is the character of our towns, villages and countryside. Greenbelt has long served as a safeguard against the unrestrained spread of our cities, without it, the pressure for housing demand and speculative development risk turning neighbouring towns into single sprawling...

Local distinctiveness will be lost, with cherished historic towns increasingly subsumed by continuous development. And I welcome the amendment 215 in this group, by the noble Baroness Hodgson of Abinger, which sets out a similar objective. Preserving the gaps between them helps maintain not only their character by identity and community. As noble Lady the Minister, who was not in her place, fully understands, with the protections around her own new town of Stevenage, this amendment tries to come up with in effect a quid pro quo for the greenbelt beliefs, identify new areas and protecting them over a long period of time.

-- Greenbelt release. It is pragmatic rather than dogmatic, does not seek to prevent all new housing development, far from it. But it firmly directs growth to the right places. By requiring authorities to prioritise the redevelopment of previously used land, which is one of the clauses within it, it strengthens the case for making full use of the extensive brownfield sites that lie dormant, particularly across our cities. Research and planning bodies such as the CPRE already show that enough brownfield land exists right now, where 1.2 million homes could be built.

These sites are often also in locations with already existing infrastructure and transport. This pursues a principle of brownfield first, which we will continue to pursue throughout the progress of this bill. Moreover, this clause will provide local communities with a degree of confidence and stability, one of the greatest frustrations we all experience when we knock on doors in communities, is the total uncertainty over whether some new development is going to take up valuable local spaces and they will suddenly be lost to the development.

And that the infrastructure will be stretched beyond its needs. By guaranteeing the new greenbelt is there's the -- is protective released two decades, there were no that when the council takes action to protect land, it is secure over the long term, not subject to immediate challenge or reversal. Finally, we must recognise the objectives of housing delivery and environmental stewardship are not in conflict but entirely complementary. Directing resources towards brownfield regeneration helps us in that all-important effort to revitalise high streets, make better use of existing public transport and breathe new life into underused urban spaces.

All while protecting the green lungs of our towns and cities. For all these reasons, this is a balanced and necessary amendment that strengthens local control, ensure sustainable development and safeguards the greenbelt for today and tomorrow. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. ... After clause 52, insert a new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. I stand to speak to amendment 215 in my name. I would also like to support amendment 157 and echo much
14:39
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
support amendment 157 and echo much of the words of the noble Baroness, Baroness Grender. Amendment 215 insert new clause after clause 106, that seeks to provide existing villages with protection, equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework. We have already discussed the importance of design and the impact that the built environment can have on the health, productivity and sense of community cohesion. Also that we need to put the right house in the right place.

This clause is in part an extension of these arguments and that it also looks to preserve the special character of individual villages and historic villages in particular. Yet mediaeval colleges or vectorial -- mediaeval cottages... England is no verbena green and pleasant land, having communities embedded in the landscape, over centuries of raw life and livelihoods. Any people prefer to live and work in small communities, often with a strong sense of being rooted in a community. And yet you need only read the debate in the other place to see many members showing examples of where some of their villages are no longer recognisable having growing exponentially, often with housing insensitively tacked on.

I filled with as many houses as a developer could cramming, with no references to local styles, no consideration to infrastructure. Rather the village being developed organically in a way that existing organically in a way that existing residents bill comfortable with. -- Feel comfortable with. Too often this challenges the identity of a rural area and the death of the greenbelt. There are key elements that contribute to a villages identity, architecture, cultural traditions and community narratives. Local pride with traditions and festivals often reinforcing historical awareness as well as supporting heritage tourism.

According to a report by the Heritage lottery fund, heritage regeneration projects in UK villages have showed a 20% increase in local business activity. Demonstrating the economic benefits of maintaining historical identity. Meanwhile, heritage England argue that understanding the significance of this is vital. The risk that this Bill proposes is of opening up developments so much that we lose these gems or worst-case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a style that is depressing urban sprawl. There is a significant threat to the authenticity and continuity of historical narratives that define the key villages and their identity.

The Government have reported that between 2000 and 2017, over 1,000 listed buildings were lost to redevelopment. How could that have happened? But it seems to happen all too easily. I argue that we should afford villages the same protections as towns under the NPPF to ensure they can retain their character and charm. This amendment would enable that and I do hope it will gain the support of this House.
14:43
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Ladies Baroness Grender and Baroness Hodgson. And I think at this point we should thank our hard-working whips office, who in this combination of amendments has done an excellent job of really tying together two things. Perhaps I will at this point acknowledge just how much of a difficult job we are giving them with bills at the moment, with our alphabet soup, we should acknowledge that and say thank you. The amendment in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Grender, 157, the noble Lady might have written this after my visit to...

In Derbyshire, in about 2012. This was a visit focused on trying to protect the greenbelt patch of land between the village and an adjoining village and the plan was just to build across the lot and join the villages together. And it was also the speculative development, as the noble Lady said. There was a lot of frustration about that. And then we went to lunch and were sitting in the cafe and there was a lovely woodcut above us of an old mill in town, when it was in operation, I historic piece of art.

And I said to the local party, "What is happening with that mill?" And they said, "Oh, it is derelict and we are worried about giving Baghdad." -- worried about it being burnt down. There was an obvious place where we could have been putting housing right the centre town, well the facilities were, where there was public transport et cetera et cetera. The greenbelt, I think, I'm afraid the Government often doesn't really seem to understand the point of the greenbelt.

And I think that is clear in the invention of the same grave out. Yes, greenbelt can be to protect beautiful green spaces. -- Invention of the term grey belt. It is also to stop communities, towns, cities, villages from sprawling and looking up together. The whole idea of grey belt really avoids understanding that. This is where I bring back my origins, I grab in Sydney, a city that has New Green Belt, as Australian cities do not. The suburbs just sprawl and sprawl and sprawl.

And that is terrible for a sense of community. A terrible place to live and also terrible for Where I think this in Midlands to amendment 215 in the name of the Noble Lady. And just yesterday I was reading a forthcoming text from the author Derek Turner, previously known for the edge of England and he was looking at the many centuries of history of the villagers of England in particular and the history that has been written I am going back many centuries here and those are tied to a sense of place and if you just build over a lot of that all of it is lost and there is a temptation to say this is nice to have but look at how difficult things are and how much we need housing.

We can't afford to protect this. But I really want to make the case that we have a think most people will agree real problems with disillusionment, with a sense of displacement in our society and our community, the distrust of politics, the feeling that do not have something to cling onto and belong to and places like villages have the history, and if it has been half forgotten it can be recovered but not if it is all just build over and linked up together and loses that identity.

And just finally sometimes I am afraid people do use that kind of identity in a dangerous and harmful way to suggest that this is something closely linked and we have got to keep the outsiders out, but actually just the seventh century graves found in the first encounter in Dorset, the seventh century the villagers the and the African West origins that were living in those villages in the seventh century, so villagers have seventh century, so villagers have amazing, fascinating history.

It is both a global history but it is attached to that sense of place. And that is something that can be really important to building communities, building identity. In building the sense of safety even in a difficult world.
14:48
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to follow the Noble Lady Baroness and indeed to support my Noble Friend Baroness Hodgson for amendment 215. I particularly want to focus on the question of villages. The House will recall the National planning policy framework that does set out the purposes now defined in the greenbelt policy, one of which Noble Lady Baroness Bennett may not entirely agree that it is working to restrict the large sprawl of built-up areas and of course that, of course, is essentially where the London greenbelt really came from.

Having absorbed Hampstead Heath and the village and Wimbledon and so on. The question is how forehead could go. So, let's say OK, let's accept that, but what is interesting is that it also goes on in paragraph 143B to say that another purpose is to prevent neighbouring towns merging to one another, the towns is the keyword here. And although separately and I noted as otherwise the Minister would be on my case to refer to paragraph 150 this refers to if it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution that the open character of the village makes to the openness of the greenbelt, the village should be included in the greenbelt.

But I would submit that is essentially about the that is essentially about the character of that village from a landscape and related points of view rather than anything to do with its relationship to any other settlement or its history. So, let's just look then, we tend to focus on the National planning framework that we should bear in mind it was followed up in February this year by further claims that in three respects looked at those purposes and then tried to categorise the contributions which could be made to those varies respect and very interesting when you look at that because the three purposes that are referred to, one is to do with urban sprawl and it says villages should not be considered large areas it seems fairly obvious but the guidance selects our villages and says they should be excluded from this purpose.

Under preventing neighbourhood towns merging it goes on to say towns, and I quote, not villages. And the third purpose, the setting of historic towns, it goes on to say this purpose relates to historic towns, not villages. What have historic villages done to make themselves so unpopular at this point of view? Why are historic villages not important in the same respect as historic towns? And, indeed, for that matter, historic cities? Counter this with a recollection of a greenbelt review in responding to this debate when we recall previous debates in greenbelt reviews because we had a greenbelt review in Cambridge, and if we had not had a greenbelt review in Cambridge near 20 years ago we would not have the Cambridge biomedical campaign that we have today.

We have the greenbelt land. What is interesting that when you look at I was a member of Parliament the castle to that extent I have had to represent both sides of that element. And I am Chair of the Cambridge develop in forum, so I have skin in that game also. But the point just came back near 20 years ago we gave up a significant part of the greenbelt to enable that to happen. Subsequently, a planning application came through for development, those that know Cambridge at all to the west side of the Trumpington Road that would have felt until we call Grantchester felt until we call Grantchester Meadows.

And that, of course, we resisted, because it was not necessary to take the development across Trumpington Road and it was not necessary for the Cambridge biomedical campus. And of course the central point about that is not that Cambridge in that respect would not be regarded as a large built-up area even for this purpose but the point was that it would have reached out and it would have meant the coalescence of Cambridge with Grantchester. As an historic village. The same way in Oxford with something like Blaydon in relation to Oxford.

The point is that the coalescence of settlements is what it is about and a recognition that the historic setting of a city or a historic town or perhaps a historic village should all be protected. What I like to do is suppose I am asking in response to the debate the Minister has agreed to go away and look and continue to look at the issue of the definitions of towns and villages and the way in which villages are being excluded from any protections whereas towns are not.

They are included. This is not an immaterial issue. This has been subject to a number of appeals to inspectors were inspectors have more or less said, and I paraphrase, somewhat, OK, this is a village. It is not a town. Therefore it does not have protection. And I think that there are circumstances where villages should have protection because they have not only the openness of character and their contribution to the greenbelt for landscape purposes but in specific instances the nature of that village as a settlement should be recognised in relation to its historic role.
14:54
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, festival I would like to thank my Noble Friend the Baroness Lady Hodgson and the noble Baroness lady Granville for raising this important issue of village and specific land protection. While we fully appreciate the intention behind seeking to make better use of underused land by the Government, concerns remain about the potential impact of such changes on the wider countryside. And, crucially, on the identity of our villages. Although this matter may not directly be in the scope of this bill, it clearly interacts with it and I hope that Ministers will continue to reflect very carefully on the balance between sex ability and planning and long-standing protections afforded to rural communities.

In particular, I would like to draw attention to amendment 215 tabled by Mike Noble Friend Lady Hodgson. This is an important amendment which states that any guidance issued under this section must provide the villagers with protections equivalent so far as is appropriate to those afforded as is appropriate to those afforded by towns and I not going to go into an explanation because that has been given very clearly and concisely by my Noble Friend. But it is important specifically in relation to preventing villagers from merging into one another and preserving the setting and the special characteristic of many of our historic villages as set out in the National planning framework.

We must ensure that village identity is properly protected. Rural communities are not simply pockets of houses. They are places with history, distinctiveness, and a character that contributes immeasurably to our national, and to the lives of the people that live the. This is a firmly held view on these benches while I am not going to detain your lot chips house by rehearsing our manifesto, we will continue to stand up for the greenbelt and for our villages.
14:57
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank the noble Lords for their contributions for someone that lives in a small village in the north-east of England I found it really interesting. And obviously concerned for personal reasons, saving the greenbelt and looking after historic buildings when I look out of the windows I see a grade 1 listed church. I know the importance of looking after these buildings. I thank the noble Baroness lady printer and Lady Hodgson for the amendments which I suspect as much of our vision of greenbelt policy and national policy policy framework.

Noble Lords will be aware that we publish the updated framework last September and the Government is committed to preserving green belts which have served England's towns and cities well for many decades. Not least in terms of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. I will turn first to amendment 157 which would require local authorities to identify land that contributes towards the greenbelt purposes and once this land is designated as green belt any development of such land for a minimum of 20 years.

Planning policy is already clear and the ability of local authorities to establish greenbelt and which provides strong protections against the development of greenbelt land. As I mentioned previously, our revised national planning policy framework maintains that strong protections and preserves the long- standing greenbelt purposes, the framework also underlines our commitment to a brownfield first approach. However, we know that brownfield land will never be enough to make names. This is why the revised framework continues to recognise the limited circumstances in which the use of some greenbelt land for development may be justified and allow for the alteration of greenbelt boundaries in exceptional circumstances.

Any requirement to prevent any development on designated greenbelt or alterations to greenbelt families for 20 years would limit the ability of authorities to respond to changing circumstances and would overwrite the discretion of the local community to discuss and consider whether existing greenbelt land is still serving the purpose of the greenbelt. And I are on their way to new homes sustainable locations. Amendment 215 just to turn to that seeks to require the issuing of the issuing of updated guidance for local punning authorities to restrict the develop movement of villages.

I would like to make clear that neither the greenbelt reform nor the greenbelt guidance make any change to the long-standing greenbelt purposes which include preventing the merge of towns and safeguard of sitting the special character of historic towns. The guidance is clear that when identified the grey but it is the contribution land next to the relevant purposes that should be considered. This reflects the fact that the fundamental aim of greenbelt policy is rightly preventing the pants brought with an explicit focus on large and built-up areas in towns.

The guidance does not remove appropriate and relevant greenbelt protection from land around villages. And makes clear that any greenbelt land including land in or any other villages contribute strongly to the relevant purposes and should not be identified as greenbelt. Local identified as greenbelt. Local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether the planning policy will be changed to include because at the moment protection is the urban areas not rural areas. If grey belt, if not rural areas. If grey belt, if the government is$$JOIN : -- is going to continue this change to going to continue this change to grey belt, surely there should be some further protection for villagers to stop the coalition or villagers to stop the coalition or the opportunity to coalition those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

villages together? I will hopefully address that in the next little bit. You may think the next little bit. You may think that I am not but I will. Local authorities continue to look at various other ways to manage various other ways to manage villagers. Our policy reforms exclude the consideration that matters which is the character of the village or the skill and style of development where relevant in of development where relevant in planning determinations. For instance the local plan may designate local Greenspace safe from designate local Greenspace safe from inappropriate development organise a DEFRA registered village green.

The DEFRA registered village green. The character can also be preserved using conservation areas policies, neighbourhood planning, local listening and deaf local listing of important buildings. Planning policy ready set out adequate and appropriate protection from and support for development relating to villages, both inside and outside Green Belt I do not believe this amendment seeking to use Green Belt protections to restrict development in villages is appropriate. I am afraid neither of these amendments are necessary to protect the Green Belt or the character.

Of the villages and the statutory nature would limit the ability of all local planning authorities to develop sound strategies and make the decisions necessary to ensure new homes and jobs in the right place. I therefore ask the noble Baronesses kindly to Begley to withdraw their amendments Mike Berg leave to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the guidance back in February in relation to purpose D, the in relation to purpose D, the setting of historic towns, this setting of historic towns, this purpose relates to historic towns not villages. One change that would not villages. One change that would make an enormous difference to recognise that purpose should relate to historic villages as well. Many to historic villages as well. Many of our historic villages used to be historic towns. To all intents and historic towns.

To all intents and purposes you could go to the coast in Suffolk and see towns from the Middle Ages that are now small Middle Ages that are now small villages or frankly virtually disappeared. The point is that history is what should be important. Not the present size of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

settlement. If I could just address that from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I could just address that from what I understand the new regulations that came in were to provide clarity on the Green Belt. It is concerned with preventing as It is concerned with preventing as we have said the urban sprawl but it does not remove villages from the Green Belt or prevent land near Green Belt or prevent land near villages from being protected from development to a Green Belt designation. Land around villages which makes a strong contribution to these purposes should not be identified for example as grey belt.

So we think we have got consistency now with the regulations that have come out. We also believe what is already there to protect villages and their historic values and character are already in the planning process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord,
15:04
15:06
15:06
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I beg leave to ask the question and introduce amendment 158. If I and introduce amendment 158. If I could start by just being grumpy. In the direction of the noble Lord Lansley and others. This is Committee stage. It is inappropriate to say before the Minister sits down because that is saying as a backbencher it in some ways is concessional to allow the Minister to speak again. At Committee stage we can speak as many times as we like whenever we like.

That is the right which I do not see much exercise today but we should really preserve. This is report stage where we are restricted. Committee stage is a free for all. It is really important to getting to the bottom of things that we assert our right as backbenchers to speak when we wish to. And do not act as if this is something as a concession by the government Ministers. To turn to my amendment, my object here is to see if we can make the planning system work better.

And improve the flow of National Planning Policy into decisions taken on the ground. By imposing a duty of candour on the system. At the bottom end the duty of candour as I see it is a real strengthening of the power of officers. Because it removes from them the pressure to bend their advice to what they think will advice to what they think will From From members From members of From members of they From members of they do From members of they do not From members of they do not say From members of they do not say what members think they want.

Similarly I think it helps members in their dealing with the public. If the public now the members are under a duty of candour to say things as they are. And not try and pretend things are difficult or duck awkward decisions. And thirdly I think operating the system in a way where everybody knows it has to be open and truthful of what is being said is the way things are. It's a great help to the public in dealing with change riches naturally -- change which is naturally unwelcome and understanding how that fits into the development of the country as a whole.

Everybody I have talked to is committed to having more houses. We want the government to succeed in their ambitions. It is often painful when it comes down to the individual decisions, as the last group has demonstrated. There are always reasons not to do something. To have a system where we really understand how it works and which we trust must be a helpful part of that. To my mind having a duty of candour would make a difference to that. I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 52, insert the following new clause. The words as printed on the Marshalled list. I thank my noble friend Lord
15:10
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra food signing my amendment -- for signing my amendment 185. This amendment was originally in a separate group for the benefit of the committee I have put it into what I would call the odds and sods group. Not suggesting any of the actual amendments are or indeed any noble Lords or sods. This is about addressing particular situation where I do believe it is right members of Parliament should be considered or can't be considered with national consultees being proposed in their constituents.

Not only do many constituents expect members of Parliament have opinions on such matters I appreciate at times many mums of Parliament say they have no say on planning because it is a matter for the council of course with NSIPs it is different, it is a matter for the state. Therefore it is important members of Parliament have in effect an automatic right to participate in the examination. The other element when I used to be an MP. It is not always straightforward when modifications to NSIPs are made for consent has already been granted.

That process tends to fly by with very little awareness. That can be hugely significant. As a consequence understandably when there are limited resources compared to say councillors can access their counsel officers in local authorities, for me this would be a helpful check in both ways. One guaranteed being notified of not only the original application but also being able to speak at those examinations. But also to be fully made aware of other subsequent changes. As such I am very keen we strengthen while not holding up the process, I am very conscious people and noble Lords may suggest this is a barrier.

It is not. It is about basically empowering the rights of local communities through the inclusion of the Member of Parliament.
15:12
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I will speak to my amendment 185 J. Which is around the GDPR or the general data regulation which I am sure we all have to deal with on the internet everyday when we make an inquiry on anything. It we make an inquiry on anything. It is around the issue of transparency versus data regulation. As we have talked about one of the key things about the planning system is that it has to have public confidence. One of the key ways it has public confidence is through transparency.

When that transparency disappears there is all there becomes a real there is all there becomes a real issue. -- Or there becomes a real issue. This is one of the conflicts that is, between planning and GDPR regulations. It really came about in 2017 when Basildon Council which I do not know well, I have to admit, they received £150,000 fine in terms of disclosures it had made on personal information during a planning application. It was a major case clearly is reflected in the fine.

But it was about the failure of the council to redact certain personal information in that planning decision and procedure. It seems to me the reaction to that from local authority generally was to go into panic mode and decide quite rightly as far as council tax payers were concerned, they did not want to be seen to be risking public money in terms of making mistakes or procedural issues in terms of planning or contravention of GDPR. Having done some research on this incident, as far as I can see this is the only ever example and incident of a significant GDPR fine on planning to a local authority.

But there have been and I have come across this in my own local community with people who have suffered from this, it has meant generally local authorities in terms of planning, particularly in the area of enforcement go through a process of overproduction -- over reduction, over disclosure or restricted closure in fact blanket disclosure on a number of occasions. What this means is we have that transparency disappearing. People are unable to find out what is often happening in terms of enforcement cases and that means there is a confidence that has lost by the community in terms of that procedure community in terms of that procedure Also there is definitely a inconsistency as to how this is applied.

This is a very important applied. This is a very important issue in terms of the planning procedures, and therefore I'm trying to find out in this probing amendment how the government intends to make sure that transparency is maintained, however make sure there is a consistency and how we make sure that councils, once again, become confident to be able to keep as much transparency as possible. I think in particular, clearly it is important that certain personal details are redacted in terms of how the GDPR and how the information Commissioner which is this system to work.

What it seems to be is, it shouldn't get in the way at all in terms of procedures, understanding where cases individually have got physically enforcement and making sure we have a consistency and less, how can I put it, less concern that there will be a liability on local authorities and council taxpayers if this very extreme position is kept. And that is what I would like to hear from the Minister and the government, how this can be reconciled so we can get back that transparency and that confidence back into the planning system, particularly in the enforcement space.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to briefly support my noble friend the Baroness Coffey in her amendment 185. They are only
15:17
15:19
Lord Mawson Portrait Lord Mawson (Crossbench)
-
-
Iritis Peter amendment 185, SG. I would like to thank colleagues from across the House who supported me including the noble Lord Lord Hunt of Kings Heath who is in Birmingham. I begin by diploma interest which relate to this specific amendment. On the chairman of the 360 society, a national social business which is applying the lessons learned from over 40 years of practical work, in east London, to community development. Today my colleagues and I are focusing on integrating development and pacemaking with business public and social sector partners.

The relevant business partners for this amendment include several companies, the NHS and various local authorities. This amendment is aimed at preparing the ground for and supporting the Secretary of State for Health as he seeks to move services out of hospitals into the community. It is my view and that of my colleagues with many years of experience that the health service needs to get upstream into the prevention agenda and move services out of expensive hospitals and into the community.

This Planning and Infrastructure Bill is not just about housing but it is about building truly joined up places and cultures families want to live and where communities can thrive. It is my experience that the built environment and culture are profoundly connected. We really are the places we live, work and play within. Any of our inner cities and their fractured communities show the social costs of getting this wrong. This bill and this amendment provides us with an opportunity to nudge the right direction of travel in a practical way and it comes at a crucial time, so many previous attempts by government departments to encourage a more joined up Roach development at a macro level have failed.

I would suggest the opportunities to join the dots that make a real world difference are in that micro place. This amendment seeks to both support the government desire to build one point million homes, but also to ensure learn from mistakes of the past. We need to create more joined up services and communities and move beyond rhetoric into practice. I can take to so many places across the country were so many services are literally hiding behind their own fences and are not joined up by the physically or structurally, in terms of a coordinated operating culture.

The main players barely know each other on the same street, yet they are all working with the same families. This is an expensive disaster that continues to replicate. It needs to stop. The new developments, we are still witnessing on the ground fragmented health and community infrastructure that are not only not creating a sense of place but are in danger of repeating unintended league many of the same mistakes of large-scale housing developments of the past. We could be in the 1960s or 1970s.

Solas housing estates created by the private and public sectors that generate over time well-documented social economic problems, local communities need soul and beating heart, the centre. In the modern world, health is everybody's business. It is no longer just a matter for the medical profession. The focus rightly needs to be on the social determinants of health. We urgently need to build more joined up social and health development in local communities and neighbourhoods. There is front of us a real opportunity as this government commits itself to building 1.5 million homes to rethink the social and health and welfare infrastructure in these communities and bring together housing, health, education, welfare and jobs and skills, truly encouraging innovation and more joined up approach is.

There's lots of research out there gives the endless data on why all this makes sense. We just need to start to do it. One housing is supported to hundred and 77 people and reported a 90.8% change in their well-being, stimulating local economies in stimulating local economies in mixed-use developments which blend residential, commercial, health and recreational spaces, stimulate local economies by attracting businesses, creating jobs and prosperity. This research shows the proximity of services encourages residents to shop and dine locally creating a self-sustaining economic ecosystem.

Siloed housing schemes are not only less effective but more expensive in the long run. This amendment seeks to encourage closer working relationships between the public, private and social sectors so that in this next major building phase we actively encourage innovations and best practice, and greater cooperation between the sectors. We can't both people to work together but we can actively encourage them to do so. We need to create learning by doing culturing across the country which share best practices and set out on this new exciting journey of house building and infrastructure.

My Lords, this amendment is a first attempt to find a form of words that encourages greater cooperation of place between the pacemakers. The wording is not perfect and I'm sure we can improve it but it does allow us to have a cross-party debate about the siloed machinery of the state that is not delivering change people want to see and experience. Very good people from different political party over the years have an attempt to amend these disconnect the department level. I have worked with many.

This has proved difficult to do. This amendment offers a simple and practical solution that encourages the direction of travel in a clear steer to practitioners on the ground and people of goodwill. In my experience, what really counts when it comes to innovation and change is not looked at from government, or process and strategy, but transfer and roundup relationships between partners involved on the ground. The siloed world of government is increasingly not fit for purpose and daily hindering the very relationships we now need to bring together and help flourish.

The 360 society I helped run has approved methodology that is enabling cooperation, from the public, business and social sectors and residents. There seems to be a consensus around what Wes Streeting is proposing, for the future of the health service. We are at a moment where the players in local authorities, the NHS, the social and private sectors and housebuilders want to build a more joined up world. We have all talked about running up services and cultures. This provides a practical next step in this journey.

Some of this is about ensuring that community infrastructure is an integrated part of large-scale developments and is created early on rather than the last element to be built but also a wide range of partners are involved in creating high-quality new places where people are healthy and can thrive and prosper. The 360 society which Ireland has created a social value toolkit to explore the practicalities of how to do this, to take just one example, we suggest getting beyond the oft confrontational purely transactional interactions to get a place whether there is the genuine commitment and endeavour to agree a shared vision for the place.

Our experience suggests this is partly achieved by surprisingly straightforward changes, such as developing human relationships between key players and focusing on them. When we get to know somebody rather than just reading their papers and emails it is surprising how often a way forward can be found, relationships with the key players rather than consulting and engaging absolutely everyone is part of the way forward, we suggest. The purpose of this amendment is to help create the appetite and desire to encourage colleagues to take this approach and encourage innovation in this space.

I was in East London recently in a multi-million pounds development. I was met by an African rather with two other beautiful children, hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent, the health centre is one end of the estate, the school summarise, the nursery elsewhere. She described how her child was orally picking up needles in the play area and showed me a small video of two youths outside the housing is office to jumping into advancing the contents. The culture was already starting.

I can imagine they were already wondering at the small family which is what you need in these estates, was already wondering whether she was going to stay. Let me share practical example of success. My colleagues and I tend to build practical examples. In 2007 I was asked by the then CEO of Tower Hamlets Council to lead what became a multi-million pounds development in Tower Hamlets, following a murder and considerable violence between two warring white and Bengalis housing estates.

The details of this develop went in Hansard because we debated it but the basic points are, you had a failing school, failing health centre with offence. You had attempted build 600 homes that had spent 300 and pounds on schemes not a flat build, and two amenities. My colleagues and I spent time building relationships with the local authority, the NHS, local residents, top middle and frontline local authority NHS and the housing today, we started with no investment, we rebuilt a £40 million school, £60 million health centre, 600 homes, 200 for sale, and new primary school.

In June Professor Brian Cox and I did our 13th summer school and he did a masterclass at the end of the day, the school had involved 695 children and at the end of the day they debated quantum physics, extraordinary. What were the lessons learned? Firstly it was about, it wasn't about structure looks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Lord Christopher does on Tuesday that the rising tide in this space. My suggestion is that we all need to My suggestion is that we all need to grasp the moment we will lose it yet again. The foundation stones need to
15:30
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
be laid, let us take the first step together. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jumping ahead, sticking to my noble friend's amendment. I had not noble friend's amendment. I had not clocked that he was due to speak, I apologise for my discourtesy. I have apologise for my discourtesy. I have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Had a very refit note to what he has just said. -- I had a brief has just said. -- I had a brief footnote. Of course it makes sense to have cooperation and coordination between public authorities. Otherwise as noble Lord has said, Otherwise as noble Lord has said, housing estates without the shops housing estates without the shops and schools, and centres that need it. A local plan would normally do it. A local plan would normally do This asks the Secretary of State to This asks the Secretary of State to ask which identified authorities do ask which identified authorities do best.

It was certainly the case in planning authorities were exemplary in how they led the planning system in how they led the planning system and others fell far behind. The and others fell far behind. The amendment does is to ask the Secretary of State to identify the leaders in the field and then leaders in the field and then publish the best practice and then invite local authorities to follow that best practice. That seems to me in everyone's interest because the whole planning the system requires up-to-date high-quality plans.

If the new clause is a step too far for the Minister perhaps it could be incorporated in the NPPF or in some other way. The final word on my noble friend, Baroness coffees amendment which in some cases is linked to what I have just spoken about about involving local MPs. What that amendment does is simply add the local MP to the list of interested parties in development which have national implications. It does not give them any rights but it ensures if there is a development one of the people that has to be notified is the local MP.

My noble friend, Lord Blencathra outlined the case very well. Any sensible development would have involved the local MP of a much earlier stage that I assume this is a long stop if any recent local MP has not been involved, he is not at a loss with the local paper bringing him up just before -- bringing him up just before a deadline asking for an opinion on what has been proposed. It seems to be a sensible development which I hope the noble Lord the Minister is able to smile on.
15:32
15:34
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very quickly, just a few points in the absence of my noble friend, Baroness Pinnock. The noble Lord made his own points very well. So I made his own points very well. So I will not repeat that. The noble Baroness I would say, most MPs would recognise their local council put all of the planning applications online now. And the quick research of looking online on a Friday afternoon might find exactly what has gone on without the need to be -- the need to be any change to legislation full to buy do understand how it feels when something is happening and you do not know, I recognise her dilemma.

To the noble Lord and the very impassioned plea about communities. I can only say we would wholeheartedly agree with that. But when things get to be as bad as the statement described I think it has gone way beyond the need of planning things to put things like that right. That sounded like we were heading towards the Bronx or something similar. And other things have got to kicking in that sort of instance. I was also tempted to do the writer and do other consultees and consultants are also available for this work.

I thought you did a really good advertising job there. The one I really wanted to turn to was 158 from Lord Lucas. Because I absolutely understand where he's coming from. When I read the amendment from Lord Lucas I felt the planning authorities I know actually do all of those things. They do try and act appropriately. The whole lists that you put in your amendment and I will not read it all out again, it is absolutely in my experience what they plan to do. So I guess what you are getting at was this does not in your view have people who have experience of, as have I, I think you use the words lean down.

I would go so far as to say sometimes bullied by politicians. Into making decisions. I think the good thing is thanks to the last government smoked carried on by this government we now have a lot more information about what is going on in planning committees and statistics and things that actually tell us. If you read the planning press, it is absolutely clear which authorities, be members or officers that are not functioning properly. There is help out there for dysfunctional councils in that regard and the counselling will remain nameless.

We are in that position, a very pure peer-review and then a council meeting all said we do not agree with this very important peer-review. I guess the question then is what happens next? When they really are failing. Officers are also really good because the amendment makes it seem like it is black-and-white. Planning officers do understand the role of politicians in the planning procedure. They understand political will and they recognise they have a will and they recognise they have a legitimate role in what is actually happening in planning.

I have had many a discussion and I have said well residents feel X to someone and they say will yes they could say that but, and I will say at committee can I legitimately come of this is when I was a counsellor and not a mayor I hesitate to say, can I actually say that? Well I could say that. In other words they were really good at understanding you have a role and want to help with that. And they have got their professional thing.

But when discussing specific cases they also make you realise there is nuance, it is not black-and-white. It is very grey. Interpretation of a planning role, people say oh it says the gardens of got to be this. While the garden is a bit smaller but it does other things that are better. And more than we expect. So we will give it planning permission. It is not quite as simple as that. And open to interpretation. I am quite confident the system should work if things are being done as already happened because sometimes is when things are demonstrably going wrong or supposed to be going wrong it is what happens next.
15:39
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, amendment 158 in the name of Lord Lucas sets out the principal local planning authority should operate under the duty of candour. Can I agree with the noble Baroness Thornton, many if not most local authorities do operate very good planning services and do what I believe my noble friend Lord Lucas is setting out. I actually agree with him. I think there is a benefit to this. To make it clear. I think it will support planning officers in their job.

There will not be so much arm-twisting by others outside and that is not just councillors, I can think of some developers and others who also do some arm-twisting at times. I think it is a very important thing. Communities need confidence decisions which shape the character and future of their town and villages and cities are taken in good faith. And the process is accessible, transparent and fair. I think this amendment makes a constructive contribution to this discussion. Moving onto amendment 185 S G in the noble Lord Molson name.

Can I agree as a counsellor I think there are lots of councillors who will agree. The frustrations we have in that we know how it ought to be but it is not. I remember having a very long conversation with my noble -- my local hospital about some things we were seeking to do. And why could they not move this and do that and the other? They basically said we would love to work with you and do it but every Monday morning I get a call from the Chief Executive of the NHS and all he wants to know is about delayed transfers out of hospital.

Doing something that will fix a problem in six or 12 months time was not on the priority agenda. I think this is a big issue with all public bodies. They all have their own priorities, they all operate in silos as has been so eloquently clear. Placing a duty on public bodies and authorities, not just follow best practice but to cooperate could be very beneficial in terms of coming up with better communities and better plans for more areas. I think this is a vital point of joined up thinking and collaboration and coordination.

Because they are not extras, they are fundamental and there needs to be some mechanism or tool that makes it very clear for those public bodies they need to cooperate. I would emphasise sometimes it is the local authority who gets criticised when in many instances, the vast majority I would say it is the inability of them to convene the whole of the public sector therefore I am very supportive of this sector and this motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, moving to amendment 105 J in the name of the noble Lord Tennyson, it raises another Tennyson, it raises another practical and sensible report and he is probing the amendment of GDPR is probing the amendment of GDPR being crucial as an issue within being crucial as an issue within local government and again I can say from experience the noble Lord made earlier about the precautionary earlier about the precautionary principle. I do find officers generally do have a precautionary generally do have a precautionary principle and they will move to shall we say the safest option and that is not necessarily the most that is not necessarily the most transparent option.

If there is clear guidance which gives them clarity about where that line is that can be very helpful for both that can be very helpful for both enabling officers to do their job better and more transparently but better and more transparently but was still securing quite rightly -- whilst still securing quite rightly the safety of the residents and the the safety of the residents and the public. I also thank my noble friend for bringing forward amendment 105. for bringing forward amendment 105. There have been a number of comments on this.

As set out in section 1 to be a planning act 2002 person within category 1, whether they are the owner or the tenant or they occupy the land concerned, this will be someone's property use subject to permanent acquisition. They have permanent acquisition. They have notification rights and statutory rights in terms of an examination like an application. I completely agree it is appropriate MPs know what is going on within the constituency. However such a change would give them a former role in the process -- formal role in the process rather than accessing through public towns discretion.

It might alter how MPs engage with national in to project, -- national infrastructure projects including those which are more contentious. I understand the themes behind this and therefore can I ask the noble Lord, the Minister to clarify the government's position. Do they see merit in giving MPs a statutory role in this way? And how does that sit with the strengthening of local voices within the planning law? In closing I would like to thank all noble Lords for raising important questions of candour, cooperation and transparency.

These are not just procedural matters they go to the heart of how we deliver in this milk. How we build trust in communities and how we ensure our planning system is fit for purpose.
15:45
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I thank other noble Lords and Baronesses for their amendments and people have contributed to the noble Lords who have contributed to the noble Lord, to the debate and obvious lie candour and cooperation and transparency are very key issues and planning. I would like to turn to amendment 158 brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It seeks to impose a duty of candour and local planning authorities when carrying out planning functions. This government completely supports the principle of this amendment and it is important local authorities have their offices and act with candour when carrying out their duties.

We are providing the noble Lord with assurance that this amendment is not needed. The government is committed to bringing forward the Hillsborough Law which will be introduced as a bill into parliament shortly. The bill would introduce professional duty of candour requiring duty of candour from all local authorities. Once the bill has been introduced there will be further details and it will be fully operated. In addition in relation to planning there are already provisions within planning law which encourage candour. For instance there are special requirements when local planning authorities are considering it's an application for development.

Planning regulations also require all decisions on planning applications to be published on planning registers and for local planning authorities to cleverly and precisely set out the reasons for these decisions. Therefore we do not these decisions. Therefore we do not Amendment 105, proposed by the noble Baroness Lady Coffey -- 185. This clause proposes Members of Parliament should be treated as category one persons under section 102, B of the planning act. Automatically being treated as interested parties. The overhead nice vital role of Members of Parliament play in presented their constituents and encouraging with Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

The involvement is both welcome and encouraged. However, I would like to clarify the existing provisions from becoming an interested plan. Under current legislation, any individual or organisation including Members of Parliament may submit irrelevant representation during the designated representation during the designated period and must become an interested party and have formal status in the examination process. Allowing them to attend hearings, respond to written questions and raise concerns about the impact of the project. Turning to the potential legal implications of the amendment, category one persons are defined in legislation as those with a direct interest in land including owners, leases, tenants and occupiers.

The need for defining persons within category one is to ensure that those are the legal physicals take our this is a separate provision within the act which seeks to protect the interests that those persons whose land could be impacted by the project through proposed compulsory acquisition and ensure they are not prejudiced from able to engage with the examination including Members of Parliament within this category could introduce ambiguity and inconsistency into the statutory framework. It could risk conflating the role of existing representatives with those who land owners and occupiers.

With that I must respectfully reassure the House that the Planning Act provides sufficient and straightforward provision which allows Members of Parliament to register as an interested party and meaningfully engage in aspects that impact their constituencies. Amendment 195, J, which seeks to probe on the issue of balancing the need for transparency in the planning system with the need for data protection and security. I thank the noble Lord Tennyson for moving this amendment because it emphasised it is important to get this balance right.

I should be a short note noble Lord that planning guidance is already available which takes account of the need to balance transparency with the principles of data protection. We recognise transparency about planning decisions is critical but is also important about sensitive personal data protected. The framework was introduced and there was uncertainty among local planning authorities about how it should apply to their planning functions. This is why in 2021 the government funded and supported planning advisory service to prepare unpublished competence of guidance to local planning authorities setting out how to comply with GDPR.

When carrying out their planning responsible teas. This guidance covers a range of activities including decision-making on planning applications, making local plans and when exercising enforcement. We do not think there needs to be further statutory guidance from the Secretary of State stopped earning next to amendment 185, SG, which seeks to enquire authorities to follow best practice guidance published by the Secretary of State for the development and community infrastructure. It would require authorities to publish an annual report assessing their compliance with the guidance. This government recognising how critically important is that new homes are accompanied by supportive infrastructure.

The NPPF sets out the purpose that planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. Contributions from developers secured through section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy plan important role in helping to deliver the local infrastructure required to support new developments and mitigate its impacts. That is why the government is committed to strengthening the system. As I have mentioned previously it is already the case asset out in the NPPF that plans that set out the obligations developed.

This should include setting out levels and types of affordable provision required along with other local infrastructure. Plan makers should work in collaboration with the local community infrastructure providers and other stakeholders to develop these qualities stop local plans are subject to public examination - independent inspector to determine whether the local plan is sound and can be adopted. Local authorities can only adopt the plan that is sound, part of the soundness test is that the plan should be consistent with national policy and supported by evidence.

The views of local people are required to be taken into account as part of the planning process. If the inspector is not satisfied with the plan meeting the test it cannot be adopted by the local authority. The new system for planning, plan making in England which we intend to start rolling out by the end of this year is designed to improve the quality and quantity of the engagement between local authorities and their communities. Infrastructure providers and statutory bodies.

New early engagement and timetable requirements will make it easier for trusted parties to help shape plans from the very start and to nowhere their input will be sounded. As part of reforms, the MHC LG is considering broadening the range of organisations prescribed and to prescribe key infrastructure providers under the new requirement. Being prescribed under these duties would see organisations recognised as key stakeholders in showing the input is sought at key points and taking into account in how plans are developed and evidence.

Following our recent response to the previous government consultation on implementation and planning reforms, we are currently undertaking further targeted engagement with those bodies we intend to prescribe and will set out further details in due course. This will include additional information on the process around the requirement to assist which will enable LPA's to formally request support from those organisations prescribed. MHL theology provides funding to the learning advisory service to deliver a targeted support programme to help local authorities across England strengthened their approach to infrastructure planning and the government's element condition.

This includes assisting local planning authorities and creating... That guide authorities in outlining their strategies before delivery, for delivering local infrastructure and allocating developer contributions alongside other funding sources to support the development of the area. I hope the reasons I have set out that no plausible broadleaved withdraw them and rinse. Tabak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ungrateful to that noble Lord has . The common theme between those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The common theme between those amendments is empowering officials to do their job well, to pick up an to do their job well, to pick up an example from the noble Lord, if an example from the noble Lord, if an official in the local hospital is only looking at the line to someone
15:55
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
only looking at the line to someone in the health department, it's very hard to take into account the needs of others aspects of the community. If there's something in law, or secondary or whatever it is, and I look forward to seeing it, that the government is producing it, you must consult, you must take it into account, that empowers the official to do that. It doesn't make it to do that. It doesn't make it happen.

Accept that a structure where we can commune it properly and get things done as a community and not in little bits. And I'm sure we can think of examples of where things have been done. Would be done much better if the community had been involved. We don't need to look further from our own front door. I don't know... Lord Lawson has a lot of experience with construction but when I took one of my friends to the front door and asked how much she thought it cost, he was about 1/50 of what it did.

We weren't involved. The community was not consulted this has been done to us. We were not part of that decision. The same I think applies to the HMP Westminster style of our enclosure. So I really encourage the noble Lord Lord Lawson to work with my noble friends Lord Hayward and Lord Forsyth to sue we can get our own mechanisms rather better than they are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to comment on the conversations with various people around the House which was very fascinating, there's a parable of fascinating, there's a parable of this problem. Just a final point, Christine Gilbert was a very good local authority leader who local authority leader who understood the limitations of the state and understood that just the state and understood that just the processes and systems alone would not get us there. Something else not get us there. Something else needed to happen of which obviously the local authority, the NHS and the normal players, were really key partners, and the people and partners, and the people and relationships, the machinery was not going to get us there and she going to get us there and she understood that as a very capable leader.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

leader. I also felt that the Minister's reply to Lord Stevenson was good but reply to Lord Stevenson was good but I would be grateful if you could drop him and us a link to the drop him and us a link to the particular guidance that he referred particular guidance that he referred to. So that we can check through and understand how that works. In the understand how that works. In the case of my men, if it can do what case of my men, if it can do what 158 is setting out to do and a lot more across government, I think it would be a huge contribution.

For now I believe to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 159, already debated. Not Amendment 159, already debated. Not moved. Amendment 160, already debated, Lord Shipley. Amendments 161 two 106 23, taken together, Lord 161 two 106 23, taken together, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. 164, Baroness Parminter. I advise to introduce amendment
15:59
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I advise to introduce amendment 164 and I thank the noble Baronesses Baroness Bennett, Baroness Young and Baroness Bennett, Baroness Young and Lord Krebs for supporting me in this amendment which will be helping local authorities, climate change and nature recovery targets and ensuring tanning can actively support climate adaptation and nature recovery helping us to deliver on our legally binding targets for net zero and the restoration of biodiversity. We know that local authorities have a fundamentally important role to play in our targets of meeting net zero and naturist because planning decisions fundamentally determine where infrastructure goes.

We have only got to think about, we have not just a to think about houses but also transport which is responsible for half of our climate change emissions and our land-use determines whether a not we are providing the necessary homes for nature. It's not just us who are making this case. The Climate Change Committee in its report to Parliament last year, in 2024, argued strongly that net zero objectives should be consistently prioritised in planning decisions. And many businesses have been arguing for some time for a statutory duty in this regard, in order to provide the policy certainty and also to encourage the necessary investment in net zero and nature recovery objectives.

When the government produced its statement last year on the climate and nature crisis on 14th July, Ed Miliband said " the actions we need are not just about government. We are also determined to help communities take climate and nature action in their own area, supporting mayors and local government to accelerate action". This amendment does just that. In the Commons when this issue was debated, the response from the Minister was that the government couldn't see quite what extra benefit this amendment would deliver.

Now, I appreciate that for the strengthened biodiversity duty which many members in this House were responsible for strengthening during the proceedings of the Environment Act in 2020, does give local authorities responsible for by diverse -- in 2021. There is no solid duty for climate change and Significant national initiatives to help local authorities plot climate issues such as the meteorological service. Thinking about the scale of what we are talking about and 300 local authorities have declared climate, I think it is probably to courtesy -- fair to say those initiatives on their own do not cut the mustard and what is required where we can seriously tackle our climate goals and to deliver the homes for nature we need is to give local authorities the statutory duty.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed articles 52, in certain the new clause set out on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in certain the new clause set out on the Marshalled list. -- Insert new clause set out on the Marshalled list. Can I rise in support of the noble Baronesses amendment 164. She
16:02
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
noble Baronesses amendment 164. She has laid out the case very clearly and local planning authorities are vital if we are, if the government is going to and the nation is going to achieve the legally binding targets and programmes for climate and environment biodiversity that are listed in the amendment. We have got I think the likelihood of having this debate on multiple occasions over the next few months and years because of course we have already gone through this process of debating why bodies in the legislation, new bodies or legislation for bodies where it is being changed should have that opportunity at the same time as having a statutory duty to promote these issues.

We had some success in the discussion in this House on giving such a duty to the Crown state. Or indeed the noble Baroness, Baroness Hayman played a sterling role there and so it was not actually adopted in the legislation, it was in the guidance to the Crown estate. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Krebs had he been in his place would have been reminding the House that he of course has a Private Members Bill down that would do the job in a sort of bulk by fashion and give a list of the key implementations to public authorities in one fell swoop.

It would be absolutely the right way forward if that piece of private legislation was adopted and put forward as a government bill. Because that is the most efficient way of doing it. Otherwise you are going to have to listen to the likes of me Lord Krebs and Baroness Parminter and bang on about this sequentially as everybody comes forward. And until such time as we have debated the whole lot. If I could commend not only this amendment to the House but also a stern address to the government accepting the Krebs Private Members' bills would be a splendid shortcut

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the right direction. It is a great pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady commenting and Lady Young like the noble Lady pound Fenton... And the green member gets up to support climate biodiversity action is not terribly originate but I do want to make a couple of specific points. Which was there were climbing reported duties until were climbing reported duties until 2010. -- Climate reporting duties until 2010. It had been brought out until 2010. It had been brought out by a previous Labour government.

To reinstitute something the Labour party generally, the Labour government had actually brought in. government had actually brought in. And repeated calls have come from the Climate Change Committee and the the Climate Change Committee and the net zero duty which is what this amendment aims to introduce. The
16:05
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
amendment aims to introduce. The noble Lady referred to member only -- referred memorably to the act which I have not heard of. Which links up at the Environment Act of 2021. Its research shows the implemented Asian -- implementation exists and this is something very clear and civil. The noble Lady Baroness Young said this is a debate we keep having again and again and again. Let's bring in a climate duty. Your Lordships' House has had some real success over the years in having some impact on bills and I can go back to the Hitchens dashboard bill which will predate quite a number of people sitting around this chamber.

It was the first Committee stage I ever worked on. And it was when we were trying to get climate measurements into the statute book. We really do need to get to the point where your Lordships' House does not have to keep doing this bill after bill after bill. I would say to the noble Lord who I know was concerned about the rate of progress, if the government just put this into start it would save a lot of time in your Lordships' House. I also just want to make crucially one of the point if it is about a question of balance, local authorities have clear statutory duties including under the Deregulation Act of 2015 with the growth duty.

There is a real balance between the growth duty but they do not have the duty to look after the environment, climate and nature. Whatever I may think about the growth, if you do not have a healthy environment, if you have communities being battered by heatwaves and floods and droughts and you are not doing the climate mitigation which you need to do then you are not going to get the growth. These two things have to fit together. We are all well aware there are now different parties coming in with different views in terms of local authorities.

But this is a communal responsibility. Loss of biodiversity does not stop at county or district boundaries. The climate change does not stop there either. The duty has to go on or local authorities so everyone is looked after. We can't allow some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people to freeride. My Lords, it seems to me this is a crucial amendment. Not least for
16:08
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
a crucial amendment. Not least for the reasons Lady Young put forward. Which is that we are going to go on about this until we have an overall demand this is how we think about matters. We really do have to recognise that unless we make all of our decisions in the context of recovering our biodiversity and protecting our nation and the world against climate change then we are going to make a mess of the decisions we make. These are absolutely central.

I know the government will be inclined to say this is already there and it is in the guidance and it is all very the guidance and it is all very proper. I am afraid there are proper or many in local authorities who do not see this as the priority which it ought to be. I really must ask the Minister to think seriously about the fact that every local authority at least must know it has to think things through this particular length like this particular lens.

Because it is the lens that is most important for all of us. I live in and used to represent a very agricultural constituency. Anyone who has seen the effect of the drought all of our farms at the moment will realise just how desperate the effect of climate change is. Particularly to farmers who only 18 months ago could not get their crops out because of the water. And could not plant because it was still too wet to do so.

People do not understand the impact of climate change today. It is amazing. I am very upset and concerned the very good common view of all major political party is beginning to be eroded because only by working together are we going to solve these problems. And it is no good just saying well we can put it off, we cannot do it by this time or that time. And I congratulate the government by sticking to the fact we have to do this very quickly indeed.

The trouble is the timetable is not in our hands. We have allowed the timetable to be taken on by the fact nature is now reacting to what we have done. And reacting in an increasingly extreme way. So I do hope the government will take these amendments seriously. I hope it will take an overall view of this in a whole lot of other areas so we do not have to have this discussion on a permanent basis. Because frankly this ought to be the given.

It ought to be the fact everything we do, we look at through the fact of climate change. If there are members of the House who still have not seen this, I would remind them it is necessary for growth, if we do not do this we will not be a country in which people will invest. We will not have new jobs and we will not have the kind of society, the kind of nature and indeed the kind of climate which will be suitable not just for our children and grandchildren but for us.

At my age I can still say we have to do this because otherwise the climate I will go on living in will be increasingly unhappy for me and for my children and grandchildren. So please do not not accept this amendment. accept this amendment.
16:12
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment 187 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Scott seeks to probe the practical meaning of a new definition, particularly the achievement of sustainable of element -- sustainable development and the mitigation of climate change. The fact the same definition appears in three times in such a short clause suggests it would carry significant legal and practical weight. That makes it all the more vital Parliament understands precisely what is meant. These terms though laudable are broad and open to interpretation.

Without clear parameters they risk being applied inconsistently by different authorities. If undefined in unmeasurable or unenforceable terms they could slip into the realm of aspiration rather than action. Undermining their purpose as guiding principles for planning and infrastructure. Decisions, ambiguity would not only weaken decision- making but could also result in delays, disputes and costly appeals. I appreciate government amendment 187 is not grouped here but it is relevant. That amendment creates a new clause clarifying the relationship between different types of development Corporation, ensuring any overlap is resolved in favour of the higher to authority.

May I ask the noble Lord whether the government would consider committing to something similar in relation to these definitions so we secure the same kind of clarity and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consistency. I thank noble Lords for what I
16:14
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank noble Lords for what I think has been a short debate but a think has been a short debate but a really important debate. Climate change affects everybody and living in a rural area as well, just taking the dog out for a walk during the summer you could see the crops not what they should be. We know this affects everybody in their everyday lives and it is something that this government without net zero policies et cetera takes very importantly.

Can I just start with amendment 164, tabled by Baroness Parminter. To get statutory authority and local duties to set out under the impairment act and Climate Change Act and contribute to the program for adaptation for climate change under the Climate Change Act and achieve targets set out under the air quality is's regulation in 2010. We already have existing tools and duties that support efforts to contribute towards targets for nature. Such as Local Nature Recovery Strategies and the biodiversity duty under the natural environment act and strengthened under the Environment Act.

These are already legal requirements. The latter act requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity which must out of regard with any local nation like Local Nature Recovery Strategies well as any relevant species, conservation strategy, protected site strategy repaired by Natural England. -- Prepared by Natural England. Many local authorities really have a high local ambition to tackle climate change, drive green for growth, restore nature and address wider environmental issues. It is not clear what additional benefit statutory duty would bring.

Climate adaptation, the government already works closely with local authorities. A number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In 2024 the government launched the local authority climate service which provides tailored data on climate change impact. The government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trail for local authorities last year. Providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their Net zero support is provided including great dish and he, the new English energy company that will provide support to local government, community energy groups, government departments increase the role of renewable energy projects.

The compounds of framework requiring local authorities to take action on air-quality already exists, specifically local authorities ready have statutory duties relating to Air Quality Index local area and under National Planning Policy. Air-quality is a material consideration in planning decisions. The government is committed to reducing the harmful health and environmental impact of air pollution and will continue working with local authorities to achieve with local authorities to achieve this. Given that local government is starting to... And the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling the combined issues of environmental decline, climate change impacts, we do not think the statutory duty to deliver environmental and quality targets and adaption net zero is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needed. Turning to amendment... Does not mention the local authorities who are not doing the job. All I say to him is, it job. All I say to him is, it wouldn't do any harm to increase the wouldn't do any harm to increase the pressure on them and it would do a pressure on them and it would do a great deal of good. After all, I was a minister for 16 years and I know the case is putting forward. It's a very interesting case, normally very interesting case, normally pressed by civil servants, we really don't need this, we have this and don't need this, we have this and the other.

I say to him, it doesn't do any harm and it may well do some good and it might remind certain local authorities like Kent and Lancashire that they ought to be doing this instead of doing exactly doing this instead of doing exactly the opposite and saying that they are doing the opposite. This is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment to remind them. I very much appreciate what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much appreciate what the noble Lord has said there. Like I have said these requirements are a duty in all public authorities and duty in all public authorities and I'm sure that we will keep revising I'm sure that we will keep revising this and we do know how important that we get this right. And we will continue to press it with local continue to press it with local authorities and organisations to achieve that end. I just want to turn to amendment 187 tabled by Baroness Lady Scott.

Which seeks to probe the need to make additional climate change provision in respect to Newtown's development Corporation. This model is currently the only one that has any climate change objectives into its legislation. Through this bill we are going further than -- by including factors to the existing claims to contribute to sustainable little element. The same objectives would be replicated for all the other development Corporation models which currently have no specific objections in relation to climate change into legislative framework.

Develop meant corporations are conferred the role of local planning authority for local plans, they will automatically fall under the planning legislation duty which faced a specific relation simulation to sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaptation. Not all development corporations will take on the local planning role. With this in mind, regardless of development Corporation takes on planning functions, they will be all required to meet this objective stop the UK climate is getting hotter and wetter with more extreme weather events.

The effects of extreme weather and nature loss are already here and are impacting all our lives. There are small wins which can have a big impact. By updating the current framework and making it consistent across the development Corporation models and National Planning Policy Framework, our message is clear, we will place sustainable development and Climate Change Act the heart of all development corporations and will guide the use of their powers. I hope Max nation will reassure the noble Baroness sufficiently and I kindly ask them to beg leave to withdraw their amendments.
16:21
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:23
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We now come to 1 of those wonderful issues where we have something in place which we think works, which we think this bill is going to remove. That is the protection, this time provided by Sport England, playing fields and recreational facilities. I'm in danger of making of a short speech or a very long one. I'm trying to draw the line between the middle. Clearly my noble colleague has had enough. But if we have got something like playing fields, playing fields tend to be, and the best ones, are a nice urban environments where people can get to them.

So you have effectively got a greenfield site. Often owned by a cash-strapped local authority on independent school, a school which has been increasingly under pressure to actually improve exam results, and not develop the whole picture, saying, wouldn't it be good if we have a slightly better in gym court and get rid of the field, and when nobody else is playing on that, playing field because we have not maintained it, selling it off and you have got rid of it.

Who cares? Well, the people who either sport do and the people you want to play the sport should. What is sport? It is the ultimate What is sport? It is the ultimate community activity without benefits. Public playing fields are central for those in grassroots to be able to address this. You go to any successful sports club, especially with things like football, rugby, cricket, will have started on a public playing field. That is where you start. That is where before even with these property owning sports, rugby and cricket would be the classic examples, where you are encouraged to take over and manage, own your own ground, you start somewhere else and develop on.

You can expand your playing numbers by getting on smaller pitches, with your junior teams, by using these. It is an integrated part of it. If you don't have that capacity, the nature of that club will be threatened. So we have something which actually adds to it. But it is potentially a cash cow for somebody in other groups, and also sitting there in the right place, very tempting for any housing plan. And the person has been protecting it, Sport England is no longer consulted.

That is what they are thinking. If we are wrong about that, I would be very grateful would the Minister, whichever one it is who applies, and you will not be hearing from again. If that isn't the case, there is something to be answered here. My amendment does put another duty in. It's of course committee stage and it's just the first go. But I would hope that the government will be telling me here, and if they can't tell me exactly at this stage, I will make myself available for any meetings to conduct, to make sure that I know and can tell the rest of the House if there is another solution to this.

If something positive is going to happen there, I will be more than grateful to go away and spread the word. If you are not going to do something like this, and to general duty, you are basically guaranteeing losses and possibly catastrophic losses. Unless you understand this and your current drivers are something else, you will ignore it because we'll do. What is your primary objective? We go there. I would hope that the government will be telling me something that is positive and supportive to this group.

And also the case, and remember you are looking at supporting voluntary groups who do this at a very little cost to the state at the moment. That culture of gathering together, paying for the use of the pitch, running up, is something which has to have a little space to grow. And if we remove that, you are going to stifle the whole thing. The Baroness Bennett has another amendment down there. I think we all know enough not to say exactly what the amendments mean.

But the idea of play is also something which comes in and tags on through there. Nor does formalised, -- not as formalised or structured but I hope it's in there. I would hope the Minister will be able to tell us there is something solid that will address this, not a general air, Judy, yes of course they will deal with it. Because we almost things like that get ignored. Something solid that will make sure there is a protection that is at least compatible with what is going on now because we don't, we are going to have to go back to this, at least once.

And possibly we will have to be decided by decision of the whole House. I would hope we don't need to do that but I'm quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prepared to. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, insert new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, insert new clause reservation of playing fields and pitches as set out on the marshalled list.
16:29
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. Is a pleasure to below the noble Lord Lord Addington and to reassure him I haven't reamed up amendment 179 it was originally presented in the other place and is something I'm taking forward with the support from playing ground and I hope it will be clear it is very clear -- support from Play England. In a sense, the first amendment we have had here is a subset of the broader amendment, amendment 165 is about four play, if you like organised games, organised activities, structured activities, my amendment covers those but looks more broadly and unstructured interaction with young people in particular have the chance to mix.

What this new clause does is introduce a place efficiently duty to ensure that every local planning authority must as far as is reasonable and practical assess secure enhance and protect this opportunity for children's play when exercising any of its planning functions. It is far too often, players seem something frivolous, childish, something that is to be fitted around the edges of cramming for exams, rigid structured arrangements yet we know that playing is essential for physical and mental health. It's vital for the development of minds and goodies.

It offers a space for the flowering of social skills and development crucially of independence. The ability to assess risks, to take risks, to deal with the consequences in particular and This is being squeezed out of children's lives in learning and other environments. Noble Lord Addington talked about playing fields being sold off and we have seen the huge amount of closure swimming. Which has real public swimming. Which has real public safety implications. Much less noticed is the way we have lost the informal play spaces, the corners, the spaces where the children can gather and simply interact without an adult overseeing them may be.

That is really good. If they have not got the space it is not going to happen. Often the spaces are treated as expendable, they are sold off, they are packed with infield homes. Some places still exist but they are scattered with drug paraphernalia. And choked with litter. I am sure many noble Lords like myself have taken part in litter picks in spaces just like that and have seen how incredibly inappropriate they are when they should be places for children to play.

And possibly the biggest and worst of all, we have seen our streets taken over by cars. Which was once where children used to play. Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child guarantees children's right to play. Yet we are simply not living up to that. If you think about a child trapped in temporary accommodation more than 160,000 of them frequently bed-and-breakfast accommodation without any kind of provision for play or the young carer who was forced to put aside play to take up adult star responsibilities, the 4.5 million children in poverty and one of the things we have seen in many public spaces have been privatised, the benches taken out.

If you are going to sit down you have to go into a coffee shop and spend money and many young people do not have the spaces to interact because they are being privatised. The security guards will arrive and chase them off if they gather in a group. That is the reality. As I said this amendment is exactly the same as the one that was debated in the Commons. It was not put to a vote but there was considerable expressions of support from in the Commons.

In response then the Minister said the government agrees access to play spaces are vital. Good. Then the Minister added which is why strong protections are already in place. I think the practical reality of what we can see is happening means this is demonstrably not the case and that is what this space shows. As has been said from Play England. We have had 17 years without the national commitment to play which is nothing short of a generational failure. Millions of children have grown up without the opportunity, experiences and support they should have had.

Again as I was saying in the last group, the Labour Party actually has decent form on this. In 2008 noble Lords might or might not want to dig out the photos here, Ed balls and Andy Burnham met the Secretary of State -- then the Secretaries of State got together on a playground on the swing to launch the play strategy for the Labour Party. But then two years later the coalition government came in and threw it out. Now Wales and Scotland stepping into this issue as they have in so many others areas of public and environmental health have enacted play sufficiently legislation.

In local authorities in Wales they are legally required to approve play options and opportunities. And in Scotland they are legally required to introduces into neighbourhood plans the focus on child friendly initiatives. I hope this is an amendment we will hear broad support around the houses as we go into the Commons. I hope the Minister will take this seriously and it is something they might be prepared to have a meeting with noble Lords interested with Play England. And see if this can be taken forward as a really constructive practical step.

We need to provide a foundation of health and well-being for our young people. This is a way of giving local authorities the responsibility to do that. And as we were discussing in the last group, we may have local authorities with different little groups in power, with different perspectives. But to give our young people the healthy environment, it is surely something the government here in Westminster has a responsibility to deliver for all of the children in England.
16:36
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I start my remarks fully agreeing with what the noble Lady Baroness Bennett has said about the importance of play. And imaginative approaches to putting in place efficiency duty on the face of this legislation. -- Play sufficiency duty on the face of this legislation. I'm sure she can expect support across this House but certainly for myself. I will concentrate if I may briefly on my noble friend Lord Addington's amendment. Which is about the protection of playing fields. That protection of playing fields.

That is of vital importance for newer social health, educational and environmental reasons and these outdoor spaces serve as a central community area, fostering physical activity, social interaction and mental well-being among people of all ages. As urban development accelerates and land becomes increasingly valuable, safeguarding his -- safeguarding these playing fields and make sure they remain accessible and functional for future generations. Under Lord Addington's point playing fields provide crucial opportunities for physical activity. Which is fundamental for maintaining good health and this health perspective is important.

Regular exercise helps prevent chronic illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease and for children and teenagers playing fields offer safe environments for sports, games and recreational activities that promote healthy growth and development. The availability of quality playing fields encourages active lifestyles, reduces sedentary behaviours and contributes to the overall well- being of communities. We should be equally seeing a number of playing fields for these reasons alone not building over them. The noble Baroness Bennett raised another environmental point.

The spaces provide significant social benefits. Plainfield's serve as communal herbs. Where people come together to engage in team sport and recreational activities. And to simply socialise. They foster community spirit, inclusivity and teamwork and they are vital for social cohesion. Additionally playing fields often host local events, tournaments, strengthening community bonds and promoting a sense of pride and ownership. Amongst residents. Third educationally, access to playing fields supports schools and youth organisations in delivering physical education and extracurricular activities. Physical education is a key component of a well-rounded curriculum, contributing to students physical and mental development.

My noble friend, Lord Dean would agree from an environmental perspective playing fields contribute positively to urban ecosystems. They help combat air pollution and support biodiversity by providing habitat for various Flora and fauna. The loss of playing fields my Lords can have detrimental long-term effects where green spaces are developed for housing or commercial use, communities lose critical recreational and health assets. This land use change often means to increase traffic, pollution and social inequalities. Especially for residents who rely on local sports facilities for leisure and health.

That is why legal protections and strategic planning are vital in safeguarding these spaces. So what is the trend? A report by fields interest in 2016 highlighted between 2020 15 approximately 3074 outdoor sports pitches and playing fields were lost across England alone. And when considering the entire UK, the total losses estimated to be over 4,000. That trend started in the mid-1990s and is continuing to this day. Thousands of playing fields have been lost in the UK in recent decades underscoring the urgent need for continued protection of strategic land use planning.

My final point is this, it is absolutely essential Sport England continue as a statutory consulting for planning applications and as they affect planning fails. They object proposals by Lords that would result in a net loss of sports provision and they work to safeguard and enhance playing fields across England. With over 1,000 playing fields protected by them in the year to March 2023. Sport England, their role as a statutory consulting was made clear by the government earlier this year as being under threat.

Sport England continues to play a key role in safeguarding sports facilities including playing fields by advising planning authorities working to protect and enhance sports infrastructure across the country. If the government cannot give a commitment they will continue in this role I believe we should continue -- we should consider placing their role in the face of this bill at report stage. this bill at report stage.
16:41
Baroness Sater Portrait Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and I rise to speak to the amendment 165 in my name. I would also like to thank Lord Addington for bringing forward this amendment which addresses the most important preservation of our playing fields and pictures from potential changes to the planning process. I wholeheartedly agree with everything that has been said and does not need repeating. Including the statistics mentioned which speak for themselves. I just wanted to add a few comments as well as comments from some of those organisations on the frontline.

My Lords, as someone who has been involved in the Youth Justice Board and the sports sector for many years and I presently co- chair the APPGs of sport and physical activity and the APPGs of sport and physical activity in the Criminal Justice System I have seen and heard first-hand how access to playing fields and green spaces can transform lives. Playing fields are more than just open spaces, they are gateways to better health and stronger communities. Sport and physical activity have a huge impact on the nation's health and well- being.

Which my noble friend Lord Moynihan has just mentioned. Not to mention all of the positive, positivity's children and receive from an active and regular sports - based lifestyle which will continue into their adult lives. Protecting our playing fields and activities are crucial because once they are lost they are gone forever. We have heard of the many risks involved with the recent announcement of Sports England's role as a statutory consulting on planning applications. Being withdrawn. They have an impressive record of protecting alone more than 1,000 playing fields across the country.

Between 2022 and 2023 alone. Removing them from the process would leave a huge hole in the planning process. Earlier this year Alex Walsh, the CEO of the London Plainfield foundation eloquently explained making such a moved -- making such a move would be a huge loss saying when a local group of worried about losing a sports field at the end of their road they will call us and we start by saying to Sport England know? He also stated over the past five years over 398 concluded planning applications, 90% resulted in improved or safeguarded conditions because of Sport England.

What we cannot quantify is how many people are put on them by latent building and fields because they are in that role. He will be doing that when they are gone. -- Who will be doing that when they are gone? Planning will deftly see many of our sports fields vanish. Again my noble friend Lord Moynihan has a ready mentioned but an organisation protecting 3,000 local parks and playgrounds and playing fields and green spaces across the country. They are constantly being contacted by local community groups and individuals who are concerned about the potential loss of their part -- part or playing field and having to navigate a very complex planning system to make their concerns heard.

We have also learned from recent research published by the journal cities and health, found planners were prioritising new homes ahead of outdoor play spaces due to the combination and policy misalignment, financial constraints and pressures -- pressures stemming from the lack of social housing. We can have both. It should not be one or the other. When I was chair of the national charity delivering sport to disadvantaged neighbourhoods we saw how important it is to have local and community-based facilities that are accessible for all.

If we want to tackle inequalities, making access to facilities more challenging will only compile -- compound those with less and make it more difficult for everyone to have an active and healthy lifestyle. Those noble Lords and Baronesses here today who are involved in sport feel very passionately about ensuring we protect our precious sports fields and pictures. So I do hope their protection can be preserved in this bill.
16:45
Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Conservative)
-
-
I play particular tribute -- pay particular tribute Lord Addington of whom I have shared a number of sporting events with. I have had the privilege of playing rugby, cricket, squash, golf, tennis, not quite as fit as I was I am afraid to say. Coming up to 89. The preservation of Coming up to 89. The preservation of playing fields and pictures -- pictures and I remember a case in 1968 amazingly there was a change in the government of the London Borough of Islington.

I had the privilege of being the leader of the incoming party. The first challenge that was put on my desk was ivory corner and the change of the roundabout there which would take away for tennis I said, have we not talked about this problem with GLC? I was told we had but had had no positive response was to seemed that this was absolutely wrong for a section of London, Highbury Corner, which is not at all well off, and Highbury Fields was actually fundamental to the people of Islington.

So I had to go and see their then leader of the Greater London Council and after some fairly hectic and heated discussions, and it was pointed out to me how many millions allegedly it was going to take to alter the planning of the roundabout, they agreed they would look at it again, and I'm pleased to say those tennis courts, were never removed and are still there today. I think what we also have to realise, is that the numbers, taking part in sport today, has grown hugely.

The only have to look at sport on TNT on television. How many of our wives were as active as our daughters and granddaughters are in sport? A very small percentage. All women sport has grown exponentially. It doesn't matter what it is. Rugby, football, cricket, tennis, all of them have grown. Hugely. And against that background, the fundamental point about this amendment is so important. And I now do have to declare a specific interest. I am a member of Wimbledon.

This is the most successful tennis tenements in the world. It has grown exponentially over the last century. Set up a foundation, I was one of those, involved in the very early stages of that, to help those who can't, for financial reasons, and need help. It attracts visitors from all over the world. It's the biggest economic sporting event in the UK economy. And I personally understand that. There is intelligent mental -- that. There is intelligent mental -- Sadly, I had heart failure in late December and I can't take part as much as I would wish on your Lordship's House and I can't be here for that particular amendment because of the problems and restrictions I have.

I would have otherwise have spoken that as well. merely re-emphasised the Minister, the sport in general, and tennis in particular, are growing all the time. And how wonderful it is to see our young and young people from all our young and young people from all over the world taking part. So I hope that when the government reflect on this, it will recognise the absolute importance of this particular amendment. particular amendment.
16:49
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this group amendment has given me something of a sense of deja vu. This is not to diminish the importance, far from it. These are serious and considered proposals. They strike an issue that has suffered time and again in our debates -- that has surfaced. Protection of those places that enable sport, recreation and play. Only last week, in movie has amendment 138, A, my noble friend Lord Moynihan reminded us as he so frequently does of the profound benefits that flow from creating space for sport and physical activity.

And it's not merely about fitness, it's about community cohesion, about opportunities for young people, about long-term health of the nation. It's about things like teambuilding, learning to get on with your colleagues, and working together. And the well-being, amongst conditions of strategic importance, within Spatial Development Strategies. I regret the government were not able to give more ground on that occasion. But there is a replay. We have the AR, and there is an opportunity for government to reconsider and give a clearer signal and recognise the urgency and, sorry, the urgency of invading health and to the very fabric of planning.

Perhaps today in responding to this group the Minister might move a little further enable Lord Addington 's amendment 165 on the preservation of playing fields and bitches, idols, these are not luxuries, they are the bedrock of grassroots support. More importantly, they are aware countless young people in the habits of one source, they are rarely replaced it is right that the cunning authority should be required to treat their preservation as a priority not an afterthought.

In a similar vein amendment 179 in the name of the noble Baroness and it reminds us equally of the importance of child's play. A child who has a safe, stimulating playspace nearby is a child who will grow in confidence, develop social bonds and establish the foundations of a healthy life. Deny them that and we entrenched disadvantage from the very start. I therefore amend both noble Lords for their contributions stop I hope the government will recognise that without firm protection we risk losing something that cannot be rebuilt .Lungs, our playing fields, and the spaces where our children first learn to run, to play and to thrive.
16:52
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
Noble Lords -- I thank noble Lords for that debate. The government does take it seriously and I would like to turn to amendments 165 and 179 and the names of Lord Addington and Baroness Bennett. I'm grateful to them for raising these issues. And I would like to say there is nothing in this bill that removes the strong protection we have for playing fields, especially the commitments that are made in the national P&P P. Play spaces are vital for supporting the health and well-being of local communities and such are already considered through existing planning policy and guidance which collectively protect their provision.

The national planning policy framework sets out that development plans should be based on robust and up-to-date assessment of the need for open space sport and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision. This includes places for children's play, both formal and informal, development plans, then use these assessments to determine which provision is required for communities. In December last year the government updated planning odyssey to make specific reference for safeguarding formal plate spaces in the National Planning Policy Framework and answering the protection of these spaces where they may be threatened by other development types.

The framework is clear that play spaces can only be lost if the facility is no longer of community need all that is justified alternative summer else. Often regard to the policy framework when preparing the local and strategic plan or making a planning decision is a legal requirement. In recognition of the importance of playspace provision for communities playspace provision for communities we are also considering what more we can say about this important area as we prepare a new set of National Planning Policy's for decision- making on which we intend to consult this year.

Furthermore, considering on playspace is set out in considerations on play spaces are set out in national design guidance which encourages the provision of such spaces and how they can be integrated into development. I'm not sure whether the noble noble Lord are aware that there isn't a PPG which has been established by MP. -- There is an end PPG. The new version of this guidance is expected to be published this year and play spaces are being reviewed as part of this update.

Play spaces can be secured through section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure level which is the CAL levy which play an important role in helping to deliver the infrastructure required to support new development and mitigate its impact. That is why the government is committed to strengthening this system. The government have established parks working group or local authorities and industry specialists to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces including improvement in the number of playgrounds.

One point billion pound Plan for Neighbourhoods will help deliver funding to enable new neighbourhood boards across the country that will develop local generation plans in conjunction with local authorities. Upgrading play areas or possible scheme, such funding will be used for enabling the enhanced provision of local areas. The government also believes these amendments may limit a local authority's ability to respond to their communities needs around play spaces by sitting overly rigid framework of assessment and legislative requirements.

I wish to thank the noble Lord Addington and the noble Baroness Lady Bennett once more and reiterate my acknowledgement around important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

play spaces. I'm very grateful to him for his comprehensive response. Does the government recognise the role of Sport England in the context of the Sport England in the context of the protection of playing fields as protection of playing fields as effective and important consultees in terms of statutory consultation over the future protection of over the future protection of playing fields? Does it respect the fact that Sport England has done an fact that Sport England has done an enormous amount of good work in this context and that they should continue to have the opportunity to do so?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do so? The government is committed to consult on the impact of removing consult on the impact of removing Sport England and we will do that Sport England and we will do that shortly to see what the results of that is, and I suggest that noble Lord takes part in that consultation Lord takes part in that consultation as well. As I have set out, we have as well. As I have set out, we have robust processes in place to support and protect spaces for play and recreation and we will consider this recreation and we will consider this further as we update our policies.

These matters are best addressed throughout policy and funding. I throughout policy and funding. I therefore hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
16:58
16:59
17:00
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Real money has been put to real effect for planning disasters throughout my entire life. When you go through and look at this, it is a case of trying to make sure you get somebody who understands what this means. If the Minister, would the Minister be able to facilitate the being able to see what this means? It is actually something I would like to see. I'm sure there are a couple of people here who have had experience of this who might want to come in on this.

If he may be able to convince me but at the moment there is a big plan. There's a big plan that is going to do big things. And it's going to look at this and it should take it into account. that really isn't enough because there have been many big plans going through. And there were big plans before Sport England had this and we were losing playing fields at a phenomenal record. Because homes are more important than playing fields. Despite the fact minefields lead to better community activity, the way voluntary groups can get in and help youngsters.

Going through there, the aces programme, numerous sports activity, Tackle London. But it needs playing field. Without that you have nothing. Will we get somewhere where the government is prepared to let us know what this is so we can go back and actually say is this enough? Is the minister From a related quite specifically what we intend doing, how much money what we intend doing, how much money we will spend. I know across playing fields that has not been under this Government, it has been under the previous Government, the Government previous Government, the Government were affected by major cuts in funding at local Government.

Yes, we funding at local Government. Yes, we have got a plan. We do mean to implement it and we are going to spend £1.5 million on neighbourhoods spend £1.5 million on neighbourhoods spend £1.5 million on neighbourhoods boards. There will have the right to give provision of public areas et cetera, so I think there is a lot that we are doing and if the Noble that we are doing and if the Noble Lord would want to meet in the near Lord would want to meet in the near future I am sure we can organise something so we can organise this and discuss it further.
17:02
17:02
17:03
17:03
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to this amendment that stands alone in this group and is tabled in my name. It seeks to introduce a principled proportionality in accordance with which all planning functions would need to be exercised and all planning laws would need to be interpreted. My Lords, though the basic structures of the planning environmental impact assessment and habitats assessment processes have remained broadly the same for a long time, their application has, over the years, become increasingly and unnecessarily disproportionate.

For example, there is now wide spread planning systems and over precautionary approach to the principal which, in practice, is treated by many in the system as requiring zero risk, even though the case does not in fact require that. Environmental statements which, in the early years of the regime, were recently concise. And now frequently or delivered in vans. The take up the whole room in offices which is on health for two everybody concerned in the system first there is a recent instance of a DCO examining inspector asking 2,000 questions in relation to the application.

Again, not actually outside law, statutory consultees consisting of planning applications providing a level of detail wholly disproportionate to the stage of decision making in the question, for example, in the context of outlined applications for planning outline and planning permission simply to confirm the principle of development for an allocated site, the principle that is baked into the allocation, developers can routinely be required to test this baked into the allocation or to send into matters very grand detail that are far more suitable for concerned matters of discharge and condition stage we see frequently consultants producing luminous reports often out of caution because of fear of being tripped and subject to a professional claim and considerable liability later.

These are not exceptions that prove a contrary role, they're all too commonplace. And the tendency for disproportionality does not make decision-making any better, just clogs up and slows down the system. This amendment is designed to give all stakeholders in the planning process the conflicts that they can and indeed should deter them from delving into unnecessary detail and duplication. It would leave the precautionary principle untouched, so it would not matter about the regression but it would, importantly, and cut it in reality and pragmatism, there is provision in the drafting of the amendment from the Secretary of State to make dates and statutory guidance on how the proportionality is to be applied which will ensure the principle is adequately flexible and future proof.

The proposal to the principal has received widespread support in the development sector, including an emphatic endorsement from the planning Federation representative body. And moreover it also is entirely consistent with recent published findings of the nuclear taskforces reports as the report was published last month. Chapter 6 of that report would come into Noble Lady the Minister if they have a duty to see straight to other areas and responsibilities of other departments, but chapter 6 as a whole section of disproportionality in the planning context, specifically we are not specifically looking at the nuclear context and I quote the findings that preliminary view of the task is that robins with the proportionate decision-making are interrelated, systemic, various incentives derive more costly time- consuming standards with no substantive safety or environmental benefits, so they have it in clear black-and-white letters that there is a principle of proportionality that would add a huge amount of value to the planning system no environmental cost and I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. And proposed after clause 62 insert the following new clause as insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshall list.
17:08
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I write to support my Noble Friend in his amendment about proportionality. And my experience proportionality. And my experience in this comes from the review that was appointed by the Minister about 10 years ago now to have a new approach to match the new approach to development contributions. I do not know, I don't have the report in front of me, it was a long time ago, but the process remains with me today. And it was that 19% of all planning applications, the 10% of 11 or more are well over half the total of houses that are to be built in this country.

There is an asymmetry and the larger ones are significantly more, significantly larger. Yet we treat everything the same. And if we are to encourage local builders that spend much time with the local vernacular and contractors and local supply chains, we must have a more flexible and proportionate system. Now, proportionality exists in so many walks of life. If I just reflect for a few moments and some of the bills we had in the last few months, there is proportionality for small businesses, and employment legislation was at the noble Baroness the Minister and I debated in the Moses room the day the definition of a smaller authority.

But a different test, different audit test that would happen with a turnover of 10 or £15 million or less, in the brewing industry smaller brewers have an advantageous duty regime, so proportionality should not be aiming as something to be encouraged. As part of the review work we looked at how we might help smaller builders and we postulated that developments less than 10 dwellings as sort of a threshold would be exempted from section 1 or 60 would pay the community infrastructure instead.

And I thought that was a really proportionate way of doing it, people would make meaningful contributions to the infrastructure and they would not need to get tied up in some of the smaller minutiae. And I think that approach we can follow. Of course in local authorities with that language there is a validation exercise, unless you have submitted your economy assessment and everything else, the start of the clock does not even start picking. And I would not want and I am sure my Noble Friend would want this to be the case that whole areas of legislation will be sort of cast aside and I do think he is suggesting for a moment there will be no ecology.

It is just that clearly that report for a set of five bungalows admittedly on the outskirts of the development boundary should be subject to the same test as a much more significant one. And that is important. Because it is significantly more expensive to deliver smaller schemes. There are certain things that would apply for a planning application that have to be jam spread, if you will, over a small number of developments. And that is in this economy of scale.

With arithmetic it is about £40,000 more per dwelling house when you take in some of these extra burdens of a smaller scale development over a larger one. And that is where we have got the affordable housing as detained in the bill, can't remember if it was Tuesday night or Wednesday. Instead we just need to drag out the simple truth. The smaller schemes that affects viability and viability is a significant challenge to getting the building. The only way we can have disproportionate effect that would make it virtual and we would have more choice with speed delivery.

And it would increase the liquidity in local economies that would pay a significant part of getting printing building the economy working.
17:12
17:13
17:14
17:15
17:16
17:17
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

that debate earlier in other groups. I thought everybody was going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought everybody was going to be in favour of this. I would like be in favour of this. I would like to begin by thanking Lord Banner for tabling amendment 166 and for bringing this important issue before the House. The principle of proportionality deserves to stand alone in this debate, for it goes directly to the heart of the speed, the efficiency and accuracy of our planning system. As ever my noble friend has presented the case with his customary clarity and intellect and weight and I thank him for that.

You show not only that this principle is desirable, but that it is essential. His amendment would embed proportionality firmly within the planning process, giving decision-makers, applicants, consultees and indeed the court's confidence that less can sometimes be more. Allowing for decision- makers that is sharper in focus and public participation, that is clearer and more effective. This is I accept attack complicated clause, but it is also a vital one. At its core it states that the information and evidence required to determine any planning application must be proportionate to the real issues at stake.

Taking into account decisions already made and plan making stage and recognising where issues can be proportionately dealt with later. Whether through planning conditions, whether through obligations or through other forms of regulation. It is important to be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not dilutes or weaken the responsibility of local planning authorities to justify their decisions, particularly when refusing or withholding planning permission. Rather it ensures the planning does not become mired in an endless accumulation of unnecessary reports, assessments and duplications that add little value but cause delay and frustration.

That is why this apparently technical definition is in fact a deeply needed reform. It is a practical safeguard against the system that too often risks becoming paralysed by its own complexity. If we are serious about unblocking progress, about enabling the timely delivery of new homes 1.5 million of them in the next 3.5 to four years and with them the wide infrastructure and investment our communities require in principle such as assess must be at the heart of a modern planning system.

Government would do well to accept this amendment, in doing so they would signal that they are not just merely managing the process but are serious about reforming it. Serious about tackling the barriers that hold us back and serious about delivering the homes and the growth this country so urgently needs.
17:20
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I tend to Amendment 163's regarding proportionality and the planning system, ably moved by Lord Banner. I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment it seeks to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the courts confidence that in the planning system less can be more. We agree with the sentiment. If we are to meet the 1.5 million homes target as Baroness Scott has just outlined, the planning system needs to operate more effectively and with greater certainty. Of course the problem here is what the Lord Banner described as reality and pragmatism, , , one , one woman's , one woman's reality , one woman's reality and , one woman's reality and pragmatism would be somebody else's dystopian nightmare.

We do have to be a bit careful about how we move forward we all know that planning has got much more complex and litigious which has led many local planning authorities to take a precautionary approach when preparing local plans and when dealing with planning applications. This is why we also want to see a more proportionate approach to planning. However, this is where we unfortunately disagree with the noble Lord, we feel that introducing a new statutory principle of proportionality across all of planning is not the way to achieve this.

This itself will introduce new legal tests which is more opportunities for legal challenge and grounds for disagreements, points made by Baroness Neville- Rolfe and my noble friend Baronesses Andrews. Instead we believe it's better to promote proportionality through national planning and by looking at specific opportunities to streamline procedures through regulatory reform. This bill already includes important reforms to achieve this including the nationally significant infrastructure project reforms and the creation of the nature restoration fund. I would add in response to Baroness Neville-Rolfe issues about SME builders and how to support them is under very serious consideration including the large package of financial support the government has already announced but we will continue to consider what more might be done in that regard.

We also doing much more outside the bill, for example scaled back the role of statutory consultees through our review of those bodies, or our review of those bodies, or examining whether there should be a new media development category were policy and regulatory requirements would be more proportionate as we recently set out in our site thresholds working paper. For the reasons I set out I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I thank the Minister for her comments and it's encouraging that we share the overall objective even if we part company for now and how if we part company for now and how to achieve the objective of proportionate streamline decision- making. I would just like to come back in a couple of points. In
17:23
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
relation to legal risk first point made both by the Minister and Baroness Andrews Baroness Pinnock was the definition, would there be ambiguity in what the principal means. I suggest not because it set out in terms an subclause for with the ability of the Secretary of the ability of the Secretary of State to give statutory guidance. May be that language could be approved but I'm encouraged -- encourage the government to continue helpful discussions we had outside the chamber whether that risk may be reduced.

In any case, given that the interpretive duty and principal is to interpret all planning laws and proportionate, pragmatic way. The overall net effect of this amendment would be to reduce legal risk as in any judiciary context if somebody came along arguing for securely restrictive precautionary interpretation, the court would have neon lights messaging from Parliament that the court should take a less owner is less prescriptive approach which is bound overall to reduce the success rate of judicial reviews in the planning context.

This will reduce legal risk rather than increase it. The stress test of that is that the PDF he represents SMEs importantly, so those who, those developers who would be particularly affected by increased legal costs where they to arise, they are very emphatically if that's one amendment of all those they are most emphatic on, there you as it would be helpful. It is an amendment, I will pursue, at report stage but for now I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Abundance by leave withdrawn amendment 167 not need. 168 not amendment 167 not need. 168 not moved. -- Amendment. We now come to amendment 169 after clause 50, Lord Banner.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Banner. I write to speak in relation to amendment once nine in this next amendment once nine in this next group. This amendment seeks to mitigate the effect of the Supreme mitigate the effect of the Supreme Court's judgement in a case called Court's judgement in a case called Hillside, I should at the outside -- outset the current interest I was leading counsel in Hillside I'll be no longer retained by the party in question. It's highly technical amendment really important. I will do my best to for the record do my best to for the record summarise the problem though the Minister I have had discussions and Minister I have had discussions and I know the noble Lady is aware of the issue.

Large developments, the most important ones for the growth most important ones for the growth most important ones for the growth of this country needs, urban regeneration schemes, new settlements, large urban extensions and the like and infrastructure, they can take many years quite often they can take many years quite often decades to build out. Over that time it is almost inevitable that some of the details of the later phases will need by the timeget built out to take change and adapt to evolving needs, to things that have changed in the economy, in our ways of life since the original tanning permission was granted.

To put a bit of flash on that, for example a mixed-use urban extension might have offices the later phase which can no longer be filled due to the post- COVID shift working from home which couldn't have been foreseen at the time of the original outline permission was granted. Maybe propose that to swap out those offices which would simply be a white elephant for last mile logistics which is a sector the need for which has increased in the same period. Or where a hotel planned for a later phase is no longer viable because of changes in tourist buttons and there is a greater need buttons and there is a greater need for a care home instead.

Very real example and well-known one is the largest outline permission this countries, the waters regeneration in the docklands, the planning permissions that was granted in 2011 and the city Council on the record indicated that would be three decades planning permission to build out. During the currency of that development, need and opportunity was identified to relocate Everton football club to its amazing new stadium which opened only a few weeks ago. What happened was therefore that the development had to be rejigged so as to accommodate that stadium.

For various reasons applying for a new site wide planning permission in circumstances where there has been a need to adapt and change in relation to evolving circumstances is not practical commits to owners in terms of the evidence-based because you need new site wide DIA for example, is too expensive for that reason and due to the cost of planning the useful site wide permissions the large-scale development, and importantly is to slow, everything would have to be reappraised, you have to do the surveys which can only take place in certain times of the year, even relation to those elements that are changing as the site wide second permission applied to the whole.

Therefore a widespread practice has developed in the planning field, what is often called drop-in or stand-alone permissions. The tanning application red line is drawn not around the whole site area, but around the areas going to change, one example I gave, you draw the line around the area labelled offices, not the hold of element. You then applied to swap particular development within that stand-alone planning permission area. The local authority would then consider the planning merits of the change going on in that stand-alone area without having to reappraise everything.

The development would have to make a good change case of the change and if it didn't it would be allowed, if it did which routinely has happened then the change will be authorised, and the effect would be the permission is granted, the change will take effect pursuant to the stand-alone permission, so the area of the offices with cover logistics in the example I gave, the remainder of the wider development would proceed unchanged under the original site wide permission. The Supreme Court in the Hillside case has drastically affected this practice.

The legal principle that the Supreme Court has enshrined is that if implementing a later stand-alone permission has the effect that it's now physically impossible in a material way to build out the site wide permission in its entirety, then the site wide permission can no longer be relied upon for any future development that is authorised but no longer built, so the residual site wide permission is essentially lost. Very profound consequences. There are sometimes workarounds, but they are incomplete and even where they do exist they can be uncertain, risky, cumbersome, slow and costly.

To give a sense of the magnitude of this problem, since the Hillside judgement in late 2022 I would estimate I have written tween three and 400 opinions on how to work around Hillside, so the one person is going to lose out on this amendment is me in fact. This amendment would clear up the uncertainty and provide a clear route through full stop I'm not wedded to the precise drafting if the Minister and her officials can consider it to be approved, I'm expecting the Minister will say the government recognises the difficulty presented by Hillside, but finding a solution to it is very complex matter which requires detailed consideration and so it is.

But it is with respect to us all the government and Parliament's job to grapple with those complexities and come up with a workable solution In that context I would point out that this bill is in fact the second piece of planning legislation to come before Parliament since the hillside judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court levelling of the regeneration being the first. And I do fear that if we do not come up with a solution to hillside the context of this bill the Government and Parliament's availability will diminish the planning and development sector because it will see us at the second time of asking still unable to come up to a solution which is a really widespread problem and crying out for an answer.

I picked him. Wye amendment proposed after close 32 inserted following new clause as printed in the Marshall list. printed in the Marshall list.
17:31
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to my Noble Friend for raising this issue to amendment 169 was not the last point he made, this is the second piece of planning legislation since the hillside judgement of 2022. The earlier piece of legislation was the 2023 levelling up and for will stop my Noble Friend of course was not in your Lordships house at the time of consideration of that bill. He will no doubt have noted that Levelling no doubt have noted that Levelling Up and Regeneration Act in section 110 provides for the insertion of a new section 70 3B into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The purpose of which is to say that material variations effectively are permitted as long as they are not substantially different from the original permission. And reading that legislation one tell him that during the course of the debate the levelling up of the regeneration but I introduced the original amendment for the purpose of which to restore the Lord to the Pilkington principle, effectively that and overlapping permissions would be lawful as long as the subsequent permission sought did not render the original permission no longer physically capable of being implemented.

And the Government did not accept that the Noble Lady the Minister on the frontbench made the call and did not accept that but did accept that they should legislate, and so there is a difference between what is in the section 110 and the Pilkington principle. I think there are, in practice, quite a lot of cases where the permission that is sought does not render the original permission incapable, but actually would substantially amend the original permission.

But would not meet the narrow test of being not substantially different from the original permission. It was not what original permission. It was not what I was looking for property was a considerable it was considerable progress in the right direction. And it was important because a judgement subsequent to hillside as my Noble Friend will recall said that the original planning permissions in these cases were not severable. So you can't go in, take some part of an original permission and amend it.

Entry rest of the permission as being valid. The whole permission needed to be sought all over again. Which is exactly what has caused the problem which might Noble Friend, a substantial part of the problem my Noble Friend has benefited from a professional sense. Because there are so many such permissions that would otherwise have two be sought all over again. So, I with my Noble Friend, I agree, something more needs to be done. I happen not to agree with his drafting for amendment 169 in that I think we would be better off saying that as overlapping permissions where the later permission does not render the original permission wholly incapable of being implemented, it would remain lovely, otherwise you do run the risk of inconsistent overlapping planning permissions, and that is not the place we wish to get to.

I think it would also be entirely helpful if the amendment that would be introduced would be one that would make it clear that for the purposes of this committee original planning permission is severable. You can have a drop in permission. So, I hope Mike Noble Friend would agree with all that, but more to the point I hope that Ministers will agree that we have not solved this problem. We have particularly not solve the problems in section 110 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act that has not been brought into force.

So, the first question is, force. So, the first question is, and I think and I hope it is the Governments intention I think I have asked this question before and had a positive and said that it is the Governments intention to bring section 110 into force. I hope that can be done soon. But at the same time can I suggest that my Noble Friend does come back to this issue at report, and perhaps bring this amendment that would be capable of amending the new 70 3B to restore the Pilkington principle and planning commissions that would otherwise be related to the same overall redline, as it were, to be severed for the principle of material change and planning permissions.
17:36
17:39
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
, one of the great benefits of being , one of the great benefits of being in your chips houses everyday is a school day. You learn something everyday. I had no idea there was anything like a reverse declaration of interest which I think the Noble Lord banner just made in saying he Lord banner just made in saying he is going to lose out if this is going to lose out if this amendment was taken into account. This is a very highly technical amendment and I am very grateful to the Noble Lord and certainly the Noble Lord Baroness Scott, so for Noble Lord Baroness Scott, so for his explanations of the background to the case and setting it in context which made it a little easier to understand.

And I and very grateful to the amendments about this hillside Supreme Court this hillside Supreme Court judgement. Turning first to judgement. Turning first to amendments 169 and 185 SB as I said, a technical but important amendment a technical but important amendment overlapping consents. Amendment 1696 to address the implications of the hillside judgement in relation to hillside judgement in relation to overlapping planning permissions. It seeks, in particular, to enable the carrying out of the development under initial permission when under initial permission when overlapping permission has been implemented, making it physically implemented, making it physically impossible for the first permission to be carried out.

Amendment 185 SB to be carried out. Amendment 185 SB by my Noble Friend Lord Hunt focuses on and overlapping planning permission and development consent orders. The Government recognises that the hillside judgement and subsequent court decisions have caused concerns across the development sector. The Noble Lord was kind enough to send me some of the articles that have written since setting out what problems it is causing. They have made it more challenging to use the practice of drop in permissions to deal with changes in development proposals and plots on large-scale and commercial development in response to changing circumstances.

There have been concerns about the implications for the implementation of developing consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure objects were planning permissions have been used to deal with minor variations. Want to ensure that large-scale variations where they relate to change our able to secure the changes inappropriate way and we are not unfortunately persuaded that amendment 169 is the solution to hillside for overlapping planning permissions. We believe it is too broad in scope and we must be absolutely sure that it would not undermine the integrity of the planning system.

The long-standing principle that hillside endorsed, mainly it is unlawful to carried this out when another permission exit physically unlawful. Decisions are made on the entire developing proposal and this would allow developers to pick and choose what parts of the approved development they want to implement when they have a choice. Similarly, we need to consider carefully the implications of legislating to deal with overlapping planning permissions and developing consent orders in general terms. While I understand the desire for certainty, there is more flexible to develop movement consent order to deal with the overlap with planning permissions.

That said, I do want to emphasise, again, as the Government was committed to ensure the planning system supports growth, we are keen to ensure the right develop movement can be consented and implement it quickly. We want to ensure there is sufficient flexibility to deal with change to large-scale developments. Clause 11 of the bill already provides a framework for a more streamlined and proportionate process change development consent orders. But we also want to look at how the framework can be improved with planning permissions and we would welcome further discussions with their Lordships in the wider sector on this matter and I'm grateful to the Noble Lord repointing out the issues around section 110 in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act.

I think I need to revisit the correspondences I have had with him to refresh what we said about that. His point about restoring the principle is noted and I am sure we will come back to this. I thank my Noble Friend Lord Hunt tabling amendment to 27F and for his continued commitment to energy security objectives. This amendment seeks to create a statutory timeframe of 10 weeks decisions to be made compulsory purchase orders laid under the electricity act 1989 so the Government is fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030 and it is clear that rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission.

We recognise the importance of providing all parties with a clear understanding to support prop project planning decisions and we do not consider the imposition of statutory guidelines for processing applications to be the best way to achieve this. The process required for CPO varies pending on the features of each case which means different types of case require different types of skills. Indeed, guidance from HC LG already includes indicative timings for the CEOs in England. This range from four to 24 weeks depending on the case and the process required.

Using shorter deadlines to speed up the process is like passing a law that outlaws any The motorway full so that might sound appealing, especially if you have to travel on the M25 quite regularly like me. But something needs to be done more quickly, one must first find out what other things to take time and then address those issues, otherwise well simply legislating in this way we do it faster. I know that as a former Mr responsible for planning decisions themselves my Noble Friend will recognise what is really needed our system reforms and simplifications and more efficient digital case handling system and more capacity and I am delighted to confirm that the Government is already delivering on all three of those things.

They are treating the disease, not just the symptom. I have listened carefully to all of the arguments put forward today and I can assure Noble Lord that we share the aim of ensuring that all processes, CPOs, proceed as expeditiously as possible. I hope for these reasons noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Look I think the Noble Lady for
17:44
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
her comment and if I get hit by a bus on the way home that is likely due to the strikes might legacy in this House will be constant due to my first declaration was to put it, in response to what the Noble Lady the Minister and others have said, it seems that we have limited across the committee across the House the hillside does cause a case for legislative legislation first it is also around 70 3B even when it is enacted presumed to be levelling of the regeneration act, it may help in some cases, probably about one third or more than that, so there is a need to go further and this is the drafting.

What is the right word solution? Very much to say very much not the particular wedding of my amendments, it is a challenge and I hope that collectively we can come up with something that does carry the overall consent of this House and I look forward to working with the Noble Lady to Mr and my Noble Friend Baroness Scott to find the words that will achieve the solution that we need and with that I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? In that this amendment be withdrawn? In Buenos Aires, Filey, withdrawn. If Oracle the next amendment just to help with the committee I would act point out that amendment 185K and point out that amendment 185K and 220 in this group in the name of the noble Baroness appear to be identical and I sure she will identical and I sure she will explain that to the committee when she makes her contribution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she makes her contribution. I rise to speak to my amendment
17:46
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
and I think if Lord Bannister reverse declarations I should probably check I think I did at this stage but just to ensure my registers and a director of Pearson planet, although I'm speaking entirely independent of them in this and all of the amendments on this bill. On my amendment it's a pleasure to kickstart this group and speak to 170. I like to express my gratitude Lord Parkinson who sadly isn't able to speak to this amendment today, but he has assured me that he continues to support this despite his absence I'm grateful to all other noble Lords have spoken to me of late to support me on this and the external organisations that have been in touch as well.

This amendment has a series of parts to it. First I'd like to set out the context of what I feel something is necessary before talking through what the amendment seeks to do. This amendment relates to two aspects of planning law which local authority receives funds through development. These are section 106 which is part of the planning law that allows councils to negotiate money from developers in exchange for granting planning permission to offset the impact of new development and fund specific improvements in the area whilst the Community Infrastructure Levy is a charge for infrastructure in the border area full stop for background first became interested in support of these forms of investment many moons ago when I had, I worked in London City Hall alongside sadly another noble friend who was not with us Lord Lister.

What was amazing to see is alongside many other developed and so trust the capital things that have been delivered through this funding and in particular one of the things I was struck by was the work taking place in Vauxhall Limehouse an extension to the Northern line. And how the unlock the wider development in that area. I was blown away only recently when the spell started when someone mentioned in passing that last year that home builders Federation did an analysis in which they calculated there is around £8 billion worth of unspent money sat local authorities across England and.

I say that again, £8 billion. I know in today's age monopoly money may not mean much to some it means a hell of a lot to me, but of that money there is money for affordable which could unlock around 11,000 affordable home, an estimated £1 billion for highways and roads and just dream of all those leaflets that we could have candidates pointing at the potholes being filled. This £2 billion to go towards the schools and is the estimated £850 million which could go towards recreation players.

In the same report HP FS to make the total amount of unspent section 106 contributions has more than doubled since the year before suggesting a growing backlog of undelivered infrastructure. I think everyone accepted obviously does take time to deliver and build but is worth noting that around 1/4 of the unsprung contributions have been held for more than five years and some councils admitted of how holding onto funds for more than 20 years. How do they know this? How did HBS get this, is it easy for any of us together? It's not really and that's another part of the problem.

that's another part of the problem. As I'm sure the Minister will say, the info structure funding statement which each receiving authority is to publish annually, much of the information is mandatory and some information is advisory for top but it could be clearer and more transparent so the statistics I've used earlier where there is a used earlier where there is a breakdown doesn't have to be through the process which the HBS had to go through full stop the same goes for how long the funds been held and why there has been a delay in today's data age there's no reason why this information can be right readily accessible and available.

Turning to the amendment specifically you'll see has a number of parts tackling the challenges I've laid out first section relates to transparency and to ensure the data published the independent statement has even more information which local authority will already have setting out the purpose of the original funding, the amount outspent the reason for it not being spent. If there's readily accessible information the public can see what is expected and not, after putting effort into understanding what is happening and why.

This in itself can help local authority deliver, but I want to explore what more can be done. The second part of my amendment relates to delivery and the possibility that the Department deems the local authority hasn't done enough to attempt to deliver this improvement the Secretary of State has the ability to acquire an authority that require an authority to get on-the- job release make steps to deliver what's been agreed. I see you modelling -- nodding I will come in a moment bonus connect is Calabria sport already.

This in itself isn't radical is says they should be doing what they said they would do and for the public it means there is additional accountability. Finally the third part of the amendment says that if the developer funds haven't been spent during the previously agreed timeline then the local authority must contact the developer to ensure there is a possibility to work together to deliver the service. I did contemplate when drafting this including another line in the amendment which would effectively mean that if local authority had failed to deliver the agreed improvement during the agreed timeline the funds would be handed back to the developer.

I know this has happened in some circumstances, that's happening in itself, but I took this at the end because ultimately I thought it would be the local communities would be losing out from the benefit and am afraid they would also let the local authority off the hook as something which Baroness Pinnock would agree with her amendment to 20, and pleased to see Lord Best and my good friend Lord Lansley, I think this is something touched on top two days ago when we last convened the spell.

He made the very brainy and customary brainy observation that ultimately this is a contract, contract between the developer and I think it's something also the National Audit Office of looked at in only the last couple of months. I want to be clear that by moving this amendment this is not because I want us to debate the virtue or otherwise of such measures, are not suggesting to change how these changes are levied or indeed should be reduced or made higher. I think most would say we need to be acutely aware of not making development so burdensome and costly that doesn't happen even less than ideas.

Merely trying to find a better way to deliver what is the existing law and from every aspect this seems to be an absolute no-brainer. For example many developers would say they want some thing like this, they want people to know I'm sure that they want not just for the development they built but also that the contributing something in addition to the community the local people also want it because rather than sitting on a council they perhaps don't even know about, they are gathering dust on someone else's account it's actually, the local people will benefit from it.

While some may think it does put additional pressures on the local authority to deliver when they are as we all know facing many pressures, obviously respect everyone who works in a local authority from the leader down and just look around the chamber to recognise on all Front Benches that the importance of local authorities. These funds should be spent as they were intended and can't be right in my mind that up and down the land this £8 billion sat there when it's meant to be for the people.

Without adequate information is not possible to ascertain why the money hasn't been spent in every location, some have been made clear that it's for a multitude of reasons. Should be some pressure on an authority to deliver and if it they don't they should be compelled to go back to the developer to explore what else is possible to make it happen. I'm not a suggesting those are the developer should therefore contribute even more again, the authority should have secured enough to deliver in the first place.

It may be that improvement needs to be perhaps through agreement revised all the developing can deliver something in collaboration with the authority or the intended amenity in itself is no longer required as previously intended. Whilst that money is in limbo, whilst it's not being spent, it isn't also delivering for the people who felt the impact of the original development in the first place. I start from a position at greatest good, development is good, we need good quality homes, more business, the economy to grow.

I do not see growth as a bad thing but at the same time we must be able to say that growth is good and we need it, but we need the people to see the benefit. Yes there will be more people buying things in shops, there will be more people milling around, more money going into the general pop, but equally those people in a community will have people with the development that was there first, and as a result people possibly will be concerned about the extra demands on the local services make the trains may be busier, the roads may be busier.

A second reading nearly everyone said they support growth and development, in my view, if the government is serious about changing the public's views on growth and development in giving communities better visibility and the benefits of that development is essential. This recent polling which I was looking at the other day from the last three days from public first Support development in their area, some of the reasons why people support development is because they want to see regeneration, jobs, investment, more shops and amenities by far the biggest reason people opposed development in an area is concerned about pressures on local infrastructure, that's what I'm trying to fix.

This amendment isn't political, it certainly not party political. I think it helped the government because they would be up to demonstrate that greatest good and shows that the government is on the side of the people. It is an owner us because not putting anything additional onto a developer, it's not stopping development, in fact I think it will be good for development. It will improve accountability and transparency. Because of that I've wanted to be there for the people to deliver what they expect and what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they deserve and with that I beg to move. Amendment proposed, articles 50

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, articles 50 to insert the following new clause as printed in the marshalled List.
17:57
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed in the marshalled List. Amendments 185K and 185L and 185L218 to 20 in my name follow well 185L218 to 20 in my name follow well from the amendments introduced by Lord Gascoigne. With which these benches fully support. He is absolutely right in highlighting the importance of community benefits coming from developments and equally ensuring that they are delivered. ensuring that they are delivered. The amendments in my name add to that, that the noble Lord has just introduced.

Amendment 185K and ill insert new clauses after clause 52 which provides a duty to compel the complete local infrastructure. 185K seeks to make legally binding agreements associated with Development Consent Order or SDS is. Community benefits of the elements of a consent order that will be the last stage almost inevitably of implementation of the scheme. Without legal enforcement it is impossible -- possible for developers to significantly delay that implementation. Amendment 185K empowers local planning authorities to resist such moves and ensure that community benefits are fulfilled.

185L provides a further safeguard for local communities where a developer has signed a section 106 agreement for the provision of a local amenity full stop if the amenity has not been built then the relevant local authority will have the power under this amendment to take over the responsibility but crucially will not be able to use that land for any other purpose, and neither will the developer. Those are in relation to Development Consent Orders or SDS is.

Amendment 218 and 220 however are later in the bill and are related to the parts of the bill that refer to compulsive purchase orders. Hence although they are identical wording they relate to are identical wording they relate to a different part of the bill. Amendment 218 inserts a new clause after clause 106 which as I said relate to comprehensive, sorry compulsory development orders. It requires the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of land value capture.

Land value capture is a policy concept and a way of raising funds where public authorities recover the unmanned increase in land value often created by public investment in infrastructure or planning permissions and reinvest it into public services and projects. This ensures that the benefits of public development, and I emphasise public development, are shared with the community rather than solely occurring to the private landowners. That seems fair to me -- accruing. That seems fair to me -- accruing.

Value capture, the view that is an amendment to 18 will investigate different methods of increasing the land value and various parts of the world use this mechanism and use different ways of setting the proportionate than they should be, proportionate than they should be, captured back into public benefit. And the problem is as the number Lord Gascoigne has said to often the Lord Gascoigne has said to often the experience of people associated with growth, the concept of growth is there is nothing in it for them, so land value capture enables public infrastructure for the benefit of the national economy which is hosted by a community that will have no local compensation in the form of local benefits unless land value capture is introduced.

Now, amendment to 20 is just about the duty to complete that. As it is with the consent order that I referred to earlier. And the wording is the same because the intention is the same, but under a different part. So, the whole point of the amendments in my name related to different clauses of the bill, as are all designed to enhance further the amendment in the name of the number Lord Gascoigne for the purpose of his amendment to ensure that section 1 or six is properly spent.

And this one is to give legal binding to that, and to empower local authorities to take on that provision if so needed, and to also introduce the idea of land value capture. So, I do hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will respond well to this series of amendments on community benefits from growth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I relinquished my position in the queue of amendments
18:03
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
position in the queue of amendments as it seemed obvious that Baroness Kinnock should follow Lord Gascoigne's. I am rising to speak to amendment 184 which I think the Baroness Coffey described that group 5 was the odds and sods group. I think that this should probably have gone in that as it applies to something rather different, but here we are. So, I rise to speak to my amendment 184 which relates to what is becoming known as steppingstone housing provision.

As a tool to combat youth homelessness across the UK and the amendment seeks an exemption to national space standards to facilitate this particular kind of housing more quickly and with minimum stress than it appears to be to achieve it at the moment. My Lords, we all know that youth homelessness Blacks the nation. With almost 120,000 young people that as people between the people that as people between the ages of 16 and 24, asking their councils for help because they were homeless, or at risk of homelessness according to the youth homelessness charity centrepoint.

Now, many colleagues will be familiar with centrepoint. The charity whose efforts to address youth homelessness started out as many do as a single night shelter in the late 1960s. And whose work with young people has spanned the last 50 years. Part of the greatest challenges to ending youth homelessness is a lack of genuinely affordable housing options for young people. Especially those who are ready to move on from a hostel or temporary accommodation to living independently. And I think that one of the key differences for young homeless pay is they are not yet entrenched in that world.

They are in the circumstances that they are in with the right sort of support they actually could and do manage to go on to lead stable and fulfilling lives. The sooner we get them, the better. So, unfortunately, thousands of people are trapped in the cycle of emergency housing, unemployment, and benefit reliance. And are prevented from becoming independent adults who can fulfil their potential. Along with other charities in the same situation move on accommodation is the big issue for homelessness charities.

Centrepoint has delivered an innovative housing model called steppingstone accommodation because it is just that. Transitional accommodation solutions which provide the independence, the agency, and the space for young people at risk of homelessness to realise their potential. Now, as part of this model, centrepoint is building steppingstone houses at 24 m. For young people at risk of becoming homeless. Now, the problem is, which the amendment is trying to solve, and I hope that the Noble Lady the Minister might empathise with the problem, but may then come up with a better solution, is that this housing is below the national space standard of 37 m for one- bedroom dwellings.

Councils are desperate for more housing. The original application of the space standard has meant that planning applications have actually been bogged down for years, in this case, for years. And I know that we all get asked to do amendment and we think of whether we will take the member before I decided to take this on I actually went to see this accommodation. And I found myself in Peckham where I have not been for many decades when I taught their briefly many moons ago.

And quite frankly I was blown away. I can use lovely shower to the left, a bedroom area, wardrobe, little kitchen area with the table and Chair. And to them you know the people there, they were just safe and pleased to be there. I know that many colleagues are wary of reducing space standards, as am I, but this is for very good reason. And looking for a way to be able to accept this. Because noble Lords will know why they need to do this.

I am sure you are already a step ahead of me. It is actually to do with cost. If you make them a little bit smaller you make them a little bit smaller you can make more. Because the model is actually about getting these young people into work and independent. So, the rent, unlike an RSL that might have rent according to what the Government allows comedy set rent according to the individual young persons job, so you can have a situation in which there is a house where they are paying different rent because according to their ability to pay, it is about getting a person to be more responsible and to eventually move in to ordinary accommodation.

And, of course, if you can't guarantee what your rent is going to be, it does make it trickier. There are many good reasons with regard to rent and income and I do not want to go into that now, but we would be prepared to meet with the noble minister to explain that further, but that is key. Size is key to them being able to do that. And that young people in the starter homes are quite clear a few more metres would make a difference, quite frankly.

Their homes are for single young people living on their own for the first time who need a manageable home that is economic to run. And they are, indeed, that, with fuel efficiency and everything else. It gets the young people off benefits and into work and to make a positive contribution. Now, centrepoint and others have proved that this is viable. And that you can have a transformative impact helping people escape homelessness for good. A targeted exception, and that is the key, should make the planning process easier for charities, so they can build more homes more quickly for young people and help towards ending the housing crisis.

And I would value an opportunity to bring centrepoint offices to discuss this model and how it works in practice and to proffer a visit to anyone who felt it appropriate. But noble Lords let me leave you with the words of one of the young people in the House. Steppingstone not only provided me with a safe place to sleep, but also offered me a sense of hope and dignity. Hope and dignity. During a challenging time in my life. Thanks to your assistance, I am now on a path towards stability and independence.
18:11
Lord St John of Bletso Portrait Lord St John of Bletso (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise very briefly in support of the noble Baroness Thornhill's amendment 184 on steppingstone accommodation. This extremely worthwhile amendment, as she has already mentioned, promotes transitional housing solutions for those at risk of homelessness. As well as creating incentives for young people to stay in work with financial independence which also offer quality affordable accommodation. I have been a long- term supporter of the charity centrepoint which has done incredible work in providing solutions for those that have been unfortunate enough to be homeless.

And this steppingstone homeless initiative has delivered self- contained and high quality homes for young people and with rent capped as the Noble Lord mentioned that one third of their income. So, like the noble Baroness, I have also been to see the homes in Peckham and was enormously moved us to the cost- effective transitional housing solution has the advantage of not just supporting financials independence but also reducing reliance on benefits but, most importantly, helping young people to build a stable future.

This provides not just a roof but also services such as helping residents with unemployment, how to get over the problems of unemployment, as well as providing education and other life skills. The noble Baroness Lady Thornhill covered the obstacles of scaling this model nationally and the inflexible application of the national described spacing standards as all of these abbreviations in DSS which currently blocks these smart schemes from expanding. She mentioned about the limitation of 34 m. These pods, I would call them, these accommodations, 24 m.

None of the children complained about this lack of space. And this amendment does provide checks and balances for the limited and carefully defined exemption for accredited steppingstone accommodation for young people while ensuring, and I do stress, ensuring that they are still robust safeguards around this and as a traditional solution for two to five years, helping young children to settle into work and live independently and save money, it really does make a massive difference to them moving on with their careers.

The limited tenure of two to five years provides that push factor that makes steppingstone homes a sustainable source of affordable housing. And these are several, this is not just centrepoint but there are several other charities that are trying to move similar initiatives, but for this reason I warmly support this amendment which, effectively provides a crucial piece of the puzzle of tackling homelessness.
18:14
18:15
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm also on amendment 1842 conclude the debate on that. I rise to speak to amendment 184 in the name of Lady Thornhill who has presented it in such an engaging way I hardly feel it worth any of the rest of us saying anything. Nobly supported by my noble friend Lord St John and Lord Banner. Centrepoint com the promoter of this amendment, is a highly respected homelessness charity and its ideas for creating steppingstones accommodation our image innovative and imaginative but when asked to support this amendment I raised three queries.

I received some helpful responses which I share with your lordships as others may have had similar thoughts to mind. First I noted that the scheme depended on young renters moving on to permanent homes in due course to make way for the next young person. But what if the acute shortages of affordable made this move on impossible? The clogging up of short-term supported housing has been the undoing of many earlier such projects. In response I was assured that these tenants would be supported by visiting tenancy sustainment worker would not only help the young people to pay their rent and maintain their home, but would help with move on options.

Second I pointed out that living in 24 square metres would not normally be regarded as tolerable. The national space standard for a flat is 37 square metres which is over 50% bigger. Was there a danger that this might be the thin end of the wedge leading to more exemptions from the norm over time? Experience of the abuse of permitted development rights for property conversions into tiny slums shows us where this might lead. In response it was pointed out that the circumstances in which this amendment would permit the much reduced space standards exclusively for otherwise homeless young people were very tightly circumscribed, defined and limited and I note they give the seal of approval from Lord Banner.

Finally I wondered if it would be more companionable for the young renters to be in a shared flat with three or four others with their own room but sharing a bathroom and kitchen diner. The reply was very convincing, Centrepoint had consulted widely with young people and those who spent their time in local authorities supported housing with communal areas and shared facilities and they wanted space was entirely their own responsibility. The small development of 12 to 36 studio flats would mean young people living alongside each other while It would be up to local planning authorities as to whether any steppingstone schemes emerged, but this amendment would make them a possibility.

I think Centrepoint and maybe other charities should be able to take their model forward to! Stage, no doubt with further pilot schemes to test the concept, and with these comments I support the amendment and look forward to the response of the Minister.
18:19
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I'm delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the committee's deliberations may I say committee's deliberations may I say at the outset I think the Baroness Thornhill and Lord Banner's amendment 184 is eminently sensible and there does appear to be a strong consensus in its favour, therefore I hope the Minister not least my own Frontbench but also the Minister will give it a fair hearing and possibly support it because it does seem to be a great compromise.

I was very fortunate in serving the other place to support a very good charity called Hope into action with local churches banding together to buy residential properties for those in the most acute need and sometimes they were ex-offenders or people that were generally down on their luck economically, but I understand that is very much a niche activity and it's not possible to buy freehold outright therefore you do need this intermediate accommodation in order to give people a chance to get back on the employment or education ladder.

I strongly commend this that amendment. Principia like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. I'm old enough to remember when the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 got Royal Assent, I say from the outset I declare practically everyone declares this in this committee, I am another former vice president of the Local Government Association, although quite some time ago. And also a London Bor councillor. And I served on the planning committee. But it should be remembered that the purpose of section 106 was very much benign and supported by the community, it was essentially whether expenditure was necessary, whether it was direct and relevant to the planning application and whether it was proportionate.

It is absolutely the right thing to do to seek to ameliorate some of the impacts of residential development to provide community facilities such to provide community facilities such as schools, GP surgeries, community centres, transport infrastructure, not the sea there was a distinction between Community Infrastructure Levy and section 106, and of course when I was both a local member of Parliament and member of the borough council, those financial contributions made in support of affordable were very important and they did obviously make a big contribution to the provision of decent housing in our borough.

And in my constituency. The reason I think this is an immense excellent amendment is the fact that not all local authorities are the same. One of the frustrations of, unless you were focused every day on trying to were focused every day on trying to Of funding for section 106, when you have multiple stakeholders, multiple landowners, multiple local councillors, multiple council offices which often changed over a period of time is quite difficult to follow the money in terms of what was actually delivered.

You often find found in my experience that residential developments ended up with groups of homeowners or local residents who were very unhappy that for instance being members of a limited company and responsible for the management of the community areas, they didn't want to do that, they just wanted a children's playground they wanted a bus shelter robust route for instance will stop therefore their openness and transparency that this excellent very laudable amendment would give rise to would allow the distinction between authorities which are in a timely way putting much needed money into low the local communities, and those local authorities that are dragging their feet.

I accept there is a distinction between preparing a local and plan, a county structure plan, et cetera. That is much more of a legalistic exercise that has to be undertaken under various pieces of legislation. This is about keeping the faith and the trust of local people that you are interested in providing very good local services using what is effectively, public money. Therefore having the imperative of publishing the information on a regular basis allows you in real time to account for why you haven't spent that money, what priorities have changed and what the needs of the community as they evolve might be.

I can't really see that there would be a reason not to do this because irrespective of party in local government, whether it's independent, Liberal Democrat, reformed Conservative or Labour, I think that everyone, unless you're an Epsom than its ratepayers bizarrely. And everyone has an opportunity of making sure that money is effectively spent in a timely way. For that reason I would support the amendment I hope the Minister would, if she is going to reject the amendment, explain clearly why it's not possible to support it and incorporated into this bill because actually it's long overdue, it's what transparency campaigners in local government want, it's what local councils want, is probably even what planning officers want, clarity in terms of the expenditure and I think it's a very good development and hopefully will be something that the Minister, the noble Lady will support.
18:26
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to talk in support of Amendment 170 in the name of Lord Banner and... Lord Gascoigne sorry, Lord Banner is down there. As I indicated the previous group which is one confused I sat on the sill review some 10 years ago this PC some of you may know from the Restoration and Renewal programme and also gentlemen Andrew from the housebuilders Association way property got that £8 billion number from. When I was a council leader we had three councils who came together in the greater Norwich area and we were early adopters on sale, only the 12 area to do it and we pulled our sill blind to the administrative boundaries between us.

To really try make a step change with limited infrastructure that was delivered. Sadly following the publication of the sill review in 2017 few other areas joined the bandwagon in many areas now aren't in scope and they have section 106 will top in principle the Community Infrastructure Levy has much to commend it, it's quick simple clear and a lot more straightforward than section 106. There are some problems in one of the problems this sufficiency. We discovered on the review was that the amount of money generated by the CAL was probably somewhere like 20 2065% of the total instructor requirement that was aggregate aggravated by a large number of exemptions, self built homes, offices converted under permitted element to residences and so forth.

There was a further aggravating factor in that local authorities are permitted to borrow against future CIO receipts and they are against section 106, that made a significant harder to get to that significant harder to get to that big chunky infrastructure done. As a group of local authorities we created the section 123 list where we listed out all the things we expected CAL to fund and I remember this, sections and greening the structure, social and structure, education, highways and community facilities including libraries, over 400 lines populated this section 123 list which was published annually, big report server and could see what we plan to spend money on.

Of course I support completely the principle of amendment 170 but it doesn't go far enough because it isn't enough just to say whether so much money has been raised on this job and that's it, you got to balance it, not just with the money coming in what you plan to spend out on and also the cash flow. Because it is a simple truth that you raise the money and it is only 15%, the next work of the hardest worker is turning that 15% and leveraging it in with other sources of money possibly, with joint ventures and so forth, CIOs about financing infrastructure not just whining funding it.

Financing is putting it together, funding is just writing the cheque. I think it's really important that we help the public to understand and to see that essential difficulty. Time doesn't permit to show the ways in which we try do that but I think this amendment doesn't go far enough in the sense, we need to ensure that money coming in, section 123 list of the infra structure going out, financing and this is properly the most important thing that I think this amendment for short on, it doesn't set the cash flowing.

When you see this money going for 26, 27, 2028 and so forth two in a 10 year rolling. Because unless you do that, what you find out is just by publishing the amount of money raised this pressure to get the money out the door unless important projects with lower impact. That's where we found the difficulty. Also in having this more thoughtful five and 10 year rolling program which contains the income, expenditure and the cash flow, you give clarity to the development community.

So that if you wish and community. So that if you wish and it is sensible to do so, you can substitute investment in kind instead of an up cash payment and that can be very helpful because if a new school for example is on section 123 list and the development is obviously interesting the New School and it helps a large development but if the money isn't quite there just yet being open and honest and transparent in this more complete way makes it quite clear how schools can be financed by the how schools can be financed by the , I support the principle, it needs a five or 10 year program, so we publish a comprehensive annual report that includes all of the lines, the income and the outcome, but I would just make the observation that posting the balance is useful but it does not tell the story.

And that is really what we need it to do, we want to get the infrastructure built and also the public oversight. public oversight.
18:31
Baroness Andrews Portrait Baroness Andrews (Labour)
-
-
Following the intervention I have to say in another life that we had the privilege of taking the 2008 planning which introduced this in this House we had some very vigorous arguments. Not about the purpose but about the methodology. And I was very interested to hear what the Noble Lord was saying about the subsequent review. And with the support of the Frontbench now we are very proud that we were able, in fact, to never that additional money for the crucial infrastructure.

I do have some sympathy with the amendment because I think it is a confusing strategy in some respects and I would like to see local authorities getting greater credit for the transparency for what it is that the developers funds actually go into. So, while I would pay tribute to that earlier Government effort to raise these funds, I do actually have some support for greater transparency and clarity for the purpose of the developers as well as the authorities and communities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I grateful for the comment and I congratulate her taking legislation. Of course at the outset when you are Of course at the outset when you are taking this legislation through you would have contemplated that cell would have contemplated that cell was going to carry the lion's share of the cost. And sadly that never of the cost. And sadly that never turned out to be the case, so to a certain extent, those areas have ended up any worst situation where perhaps some have but we also have to have section 106 as well and I to have section 106 as well and I think that is a disappointment.

It has not really reached the promised has not really reached the promised that we all wanted because everything has got so much more everything has got so much more expensive. And, as I alluded to in my recent marks, the developers just give up with sales and you have got give up with sales and you have got to build it themselves. And actually in point of fact they are probably in point of fact they are probably best placed to build a school whilst they are on site, mobilised, the construction equipment all around construction equipment all around them.

And with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps forcing councils hindsight, perhaps forcing councils to build the school, they did not to build the school, they did not have some of that risk, I am getting off the point, I support the
18:35
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
amendment when we get to import stage it will be blessed. Wye the Noble Lord described amendment 184 Noble Lord described amendment 184 as compelling first and I would entirely agree with that. And in the entirely agree with that. And in the interest of time that is all I am going to say on that. I will just briefly speak to amendment 218, taking us back some time to the taking us back some time to the Noble Lady baroness that has already Noble Lady baroness that has already introduced the idea of having a review of land value capture.

No, I will be brief and I am going to will be brief and I am going to brandish the historical figure of this suggestion which is perhaps this suggestion which is perhaps made by the benches to my right made by the benches to my right because I will start by saying I because I will start by saying I agree with Winston Churchill. Which is not a phrase that I bring out very often, but I do in this particular context because I think I can quotes Winston from 1909 who said that landlords who happen to own a plot of land on the outskirts of the centre of one of our great of the centre of one of our great cities sit still and does nothing.

Roads are made, Streeter made, railway services are improved, electric light translating today, electric light translating today, electric trams glide swiftly to and electric trams glide swiftly to and fro, water is brought from 100 miles off in the mountains, while all the while the landlord sits still to not one of these improvements does that land become as it land monopoly contributes. And yet by everyone of them the value of the land is said to be enhanced. That is addressing exactly what the Noble Lady the issue that was identified back more than a century ago the issue that still exists and that we have not yet dealt with.

OK, I will not get that far in to the history. But I will declare an interest in the land value tax in the policy and one that I very happy to talk about at length, but I will not do that because this is not what this amendment does. At a think it's with thinking about the fact that the problem with how we tax land) A very long way. It was a Royal commission on the housing list setup in 1885. It was the first time that an inquiry had referred the land value taxation.

It was called site value rating there. And it is said this would be a better way to solve their housing crisis. These are issues with failing to solve for a very long time. Just my final point is that this amendment by itself does not deal with the crunching terrible elephant in the room issue of council tax. But it starts to provide the Government with a way forward to work on these issues. This is all regarded as too politically difficult, too challenging, too complicated to even explain and I know what it is like to try to explain land value, tax, in 30 seconds, it is a challenge.

35 years on from when council tax was created, it was an emergency crunch measure created by the Treasury after the critical disaster of this tax. It is a deeply regressive tax. Someone living in a home worth £100,000 pays a tax rate five times as high as someone £1 million property. Can the average net council tax only seven times higher than the top 10% of properties in the bottom 10%. So, this is something we have got to address, this amendment does not address all of that or even the bulk of it, but it just starts to show us into a space where we tackle some issues that desperately need to be tackled.
18:37
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we have already debated some complex topics at Committee stage at this bill and the issue certainly continues in that vein. Yes, maybe we need a review of the committee stages of the bill and I think my Noble Friend Lord Gascoigne for his amendment. And I agree with the spirit of his proposals, some greater transparency is positive. And most good authorities would have that information readily available, safer my own counsel I can phone up and I will get a spreadsheet of exactly how much each development has contributed.

But I would just like to say something in defence of the councils and the fact that there is a considerable sum so to speak sitting on the balance. And I know how difficult it is to get these big projects over the line, even a good secondary school can cost you 25 or 30 million. You will be reliant on 30 million. You will be reliant on four or five different and you will have to get the land and this will contain four or five or six years and if I go to the top this is an entirely different timescale, so we should not just look at the timescale, sorry, the quantum of money, we should actually look at how difficult it is to pull these sums together and get things going and I will come to Baroness Pinnock's amendment, the noble Baroness pin examined and now.

Where I think that this might address some of the timescale issues. The Noble Lady has raised a number of important issues particularly around the structure and agreements the use and protection of land set aside the services and the broader question of how the company might benefit and that land value has increased sharply. I do hope that the Government will reflect seriously on the principles raised and in that spirit I would like to put in a few questions to the noble Baroness the Minister which I hope she might be able to respond to today and if not if she could come back at a later time.

And firstly the effectiveness of the existing mechanisms, principally section 106 agreements with the community infrastructure ensuring that local communities actually receive the schools, the highways, the GP server shoots surgeries and others promised, too often we do hear of emissions being granted on the basis that there will be approved infrastructure. And that over time that is slowly whittled away and we find new housing without the infrastructure and communities having to cope with more traffic on the roads, more crowded GP surgeries, schools and so forth.

If residency is going up without that structure they were promised, they will lose confidence in the planning system, and therefore they will fight every single development, which some of us do find. We need to perform to get trust back in the system. Secondly, does the Minister agree there is a risk that the infrastructure commitments can in practice be watered down or renegotiated? Leaving communities without these services? Thirdly, under land value capture, does the Minster believe the current system allows sufficient benefit in rising land values to be shared with the wider public? Or does she seek the scope for reform as envisaged in amendment 218? Fourthly, will the Government commit to reviewing international examples of land value capture? For instance, models used in parts of Europe and Asia to see whether they are lessons that might be drawn from a UK context.

And, finally, how does the Government intend to balance the need to secure fair contributions for infrastructure and community benefit while ensuring the development is viable and attractive to investors. I appreciate that these are difficult issues, but it is important that we resolve them. Moving onto the noble Baroness Thornhill's amendment 148, this has raised a really important issue. We have a housing crisis and we need to look at all solutions that may resolve it. And I commend her for once again placing the needs of young people at the centre of our deliberations.

The question before us is a delicate and important one. It concerns whether planning authorities should be permitted to approve high quality transitional accommodation for young people, leaving supported housing or at the risk of homelessness in circumstances where the national space standards would otherwise disallow such provision must now, the case for doing so is strong. The housing crisis is not abstract. It is a real matter facing people today. Too many of them find themselves renting to life so far surfing returning to the parental home not because of choice but because there are no realistic alternatives.

And precisely this stage of life when young people should be gaining independence, putting down roots, building families, and contributing to the wider economy. Instead, they face barriers at every turn. We are all familiar with the macroeconomic challenges of the housing crisis that has appeased wages, a lack of genuinely affordable starter homes, and, in certain parts of the country, rents which are, frankly, extortionate. That is why the noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of steppingstone accommodation in fixable transitional models that can bridge the gap between institutional supported housing and permanent independence.

But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of the amendment, but I would also give a note of caution. Our standards were developed for good reason, they exist to prevent poor quality housing and rabbit hutch flat of homes that compromise health, dignity, and long-term durability. If we are to dis-incentivise such standards in some cases we must do so with clear safeguards in place. I urge that this amendment is taken forward.

It is accompanied by precise definitions, strict planning guidance, rigorous frameworks, to ensure genuine transitional high quality schemes that benefit from tax ability proposed.
18:44
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for this group of amendments relating to community info structure, land value capture, space standards for steppingstone accommodation. My Lords, I turn first to amendment 170 from the Noble Lord Gascoigne which would impose new reporting requirements and local planning authorities and introduce new mechanisms to ensure that works funded through developer contributions are delivered. The stories about the delivery of section 106 are legendary. My two favourite examples were. In an area that did not have a bus route which was wonderful and a playground that had not been built to safety standards that would never allow it to be opened, so it never opened and a closed again before it even opened.

We get some nonsense stories like this and that is not acceptable and I accept that. The Government recognises and supports the aims of the amendment to ensure that the communities do properly benefit from contributions secured element in a timely way of developing contributions play a vital role in delivering much needed affordable housing and local infrastructure that supports new development and, as Noble Lord said, helping the local community to get some benefit from the housing that they are taking.

Now, there is a variety of reasons why the authority might be returning financial contributions from developers. The noble Jamieson referred to some of them. For example, the delivery of new on-site infrastructure may depend on certain trigger points being reached during the top of new developments. The schools are a good example of this and I visited a site in Cambridge recently where the school was actually built but it could not open because it had not yet reached the numbers necessary. And also other funding sources to deliver big infrastructure projects and it can take time for such funding sources It's very important that local authorities spend contributions effectively, that's why our department is providing funding to the planning advisory service to deliver a targeted support program to help local authorities across England to strengthen their approach to infrastructure planning and the governance of developer contributions.

Further to this is already the case that local planning authorities must report on the use of developer contributions. Any authority that receives the contribution from development through the Community Infrastructure Levy or section 106 must prepare and publish an annual infrastructure of funding statement. This statutory requirement has been in place since the reporting year 2019/20. Publishing such detailed reports on developer contributions which includes the amount of money received and what it is or will be spent on helps local communities and developers see how contributions have been spent and understand what future funds will be spent on, ensuring a transparent and Earlier this year the chief planner wrote to all local planning authorities reminding them of their statutory duty to publish an infrastructure funding statement where applicable, there is a template available to support local planning authorities to meet this reporting requirement on the planning advisory service website.

I turned to amendment 185L which seeks to deal with instances in which community infrastructure secured through a section 106 agreement...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would be interested if the Minister has the figure but maybe if Minister has the figure but maybe if , I think the National Audit Office , I think the National Audit Office said 17% of local authorities had not submitted their infrastructure funding statement, I wonder if she had any update on that and would let us know how many have failed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us know how many have failed to disclose that? As he predicts I don't have the figure in front of me but I will write to noble Lords and confirm. On write to noble Lords and confirm. On amendment 185L which seeks to deal with instances in which community infrastructure delivered three infrastructure delivered three Secured three section 106 can't be delivered as originally intended. In delivered as originally intended. In our view this risks unintended consequences which could hinder rather than facilitate sustainable development.

I should first emphasise that local planning authorities can already take enforcement action if a developer enforcement action if a developer fails to deliver on the obligations fails to deliver on the obligations they have committed to in section 106 agreement including the failure to deliver community infrastructure where relevant. This may include a local planning authority entering local planning authority entering the land to complete the works and then seeking to recover the costs, or applying to the court for an injunction to prevent further construction or occupation of dwellings.

This amendment would prevent the modification of planning obligations even where change of circumstances means that the community infrastructure in question can no longer be delivered by the developer. If I have set out the government is committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions including section 106 planning obligations, to deliver on this commitment we are taking a number of steps including reviewing planning practice guidance on viability. However we must have flexibility where necessary to ensure that development whether Can continue to come forward.

We must also think carefully about the demands we are placing local planning authorities he may not have the capacity or resources to take on responsibility for delivery in the way this amendment proposes. I will turn out to amendment 185K and 220 which focus on the Development Consent Order process and the strategic development schemes and seek to achieve the same outcome. These clauses proposed by Baroness Pinnock would place a legal requirement for developers to deliver on commitments made to provide specified local infrastructures as part of their projects.

First I want to recognise and express my sympathy with the spirit behind this proposal. We all agree that communities must be able to secure the infrastructure they need especially when new development brings added pressure on local services and existing infrastructure including schools, nurseries and GP surgeries. In particular I want to acknowledge that concerns which may be driving the amendment relate to the impacts of temporary workers or additional traffic and local communities caused by large-scale infrastructure projects which can remain under construction for significant periods of time.

significant periods of time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would she agreed with me that the problem with Baroness Pinnock's amendment is potentially that viability of affordable changes all viability of affordable changes all the time, where you to, where want the time, where you to, where want to put that amendment forward, because there is a link between the viability of residential housing and viability of residential housing and community facilities you would lock in, one would potentially lock in in a restrictive way that development a restrictive way that development and for instance not allow off-site commutation of funding to fund other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

projects. I understand the noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand the noble Lords point and of course it's important we get the balance right between the delivery of the infrastructure as delivery of the infrastructure as set out by having the flexibility and there when circumstances change and there when circumstances change that this can change also. The amendments seek to focus on the issue by ensuring that emittance to issue by ensuring that emittance to delivering local infrastructure need to reduce the impacts of the large- to reduce the impacts of the large- scale scheme happening.

In responding I have assumed that the reference to strategic development schemes is intended to relate to spatial developing strategies which spatial developing strategies which introduced through the spell. The introduced through the spell. The strategies along with local element plans set out in the structure needs but are not applications and do not have developments attached to them. I agree strongly with the noble Lady and it comes to large-scale new developments government agrees that delivering local infrastructure is crucial. If a project approved to develop an consent order creates a need for local infrastructure like roads, schools or drainage works, those need to be addressed, those needs can be addressed in two ways.

Firstly Development Consent Order requirements which are similar to planning conditions on planning permissions issued under that Town and Country Planning Act 1990 control how and when the developers carried out may also require approval of subsequent details by the local planning authority. These can be used in cases where changes to local infrastructure are needed to make development acceptable in planning terms, for example if a developer is providing relief road to mitigate an identified impact on local infrastructure as a result of constructing large-scale infrastructure projects, the necessary works can be detailed in the requirements.

Relevant requirements may mandate subsequent plans which outline proposed design, work spacing and traffic management be submitted to the highways authority, these plans would then need to be approved and adhered to when implementing the develop an consent order. Secondly local infrastructure can be secured through Development Consent Order obligations. These legal agreements can be used to require the payment of money as contributions towards the provision of local infrastructure or secure commitments to delivery of that infrastructure. Obligation can be used to ensure that impacts on local infrastructure are properly taken into account and to mitigate identified adverse effects.

The Secretary of State may take into account develop an consent obligations that meet the relevant legal and policy tests when deciding whether to get development consent for the project. Once it is enforced it becomes legally binding and runs with the land even if the land changes hands. Local planning authority has a range of enforcement option options available to it, if developers or the owners of the land subject to the relevant consent obligation to not fill their legal commitments -- fulfil.

So while we fully support the goal of ensuring communities get the infrastructure they need, we believe the existing system already provides the right tools through legal requirements where appropriate. These clauses wouldn't add clarity your effectiveness to that process. Can I just add I thank Lord Jamieson for his question, I will check over in Hansard whether which ones of them I answered if I didn't answer any will reply to me in writing. Four of the reasons I have set out I would kindly ask Baroness Pinnock to withdraw her amendments.

I turn now to amendment 218 which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of land value capture including consideration of the merits of alternative methods of land value capture within six months of Royal Assent to this bill and to report on the findings to Parliament. Firstly I like to thank the noble Baronesses for raising the amendment. It's critically important local planning authorities can capture the proportion of the land value uplift often occurs when value uplift often occurs when planning permission is granted to deliver affordable and the infrastructure that is needed to mitigate the impact of new development.

Local planning authorities currently use the well- established and effective mechanisms section 106 planning obligations in the community and to levy, that's why the government is committed to strengthening the system and we have chosen not to implement alternative proposals for land value capture provided for in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 such as the infrastructure levy. The government has orally made important progress in delivery towards this commitments for example through the revised National planning policy framework published on 12 December last year the government introduced new golden rules the major development involving the provision of housing on land within a released from the greenbelt.

Our golden rules aim to deliver high levels of affordable alongside necessary infrastructure and accessible Greenspace. Through the English devolution and community empowerment bill currently in the other place are also legislating to give mayors of strategic authorities give mayors of strategic authorities power to raise a mayoral sale along Maxi Kayal alongside spatial development strategies in place enabling them to raise revenue for strategic growth supporting infrastructure where this is balanced with viability. The Department has provided evidence to the housing communities committee enquiry into land value capture and we very much look forward to engaging with the findings and recommendations of that enquiry in due course.

Finally turning to amendment one A4 table by Baroness Thornhill, which seeks to exempt Thornhill, which seeks to exempt local planning authorities from complying with nationally described space standards on applications containing the delivery of steppingstone accommodation. I thank Centrepoint as well for their continuing and proactive support to the crisis of housing among young people and the work they have done in respect of this bill as well. As helpfully set out by Baroness Thornhill in Explanatory Notes, the thrust of this amendment is to promote accommodation for young people who are leaving supported housing or who are risk of homelessness and having delivered similar schemes to the one she described throughout housing first scheme in Stevenage including some of the young people with learning disabilities which was a remarkable experience, small development but those young people it was really life changing for them and the community they formed in the housing development was wonderful to see.

I don't need any convincing of the reasons for delivering schemes such as these. I would like to give my support for the principle of Lady Thornhill's amendment and agree that regulations should not necessarily getting away providing safe and secure housing for our most vulnerable, particularly vulnerable young people. However I hope I can reassure her that the amendment is not needed. The purpose of space standards is providing guidance and the minimum area of new dwellings across all types of tenures based on the number of bedrooms and bed spaces.

The nationally described space standards are not set out in legislation and not mandatory. It's at the discretion of local planning authorities to choose to adopt space standards through the local planning policies where there is an identified need for additional technical requirements. As set out in the planning practice guidance on establishing a clear need for adopting the space standards locally they must assess the impact on local viability and housing supply, by law planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan.

Unless material considerations indicate otherwise each application is judged on its own individual merit and the weight given to these considerations is a matter for the local planning authority has the usual decision taker in the first instance. What constitutes a material consideration as widely defined and as for the planning decision-making to determine what is a relevant consideration based on the circumstances of a particular case. We feel this is best for local areas to determine on a case-by-case basis rather than be dictated by central government.

For example if the local planning authority considers the need for a particular housing tenure such as steppingstone housing when considering all relevant material considerations outweigh the policy requirement to have that housing meet the optional space standards adopted in their local plan, then they may grant planning permission. In short the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

current planning framework... Absolutely understand what you are saying, given the actual experience, I mean four years for experience, I mean four years for planning it permission but could we perhaps explore a way of giving this perhaps explore a way of giving this shove up the agenda and in some way making it a little bit more because it definitely feels as though there it definitely feels as though there is a wall there that perhaps we need to shove a little bit of a digger through that you say is there are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through that you say is there are legislation but is clearly not happening in practice. I'm very happy to do that because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very happy to do that because as I explained I fully understand the intention behind the amendment. the intention behind the amendment. I hope my explanations have reassured noble Lord sufficiently reassured noble Lord sufficiently and I kindly ask them to withdraw
19:01
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I kindly ask them to withdraw I am grateful whenever the Minister speaks from the despatch boxes and to all those that spoken the river think it has been a good discussion and I like the ambition of my Noble Friends Lord Banner and told Jackson and my Noble Friends Baroness Andrews, a fellow committee member. I think that Baroness Thornhill used the phrase it is an odds and sods but it had two key components. Think that what I did like was at the very beginning it felt like we rehashed, we discovered the 2010 rose garden treaty where it was that Lib Dem alliance with the Tories going strongly.

But on 220 and 170 we are handing and I think that on Baroness Thornhill and Lord Banner their amendments were very good and on that I wholeheartedly support it and you have got people Understanding the complexity of the issues, but for those that needed the most I do think it is worth looking to try and find a way to make it possible under what has been done already. As to my own and movement it is something that I think that we should explore and I heard someone say perhaps it should be bolder, perhaps it should be weaker.

To my own Frontbench I am freezing I am not quite sure what our position was the first time we have had that but I know they are under pressure and in the 20 years it is a very long time and as my Noble Friends Lord Banner said it does seem a bit of that during this period local are not seen, they do not even know what is happening and I accept and I said in my remarks I know this is the infrastructure but as my Noble Friend made the point when 17% of them are not even being delivered we can't say the system is working, something is not working, so I do think that there must be something where we could work together to try and find something to give the system a little nudge and to remind people and show people that there is some benefit towards

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this. I beg to withdraw my amendment. Is a geologist pressure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment hundred and 71. Not moved. Amendment 172, Baroness Andrews.
19:03
Baroness Andrews Portrait Baroness Andrews (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 172, Baroness Andrews. My Lords, by this amendment I will do my best to make it short. It is a bit technical. It is a new is a bit technical. It is a new clause 172 in my name, the Frontbench I know will be relieved to know that none of our supporters are able to be here. They are all in far better places having a much better time. That will definitely come down to timing becoming available. The amendment has been transported after by the heritage alliance which represents 200 of the heritage bodies in the country.

It is very witty and has been extremely thought through and out the umbrella body for the heritage sector. And this amendment drafted by such public spirited body. And it is also in the spirit of the bill by freeing outgrowth and innovation on housing services. And the argument is a member that brings out of that legislation into current policy guidance and best practice. And I think the governor can only commend this amendment because it brings comfort and clarity across the whole thing.

If a explain briefly national heritage policies based on the principle of conservation defined that we have heard a lot about in the bill. As the process of maintaining the management change to heritage asks and where appropriate enhances the significance because of the definition goes by ticket, was pioneered in America into English Heritage as conservation and I had the privilege of being incorporated into the NPPF. And what it has meant in practice is that conservation has become the lone star of heritage practice, encouraging and enabling the re-purpose in into working spaces with students, women, housing families and organisations while retaining the character of those in their buildings which means so much and anybody that has watched the great pottery throwdown the pottery rescued at the very last minute, supported by the present and restored in all of its glory, a marvellous work at St John's, Waterloo, she has kept its extraordinary heritage and the community activities and so on.

Hundreds of outstanding activities, we would talk about the historic farm building and the contribution they make to the continuing character and housing of the countryside. So, what needs changing? Well, looking in the planning legislation there is a residual leftover from another age. When the option of heritage was preserved and not conserved. The concept of reservation dates back to the 19th century where we look before their was not any consciousness of what historic buildings might be used for.

There was then a binary choice. Knock it down and lose it or preserve it. The ancient monuments production act made was the attempt to provide legal protection for the first time. That concept and preservation against loss prevailed for a century and it remains at the heart of the planning system. In the planning listed things and conservation areas act of 1990. There is still a legal presumption in favour of reservation. At this amendment seeks to do is to bring planning policy and guidance in line to substitute the roots conserving and enhancing for preserving each relevant subsections of the clause.

Why is it urgent? Because every list of building consent, every planning decision here in the building, every planning decision in England's 10,000 conservation layers must explicitly give special regard to preservation, not conservation. And planning law overrides and outruns policy and guidance, so this planning legislation can have a chilling effect on imagination, innovation, and the creative use of rare and useful buildings against the possibility of housing public services, leisure. This is not a myth, a attempt to tidy up legislation.

Heritage is not a peripheral issue in planning. We are an old country with lots of stuff and 1/3 of the applications involved heritage. Heritage is so often seemed now and can be seen in this act as blocking change. A lazy reaction. At a time we are looking for economic growth, growth in housing, growth in services, the prejudice prevents the right sort of change and growth. It is bad for the past and bad for the future. Take the example of town centres, for example, the Select Committee recently.

They are robbed of their original purpose, yet there still recognise in the treasures and lawcourts which make the heart. They may have lost their original purposes, but they are immensely useful for buildings to transform, community engagement, their right for re-purpose and, local authority services, diagnostic medical centres, craft workshop galleries, all this needs is imagination and a change in the law that we are proposing in this amendment. Historic England has estimated that 670,000 new homes could be created in England alone by repairing and repurchasing the historic building.

This is an obvious change to make, a timely change, it is extremely discreet. It has very limited amendments. It has no damaging implications for any other form of legislation. And it would simply remove the inconsistency between heritage policy and hedge heritage legislation by using the same terminology of both and ensuring that heritage becomes part of the future as part as the past and I really hope the Minister will support this. I beg to move from across 52 into conservation of the historic environment as set out on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshall list. I am here, I thought somebody
19:10
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am here, I thought somebody else was speaking behind me. My else was speaking behind me. My Lords, heritage assets, as we heard, are not simply buildings or sites of historic interest, they are living reminders of who we are, where we come from, and the values we should pass on. This turning to the amendments before us, the first Amendment, amendment 72 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Andrews, she raises an important and interesting issue around the inconsistency, as I understand it, between heritage policy and heritage legislation.

I am very keen to hear the Governments reflections on this matter. And whether they believe that an amendment of this kind is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the system. And I will await to hear what the noble Baroness the Minister says and maybe I could have a conversation about this with Baroness Hunter's. Turning now to the amendment tabled by my Noble Friend Lord Parkinson from Whitley Bay as he so often does he has raised some significant thought- provoking issues.

We work tirelessly on that Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. Anything that helps get on with the commencement for some of the key aspects of that legislation would be most welcome. And in that context amendment 182 relating to the commencement of the duty regarding heritage assets and planning factions is of particular importance. Ensuring that heritage is properly taken to planning decisions is a safeguard for the future as much as a respect for the past. We also hear what my Noble Friend says in amendment 185C.

Proposes the nationally listed building consent orders under section 20 6C of the 1990 act should be subject to negative resolution procedure. That seems a practical suggestion and I hope the Government at the noble Baroness the Minister will consider it carefully. Heritage art is, after all, not about blocking change but about managing it well. And ensuring that the past informs and enriches the future. And these amendments in different ways will seek that balance.
19:13
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lords for the amendments. Could I first turn to amendment 172 to amendment 1726 to align the terminology of the buildings act with that in the national planning for the work and also seeks to look at desirable change which will benefit a range of assets. While I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment the use of the word preserved in the legislation is long-standing and supported by case law. Case law in particular has emphasised that if a decision maker follows the policies in the PPF giving greater weight to their conservation, they will have discharge their duty to a special regard of the preservation in the bill.

I and where we, therefore, the changing and conserving our teams, just create more uncertainty and to further legal challenge when the position is settled in case law. As I sure the Noble Lady is aware, the provisions in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 that is subject to that Noble Lord Parkinson's amendment 182 seat in part two produce into the legislation. Can I just say to my Noble Friend the Minister Baroness Taylor has met with the heritage organisations and once in the past.

And we have committed to making them again in the legislation. I will therefore now turn to amendment 18 I will therefore now turn to amendment 182 and to amendment 183 that both seem to commence provisions in the 2023 act. I would like to reassure the committee the Government has not forgotten about these provisions. We are continuing to consider our approach on the planning policy in the context of the wider planning reforms, including further revisions to the national planning policy framework, we will keep implementation of the 2023 act heritage measures under review as part of that work.

Finally, I turned to amendment 185C also tabled by the Noble Lord Parkinson which seeks to make national listed building consent orders subject to the Negative procedure. The noble Baroness Lady Andrews especially would perhaps also with other civic members recall that was the intention of Parliament for national listed in consent orders to be subject to the affirmative procedure. This was largely in response to concerns raised about the power and the breadth of discretion that they give to the secondary of state.

The noble Baroness could comment on the debate in the 2013 act that there was concern that a general national order scene, and I quote, saying something about the work that could be done to listed buildings without consent could not conceivably be so sensitive that it did not have some perverse or damaging consequences. I think, therefore, that we need to be very cautious about changing the procedure without significant engagement with the sector and others first. These explanations I hope the noble Lords will beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will of course withdraw the
19:16
Baroness Andrews Portrait Baroness Andrews (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will of course withdraw the amendment but I would say I think it's disappointing. I'm very glad that the Minister has met with the that the Minister has met with the conservation bodies, the heritage bodies, they have a view about this is why they wrote the amendment the way they did. Although I accept the argument I do think there is a point in thinking again about whether a not we actually need to move, we need to align this legislation and guidance with the argument I made.

There is a wider argument, there are other aspects of heritage protection to which I now very much in the frame for change, its horrified decades and to be had heritage legislation, the bill, the 1985 act is well out of date. We need new heritage legislation basically, when the Minister meets with the heritage bodies again perhaps she can actually ask them what they think of that idea and whether they would have an interested -- in framing more -- new legislation that would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make more sense in terms of where we are and how we regard historic buildings in their setting and their purposes. The moment of course I will withdraw the amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 173 Baroness Whitaker not moved. Amendment 174 not moved. 175 Baroness Whitaker not moved. 176 Baroness Whitaker not moved. Baroness Whitaker not moved. Amendment 177 Lord Ravensdale not moved. Amendment 178 Lord Teverson moved. Amendment 178 Lord Teverson not moved. Amendment 179 Baroness not moved. Amendment 179 Baroness Bennett not moved. Amendment 180 Baroness Bennett not moved. Amendment 181 Baroness Bennett not Amendment 181 Baroness Bennett not moved.

Amendment 182 not moved. 183 moved. Amendment 182 not moved. 183 Lord Parkinson not moved. 184 Lord Parkinson not moved. 184 Baroness Thornhill not moved. 185 Baroness Coffey not moved. 185 a Baroness Coffey not moved. 185 a Lord Lucas not moved. 185 be Lord Lord Lucas not moved. 185 be Lord Lucas not moved. 185C Lord Parkinson Lucas not moved. 185C Lord Parkinson not moved. 185D Baroness Jones not
19:18
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
moved. 185 EE Lord Foster not moved. 185F Baroness Young.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like Baroness Andrews it's bad enough raising amendment during enough raising amendment during government bill but doing it when the whole house want to go home, when all my supporters were when all my supporters were expecting this to come up next week as part of the part three as part of the part three discussions and have all gone off to do whatever it is Baroness Andrews has got inside track on knowing what they're up to. It's really a big they're up to.

It's really a big order, I will try to be brief that I truly regard these amendments is truly regard these amendments is probably the most important one-time raising in the whole bill. Perhaps this debate can be regarded as a this debate can be regarded as a warmup act for the main discussions on EDPs and the nature Restoration fund next week. Can I thank Lord Roborough in his absence, I think he is fishing, for putting his name to is fishing, for putting his name to my amendments, I'm very grateful for my amendments, I'm very grateful for that.

These three amendments are a package that have to be taken together as they outlined an alternative approach to part three alternative approach to part three of the bill by seeking to tackle the real blockages that are actually being experienced by developers are not throwing their habitats regulations baby out with the bathwater but by streamlining the way they are to. The habitats regulations have been prevented a significant blockages to development and I think that needs a bit of unpicking. First of all the cover only internationally important habitats and species that need and deserve the highest level of protection.

Secondly some of them see as goldplating by the European Union but it was actually us Brits who invented the habitats regulations and negotiated them into the rest of Europe. They are pretty fundamental to the protection of those habitats and species the feedstock to which nature Restoration is fed. Thirdly many developers and others are clear that the nature issues aren't actually the biggest cause of delays, they come quite a way down the list that developers have. Hind the lack of planning resources and skills in local planning authorities, behind the same problem in the various regulators and consultees, behind an inbuilt reluctance of developers to build out sites.

We do have excellent planning permissions for 1.2 million homes that haven't been built and we had about delays that happen as a result of so section 126 and I gather at the moment that -- section 106 was gather delays as a result of Grenfell Tower can delay planning permissions for up to a year. It's not just the habitation regulations that are a problem as is sometimes the impression you would get from part three of this bill. I put forward these amendments against that background of seeking to resolve the real problems and knowing that we will next week consider in detail concerns from others about how EDPs and nature Restoration fund will work.

That's in spite of very useful amendment to the government has a ready putdown following the common stages to meet significant concerns expressed in the other place and to respond by criticism to the office environmental protection. I'm not the only person concerned about part three proposals and there's been a recent legal opinion by David Elton KC subsequent to the laying of government amendment that concluded even with these changes part three of the bill does represent regression on environmental standards and could be in breach of international law.

That's the context. These three simple amendments which offer an alternative way forward I will briefly read out. Amendment 242 a would restrict EDPs to only those issues where approaches are required to strategic landscape scale in order to be effective, these are issues with nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resources and air quality. These are the issues that developers are most worried about. EDPs would not be put in place for species issues, there are already good model such as the new district licensing scheme which work and which offer leverage in private sector investment, these private- sector investors are already seeing EDPs is undermining both schemes and chilling investment.

Development of further specie schemes along those lines are perfectly possible. Amendment 20 5F and 185G would tackle other concerns about the habitats regulations beyond those four priorities listed in amendment to 40 way by moving the requirement to comply with the habitats regulations substantially upstream to special development strategies and local plans, this would mean that by the time the developers came forward with running applications on specific sites the heavy lifting of habitation regulations surveys and assessments would have been done at the spatial strategy and Local Plan stage.

This would have the added benefit of guiding developers towards the most simple sites for development where there would be the least opposition, reducing unnecessary conflict and simplifying the planning phase, planning application phase considerably. I've talked to developers both housing and infrastructure about these proposals, and also to the environment and NGOs and they believe they could be made to work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed of the clause
19:24
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed of the clause 52 insert the new clause Local Plan compliant set out on the marshalled List. And very supportive of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And very supportive of the amendment tabled by Baroness Young and also co-signed by Lord and also co-signed by Lord Roborough. I would actually encourage noble Baroness to re-table to 40 way if she is allowed to because I don't think we will have because I don't think we will have deliberated on its, I'm sure it will work well as she says it is weak. In terms of 185F in particular and also 185G the noble Baroness made a very good point.

This is one of my wider frustrations with aspects people just using certain regulations or the nature as being an excuse when as the noble Baroness is well laid out quite often, it can be a factor. Things that can change, rulings, decisions about licensing, extraction of water is one example of use before when talking about some of the impact that happened at Sizewell C but nevertheless one of my wider points would be that if you really want to accelerate a lot of infrastructure don't start planning to build stuff in the place that's already been designated as being the most important for nature in this country.

Find somewhere else, have a think through, one of the reasons why a lot of people moved to certain places in the country because they are these beautiful environmental places. I don't want to go over Sizewell C and I will keep to the point of the regulation but this is really a way to futureproof and to get a lot of infrastructure flowing. There are things we could get into about which species are the right ones to consider in terms of habitat ones to consider in terms of habitat regulations, there is other debates forming about we should only look after things that are really at risk here, that doesn't necessarily work we warranty her today about the importance of global bio diverse in the importance of chalk streams, but I think this is a very useful I think this is a very useful amendment and I'm actually glad we are doing at least part of the debate today because it will give the government time over the weekend to think about whether their modest proposals in part three in revising it which are welcome really go far enough, and to really try and help local communities, local developers, local councillors that we can actually move forward and I think by getting writ of summons these unnecessary arguments we would have the homes, the development that is much desired and we would still have a place around our country did a special for nature and for our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

planet. I'm delighted to be able to rise to support the noble Baroness to support the noble Baroness Baroness Young of Old Scone on amendment 185F tabled by the noble Lady and supported by Lord
19:27
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lady and supported by Lord Roborough. I don't need to talk at length because the noble Baroness are set out excellent arguments for progressing this and other amendments will stop she did say this is one of the most important amendments in the bill that she is right, we are touching on it today in advance of next week where we will discuss this and similar improvements. The noble Baroness has set out a simpler solution than the massive bureaucracy been created in part three.

Part three in EDF's massive sledgehammer to crack the NUT of nutrient neutrality and amendments we will discuss next week in addition to this one. We can offer the government simpler solution than the EDF monolith. We need to tackle Robinson nutrient neutrality and address some of the amendments next week. The amendment before us white 5F would require local planning authorities to consider compliance of habitat regulations and conduct a full environmental impact assessments and sites that are proposing that are suitable for development.

As Baroness Coffey said let's plan this in advance, don't wait until developers come along to try and put in planning application and discover they are trying to do it in the wrong place. This is not about adding a new layer of bureaucracy, on the contrary it's about moving necessary assessment upstream to where it can do the most good. Too often Local Plan to identify sites for housing or infrastructure which turn out to be wholly unsuitable when subjected to proper ecological scrutiny.

By then the damage is done, developers frustrated, communities are confused and valuable habitats placed at risk. This amendment would support local authorities to screen out inappropriate sites early giving greater certainty to both developers and the public. It also helps ensure that sites allocated in the plan are truly deliverable. It is in short sensible and proportionate proposal reflecting long-standing principles that plan making is a stage in which big environmental choices should be made, and that doing so reduces conflict and cost later on.

I hope the Minister will take the advice of our noble friend the Baroness Young of Old Scone as I said earlier, she is an expert on this matter matter expert.
19:30
19:31
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank my noble friend Baroness Young for her amendments. Amendment 185F seeks to ensure local plans are in alliance with habitats and species regulations 2017, and that the local authority preparing the plan carries out full environmental impact assessments when proposing sites for development. It's important the impacts of the local plan are properly assessed as part of their preparation, arrangements for which are set out in existing legislation. All local plans are already required to undertake a habitats regulations assessment where they have the potential for impact on a site or species protected under the regulations.

In addition, all local plans are required to carry out an assessment incorporating the requirements of a strategic environmental assessment, where a local plan would result in a likely significant effect on the environment. This obligation is for a strategic environmental assessment, rather than an environmental impact assessment as the latter requires specific information about a proposal. Information that would not generally be available at the plan making stage. However, any development that does come forward subsequent to the plans adoption, which due to its size, nature or location is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, will require an environmental impact assessment.

With this reassurance about the way the environmental impacts are considered, both during plan preparation and in support of its implementation, I hope Baroness Young will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I now turn to 185G. My noble friend raises an important issue about how habitats regulations requirements require the preparation of special development strategies. However paragraph 12 of schedule two to the bill already applies the assessment requirements under the habitats regulations to spatial development strategies. This means strategic planning authorities will be required to carry out habitat regulation assessments where necessary, ringing new spatial development strategies in line with the spatial development strategy for London.

The proposed amendment would require full assessment of specific sites allocated within spatial development strategies. Yet the bill expressly does not allow them to allocate specific sites, it would therefore not be possible for strategic planning authorities to undertake habitat regulation assessments for specific sites as part of the SDS regulation. This would need to happen when needed later in the planning process. Turning to amendment 242A, this would limit the scope to environmental impacts on sites, namely neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality.

I share the desire to make sure EDP is only used when they can deliver for the environment, that's why the government sought to clarify its position in the recent amendments which highlight that the Secretary of State could only make an EDP where the conservation measures materially outweighed the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature. This ensures EDP's could only ever be brought forward to address issues that would benefit from a strategic approach would deliver an environmental uplift which goes beyond the status quo position required under the current system.

With the assurance that an EDP would only be made where it would deliver this environmental uplift, we feel it is right to allow EDPs to be brought forward to address the range of environment impact set out in the bill. Limiting types of environmental impacts EDPs can address would remove the ability for EDPs to respond to other environmental impacts that may result from developing, where a strategic approach could deliver in line with overall improvement tests especially to protected species. With this explanation I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Lady Baroness Coffey and Lord Blencathra Baroness Coffey and Lord Blencathra and the opposition frontbench for their support for my amendments. I their support for my amendments. I think in terms of the concerns the Minister has expressed about the fact that habitat regulations assessments, environmental impact assessments can only happen when there is a specific site concerned. I have some very detailed working papers I can provide to Ministers papers I can provide to Ministers and talk them through, that show how this could be bridged to do the maximum amount of work on a preparatory basis at local plan level.

Before any final last touches level. Before any final last touches were applied when a site was actually up for proposal. Perhaps I actually up for proposal. Perhaps I could share those next week. In terms of the overall improvement terms of the overall improvement test, I think the reality is it's probably quite possible to probably quite possible to demonstrate, but I haven't had time tonight, that the process of demonstrating overall improvement and the issues that would be most amenable to that are going to be the things that can only be resolved on a strategic basis at landscape scale.

We are arguing from two ends of the same spectrum really, government saying let's have EDPs apply to everything but they have to meet these tests which actually would restrict the things that could be used for EDPs, and I'm arguing we be used for EDPs, and I'm arguing we probably know right now what they are and they could be on the face of the bill. I'm sure we will come to these issues again when we run on these points next week. My method is really simple, let's make sure we are focusing on the real blockages, let's recognise part three has flaws, let's take my three simple steps with some of the elaboration I have promised, let's reduce conflict, cost and speed up development.

But at this moment I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw the amendment. The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. We have another number of amendments have already been amendments have already been amendments have already been debated. 185 age, not moved. 185J, debated. 185 age, not moved. 185J, not moved. 185k, not moved. 185L, not moved. 185k, not moved. 185L, not moved. 185M, not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. 185M, not moved. I beg to move the house be now resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Not content". The contents have it. I beg to move the house do now adjourn.
19:45
None Portrait Business of the House
-

19:45
19:45
None Portrait Business of the House
-

19:45
19:45
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page