Lords Chamber

Monday 27th October 2025

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are arguments around how we control the number of individuals, both families and individuals, both families and migrant children who come to the United Kingdom. And that is an argument that we're having now to look at how we can tighten the look at how we can tighten the rules to stop the flow of people who are coming here through illegal channels. But we still have a channels. But we still have a responsibility to ensure that a five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten year old child does not suffer year old child does not suffer because of the trafficking in many instances, or the poverty or the instances, or the poverty or the war that has driven them to come to the United Kingdom, even by sometimes by illegal means in the sometimes by illegal means in the first place.

So the purpose of the strategy is to ensure that how we protect and develop those children, protect and develop those children, so we don't create a whole set of different outcasts in future. And I think it's really important that think it's really important that whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, the children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't suffer as a result. My Lords that concludes our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords that concludes our questions for today. And any member who wish to leave the chamber now Conduct Conduct Committee Conduct Committee appointment Conduct Committee appointment as Conduct Committee appointment as Senior Deputy Speaker.
15:14
15:15
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Role of the Attorney General’s Office in the decision to drop the China spy prosecution
-

Thursday 23rd October on alleged spying in Parliament. My Lords, the
15:15
15:17
15:18
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, before we restart the first group, I wish I rise as I did last week, to remind the House of important guidance on report stage, which will help proceedings run smoothly. First, paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states that debate must be relevant to the question before the House. Whilst debate on the Bill are being important and no doubt interesting, a number of earlier contributions strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated.

I would urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny, whilst allowing us to make good progress in good time. Secondly, I remind noble Lords of the companion guidance that members pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and should not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving or pressing an amendment. Paragraph 8.8. Two of the companion speeches appeared to be getting longer at this point, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we will be able to get towards in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more timely manner. To my Lord, before you sit down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To my Lord, before you sit down, can I just clarify that a number of 67, I think government amendments came in very late to this bill, came in very late to this bill, which have therefore not had a committee stage. I hope that the noble Lord and the Minister are going, as well as the Minister are going to accept that some of those will need committee discussions as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will need committee discussions as well as report. Yeah. Well, it is report stage of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, it is report stage of the bill and all. I would say, as long as the debate is, as long as the debate is relevant, then we have no debate is relevant, then we have no problem with that. After clause 51,
15:38
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
problem with that. After clause 51, amendment 84, Lord Inglewood, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I arise to move amendment 84. But first ought to make a declaration. My interest, I. Think, most.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think, most. Unusually, it's been my lot in my life to have lived in a listed building in the midst of a listed building in the midst of a listed park for all of it. I'm also president of Historic Buildings and Places, which is used to be known Places, which is used to be known as the Ancient Monument Society and a member of the Gardens Trust. And just a bit of a context to my just a bit of a context to my comments, I'm as well as being a member of the bar.

I'm also a Chartered surveyor and a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. And if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Society of Antiquaries. And if I might just point. Out. To members that, according to many authorities, landscape is many authorities, landscape is England's probably greatest contribution to 18th century European sculpture. Now, my Lords, European sculpture. Now, my Lords, we turn back to the debate in committee. Your Lordships will recall considerable discussion recall considerable discussion about the education of planners. This is important because, in addition to what might be described as the core disciplines, there is also a huge range of what you could say are very important and perhaps say are very important and perhaps slightly esoteric, more peripheral matters which.

Cannot really be considered part of the core considered part of the core knowledge or syllabus. And think, for example, about listed buildings. And we all know there is a crisis And we all know there is a crisis in the number of conservation officers in this country thinking about man made, planned landscapes, battlefields, theatres, and so on. The required expertise to deal properly with these things is not widely, easily and quickly available, either necessarily in local authorities or in other public bodies.

And my Lords, we know that it is for this reason, a process of consultation with outside expert specialists and respected organisations is embedded in the system to give access to often specialist but very relevant skill and knowledge. The detailed system for doing this is not identical in each case, but that isn't relevant to my argument. For my part, I'm especially interested, amongst other things, in the context of this debate about the work of the Gardens Trust, previously, the Garden History Society, whose focus is on man made planned landscape, which includes public parks, but also the British versions of Versailles and also in a different direction, outstanding domestic gardens.

These things can be quite extensive and are a crucial aspect of place, which is now becoming recognised as an important contributor to our general well-being and economic prosperity, something which I became very aware when I was a member for six years of the Northern Powerhouse 11. This is a specialist discrete academic discipline and the Gardens Trust is at its centre in this country. Many of the places that are concerned with are very fragile. After all, plants die and are easy, easily lost.

And for example, my Lords. If any of your Lordships wanted to go and look at East Bay Park, which was the great architect Vanbrugh's one of his most important commissions in Dorset, when you get there, you look over a farm gate and see a green field. It's all gone, but it's still the site of it and all the foundations and everything that are there. And as Thomas Brown, the the 17th century writer, aptly commented, green grass grows where Troytown stood. Now, my Lords, I should add to what I said that about my interest that my home has always been the focus of a listed park for over 300 years.

But because of abandonment and then the planting, an epidemic of rhododendrons supplemented by almost no family records because of disputes and problems with the with treason, almost the knowledge of everything has been lost. And despite English Heritage over visitors inspections over the years and many other experts visiting the place, the the knowledge of the place is more or less completely vanished. But now my Lords its full extent is now becoming uncovered again, and it appears to be a large scale, more or less intact, significant, albeit battered, very rare survival of a complete pre capability.

Brown Park of about 1700 1710. They're very rare and it was completely lost. Now I mention this not to pat myself on the back or to tell you all how perspicacious I may have been, but to make the point that this kind of important things do get easily lost and require genuine expertise to be identified and revived. Now, my Lords, we all know that the theme of this legislation is growth. And goodness knows, my Lord, we urgently need it and I support that.

And as part of this wider process, the government has issued a consultation on the role of statutory consultees. Unhappily, that consultation appears to me to have been stained by the triumphalism of a notion of growth at all costs, everywhere, for anything, regardless of everything else, conveniently overlooking that in places such as where I come from in Cumbria, the environment is one of the most important aspects of promoting long term growth, as I discovered when I chaired the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership.

If this is destroyed, then the goose that lays the golden egg ends up as Christmas dinner. It's happened in many places all around the world to nobody's benefit. Now, noble Lords have said on a number. Baroness has said on a number of occasions that the value placed on what I call non growth aspect of the planning system is in no way diminished by the proposed procedural and process changes under way, which seem to me to be essential and which in very general terms, I'm a strong supporter.

On occasions, though, something else other than growth is more important than growth. Otherwise, my Lords, what's the point of the town and country planning system? The involvement of the amenity societies harnesses a great deal of real expertise for more or less no money, and takes pressure off some of our overworked and often under-resourced public agencies who are having difficulty already in fulfilling their roles and Lords let let's argue about that particular point, because it's self-evidently, manifestly the case.

Now, the purpose of this amendment is to focus on this general but very real problem in the context of the wider reforms being proposed, and specifically in respect of the Garden Trust, which I have said, I am a member and I know it and I support it. What I very much hope is that the noble Baroness can confirm the importance that is ascribed to what I might myself describe, I hope, without any disparagement, as some of the essential fringe disciplines of planning will not be eroded further, and that the kind of political puff aspects of which are hugely and vigorously disputed, which has accompanied some of the publicity surrounding the consultation process, will not deflect from the proper value placed on the facts and principle based assessments and inputs of these organisations, which are often provided by those who have actually retired from serious professional work in this sector and have a very real knowledge, and which are provided at almost no cost to the public purse at all.

They add very real expertise to the proper work of a land use and planning policy system in this country. I appreciate, I appreciate finally, my Lords, that my amendment may contain all kinds of drafting and other shortcomings. I am relaxed about any possible criticism of that, but I firmly believe in the underlying argument as part of the core of what this bill should be about. And I very much hope the noble Baroness can confirm this and give comfort to all the volunteers who are making such an important contribution in the wider public interest to the physical future of England and Wales.

My Lords, I beg leave to to to move amendment proposed after clause 51. Insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled list. I rise to speak specifically to amendment 84, to which I've added amendment 84, to which I've added my name. Although I support many of the amendments in this group, we know how important public green know how important public green spaces are to communities and for nature, and that there's widespread public support for their protection.
15:47
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
public support for their protection. And that's why, as I understand it, registered parks and gardens, along with battlefields, were given protection in the Town and Country Planning Bill in 2015. And I thank the Gardens Trust for their briefings on this and the noble Lady, the Minister and her office for a helpful meeting and correspondence about it. At the moment, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, registered parks and gardens are not considered statutory heritage assets, which would make them part of the same process as listed buildings and instead have their own process of consultation with Historic England as the statutory consultees for battlefields and grade one and two Parks and Gardens and the Gardens Trust dealing with grade two parks and gardens, which is 65% of them, and importantly, three quarters of registered public parks are grade two.

So the Gardens Trust is tasked with looking after most of our public parks. And they appear to do this very efficiently. From their statistics. They were consulted 1842 times last year, and 99% of the time they responded within the agreed deadline. They voiced an objection to planning in only 6.6% of their responses, and their government grant for fulfilling this consultee role, for giving bespoke responses to planning inquiries on time and with expertise was £43,000 963. Clearly, there's no way that anyone else within the planning system could deliver this expertise for less money and with any greater time efficiency, and there's no evidence that they're causing a major blockage to housebuilding and actually having not heard of them before this matter arose, I'd actually like to thank this charity for their service to this country and its public parks.

I understand that the government is considering removing the Gardens Trust's statutory consultee role. This slightly bespoke role that was created for registered parks, gardens and battlefields. And I think we all, however, appreciate the work that they do. So this amendment aims to protect the service whilst making the administrative process simpler, by putting the registered parks and gardens into the same planning process as other heritage assets. Where there's an existing and well understood statutory consent process whereby the Gardens Trust would be the amenity society that would be notified if there were planning proposals that might affect registered parks and gardens or importantly, their settings.

I know the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has amendment 109 coming up, which I believe would have a similar effect by commencing section 102 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, in which this area planning was already tidied up and that might be an alternative to this amendment, but it would be very helpful if the noble Lady the Minister in her response to this group, could indicate the government's intentions regarding making best use of the efficient role that the gardens Trust play in helping give advice on our much loved grade two parks and gardens and their settings.
15:50
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may be allowed to speak to my amendment 107 in this group, I my amendment 107 in this group, I appreciate I jump a little far down the line. The reason why I put this the line. The reason why I put this down is at the moment, we have a situation where we're removing consultation and when you're doing consultation and when you're doing your planning or removing enough as much of it, and the case of much of it, and the case of efficiency when it comes to sports fields, my Lords and it comes to planning, I think we have the most planning, I think we have the most attractive thing for a planner to attractive thing for a planner to come to a piece of reasonably flat, reasonably well drained land.

What reasonably well drained land. What better to put a House on if we are going to lose these, we lose going to lose these, we lose something which is an asset that keeps on giving. Now, much will be keeps on giving. Now, much will be said about, I'm sure. And the minister said it's when the. And I must thank the minister, both ministers on the front bench at the moment for actually meeting me and trying to privately and trying to convince me that I didn't have much to worry about.

For all their courtesy, for all their time, I failed to become convinced because there's, as I said, there's just so tempting and it's so tempting for a local authority or anybody else helping here to come in and say, let's put a field on there. Now, of course, we've got things like these summoned by councils, some owned by schools. Schools can get rid of them. More independence now. Can we protect them? Why? Because my Lords if you don't have somewhere to play a sport, that sport dies or becomes not unavailable to you in that group.

And if some sports clubs own their own pitches, they may not own enough to have a second or a third team. And if you get rid of your second or your third team, the the the first team is under threat and thus the existence of the entire club. It's that simple. There is that much pressure going down there if you don't get people involved. If they're not involved every week, they will do something else. They will leave and you lose this asset. Community sport my Lords is probably one of the best community builders.

You're going because you're not just involving in the exercise pattern. You're involving in a community of its own that feeds into other communities. My Lords let's remember it to make sure that somebody can play this game. They will sit on committees. They will take on the legal responsibility of being a secretary or a treasurer for these groups. Everybody who's run a political party knows how people are just dying to do these roles all the time, don't they? I mean, everybody wants to spend legal responsibilities and bank accounts.

People do this willingly. Well, they do it my Lords to get out there and make sure. And the and these sports facilities are something that allow it to happen. If you take away this defence of the something which allows searching a key activity, you are putting these under threat. OK, not everyone's going to disappear overnight, but some will, some will be moved and some will not be replaced. My amendment suggests that if you are going to do this, you must put something in its place.

I think that is not too much to ask. Please can I hope that the government, when they respond to this and at the moment I would like to vote on this, unless there is some great revelation coming from the government, in which case I shall say Hallelujah and sit down. But, my Lords, can we please make sure that this ultimately community activity, which in this country is largely conducted without much government intervention, private groups getting involved and bringing their own time and often their own money, but they need to be supported to allow these other activities to take place.

I would suggest having the the amendment I put, I put down here in position, or at least something very like it would not be too much to suggest that something as important as community grassroots sports have at least their pitches defended and give them a chance to continue to function as they currently do. function as they currently do.
15:55
Baroness Willis of Summertown Portrait Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
Noble Lords I I'm surprised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Name, and I also thank the noble Baronesses, Baroness Young of Old Scone, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Gascoigne Chilthorne Domer and Lord Gascoigne for their support in adding names to this amendment. And this amendment very much actually builds amendment very much actually builds on from the previous amendment just being discussed. It simply aims to ensure that spatial development strategies include provision for publicly accessible green and blue publicly accessible green and blue spaces to local and for local spaces to local and for local communities.

This would empower planning authorities at the strategic level to make accessible green and blue spaces routine, rather than the coincidental and and the sort of existing postcode and the sort of existing postcode lottery that communities currently face of being able to benefit from face of being able to benefit from access to nature and also to sports fields. And the reason but the reasons for the access to nature reasons for the access to nature and blue green spaces. Cities are they're well rehearsed, and we know that they provide this myriad of social, economic and health upsides for people, as well as for people, as well as strengthening urban climate resilience and creating opportunities for wildlife.

Now, at opportunities for wildlife. Now, at the committee stage, the government made it clear that, of course, it recognises the importance of blue and green spaces and the benefits they bring and its intent to maximise them in cities, all of which is extremely welcome. However, in all responses from the Minister at the committee stage, the noble Lady of the Minister concluded that provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework and the yet to be published national development planning policies are sufficient to provide green and blue spaces, therefore making a statutory footing unnecessary.

But peers did make the point that it's not just any green space, it's it's accessibility to people that is critical. And this is the point that's made in the government's own actually really quite excellent, accessible green space standards published by Natural England in 2025. And in this standard, Natural England made the point and the government through it, it committed to providing access to good quality blue and green space for every citizen within walking distance of their home. The reality is, however, that without these strong provisions, developers often see the delivery and placement, and it's the placement I really want to emphasise here the placement of group of blue green space as optional and with the voluntary provisions of green the Green infrastructure framework not leading to consistent delivery of quality spaces in the right places.

In fact, it's natural England's own data that shows that 87% of the UK population have no accessible local green space within 300m of their home. Now, in many cities, the emerging evidence indicates the location of new green space provision is occurring, but it's making the inequalities in access to green space worse. So, for example, looking at the mapped evidence from the largest populated English cities outside of London. So Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, for example, over the past four years, between 2020 and 2024, and using the most up to date land cover information, it's clear that over this interval in time, significantly more areas of blue green space up to 9% more, in fact, have been created in rich parts of the cities, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation index categories nine and ten.

So the very sort of wealthiest parts than in areas of high deprivation categories one and two. So what's happening is this is making already large inequalities in access to green spaces, cities even greater. So to put it bluntly, without a strategic steer and legislation, developers and local authorities are prioritising, intentionally or unintentionally, the delivery of green space in wealthier areas. On such an important issue. I think we need to understand where the results from the government's own green infrastructure mapping database therefore supports the evidence and shows us that the NPPF is actually working to protect and enhance access to green and blue spaces in the right places.

And so I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister could write to me, having asked her team to query this database to examine the change in doorstep local and neighbourhood standards green space over the past five years for the most populated cities in the UK London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. And according to the answer, I will then decide whether to bring this back to the third committee stage to test the opinion of this House. I hope the government would agree that this this amendment is pragmatically worded.

It continues to allow flexibility for local authorities to do what is best for their area, for their communities. Since but, you know, really, this simple measure would cost measurement or amendment would cost the government nothing, but it really would provide a clear mechanism to deliver a commitment for accessible green space, ensuring, not least that the government's own priorities for access to green space can be met.
16:00
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I declare I'm Chair of Sport Wales and also president of the Local Government Association. of the Local Government Association. When the noble Lord, Lord Allen, talks about those who volunteer for talks about those who volunteer for sports clubs, it is a tough job. But people do it because they know absolutely the impact that this has absolutely the impact that this has on people's lives. I think it's a very sensible amendment, and I think we have to accept that we are think we have to accept that we are living in an activity crisis.

So the World Health Organisation has said that a third of adults worldwide do not reach the necessary levels of physical activity, but slightly closer to home, the Sport England Active survey from last year shows specifically around young people that while the levels of participation is stable, without significant and sustained action, significant and sustained action, we're going to be hitting a much bigger physical activity crisis. And currently between 5 and 6% of And currently between 5 and 6% of children have difficulty with movement skills, which absolutely impacts the ability to engage in physical activity.

So if we look at women, there's about 80% of women women, there's about 80% of women in this country who are not fit enough to be healthy, which should raise a number of red flags. But playing fields are just part of the jigsaw of physical inactivity and how we should try and tackle it. So I do believe that we have to do absolutely everything we can to protect what we have. I think we also have to understand we're in a cost of living crisis.

Some sport participation has got much harder to be involved in. So for a lot of people this is a really cheap and easy solution for them to be active. And if the noble Lord decides to take this to a division, I will be supporting him.
16:02
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment 118. Now I'm slightly at a loss because I expected the Conservative frontbench to do a blinding speech on 96, which my amendment more or less is similar. Obviously, I think mine is better because I mentioned biodiversity and reuse and things like that, but I suspect that my amendment, which I had hoped to put to to a vote, probably wouldn't be the Conservative 96. So I would just like to say that both of our amendments, 96 and 118, are supported by the Better Planning Coalition.

As an obvious step forward on improving what we have already. While I'm on my feet on a, I would just like to say that I refute the concept of a grey belt. A grey belt is green belt that has been left to rot, and what we should be doing is recovering that grey belt and making it green belt again. The green belt is absolutely necessary for our health, which is what other noble lords have said. Yes, we need to protect the wellbeing of, of of the land, of ecosystems, of people, of, of towns and villages.

And we really have to remember that this is something we rely on for our ourselves, including, of course, farmland and what we are seeing. What I'm hearing from farmers all over the country is that they are losing farming, good farming land. We potentially, given climate change, are going to face some huge challenges in feeding ourselves and the loss of farmland will be a disaster. So I do think my 118 is a great amendment, but I'm prepared not to put it to a vote.

If 96 is moved. moved.
16:04
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords I rise to speak briefly to my amendment 95 and 98, and I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for her support for protection of good agricultural land. Amendment 95 is a broader application of the principle that was debated and rejected by government and Liberal Democrat backbenchers in this House last week. We on these benches believe that food security is national security, and unlike this government, these are not empty words. We do intend to put that into practice.

We remain concerned that the principle of protecting best and most versatile land grades one, two and three appears to be trampled at will, not just for solar farms under NSIP, but also other developments. My Lords, we must do better. This land is responsible for supplying the lowest cost, highest quality food produced in our country and is far more productive than weaker grades of land building. Without due consideration on the lands we need to feed us is frankly, shortsighted. Amendment 98 asks the government to report annually on how much of our land is being converted from agriculture to tarmac, steel, photovoltaic panels and concrete, and provides the basis for a more informed national debate on how we treat our productive lands? My Lords I won't test the will of the House on these amendments, however, I would be most grateful to receive assurance from the noble Baroness, the Minister, that the government takes this issue as seriously as it should.

This was not entirely clear from the response to the debate on solar farms on BMV this week. I would also like to speak even more briefly in support of the concept of the noble Baroness Lord Willis amendment 88. Well planned development needs to take into consideration access to green and blue open space, but also how this space can contribute to nature connectivity.
16:06
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
The. speak very briefly in support of my amendment 121, a vital step towards bringing clarity and scrutiny to the government's Grey Belt policy. This amendment simply asks the Secretary of State to publish a clear framework for Greenbelt designation within six months of Royal Assent and to lay before both houses. Its purpose is straightforward to ensure this policy is defined and transparent and subject to oversight. This concept has received remarkably little scrutiny or discussion during the passage of this bill, and the concept of the grey belt has shifted since it was introduced in the Labour Party's manifesto.

It was first presented as previously developed land and disused car parks. This, in fact is largely brownfield land already, but since then it's expanded in ways that raise serious concerns. Our party is not opposed to using grey belt land sensibly, but we share the concerns of the Lords Built Environment Committee, who described the rollout as incoherent and rushed. They found it unlikely to have significant or lasting impact on planning or housing delivery, and suggested the concept might be largely redundant. The current definition, as your Lordships may know, includes land in the green belt, comprising previously developed land and or any other land that does not strongly contribute to greenbelt purposes.

The Local Government Association and many councillors, including in my hometown of Solihull and also my former constituency of Redditch, warn that this vague language especially contributes little, could invite subjective judgements and threaten greenbelt protection in places like Solihull and Redditch. With no other surrounding towns, the greenbelt could be vulnerable and small House builders have warned it won't help them, especially given under-resourced planning departments and the risks are clear. Inconsistent criteria and monitoring could lead to uneven treatment and uncertainty.

There's no plan to measure progress or success. In short, this policy has shifted without sufficient clarity or scrutiny, and my amendment offers Parliament the chance to correct that. And I commend it to the House. the House.
16:08
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Added my name, and I thank Baroness Willis for all her work on this, and also thank the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this, and also thank the. Minister and Baroness Hayman for. amendment. The fact is, without this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The fact is, without this amendment putting the green and blue space on a statutory basis, I feel that this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

feel that this. Will be a. Planning bill for the privileged. Baroness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness. Willis this. Afternoon as. To why this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To why this. Might be. There is. Also further evidence discovered by Wildlife and Countryside Link, who conducted Countryside Link, who conducted regression model analysis using official ONS data sets for first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

official ONS data sets for first time buyers by local. Authorities. By local. Authority areas in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By local. Authority areas in. 2023, and they compared this. With the ONS data on the number.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the ONS data on the number. Of adults in each authority who were first time buyers. Now. My Lords first time buyers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. My Lords first time buyers are the very. People who really are going to need green and blue space perhaps the most. They're going to perhaps the most. They're going to have young families, wildlife. And countryside. Link then analysed and mapped the percentage rates for mapped the percentage rates for those first. Time buyers with in-depth green space data and found a statistically significant correlation between lack of green space and higher numbers of first time buyers. In other words, the first time buyers are going somewhere because it's cheap, because it lacks green space, because it lacks amenities.

So of course things are cheaper. But that's exactly what surely this planning bill should be resisting. When we met, the minister said she didn't like this amendment because it's too prescriptive. Now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. She's right that local development plans should decide what green and blue space there what green and blue space there should be. I don't have a problem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with that. However, the fact is, if there's no statutory requirement for the network of spaces that's. Easily.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Easily. Accessible, we can see that there will be far fewer of those there will be far fewer of those green spaces. This amendment is absolutely in line with Defra's stated aims, and it's absolutely an amendment which would contribute substantially to the to sustainable substantially to the to sustainable urban drainage delivery. This amendment would not tie the hands amendment would not tie the hands of the local or regional planning authorities. It just points them in the right direction and makes sure they head in that direction.

And I hope that Lord Goldsmith and his colleagues will bear in mind that colleagues will bear in mind that swift RICS and other nature friendly construction methods will friendly construction methods will not result in more swifts unless the network of green and blue spaces exists to provide food
16:11
Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

sources. 88 in the name of Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

88 in the name of Baroness Willis and various other peers. And I also very much support your Darlington Baroness Grey-Thompson amendments. About Fortfield. I just wanted to make a few points that somehow often don't come up about green spaces. In 2008, when I worked for the then Mayor of London, who then Mr. Johnson, we started a project called Capital Growth. It was a simple and madly ambitious idea to create 2012 new community vegetable gardens in London.

By the time of the Olympic Games, it was a steal entirely from Vancouver, who had done something similar. But we only counted our gardens as one garden, whereas they counted each plot in their garden. So I think that we won in four years. We created 2500 gardens. All of them are still there, contrary to not contrary, but supporting the notion that a lot of these spaces do end up in much more wealthy areas. Once communities were given the chance and a tiny bit of money.

In fact, 78% of our gardens ended up in the most deprived areas of London because that's what people wanted. And very many things happened that you didn't anticipate. One was that all the local police came and said, that garden has transformed this area. And just to give you an example, you would be in a place where there was a high rise block where an area had been designed back in the 50s as a place where mums could walk with their babies in the in the midday sun and the area would be full of needles, beer cans and people wouldn't go.

They'd stay up in their tablets because they were basically frightened to come down. You took over a space and you created a garden. People got pride. People came down, just altered things. It altered things dramatically. And we saw it over and over again. So the police were pleased. The doctors were pleased, the community was pleased, and people started to take ownership of their public space. Now we set up a system by, by. We challenged every borough in London to create 60 spaces.

They all rose to the challenge. But my point in supporting the noble Baronesses amendment is that if we don't make this happen, nobody has the chance, and it is not something that should be the privilege of people with money. This should be accessible to all, not just because it's healthy makes you eat better. We had wonderful groups selling to local restaurants, were having barbecues, they were feeding kids. The knock ons are amazing, so please don't think of it just simply in terms of one single thing.

The point about plants and gardens and gardening is that it spreads dramatically. And one final point before I sit down, I was reading an extraordinary book the other day which talked about heat in urban areas and during the heat dome over the west coast of America. The researcher had gone and measured in Portland, Oregon, the heat in the middle class areas where there was lots of trees and the heat in the poorer areas where it was just concrete. The difference was 20 degrees.

So we must have these spaces as the world's climate change is, because it does really work a lot better than practically anything else.
16:14
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
You. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So we fully. Support amendment. 88, in. The name of Baroness Willis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The name of Baroness Willis. And. Put my name to it. As well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a time of huge opportunity. You know, we're going to be building an unprecedented to be building an unprecedented number of houses. We're going to be creating ten new towns. And the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

creating ten new towns. And the value that can be added to that effort by open. Green spaces. And blue. Spaces, delivering.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spaces, delivering. Some of the benefits that have already been spoken of around the chamber is tremendous, and it's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chamber is tremendous, and it's. Really an opportunity. We mustn't miss. And it is true

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We mustn't miss. And it is true to say that at the moment, deprived communities don't get as good a communities don't get as good a deal on this as richer communities, and the work that the Woodland Trust has done on tree equity has Trust has done on tree equity has shown that the poorer communities have far less access to open spaces with trees. Now, these are vital with trees. Now, these are vital for health, for mental health, wellbeing, air quality. We heard wellbeing, air quality.

We heard about heat, natural flood risk management, the huge range of management, the huge range of things that apart from allowing people to have room to enjoy open spaces, is also going to be delivered by these these open spaces. I to thank ministers for seeing us about this amendment, and I can understand the reluctance to be prescriptive at strategic planning level, but that puts a huge burden on the the national planning policy framework and reliance on it. And the reality is, I came to the conclusion that the noble Baroness, the minister, who was an exemplary leader of her local authority, and I guess kicked her local planning authority round the block until they did deliver exceptionally well on many issues.

But there are local authorities that don't do that. And we've got to be clear that this is a moment in time when we're going to be building all of these houses, creating all of these new urban settlements that we really have to grip the issue and have a statutory requirement on the face of the Bill. I welcome that Defra are going to produce a policy on access, which will come after the publication of the next environmental improvement plan. But by that time, the legislative opportunity will have passed.

So I think we need really to put the requirement for green bill.
16:17
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
And to support amendment 107, in. brief comments. First, in declaring my interest as chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 through to the London Olympic Games in 2012, and being a member of the London Organising Committee for those Olympic and Paralympic Games. I have to say that what Baroness Boycott has said today is absolutely right, and the work that she did at the time was exemplary and really important for the success of those games and the emphasis on environmental protection, the environmental work that went on in green spaces and the gardens were commendable.

And I hope that that's taken very much in into consideration by the noble Baroness, the minister, when she comes to reply to that amendment. I also want to offer the apologies of my noble friend Baroness Thatcher, who was two minutes late in arriving for this set of amendments, and it came from another important meeting. She was she's passionate about this subject. She's just whispered in my ear that she was strongly supportive of what the noble Baroness Grey-Thompson said in her speech, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in moving 107 and if he moves it to a vote, I'm sure she will be supporting him as strongly as I will.

We did at committee. And here I take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, concentrate on a number of facts which is not worthy of repetition, because they were so well made at the time. We looked at the looked at the active communities who were supported by playing fields. But in my brief contribution today, I just want to add to the points that were made about Sport England and a number of facts which were not before the committee at that stage, and which I hope are taken into consideration by the Minister in her response.

Because the bill before us threatens to weaken the statutory protection for playing fields by potentially removing Sport England's role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting these spaces. And these changes would reduce independent oversight. Independent oversight is vitally important regarding these playing fields. The change would reduce independent oversight and advocacy for safeguarding playing fields, increasing the risk of their loss to development, especially in areas already under reserve for sports provision and, if removed, my Lords local authorities would not be required to consult Sport England when considering planning applications that affect playing fields, removing a critical safeguard that is protected over 1000 playing fields in the past year alone.

Statements from the Chair of actually the Chief Executive of Sport England, emphasised that removing this statutory role would. And I now quote for the record, leave a huge hole in the protection system, a sport. England's involvement in planning has led to improved or safeguarded conditions in 90% of recent cases. My Lords school playing fields are particularly vulnerable. Over half of UK playing fields are within school grounds, and the bill does introduce more flexibility for local authorities to sell such land for capital generation.

So my Lords concerns remain that weakening Sport England's oversight could make these disposals more likely. And it is for that reason that I support amendment 107.
16:21
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
I congratulate all those excellent speeches we have heard so far in support of it. The provision of green space is terribly important when building homes. My Lords, I'm in despair to see so many developments of little houses packed tightly together, with little or no garden space and no small green spaces in the public areas, could I urge the Minister to dig out the excellent 2020 report commissioned by our own department called Building Back Beautiful, which, inter alia, made the point that communities are more likely to approve of new housing if it were of a beautiful design and harmonious with the local architecture.

In fact, the full title was living with Beauty Promoting Health, Wellbeing and Sustainable Growth. It was written by the urban design expert Nicholas Smith, who is the founder and chairman of Create Streets. He was also the Chair of the advisory board for the Government's Office for place, and is an academician of the Academy of Urbanism. Chapter ten is called Create Places, Not Just Houses, and says the research is remarkably consistent. Most of us prefer places where we can walk in, where there is greenery frequently present, and where we find the streets and squares beautiful to look at and be in.

We prefer places that do not cost the earth, but can help us live in harmony with it. I do urge the minister to read it and implement it, especially the next chapter. Chapter 11. It is called nature re green our towns and cities. I make no apologies for quoting the first few paragraphs of this chapter, since it makes the point better and more succinctly than I can. It says sustainability and growth are not in conflict, rather they are in symbiosis.

This is true of all three scales building, place and settlement and has been evident in our visits. It is also reflected in Pauline and well-being data. Much of the evidence we received stressed this point. It says there is a considerable body of evidence that shows that green spaces in rural and urban urban areas are highly beneficial to health and wellbeing, and also provide space for people to meet. The perception of beauty is an important factor. Realising these benefits, put simply, sees the report green is good for us.

As Natural England themselves argued in the evidence to us, the presence of greenery in the urban environment normally has a positive impact on our mental and physical health. Street trees seem particularly important. They are associated with cleaner air, slower cars, fewer accidents, they provide shade and hot summers and are perhaps astonishing given the complexity of human life. Street trees have a measurable effect on human health, even taking into account income, age and education in all three scales, the report says they believe that it is necessary to regreen our lives.

It is important not to be naive. However, many essentially very poor development proposals attempt to cover up the shortcomings, with some token tree planting. A strip of grass or a couple of trees cannot rescue a polluted, ugly and profoundly inhumane space. My Lords, I agree entirely with those words. If we cannot rescue those places currently built, but at least we should stop building new ones in the in the future. The London National Park City briefed me a few years ago that their research suggested that people would not walk more than about 250m to a park or green space.

Therefore, my Lords, I say to the Minister, the answer is in these amendments build the green space into the gardens and the streets and little parks, or accessible green space and all housing developments. If people will not go to the parks and green spaces, bring the parks and green spaces to them. Thank you.
16:24
Lord Krebs Portrait Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak very briefly in support of. Amendment 88.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the name of my noble friend Baroness Willis of Summertown, and in particular, to reiterate the point that she made in her introduction to the amendment that if, as we've heard on many if, as we've heard on many occasions, the government's view is that this amendment is unnecessary because the matter is covered by the NPPF. Well, please, could you show us the workings? Can you show us the workings? Can you demonstrate to us with firm data that indeed the NPPF is working to that indeed the NPPF is working to protect green space in our towns and cities and villages? If we don't have the data, how can we actually believe what the government tells us? And of course, we then tend to fall back on anecdotes.

And we've heard a number of anecdotes already this afternoon. I'll just add my own. One of my penances in life is that I support Oxford United. I live in Oxford and Oxford United. I live in Oxford and as one of my friends said, when you support Oxford United, you support them through thin and thin, but them through thin and thin, but near the Kassam Stadium, which is in a more deprived part of Oxford in a more deprived part of Oxford Blackbird Leys estate, there used to be a very nice little green park.

It was small, but it was a bit of It was small, but it was a bit of greenery where children could run around and kick a ball. Just in the last year or so that green space has been completely covered, wall to wall with houses packed in and no green space left. So we've got some anecdotes like that that make us anxious. We don't quite see where this green and blue space is being protected, so I do hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will respond to my noble friend Baroness Willis's request, and that probably not at this moment, but in writing, send us all the data that actually shows the NPPF is delivering what the government claims it delivers here.
16:26
16:26
16:27
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I rise. which hasn't been addressed yet, but that very much fits, I think, as a package with two amendments that have been already widely addressed the noble Lord, Lord Addington's on playing fields and the blue and green spaces with noble Lady Baroness Willis. And I think these three really fit together as a package. My amendment, which is the same as the one that I brought at committee, seeks to ensure that planning authorities take all practicable steps to ensure sufficiency of play opportunities for children.

Now, I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just made the case. Playing fields? Yes, for organised sport, we desperately need those the green and blue spaces. But somewhere to just kick a ball around is not necessarily a playing field, but it's a really crucial space for children to develop their physical skills as a noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson spoke about, but also to develop their social skills to get together to play. Now, I spoke quite extensively at committee and I'm not intending to repeat everything I said.

Then I'm going to pick up a couple of points that were raised then to take them forward. But I will just begin by apologising to the noble Lord, the minister, who did make great efforts to reach out and have a meeting with me before this report stage. But I'm afraid his emails arrived just before and as I was in Ukraine with limited communications, and it's entirely my fault that meeting didn't happen. I apologise for that. That was the circumstances. But I think this is not just my amendment.

It's not my amendment at all, really. At committee, the noble Lord, Lord Addington sort of asked, where did this come from? And I said then that it came from play England. And if you look at the history of that, I think it is worth tracing through this little. The 2024 manifesto was the first from play. England was the first to call for play sufficiency legislation. Now at committee, the noble Lord, the minister, referred to the NPPF change that came in December 2024. But as we've heard from from multiple noble lords, there's not really evidence that that's working.

And the other point is that is, of course, a policy which could be changed, which is very different to having on the face of the bill, having written in law, that's much harder to change, to say planning authorities must consider play sufficiency. Now, as I said at committee, this was debated quite extensively by the standards of the other place, and there was broad expressions of support for it. And I'm afraid that nothing the noble Lord, the minister said at committee, convinced me that there was there was any argument against this.

And I also do just want to note that the noble Lord Committee asked at committee, was I aware that there is an APPG on play? Well, yes. I am a member of the APPG on play together with eight other members of your Lordships House, including several from the government benches and 32 MPs, which I think makes it a very significant All-Party parliamentary Group by the standards of these things, and a recognition of the importance in which this is very much being held.

Now, a number of noble lords, I think noble Lady Baroness Miller among them, referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Link study out this morning about the lack of green spaces around where first home buyers are making their first homes. And of course, many of those first home buyers may well have or be going to have children who desperately need these play spaces. And I note that the times this morning in its paper edition put beside that the report from the House of Lords Environment Committee out, I think, this morning talking about how if the government is going to build new towns, those new towns need to be built as communities with the infrastructure in place.

And of course, part of that infrastructure must be play infrastructure. I referred to the UN convention on the rights of the child, and also to the fact that Wales and Scotland already have comparable legislation to this. And it's worth noting, perhaps, that Wales, of course, has the future of the Well-Being of Future Generations Act, which is something which which almost demands that this you have something like a play sufficiency duty. So, my Lords, this is one, two, one e which is out of scope for our where we're going to schedule to get to tonight.

Whenever we get to, I will listen very carefully to what the noble lady. I think the Minister says this time I'm open to consideration, but I certainly reserve the right to put this to a vote, because I believe this is absolutely crucial and very broadly supported when we come to it on Wednesday.
16:31
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To speak. In support of of the noble Baroness Willis and her amendment 88, which I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

88, which I. Added my name. I should just refer to my interest involving peers of. The planet and also flag that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The planet and also flag that I'm Chair of the Built Environment Select Committee. Baroness Bennett is the Built Environment Select Committee whose report was in the Committee whose report was in the times. Don't don't worry, but watch this space for those who are interested in it. We'll have that debate in due course and look debate in due course and look forward to it. Baroness Bennett, I don't I don't want to wish to prolong the the debate because I think we're probably at the end. think we're probably at the end.

But I would just like to raise one point, which I think is is building on what everything that everyone on what everything that everyone has said so far, which is just about vision. And ultimately, where do we see nature in development. And we've covered a lot today already. We've covered a lot in committee stage of the of the bill. And as was mentioned, the NPPF does reference aspects, but it is open to interpretation and is vague. And there are, again, as we discussed there are, again, as we discussed before and today, some real issues, real issues for some people in the real issues for some people in the country.

And on the amendment specifically, there may be some who query or and therefore object to query or and therefore object to this amendment on the basis of the use of the word network. And basically, ultimately, it's for those on the ground to decide what network means. It be it large or small, but it allows for pragmatism in an effort to seek to do as much as is possible. But ultimately, if I may say, it is about doing more than one, and therefore it is about what more can be done with the entire site, rather than just looking through the lens of trying to do the minimum.

And this isn't onerous. It is. It is very pragmatic, and it also doesn't stipulate the quantum of the size of what nature is needed. And both my party and I think this, this government still honours the concept of the 15 minute walk to nature. But this amendment doesn't go anywhere near as that. So therefore it isn't as onerous as that and as prescriptive. And there's just one final point, and it's an anecdote, if I may, that I can't compete with the the fine words of Baroness Boycott in her story of her many fantastic work that she did in London.

And last week when we were meant to debate this group, I think on Wednesday it was there's a, there's a piece of land where near where I live in, in Surrey. And about a year ago I was driving past and I saw some school kids planting some bulbs, and I thought how absolutely amazing it was to see then building, putting some bulbs in. I think it was miserable weather last year, and I thought how amazing it was to see these kids putting these bulbs in on this, this plot of land.

And last Wednesday, when we were sitting earlier to debate the bill, I charged in valiantly to make my train, thinking we were going to have a vote. And I charged in and I walked past the same bit of land. And it's just for clarity. This is just a piece of grass. Ultimately, with a few trees, a path through the middle, surrounded by roads, residents, residential properties and some shops nearby. It is nothing special, but it is something that is special in itself because it is unique and it is pleasant for those that live nearby, for the dog walkers, for the shops, it's something to enjoy.

I can't imagine that the upkeep is anything too onerous, but it is enjoyed by those nearby. And as I ran past, I saw these school kids yet again one year on planting more bulbs and I thought, I've got to get in, I must get in. And I sort of, you know, smiled as I charged past and I thought, do you know what? No. Forget it. I'm going to forget the vote. I backed up and I went to speak to these kids, and I spoke to someone called Doug from the council who has been involved in this project over the last few years, and I met my own councillor, Lib Dem, I hasten to add.

But we'll forget that called Kirsty, who's really been driving this idea with the council and the school kids getting them involved in a little bit later there were some some of the local businesses that came along too. But the point is, in this small endeavour, it showed exactly why. To me, nature is important, because it's not just important in itself for biodiversity point of view, but it's where it brings people together and improves that area, and it brings people of all ages together to do something.

So I would just like to say that is why I care about nature. That's why we support this, this amendment. And I think I would like to pay tribute to those behind it. And Minister, if I may, I would. I was flicking through the last time we debated this. And so I think I there's no finer quote than I think the minister, if I may, there is a growing body of evidence illustrating the crucial role that green space plays in supporting healthy and inclusive communities, and we recognise the importance of providing these along new homes.

So therefore, I do hope that the government can find a way through on this issue. amendment. amendment.
16:36
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
96, in. requires the prioritisation of brownfield and other sites, and also to speak to my Noble friends amendment 239, to which I've also added my name about the protection of villages which I raised at committee with regard to amendment 96 and brownfield sites. Your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships know I spoke about this in in the committee stage. It is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is. A no brainer, a double win that saves our countryside and green spaces that are rich in nature. And spaces that are rich in nature. And we've heard so much about the importance of green spaces here this afternoon already. And whilst improving areas it. Blighted by uncared for, dilapidated and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sometimes poisonous brownfield sites in the heart of our communities. The minister responded at committee. Stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stage. Saying that the government are clear that the first port of call for development should be brownfield land, and. Suggested brownfield land, and. Suggested that the NPPF already. Covers this point and that Lord. Jameson's amendment and mine at committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment and mine at committee were not needed. I instead ask. If. This is what the government supports, then what is the harm of supports, then what is the harm of applying belt and braces and having it also spelt out here too? Would it not demonstrate their true commitment to this principle? Either way, it still feels as if there's a long way to go. I reiterate the stats. I hope people will forgive me that I shared from will forgive me that I shared from the CPRE.

I haven't been able to find more recent ones yet, and they reported that in 2022, there were a record breaking number of brownfield sites identified for redevelopment, lying dormant enough for 1.2 million homes on 23,000 sites, adding up to 27,000 hectares. The CPRE highlighted that the majority of brownfield sites are in town and city centres, where there is both the need and the scope for new homes and regeneration. Indeed, it will also fit with the travel aspect of subsection nine B in this amendment.

As many of us have said throughout the progress of this bill, it is not simply a question of more homes. We need the right homes in the right places. Much of the current urban brownfield land is known to blight the communities where it exists, leading to poor, poorer socio economic indicators. It's much better to reuse already developed urban land and buildings, as the carbon emissions are lower per capita than greenfield development. I understand that development for developers, there can be a problem that cleaning up land before building can increase costs, but perhaps there is a way that the government can help with this.

Hence, I hope the government will think again on this issue and accept this. What I consider to be a sensible amendment with regard to amendment 239. I feel passionately about the protection of our villages, their identity and the way of life, and I am delighted that my noble friend decided that they wanted to run this from the front bench. Villages and their communities have, I've said before, have been hewn over centuries of rural life and livelihoods, and ki are a key part of the UK's reputation as a green and pleasant land.

This amendment would insert a much needed protection to match that which is currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework, and would level the field playing field to help preserve the special character of individual and historic villages in particular, which would be lost if one village spreads into another, or if a town spreads out into a village. The practicalities and perhaps unintended consequences of implementing this bill poses a significant risk that in opening up development, we will lose these village gems.

Or, in the worst case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a styleless urban sprawl. During committee, the minister argued that the villages were already protected by current guidance for local planning authorities on the restriction of village development and by green belt provisions. But surely is it? It is clear from the debate that we had that this is not necessarily the case in practice. And, and whilst and, but to cite some greenbelt statistics, it's not simply about that the government's own statistics on the green belt state that around 12.5% of the land area of England is currently designated as green belt, focusing around 16 urban cores with national parks included.

This would take the percentage up to around 37% of land being protected by one or more type of protection. Overall, however, there has been a decrease in greenbelt of around 660 hectares between March 2024 and March 2025, the bulk of which was due to six local authorities adopting local plans. With changes to the green belt. And that is just it, my Lords. The green belt can be changed. There are large areas of the country, more rural areas of the country, further away from urban centres that do not fall under any protections and could be impacted by newly planned development or new towns.

Under this government, these villages should have the same protection currently afforded to towns across the country. The government said that an amendment along these lines would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop some strategies. I am afraid I disagree. This amendment is about creating guidance or updating current guidance. Local authorities make their decisions using guidance already. This should only aid this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments, all on acts, on green spaces, the green belt and playing fields and my belt and playing fields and my Lords. This is one of the largest groups of amendments that will be debating today. And I think that's debating today. And I think that's a reflection of how important these issues are held in your Lordships House. My Lords, wild places have always played an important part in my life. In the past, I've been my life.

In the past, I've been very involved with promoting outdoor education, so these matters are also important to me personally across this House. I think there's a recognition of that. We need new a recognition of that. We need new homes and that these new homes are communities that we create, the places that will become dependent on the quality they provide on on having access to really good green having access to really good green and blue spaces. My Lords, the the and blue spaces.

My Lords, the the impacts of just merely being nearby to good quality green and blue spaces are still not properly understood, but this is an ever understood, but this is an ever growing area, and research really shows that this access reduces stress. It improves over well overall wellbeing. It increases the levels of physical activity, enhances social interaction. It gives people a greater sense of community, and it has direct economic impacts and particular benefits for those in the most deprived sections of our communities.

The minister herself has spoken throughout different parts of this debate about how important the new town that the minister grew up in means and the new towns. I put it to the minister that new towns are held in such high regard because they had green and blue spaces actually designed into them. Fundamentally from the start. So these are not nice to have. These are fundamental issues for our community's wellbeing, and they go on to save millions of pounds in unnecessary societal costs from inequality, depression and poor health that result from not having these facilities.

I want to briefly thank Baroness Boycott. She made an extremely important point about climate change as as our climate heats up and the urban heat island effect is something that causes misery and health impacts, and particularly for the poorest who suffer the most. So the need for green and blue spaces in our towns is growing ever more important. One statistic I'd like to just give the House before I move on to the amendments, is that the amount of time our children spend playing outside has declined by 50% in the space of one generation alone, so we need to reverse that.

We need a cross-sector, strategic approach to these things, and we need to ensure
16:46
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that the big House builders don't squeeze out these essential requirements for human existence. requirements for human existence. So turning to amendment 88, in the name of Baroness Willis of Summertown, Baroness Miller and Summertown, Baroness Miller and Lord Gascoigne, this would require strategic planning authorities to include a network of green and blue include a network of green and blue spaces in the statement of policies, which will relate to the development and the use of land in development and the use of land in the area.

This amendment is one we support. It's one that's supported by the National Trust, the Better by the National Trust, the Better Planning Coalition, and we very much support this. This is also much support this. This is also vital again, really for our new towns. Amendment 107, in the name towns. Amendment 107, in the name of my my noble friend has been spoken to very, very clearly and spoken to very, very clearly and well. And we've lost so many of our school playing fields. So these, these these matters are important.

Amendment two three, seven in the name of Baroness Willis and supported by by the Lord Gascoigne, Baroness Young of Old Scone and Baroness Miller would require development corporations to provide green and blue spaces when securing the layout and development of new the layout and development of new towns. And again this this this is this is a crucial matter. Amendment 84, in the name of Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that under planning legislation, the Gardens Trust is a statutory consultee regarding planning applications.

And again, this is an important matter. Amendment 118 in the name of Baroness Jones seeks to have local plans and prepared by local authorities, must apply a sequential sequential I can't speak today approach to the location of developments such that brownfield sites with perhaps low biodiversity are used. Again, we are generally supportive of this approach. Amendment 121 by Baroness McLean would require the Secretary of State to publish a framework for the designation of grey belts.

Amendment 95 from Lord Roborough. This amendment is similar to the one and the noble Lord made this point himself to, in a similar vein to the one we had on solar panels and farmland the other day. And while we're sympathetic to this again, it it suffers really from that same point of being too prescriptive in its definitions. And for that reason we would struggle with it, my Lord, with with that I will, I will. There's, there's there's a lot of amendments in this group.

This is an important group. And I thank you. Lordships speaker. speaker.
16:48
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to strengthen. The bill's. Provisions around green infrastructure, heritage protection, infrastructure, heritage protection, sustainable land use, and, importantly, for play and sports importantly, for play and sports areas. In amendments 170 and. 121 E. areas. In amendments 170 and. 121 E. Amendment 84, tabled by Lord Inglewood, would recognise the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic gardens and designed landscapes are a vital part of our cultural and natural part of our cultural and natural heritage, and their protections must be not be left to chance.

Given that Gardens Trust's formal Given that Gardens Trust's formal status in the planning process is a logical and proportionate step. In logical and proportionate step. In our opinion. Turning to amendment 88, we strongly support the call 88, we strongly support the call for a strategic approach approach to green and blue infrastructure to green and blue infrastructure that is parks, waterways and green spaces that are publicly accessible. Protect which protect biodiversity Protect which protect biodiversity and my Lords enhance well-being. These provisions would help ensure These provisions would help ensure that growth does not come at the expense of nature or public access expense of nature or public access to it.

However, my Lords, this amendment includes the word network. This word my Lords carries a significant implication from strategic planning perspective, because once we define these assets as a network, local authorities could be required not only to safeguard individual sites, but also to consider the functional and spatial connections between those sites. That raises questions of a maintenance responsibilities and resources required to deliver a genuinely joined up approach. We therefore could not support the amendment as drafted, but there is another amendment later on in the debates about new towns, and I think it is a different issue in new towns than it is strategically, which could be across 3 or 4 even counties areas.

There is also a clear cross-party consensus behind prioritising brownfield development and protecting our most valuable farmland and greenfield sites. Amendments such as 95, 96 and 118 rightly push for a sequential, sustainable approach to land use, beginning with sites already in use or disused, and protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land for food production and environmental benefit. Turning specifically to amendment 96, tabled in my name, this amendment would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield land and urban intensification and to promote sustainable mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs and services.

It underpins the widely supported brownfield first principle, a principle that already commands public support and political consensus. But it also goes further, linking that principle directly to community building, sustainability and the protection of villages and open spaces that give our places their character. As conservatives, we're passionate about protecting our greenbelt and safeguarding the countryside from inappropriate development. This government have or have often relied on guidance rather than firm statutory safeguards, leaving too much to shifting policy documents and not enough my Lords to clear legal safeguards.

This is about joined up approach encouraging regeneration where infrastructure already exists, reducing needless commuting and making sure that the new development creates mixed, vibrant communities rather than those isolated housing estates we see too often in our on the edges of our towns. It is about putting what is already in the NPPF brownfield first compact growth and protection of the countryside into statute. I anticipate, the Minister may say, as she did at committee, I agree with the intent behind this amendment.

However, it is already comprehensively covered in the NPPF. But if we all agree that brownfield first is the right principle, then why leave it only to guidance which can be changed at will? If it truly is covered, then legislating to secure it should cause no difficulty. But if it's not, then this amendment is precisely what is needed. This is a proportionate and pragmatic step. It strengthens what the government claims they already believe in, gives local communities greater confidence that brownfield will be prioritised and protects our green belt and our villages from unnecessary pressure.

My Lords and I will be pushing this to a vote when the time comes. Finally, on amendment 239, in the name of my noble friend Baroness Hodgkinson, and my of my name, but spoken to by my noble friend Baroness Hodgkinson of Abinger. And I don't want to say any more, because she said it all, and I don't want to take time repeating it. But, my Lords, this is so important. And again, we will be looking at possibly dividing on this one when the time comes, because this is the protection, my Lords of our villages in this beautiful land.

beautiful land.
16:53
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in a very interesting debate for the very valuable contributions we've heard this afternoon. I've engaged with many of you on these matters over the preceding weeks before our discussions, and our debate has focussed on something on which I think we all agree. And that's the need to ensure that as we deliver the housing we need, we do so recognising the importance of green and blue space, sustainability, heritage and important uses that make our communities and the people that constitute them thrive and succeed.

Firstly, may I remind noble Lords of my letter regarding the strength and influence that planning policy bears on the protection of vital green and blue spaces across the country, the power which it exerts in practice, and the degree of flexibility it allows for sensible choices to be made at local level. The benefits of green space are not in doubt, as far as I can see, for all the reasons set out in our debate, and that is why there are such strong protections within the NPPF and in the planning system.

Turning now to the amendments. We've debated amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord. Lord Inglewood seeks to ensure the Gardens Trust are retained as a statutory consultee for planning proposals and that they are considered as a statutory amenity society. The government has set out its intention to reform the system of statutory consultation. We want a streamlined, effective system of consultation that avoids uncertainty and delay, and we will shortly consult on these reforms, including on the impacts of removing the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee.

Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher graded parks and gardens, so this consultation will help us deliver a streamlined system and address duplication. As part of our consultation, we will be very keen to test mitigations to ensure they continue to play a valuable role in protecting our heritage. Planning policy remains key. Registered parks and gardens are defined as designated heritage assets, and they will remain subject to the strong heritage policies protecting these assets in the National Planning Policy Framework.

These policies require local planning authorities to carefully consider the impact of a development proposal on a designated heritage asset, and if the development proposal would cause substantial harm to refuse such applications. I note the noble Lords proposal about amenity society status with great interest. Amenity societies are not subject to the full requirements of statutory consultation, but are notified of the relevant development. The government really values the work of amenity societies, and I should just add my own anecdote in here about the level of volunteering.

I was at our local community awards on Saturday, and I was delighted to see our amazing green space volunteers getting awards and their volunteers across our gardens, green spaces and parks. Those kinds of volunteers that look after our green spaces, whether they do so in committee rooms or out in the parks themselves, are incredibly valued, as are those who which we'll come to later enable and encourage sport and physical activity. And I pay tribute to those who won those awards locally for me on Saturday as well.

So the government is keen to explore whether this model would be suitable for certain types of development. Through our consultation, we believe there's an important ongoing role for the Gardens Trust, working with local authorities and developers. No decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts from the consultation. My department will continue to engage with the Gardens Trust to understand the impacts of these proposals over the coming months. Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Wallace of Summertown.

Can I thank her for the meeting last week to discuss the importance of networks of green and blue spaces to communities all around the country, and I was very grateful for the information and research that she provided, both to myself and officials from my department. The NPPF will, which will guide the development of new spatial development strategies, already highlights the needs the need for plans to support healthy communities. And I very much agree with the noble lady about equality in the provision of green space.

And I'm grateful for her for to her for agreeing to share the research talked about. And I'm very happy to respond to her on that in writing. And can I just say also to the noble Baroness boycott, I really commend her work during the London Olympics and what she did there. It was amazing work. And I went when I was out on one of my visits, I went to see a fantastic project on Balcony Gardens in Walthamstow, which has also invigorated that community and in my own area.

We started a community orchard project. So I do completely understand the benefits of these types of projects. Strategic planning authorities already have the ability to set policies that reflect the value of these spaces. Under new section 12 for a spatial development strategy may identify or specify infrastructure that promotes or improves the social or environmental well-being of an area. This could include networks of green and blue spaces. We should also remember that these strategic development strategies will not be site specific.

Instead, they will relate to broad locations and noble Earl some of the noble lords that have had meetings with me will be aware that my noble friend, the Defra Minister, Baroness Hayman, is currently working on a comprehensive access strategy which will come forward from Defra to indicate how that meshes in with the planning process. While an SDS may consider green and blue networks at the strategic level, detailed site specific matters relating to them are likely to be best dealt with through local plans.

My Lords, I will now turn to amendment 95, which seeks to protect best and most versatile land, and amendments 96 and 118, seeking to encourage a brownfield first principle. I absolutely agree we need to protect our best agricultural land. To that end, strategic authorities will need to have regard to ensuring consistency with national policy when preparing their spatial development strategies. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural planning.

Policy recognises the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land, and if development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be prioritised, so not in the top three grades that the noble Lord Roborough mentioned. Furthermore, the forthcoming land use framework will set out the evidence and tools needed to protect our most productive agricultural land and identify areas with the biggest potential for nature recovery. While I completely support the underlying objective of amendments 96 and 118, a legal duty to allocate brownfield land before greenfield land in local plans would represent an overly rigid approach.

It could mean that councils are forced to allocate poorly located or, for example, unviable brownfield sites before well-located greenfield sites. The government has now proposed options for brownfield passport to help ensure the default answer to suitable proposals is yes. We are now considering the views received to decide what further action could be taken to support development of brownfield land, including as part of further reforms to national planning policy. I would just comment on the comments from the noble Baroness Lady Hodgson on greenbelt policy.

We've lost six 600 hectares between 24 and 25 as a result of six local plans, I believe, she said. Greenbelt continues to protect around 12.5% of England from inappropriate development. And I would just say that none of the six local plans which release green belt land were examined under the revised 2024 National Planning Policy Framework, which is implementing our Green Belt reform. So I hope that's helpful. Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual report on the amount of land proposed for change of use through a spatial development strategy.

It's essential that the planning system is transparent and that the public understands the effects of planning decisions in their area. As I mentioned previously at committee, the government already publishes a range of statistics on planning and land use in England, including annual statistics on the extent of land designated as greenbelt, and quarterly statistics about the number of planning applications made and permissions granted. The formal allocation of sites will remain the preserve of local plans, which will include working out the precise boundaries, site area and capacity for development.

It would be impractical to calculate the amount of land any spatial development strategy is proposing for change of use and report on it. My Lords, turning to amendment 107 and 121 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington and the noble Baroness Lady Bennett. I'm grateful to the noble Lord for our meeting where we discuss this matter in great detail. We recognise the important contribution that playing fields, pitches and play spaces make to improving the health and wellbeing of our communities. That is why these important assets have such strong protections through existing planning, policy and guidance.

And I would just point out to the noble Lord Blencathra about his comment about trees. I did check this today that the benefits of trees in the streetscene are specifically mentioned in the National Planning Policy framework. There's specific mention of that, so I hope that reassures him. As I explained at our meeting and in previous debates, the NPPF sets out that planning policies should be based on robust and up to date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision.

This includes formal and informal places for children's play, including playing fields and pitches. The framework also sets out strong protections for existing playing fields, where they may be threatened by development, and the policy is very clear. Playing fields can only be built upon if they are no longer needed by the community, if equivalent or better provision would be delivered elsewhere, or if the development proposed is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

While existing policy protections are strong, we are considering what more we can do in this area as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision making on which we intend to consult this year. Further advice on play spaces are set out in the national design guidance, which government is in the process of updating. New guidance is expected to be published later this year. Spaces for sport, play and recreation are being reviewed as part of this update and on the points made by the noble Baroness Bennett and the noble Lord Russell Russell about new towns.

I would direct them to principle five of the report on the New Towns Taskforce, which says very clearly that new town should be health and safety places, health and healthy and safe places, which promote active lives for residents with easily accessible green spaces and recreational facilities. The noble Lord Moynihan mentioned Sport England and I would say that we are consulting on those statutory consultees, but any organisation can continue to contribute to planning, planning application debates.

Additionally, to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces, including improving play areas, the government has established the Parks Working Group with local authorities and industry specialists. Furthermore, our Pride in Place Impact Fund is providing £150 million of funding to up to 95 places to support the development of shared spaces, revitalise local high streets and improve the public realm. And this can include funding upgrades to public spaces such as parks and playgrounds. I would comment to the noble Lord Krebs about footballing vistas.

I'm lucky enough to be a Stevenage FC supporter, and Stevenage is opposite the most fabulous Fairlands Valley Lakes Park, where I like to think the kicking around of a ball at the noble Baroness Bennett mentioned may result in the players that eventually are destined for the stadium and second place in League One, so I look forward to that. My Lords, while we share the same objective here, we do not believe it's the right approach to address these matters through legislation, but instead through planning, policy and guidance.

Amendment one, two one and 239 I'd like to thank the noble Baronesses, lady McLean and Lady Scott of Bybrook for these amendments on the government's greenbelt reforms, including protection of villages. Amendment 121 seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a framework that sets the criteria by which land should be designated as green as greenbelt, setting out a definition of greenbelt and how greenbelt should be monitored. We believe this amendment to be unnecessary, as our revised framework is already clear on how greenbelt should be defined, with accompanying guidance setting out considerations for decision makers in identifying greenbelt land.

It's also clear on the circumstances in which greenbelt should be established, altered or reviewed. The most recent changes to the framework were subject to extensive consultation, and where we made and where we made changes in response to points raised. As Greenbelt is identified and amended within local plans, it's right that greenbelt policy is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework regarding amendment 239. Neither our greenbelt reforms nor our updated Greenbelt guidance make any change to the greenbelt purposes which seek to prevent the merging of towns and the safeguarding of the setting and special character of historic towns.

Neither do they remove appropriate and relevant green protections from land around villages. The framework states plainly that green belt land, including land in or near villages which contribute strongly to the relevant purposes, should not be identified as greenbelt. There may be other reasons to restrict or manage development in villages, including those not in the greenbelt, but neither the bill nor our policy reforms preclude local authorities from consideration of matters such as the character of a village or the location, scale and style of development, where relevant in the planning determination.

For all the reasons I've set out, probably a bit too extensively, I apologise. I needed to cover all the points in the debate. I do hope that noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendments.
17:09
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
Garden yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My my Lords, I'm very pleased to think that my amendment has led to such a wide discussion which has showed more or less complete unanimity, unanimity across the House about the importance of green House about the importance of green space in placemaking in this country, because that where we can country, because that where we can get unanimity like that, then there's potential of making progress. I'd like to thank the noble Baroness for her specific remarks relating to the Garden Trust.

And as they say, I shall Trust. And as they say, I shall think on them as I, as I was sitting here, just made me think, of course, what we're all trying to of course, what we're all trying to do is to change policies and law, but are we not, in fact, possibly creating a hydra? It's actually creating a hydra? It's actually going to make it, in general terms, more difficult for the planning more difficult for the planning process to work. Well, at the end of the day, planning is about of the day, planning is about physical specifics and not abstract generalities.

And the key to whether or not this debate has been worthwhile, I believe, is going to be whether or not the country is a be whether or not the country is a better place as a result of it. My leads, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw. My amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw. My amendment. Is it your pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 85, which already been debated. Amendment 85. Baroness Pinnock not moved. Not moved. Amendment 86 Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.
17:10
17:12
17:23
17:23
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. I rise to speak to amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments 163 A and 163 B tabled in my name. These seek to ensure that the Nature Restoration Fund is properly aligned with the planning process, and in particular, is capable of supporting the more large and complex developments. It's my view that the current drafting clause 66 is preventing some of the larger or more complicated schemes from using an environmental delivery plan. These kinds of larger, more complicated developments often evolve after development has started. We'll hear about more about this on hillside at whatever ungodly hour we get to it.

So, for example, outline permission may be granted, but a developer may subsequently seek to change the planning conditions attached to the permission. Maybe amendments to other aspects of development under section 96 A or otherwise. It may also be the case that larger developments need to apply for retrospective planning permission after development has commenced to regularise the development, when it's been built differently to the permission in its current form, clause 66 only allows developers to request to use an EDP before development has commenced, a single snapshot in time.

And whilst I can understand why it was drafted in that way inadvertently, it seems to me that it risks limiting the NRM by failing to accommodate the possibility of ever evolving development schemes. If the government is going to deliver it, its growth and housing targets, I would assume they would want to ensure the NRF could support the full range of development projects, particularly given it's the larger ones that tend to have the greatest tendency to evolve during their often decades long, certainly years long lifetimes.

Amendment 163 A wouldn't require Natural England to accept such development. What it would do is allow the design of EDPs to accommodate the scenarios where appropriate. 163 B similarly doesn't require Natural England to accept a request from a promoter of such development to pay the levy. But it does do is it makes clear that when deciding whether to accept it, this is guided by the Secretary of State's policy on the matter. I encourage the government to consider this amendment, in the spirit of which it's tabled, to ensure the proper functioning of legislation and help the Nature Restoration Fund navigate the complexities of the planning system.
17:25
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to respond to this group of amendments on the EDP consultation process. My Lords, we are broadly in support of amendment 87 table tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Coffey, and we we appreciate the amendments 163 and 16B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord banner, but we have rather more care in relation to these than a number of questions that we'd we'd like to ask about them. Turning first to amendment 87.

This strikes us as a sensible and indeed unnecessary clarification by requiring local planning authorities to have regard to an EDP relevant to the land in question, it closes an important procedural loop between the Bills new environmental mechanisms and the Town and Country Planning Act. I'll move on to the amendments, as I don't think that amendment is being pushed to a vote. Turning to amendment 163A, here we're entering more kind of complex territory, if I might, and I've listened to the noble Lord speech and in relation to his amendment is intended in relation only really to large developments.

But this amendment would allow developers to seek to use an EDP after development has already commenced. My Lords, this is a fundamental change to the way this bill was originally drafted. And although this amendment and the next one are both short, they would have profound impacts on the nature of this bill and the reasoning behind it. Considering the late stage we find ourselves in, it is worth treating these amendments with a degree of cautious scepticism. And I have a number of questions, really, that I wish to put to the Minister about these amendments, particularly as I understand that the Minister might be intended to support them to some extent.

I understand the reasoning behind them that projects evolve and that impacts manifest late in the process, and developers may wish to regularise matters through this pathway and indeed, in in principle, a degree of flexibility can be helpful for all concerned in the planning process, and this could help speed things up, which is indeed one of the core intentions of this bill. But flexibility, if poorly secured and accounted for, risk turning instead into loopholes and giving it could indeed give the government much more direct power and say over matters of importance.

EDPs were convinced precisely to ensure that environmental environmental protections is front loaded, assessed, integrated and approved before the first spade hits the ground. If we are now to permit post-commencement plans, we are blurring that critical line and this government clearly set that out in the original drafting of this bill. So again, this is a very, very fundamental change. And my question start really here. Might this invite retrospective justification of impacts that should really have either been avoided or evaluated in advance? And what is a mechanism in what is the mechanism that is that will stop deliberate misuse of this new clause? Should a developer be so minded to do that? So how will Post-commencement EDPs preserve the same environmental rigour as those agreed at the outset of the drafting of this bill? What safeguards will ensure the flexibility serves better compliance? Not convenient regularisation after the fact? And how? How will this affect the deterrent against starting work without proper authorisation? Credibility of EDPs.

Indeed, public trust depends on certainty that environmental obligations cannot be adjusted once the bulldozers roll in could increase. This could increase uncertainty for developers themselves. For all the talk of streamlining, streamlining, shifting assessments, Mid project can introduce delay, legal risk and even greater reputational exposure. What assurances can the Minister offer that such changes will not, paradoxically, lengthen timeframes and make further complications? Amendment 163B takes us a step further down this new road of divergence by requiring Natural England to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to accept a post commencement commencement request on one reading that offers consistency and greater ministerial oversight and control.

But on another, perhaps more troubling, it introduces a political lever over which the government can exert pressure over and that can impact the ability to have independent ecological assessments. Is it right that the government is given these new powers, and what effective challenge would there be to them should they be agreed? What grounds do what grounds do these powers? What? Sorry. Say that again. What grounds do these powers need to go through? What? What hoops they need to go through before they are given what I.

Both arguments cannot remain true, that the Natural England is independent and yet the government is is giving it direction. The government originally set this Bill out with Natural England being independent. So where is the logic to fundamentally flip that on its head? How will the independence of Natural England be protected under this arrangement if it was agreed, what, if any, real independent exists? Where this where this new arrangement to be put in place? Where would where would Natural England stand in relation to the government? It seems like the government is not only setting the homework task, but is also the sole person marking that homework as well.

If it did happen, would it be transparent? Would it be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny? It's really important that these decisions are published and that they were they would be open. Natural England must continue to exercise professional discretion based on evidence and on statutory duty, not on ministerial pressure or preference. Environmental regulations loses its legitimacy the moment scientific judgement is replaced by a possible political judgement. If the government was minded to allow post-commencement EDPs at all, then surely we need stronger guarantees of transparency, clear eligibility thresholds, independent verification and public reporting of any decisions.

Without this, this innovation risks eroding confidence both in the system and in its underlying environmental purpose. So, my Lords, with those questions, I seek some clarification from the minister. But these these are fundamental changes that flip key parts of this element of this bill on its head.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They're introduced at a very late stage, and they raise a number of issues of concern. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I will not make extensive comments on my Noble friend Baroness Coffeys amendment
17:33
17:34
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I thank the noble Baroness Lady Coffey for amendment 87, which would require decision 87, which would require decision makers to take account of the environmental delivery plans when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. I agree, of course, that it's crucial that EDPs are integrated into the planning system. I hope I can provide the noble Baroness with the necessary assurance that her amendment is not necessary at its heart, and EDP enables a developer to discharge a relevant environmental obligation by making a commitment to pay the appropriate Nature Restoration Levy.

Once this commitment is made, the legislation removes the requirement to consider that specific environmental impact as part of any wider assessment, as the impact will be materially outweighed by the actions taken under the EDP. So while the planning decision maker will need to consider a wide variety of matters when making planning decisions, it's not necessary for the decision maker to consider the EDP itself. I therefore hope that this explanation that noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, turning now to amendments 163A and 163B, tabled by the noble Lord Lord banner, which would help ensure the Nature Restoration Fund works effectively for large scale development. It has always been our intention that part three of the Bill should support development as much as possible. As we have repeatedly said, the Nature Restoration Fund will benefit both development and nature. Therefore, we want to maximise its scope and therefore the benefits it will deliver. I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Warner for tabling his amendments and I've looked at them very closely.

As has been pointed out, the restriction in clause 66th May in fact preclude a proportion of development from being able to come within scope of an EDP at all, where, as is often the case, a large development needs to vary planning permission, for example, or apply for retrospective planning permission following changes outside of their control. We need to ensure the NRF can support such development, as failing to do so could significantly reduce the ability of the NRF to deliver the win win that we all want to see from, for nature and for development.

While, of course there will be complexities in how to manage large and complex development, this can be addressed through the design of EDP and supported with government guidance. As with any development, it will be for Natural England to consider requests having regard to that guidance, and I hope I can reassure the noble Earl that this is not a way of skirting around the planning procedures in any way whatsoever. This is about access to the Nature Restoration Fund. So all of the normal things that apply to planning permission would still apply.

This is just about providing that access to the NRF. Once the development has started. With that explanation, can I thank the noble Lord Lord banner for tabling the amendments for all the work he's done on this and for the meetings I had with him on it? And I hope the House will join the government in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting his amendments. I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it, Your Lordship, that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the group of amendments to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 87 A, which have already been debated. Amendment 87 a Baroness copy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 87 a Baroness copy. Not moved. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment amendments beginning with amendment eight with amendment 87 B after clause 51, amendment 87 B Lord Lucas.
17:37
17:38
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
the most important vehicle for nature recovery in this country. The local nature recovery strategies being developed by the 48 local authorities in charge, now can only design a recovery strategy if one knows what is there in the first place, or rather, what is not there or is lacking and needs to be recovered by my Noble friends amendment is wise and right. I would urge the government to go further, since many organisations collect species information, often working collaboratively to pool data and make it available for research and conservation purposes.

Now, the primary network for this collaboration is the National Biodiversity Network. The NBN, which brings together government bodies, charities, volunteer led recording schemes, data aggregators and networks. The NBN is a charity that oversees the UK wide partnership for gathering and sharing biodiversity data. Then we have the Biological Records Centre, the BRC that was established in 1964. The BRC coordinates and supports wildlife recording schemes and societies across the UK, working with volunteers. Recorders. It manages the online recording tools called I record and iNaturalist UK, and its data is published on the NBN Atlas.

Then we have the the. Then we come to the local environmental records centres. The lyrics the organisation mentioned in my Noble friends amendment. Now also my Lords, Natural England has divided England into 159 distinct national character areas called Ncas. Each NCA is defined by a unique combination of natural and human factors, including landscape and diversity. Geodiversity. That's geology and landforms, history, cultural and economic activity. Now that information, my Lords, is invaluable in helping authorities develop their airline strategies.

But so is all available data with government and private by Noble friends amendment asks that the biodiversity information collected in the course of planning application should be given to the lyrics, and I also add to that it should be given to the NBN and the BRC. Also, we cannot have enough data available for decision making where I depart slightly, what I depart from my Noble friends amendment is he wants to make it compulsory and legal. I would hope that's not necessary. I would hope that exhortation from the government to the local authorities would ensure that this information is sent to the three organisations we've mentioned in in our amendments.

Now, I hope that there will not use excuses all confidential in the planning application. We can't send it. That is nonsense, my Lords. It should not be deemed confidential and it should be passed on to those organisations. And if the Secretary of State wants another new slogan in addition to Bill baby Bill, I would suggest data, baby data, data

**** Possible New Speaker ****

data. My Lords I rise to speak. The amendments. In my.
17:41
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Name in this group, starting with amendment 87 PB is it about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bats which I will come on to in a minute? In the meantime. I would like. To say that His Majesty's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To say that His Majesty's Government has made a number of statements complaining about the obstructive planning laws which obstructive planning laws which impede building. The government is to be applauded in taking this sensible viewpoint, and I'm very happy to help the government by putting down these amendments, which will, I hope, alleviate one of the expensive and absurd difficulties that come in the way of those seeking to build. As I said at Second Reading, bats are an example of good intention being taken over by those concerned with the implementation of the legislation, extending their remit to an absurd degree.

I quoted at Second Reading the £100 million bat tunnel, or, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out at the time, ten doors to this House and my own case of having a House being demolished, which the bat people had confirmed was bat free. Nevertheless, they insisted on each tyre being removed one by one, which meant I had to employ six people for four weeks, removing tiles one by one for inspection by a bat person.

This cost £30,000, as opposed to one man and a machine taking half a day, which would have cost £500. The legislation, initiated under the Wildlife and Conservation Act 1981, goes through Natural England to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Ecological Management, who set the competency standards and. Bat inspectors are registered with them. It's become an industry of its own. Local authorities. In order to avoid criticism for not complying with the Wildlife and Countryside Act, go for the easy life and automatically demand an inspection for bats, even where it may not be a sensible or reasonable request.

This is then carried out by the registered bat inspectors. This would be fine, but it's abused as in my case, where with no evidence of bats, an extra £30,000 had to be paid to confirm their inspection. I recently came across the case of a young couple wishing to alter their attic to add needed extra accommodation. They were required by the local authority to have a preliminary bat inspection at a cost of £1,000.

Without this inspection, the local authority would not permit them to even apply for planning consent, something which might not have been granted. Why couldn't they put in for planning? And if planning was approved, then carry out a survey where at least they would be putting some money towards something positive. My amendments 203 B 203 C and 87 FC seek to ensure that there is some comeback to unreasonable requests so the system is not allowed to run wild as it does at the present time.

Yeah, my amendment 87 would enable some form of discipline to be imposed on local authorities in respect of the demands for Bat inspections. This is in line with government policy. It would assist in the development of housing, which the government is keen on. It gives me my Lords great pleasure to assist His Majesty's Government by introducing what I hope will be a first step in implementing the government's expressed wish to bring some kind of sense to the planning process.
17:46
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. OK. Let's look. My Lords I rise to speak briefly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I rise to speak briefly to amendment 87 B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. My noble friend is calling for better recording and storage of recording and storage of biodiversity information, and this is a noble aim. We agree with him that increasing our understanding that increasing our understanding of biodiversity in the UK is a good thing, and we would support measures from government to support this. So could the noble Baroness the Minister please outline some of the steps ministers are taking to the steps ministers are taking to to to record biodiversity? My Lords, turning to amendments 87 FB and FC turning to amendments 87 FB and FC and amendments 203 B and 203 C in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising.

These combined to form a constructive proposal for ensuring that bats are appropriately and pragmatically appropriately and pragmatically protected, while removing the time and cost burden on everyone in society from the unnecessarily prescriptive and arduous regulations that we currently suffer. That protections are a significant hindrance to everything significant hindrance to everything from loft conversions and roof repairs through to the largest developments. My noble friend is not suggesting that protection for those species of bats that are endangered or rare in the UK should endangered or rare in the UK should be weakened, simply that protections should focus on those.

We need to accept that our activities are going to have some impact on nature and ensure that our response to that is proportionate. Bats in buildings are an unusual issue, and that they do little or no harm to the buildings or inhabitants and are creating their own dependence on our activities. The fact that we provide this habitat should not be a cause for inappropriate encumbrance on the property owner. For doing so, we are creating a perverse incentive to remove that habitat for bats wherever possible, in order to ensure that we have reasonable freedom to enjoy our property.

Surely that is not the outcome we want or desire for bats themselves. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister is grateful to my noble friend's constructive amendments, and I look forward to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling amendment 87 B, which would require all biodiversity information generated
17:48
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted free of charge to local environmental record centres. I was very pleased to be able to provide the noble Lord with further information on this matter during recess. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for amendment 87 BA, which clarifies this amendment to require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted to the National Biodiversity Network and the Biological Records Centre, in addition to local environmental record centres, the government fully recognises the importance of robust biodiversity data in planning applications.

Although the idea of having a new slogan data baby data, I might have to get a new hat with that on it, which maybe that's not such a good idea. While we share the intention of improving access to biodiversity data, we don't believe the amendment is necessary. The statutory framework under the Environment Act 2021 already requires developers to provide a baseline assessment of biodiversity value using the statutory metric published by the Secretary of State. This ensures consistency and transparency without prescribing how data should be shared or stored.

When discharging the biodiversity gain condition, applicants can choose to share their data with local environmental record centres and many, many are already choosing to do so. I'll come to the Noble Lords point about how many in a moment, introducing a legal requirement to submit data would add administrative burdens and technical requirements without improving biodiversity outcomes. However, I will take back to officials the noble Lords points that this is not happening as intended. To consider what further encouragement we might give to help speed that data on its way.

And for these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for amendments 87 and 87 FC and for his concern to support the government in what we're trying to do. I'm grateful for that. His amendments concern Bat inspections during planning applications and the quality of those inspections and amendments. 203B and 203C, which concern legal protections for bats in planning decisions. The government is committed to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment, including bats.

However, we recognise that people can experience the kinds of costs and delays that the noble Lord has outlined associated with the existing system of bat protections, such as survey requirements. The government recognises that measures to protect bats should be efficient and proportionate. That's why we've already begun work to improve the bat surveying processes. Natural England's earned recognition scheme for Bat licences provides a streamlined route to securing a licence. Under this scheme, appropriately qualified Bat ecologists with a membership of an approved professional body can act more independently of Natural England through earned recognition.

Permissions are secured on average 3 to 4 times more quickly, and it also aims to improve survey quality to deliver better outcomes for bats. We are expanding this scheme and in line with recommendations from the review, Natural England has already updated its standing advice for local planning authorities on bats to remove complexity and duplication. In November, Natural England will publish a bat regulation reform roadmap, which will set out further plans to work more closely with planning authorities and to streamline licensing, for instance, expanding its pre-application advice offer, which can expedite planning applications and avoid unexpected surveys, as well as developing pilots to test quicker and cheaper survey options.

Government's already acting on this issue. The additional reviews and regulations that the Noble Lords Amendments 87 and 87 FC would require, we believe, are therefore unnecessary and would create significant new bureaucracy. Furthermore, 203 B and 203 C would result in likely non-compliance with international law, including the Berne Convention. So, with the explanations I've set out above, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 87 B as an amendment to 87 B Lord Young Catherine. Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to 87 B Lord Young Catherine. Not moved. Not moved. Amendment 87 B Lord Lucas. My Lords, I'm very grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful. To the Minister. For her reply. I shall not drop this particular issue, but for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment. And it's a pleasure this. Amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 87 D, beginning with amendment 87 D, which have already been debated, amendment after clause 51,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment after clause 51, amendment 87 D Baroness Coffey. Just a reminder, this is the amendment where currently an owner

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment where currently an owner of a building has permitted development. Rights to demolish. It unless it is a pub, a live
17:53
17:55
None Portrait Division
-

when voting is open. Voting when voting is open. Voting is when voting is open. Voting is now open. Hello Hello ladies. Hello ladies. You've been sorry. Follow me mate. You've been sorry. Follow me mate. I I don't Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this amendment be agreed to? As many as that be agreed to? As many as that opinion say content. Pretend the contrary. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary. Not content. Not content. The contents. Will go to the right by the throne. They're not content to the Sorry, sorry. Sorry, sorry. Well. Sorry. How How are How are you How are you doing How are you doing? How are you doing? Are How are you doing? Are you How are you doing? Are you not How are you doing? Are you not? Question.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that this amendment be agreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right? You. You. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords have My Lords have voted. My Lords have voted. Contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords have voted. Contents 243, not contents 157. So the 243, not contents 157. So the Amendment 87 Amendment 87 E Baroness Cabinet not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Cabinet not moved. Not moved. 87 f Baroness Coffey not moved. That brings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That brings. Us to Group four.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Us to Group four. After clause 51, amendment 80 7FA Baroness McIntosh my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

7FA Baroness McIntosh my Lords. I'm delighted to speak briefly to this short but perfectly. Formed amendment, and.
18:05
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment, and. What I'm. Hoping is. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Extract a commitment from. The Minister and the government on this Minister and the government on this question of making water and sewage undertakings. Statutory consultees for a development consent order in the same way as the Environment Agency currently is. What has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

changed since the committee stage. Why I've raised this. At this stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At this stage. At report, we already. Knew we'd had the Cunliffe Commission review commissioned by the government as done by Defra. Now with a new done by Defra. Now with a new Secretary of State in their recommendation, 72 of the Cunliffe recommendation, 72 of the Cunliffe Report, it states that the role of water companies in the planning process in England should be strengthened to ensure they have strengthened to ensure they have sufficient sight and influence over upcoming developments.

They go on upcoming developments. They go on to say that water companies should have a clear ability, in the view of the Cunliffe Commission, to of the Cunliffe Commission, to comment on planning applications above a certain threshold in above a certain threshold in England, they're asking, and I'm hoping the government will confirm, that the government should consider.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the government should consider. That this should be. A as. A statutory. Consultee or through a requirement to notify. This would ensure water companies can deploy ensure water companies can deploy site specific technical advice and avoid delays. It would actually save the government time if, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

save the government time if, for example, there was a period if there was an area of. Water stress. Where it. Was. Inappropriate to build a development of, say, 300, a major development of 300 new houses by making water companies statutory consultees, this actually would expedite the planning application. Then, on the 13th of October, the Environmental Audit Committee reported in its report on flood resilience in England with a similar recommendation. And in their recommendation 25, they state the government should initiate consultation on statutory requirements for assessing the cumulative impact of development on flood risk within local and regional plans by the end of this year, 2025, and they then go on to say that water companies should be made statutory consultees on major planning applications.

Now. The report was set up at the behest of the government, so I'm presuming that the government will follow the recommendations of the Cunliffe Review. The environment audit report, environmental audit report is actually looking at how the current system is failing residents in this country to prepare for future flooding. So with those few remarks, I'm hoping to extract a commitment from the Minister this evening that the noble Lady will say that this is now something that the government wishes to proceed on as a matter of urgency, and that we can actually see it as part of this bill.

And if the government wish to bring forward an amendment in its own words, that would be absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ideal. With those few remarks, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 51, insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled list. My Lords we we we on these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords we we we on these benches are in support of this amendment, which seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are formally consulted by
18:09
18:10
18:11
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords Amendment 87 far tabled by the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh, seeks to ensure water and sewerage undertakers are consulted by applicants for development consent orders. Let me begin by acknowledging the noble Baronesses long standing interest in ensuring that infrastructure development is undertaken responsibly, with due regard to environmental and public health concerns, the importance of early engagement with key stakeholders in the planning process is definitely not in dispute. Indeed, the government remains firmly committed to ensuring that meaningful engagement takes place at the formative stages of project development and where stakeholders are able to meaningfully influence where appropriate.

As has been made clear in the other place by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Housing and Planning, the government has already taken steps to streamline the statutory consultation process under the Planning Act, section 42, which this proposed amendment seeks to modify, will be repealed by a clause four of the bill. This reflects a broader concern that the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation were not functioning as intended, leading to delays, excessive rounds of engagement and an ever growing volume of documentation.

That said, I want to reassure noble Lords. This does not mean that issues relevant to stakeholders will be ignored. Quite the contrary, under the bill, the Secretary of State will issue guidance to assist applicants of the steps they might take in relation to submitting an application. The government acknowledges that stakeholders play a vital role in safeguarding public health and environmental standards, and the importance of their input and engagement will be made clear in guidance. The guidance will include expectations on who the applicant should consider engaging with, and would positively contribute to a scheme focussed on delivering the best outcomes for projects and its impact on the environment and communities.

This may include engaging with relevant statutory undertakers such as water and sewerage, sewerage, undertakers where it is beneficial to do so. To also be clear, the removal of statutory consultation at the pre-application stage does not remove various organisations ability to actively participate and influence an application through registering as an interested party. Statutory bodies will still be notified if an application is accepted and be provided with the opportunity to make representations under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.

This amendment risks Re-adding statutory complexity after government has responded to calls to simplify the system through clause four, which repeals statutory pre-application consultation. This has already been agreed and is not under debate in this context. While I appreciate the noble Baronesses intention to strengthen the role of water and sewerage undertakers in the planning process, I must respectfully resist the amendment in the light of planned changes to pre-application consultation associated with applications for development consent. I hope with these assurances and noting the inconsistency with clause four, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to all those who have spoken and in particular support from the noble Lady,
18:14
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
support from the noble Lady, Baroness Grender and I omitted to declare my interest. I'm co-chair of the water APPG and an officer of the flooded communities APPG. I am a little disheartened by the response from the minister, because that sounds like a retrograde step to me, one that is not in keeping either with the cross-party Select Committee conclusions set out in the Environmental Audit Committee report or indeed in the Cunliffe report. We had a meeting with Sir John Cunliffe last week of the water APPG, and he is under the clear understanding that there is going to be a water bill, not not the water bill, as in we're paying our water rates, but another piece of legislation coming down the track to implement many of his recommendations.

So I will watch this very carefully and consider when the time comes, how to proceed. Well, I'm going to wait until we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw at this stage. You either have to move your amendment or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment or. Withdraw it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to move at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw until the appropriate time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

until the appropriate time. Now is the. Appropriate time. So you're withdrawing? Yes. Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very much. Is it your. Lordship's pleasure. This amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave. Withdrawn. Amendments 87.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments 87. And 87 FC. Lord Howard not moved. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. To after. Clause 51.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 51. Amendment 87 FD Baroness. Bishop. My Lords. The purpose.
18:16
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The purpose. Of tabling amendment 87 FD is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of tabling amendment 87 FD is twofold. First, it is to shine a beacon of light on a building beacon of light on a building scandal that has recently fallen out of the national spotlight. The second is to urge the government to. Use this bill to exert further pressure on those who caused the. Grenfell Tower tragedy, where I remind the House 72 people lost their lives. This amendment is not about pointing the finger of blame at this or past governments.

It is about seeking to put. More pressure on those who created the conditions in which people have died, and in which many leaseholders are now having to endure the conditions failure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So what are the facts? The MH, CLG estimate and I note there is no current definite definitive figure that between 5000 909,000 buildings of over 11m have 909,000 buildings of over 11m have unsafe cladding. This means there are over a quarter of a million individual flats, and perhaps nearly half a million people nearly half a million people affected, and that is just for affected, and that is just for those blocks over 11m, which are the subject of the Building Safety the subject of the Building Safety Act.

Now, according to government figures for August this year, 1927 blocks have had their remediation blocks have had their remediation completed and a further 750 have started. But it leaves many thousands of leaseholders in limbo. thousands of leaseholders in limbo. Now I accept that the government has attempted to improve this. Its position with the remediation acceleration plan, alongside a promise to for a remediation bill. So on that one can the noble Baroness the Minister tell the House when the bill is likely to be introduced? The action plan commits to completing all remediation of blocks over 11m by 2029.

That is a full 12 years after the Grenfell Tower fire, and meanwhile leaseholders are paying the price for the situation that in no part is of their making. They are paying for it in extortionate insurance bills, in ever rising service charges and in knowing that they have no way out as their flats do not sell for some. This has had very tragic consequences. The mother of one of those who had ended their life as a direct result of this enormously stressful situation, is sitting in the gallery today and listening to this debate.

This bill is an opportunity to further address the building safety scandal by putting more pressure on those who created these dangerous living conditions. Amendment 87 PhD in my name and co-signed by the noble Earl Lytton, seeks to require that the construction companies that have signed up to the Responsible Actors Scheme agreed to the full remediation of all buildings, and that includes those under 11m before they are able to proceed with further major developments. This must be achieved at no cost to leaseholders for those living in blocks of under 11m.

Currently the cost Fall on them despite their not having created the building scandal in any way. The major House builders are well able to afford to pay for the crisis they created, with annual operating profits being in the high hundreds of millions of pounds. Now, unfortunately, the noble Lord Young of Cookham wished to speak in support of this amendment, but is currently speaking in Grand Committee. He has asked me to say that he is in complete support of the amendment and will vote in the lobbies, in support of it, in support of it if a vote is called.

I look forward to the noble Baroness. The Minister's response. But if I am not satisfied that more can be extracted from those who created the crisis that is putting lives at risk, then I will test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. R member proposed. After clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

R member proposed. After clause 51. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. printed on the marshalled list. It's a pleasure to support this amendment tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock and to which Baroness Lady Pinnock and to which I've added my name. We have both spent many years trying to persuade the government that a clearer and the government that a clearer and more comprehensive solution is needed to protect everyone affected
18:22
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
needed to protect everyone affected by the building safety crisis. Noble Lords will, of course, know of my professional insights into this matter as a Chartered surveyor and of my previous attempts to get fair treatment for innocent homeowners, my Lord, I continue to receive mail from homeowners, small investors, property managers and conveyancers who are utterly dismayed at the complexity, uncertainty and capricious nature of the funding. Under the government. Schemes which involve matters of building height, cladding, combustibility, unseen and previously unknowable compartmentation issues with funding applied differentially to various classes of ownership or dependent on the freeholder assets, plus identification of the personal responsibility and whether that person has effective agency in relation to remediation.

In addition to that, there are two parallel standards of remediation at work. Now, some noble Lords will recall I convened during the course of the Building Safety Bill deliberations and a briefing for peers, and we were addressed by the late Amanda Walker, to whom the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock, I think, was making reference, and she told us how her life and her world had been completely turned upside down. And her experience fits entirely with what others have told me of a living hell of unsellable property, unaffordable interim safety costs, insurance hikes, unknowable liabilities going forward.

In short, what they thought a safe and secure home being turned into a financial prison, and also of the stress, the ruined lives and the total inequality of the exclusions from protection. I joined Amanda's mother and brother earlier today in a meeting with Minister Samantha Dixon, and certainly she gave the impression of of listening very carefully to what was saying. Mrs. Walker's recent email, which I paraphrase, says this my precious daughter was a very ardent campaigner on behalf of thousands of leaseholders who suffered because of loopholes in the Building Safety Act.

This amendment will not help her. She was referring to this amendment here before us now will not help her, but may help many others. The anxiety levels in so many people was painful to watch and in my view, ruined many lives. Now, as the minister knows, around 1.7 million leaseholders do not have full or even in some cases, partial, protection from the costs of remediating unsafe buildings. Those living in buildings below 11m have no protection at all. As a noble Baroness pointed out, in franchise, leaseholders and those owning more than three properties are liable for any non cladding remediation costs.

Other leaseholders may have to contribute up to £15,000 to cover non cladding costs, depending on the wealth of their freeholder. If you please, my Lord, all these people are completely innocent of the causes that led to defects in their building, not just by cladding, but basic disregard of building regulations in force. At the time of construction. The assumption is that lower rise buildings are safe because it's easier to mitigate risks to escape from them, and for the fire and rescue services to attend to emergencies.

But we don't actually know that they are safe. The proportion of proportionate standard under what is known as Paz 9980, which is the remediation standard frequently used, admits that spread of fire may be more rapid given the greater prevalence of combustible materials in the construction and the capacity and the capacity of many construction projects to generate impenetrable choking smoke when burning, impeding escape, and who pays for any mitigation? Well, ultimately the leaseholders, according to the National Fire Chiefs Council, the current Building Safety Act three tier approach that's fully protected, partial or capped protection and totally unprotected is delaying remediation and leaving leaseholders in limbo.

That funding is fragmented and occupiers are left in unsafe buildings, or are among the growing number currently totalling over 14,000 of those mandatorily evacuated, sometimes having to leave very modern buildings. The National Audit Office has found that the Paz 9980 risk based approach to remediation was a cause of delays, as different stakeholders argue over what constitutes proportionate remediation and tolerable risk, both of which terms appear in that document. 52 flat developers have signed up to the Responsible Actors Scheme.

Their remediation responsibility is to this proportionate standard only, never mind failure to build to the relevant building standards applicable at the time of construction. Now my Lords markets need transparency and the government needs to be upfront about the general quality of buildings and building regulation compliance. Over the last 30 years. It's long been an offence not to comply with building regulations. Market sentiment depends on clarity, but beyond the scope of the government's own remediation portfolio, it's unclear what the reality actually is.

So long as this doubt sloshes around the market, the insurance and lending sectors and indeed purchaser keenness will remain febrile. And all of these may predispose a wider malaise. The longer this persists, and particularly in the lending markets, where the impact of new solvency regulations will mean, such uncertainties will have to be factored into securitisation risks, loan book management and consumer costs for evidence of the effects today, my Lords, I would point to the flagging of new flat construction and rising costs, schemes being mothballed and softening, sales, markets, wagging fingers at insurers will not get rid of risk awareness and sentiment.

Once you understand something that is a risk, it is there forever, and particularly so in the. I. I although I although I understand why the government might not want to garner a lot of non-compliance data, I would just say that if, despite the consumer need to know and the market need to know, it chooses not to do so, then what I set out is the inevitable outcome, with implications for urban redevelopment and densification, for home building targets and ultimately for stable communities.

This amendment would sweep up all building types, all tenures, and both cladding and non cladding defects. It would tighten standards and encompass product manufacturers, and any planning delays under the amendment would be no more than the minimum necessary to process regulations immediately on Royal Assent, and I believe very few products projects would be held up in practice if the government agrees. The principle that innocent people should not foot the bill for bad building practices, or even, should I say, to preserve its own policy objectives, then it needs at least to indicate to the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock that it proposes to take this forward with serious intent.

This amendment gives the Secretary of State the tools to do this to end the two tier remediation standard. The basic inequity and uncertainty, the current protections and the market disruption that has accompanied them. Yes.
18:31
18:32
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
we also need to build the safe homes we desperately need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to Noble Lords for raising these important issues. raising these important issues. Amendment 87 on the remediation of buildings by developers, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lytton and the noble Baroness Lady Bennett for their tireless support Bennett for their tireless support for residents since the Grenfell Tower tragedy and for raising this issue this afternoon. I understand issue this afternoon. I understand the amendment is intended to protect residents and leaseholders. Unfortunately, its effect would be Unfortunately, its effect would be to slow remediation and risk stopping essential House building.

Can I reassure the noble lady, Can I reassure the noble lady, Baroness Pinnock, that there has been no relaxing of the government's determination to deal government's determination to deal with the significant remediation actions outstanding from Grenfell? I spoke to my honourable friend, Minister Dixon, just last week. She's now picked up the urgent action needed to accelerate remediation. She's already visited the Grenfell site and I'm very pleased to hear that she's met with pleased to hear that she's met with Mrs. Walker and other other members of the Grenfell community.

I know she takes her responsibility extremely seriously, and she will continue the work of Minister continue the work of Minister Norris in dealing with this as quickly as possible. I'm very conscious there will be a further opportunity in the very near future for this House to debate the issues of building safety and remediation, including their interaction with this government's bold ambitions on housing supply. Amendment 87 is intended to prevent members of the Responsible Actors Scheme from receiving new planning permissions or building new housing developments until the government makes fundamental changes to the scheme to require developers to remediate additional types of defect and apply different approach to the remediation of external walls.

In practice, this would mean that over 40 of the largest housebuilders in England would have to stop building new homes until the government made changes to an essential remediation scheme that we assess would delay and undermine progress. This landmark bill is intended to get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the government to achieve the ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament.

It is simply not compatible with the aims of the Bill to include a measure which would stop the largest housebuilders in this country from building new homes. It would lead to major market uncertainty and disruption. Nor would it. The proposed Changes to Responsible Actors scheme serve the interests of residents and leaseholders, as they would delay remediation of their buildings. For years, over 50 major developers developers have signed developer remediation contracts with government and committed to fix life critical fire safety defects in over 2370 buildings, at a cost of approximately £4.7 billion.

This is supported by the statutory Responsible Actors Scheme, which enables the Secretary of State to impose severe commercial consequences on any eligible developer who fails to follow through on their remediation obligations. Since signing the contracts, developers have assessed over 90% of relevant buildings and have started or completed works on 44% of buildings known to require works. This amendment would require fundamental changes in the Responsible Actors scheme, by requiring developers to identify a different set of defects and require remediation to a different standard, attempting to make those changes to the statutory scheme would undermine the remediation contract developers have signed with government.

The result would be disastrous for residents and leaseholders. Long delays, operational and legal confusion and uncertainty. Essential works to protect people could be set back by years. The current approach to remediation under the developer remediation contract is proportionate, appropriate and uses PA 9980, the same standard for external wall remediation, as the government's wider remediation programme. The pass 9980 standard is used for external wall system remediation. Because we are focussed on mitigating risks to life safety, taking an evidence based and proportionate approach.

External wall remediation is assessed based on a fire risk appraisal of external walls, which suggests remedial work or mitigation to improve a building's risk rating through a holistic and fact based assessment of its construction. Removal of combustible materials is often recommended, but is not always necessary, including when other mitigating measures are taken. This proportionate approach to cladding remediation aims to manage fire risks and make sure that residents are safe, while preventing the kind of unnecessary works that can also be incredibly disruptive for residents.

If I can just pick up the noble Earl lessons points about insurance, we are clear that more needs to be done to protect leaseholders from those very high insurance premiums. The fire Safety reinsurance facility, led by the Association of British Insurers and reinsurance broker McGill and partners, launched in April 2024, the facility aims to increase capacity in the market and may reduce high premiums for some of the most affected multi-occupancy buildings with fire safety issues. The facility has been renewed for a second year and is a viable option for building owners trying to find the best deal for their residents.

In the first 12 months, over 760 buildings have been supported by the facility, and now more buildings may benefit from the cover available as the claims limit has increased up to £75 million in the remediation acceleration plan announced. We would work with the insurance industry to consider options for possible government support. We are currently engaging with industry and will provide an update on all of this in due course. This amendment has raised important technical issues about the remediation process.

We can't do them full justice clearly tonight, but there will be further opportunities for this House to debate the remediation of buildings at much greater length during the passage of the upcoming remediation bill. I look forward to that opportunity. What is already clear, however, is the amendment we are looking at tonight would undermine the core purpose of the bill by greatly delaying work to remediate buildings, as well as putting at serious risk critical work to build new homes. Given these very serious concerns, can I please urge noble Lords to withdraw this amendment?
18:39
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Both the noble Baroness Minister and. Noble Earl and the Conservative frontbench for taking part in this debate. But I have to say, I'm thoroughly disappointed at the remarks of the noble Baroness Minister and the noble Lord Jameson. It is not an either or. How can it be an either or either? According to the noble Baroness the Minister's response, we are unable House builders to build more homes or we we accelerate even further the remediation of of of flats that are in a dangerous condition.

It should not be either or. It should be both and and there is capacity within the building House building industry to do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If way for a moment, I think I made it very clear that the danger in the amendment is in doing just in the amendment is in doing just what she has just spoken against. What we want to do is move the remediation acceleration forward as remediation acceleration forward as quickly as possible, at the same time as building new homes. The danger with this amendment is it slows the whole thing down and slows the whole thing down and means that neither the remediation gets done quickly or the building

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of new homes. Except the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Except the noble Baroness Ministers argument, because under the government's own accelerated remediation acceleration scheme, it's going to take another 6 or 7 years for people to to have their years for people to to have their homes made safe. And how is that homes made safe. And how is that right. So. The compelling arguments that we heard from the noble Earl Litton about the the 1.7 million Litton about the the 1.7 million leaseholders who are going to be required either to pay many required either to pay many thousands of pounds to make their own homes safe when it's not their own homes safe when it's not their fault, isn't it's not acceptable that we're still here all these years after that awful fire at Grenfell Tower, trying to debate yet again what what is what is going on.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I'm my Lords, I'm hugely in sympathy with the noble Baroness in the aim that she makes. But as the the aim that she makes. But as the author, when I was in ministerial office of the Responsible Actors Scheme, one which was stoutly Scheme, one which was stoutly resisted by housing developers, we had to strike a balance between putting the squeeze on them and putting the squeeze on them and making it clear that unless they acted to remediate, then they would receive no planning permission receive no planning permission whatsoever, and making sure that they could continue to build the houses that we need has the noble houses that we need has the noble Lady and have the supporters of this amendment looked at what the impact on the balance sheets of individual housebuilders might be, and what impact this would have on the rate of build out that we the rate of build out that we currently have.

And is it also not the case that many of those who do the case that many of those who do not qualify at the moment for support for remediation, the so-called non-qualifying leaseholders, are in fact people with extensive property portfolios and the line has to be drawn and the line has to be drawn somewhere in order to ensure that those with significant wealth do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not benefit, while those who do need support receive it. And I thank the member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank the member. For his intervention. And and he's right that when the the the the scheme was established, it was on the basis of squeezing House builders as far as they could go. However, if I remember the figures correctly, one of the major House builders had made an operating profit in the last year of £870 million. Now, you know, call me a curmudgeon if you like, but if some of that could be used to fund making the flats that they built that are dangerous, safe for people to live in, I think that's not a bad call.

So. Look, we've had the argument. I am not content with the answers I've got. So I do wish to test the opinion of the House and hope that those on the Conservative benches will support those of who have spoken strong and hard in favour of of remediation schemes and in favour of leaseholders, will support us through the lobby. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to? As many as that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion will say content the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by
18:44
None Portrait Division: Planning and Infrastructure Bill: amdt, 87FD
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by division. I'll advise the House division. I'll advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this amendment be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of that opinion, say 'content' the contrary. Not content. Not content. The contents will go to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. And. No, And. No, no, And. No, no, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. No, no, no. And. No, no, no. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. No, no, no. No. And. No, no, no. No. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. No, no, no. No. No. And. No, no, no. No. No. Lady Yeah. Yeah. No. No. No. Yeah No. Yeah yeah No. Yeah yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords I My Lords I have My Lords I have voted My Lords I have voted contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I have voted contents 83, not contents 157. So the not 83, not contents 157. So the not contents have it. In clause 52,
18:55
None Portrait Amdt: 87G Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. In clause 52, amendment 87 G. Lord Lucas. My lords, I beg to move 87 G I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, very grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for writing to me on my amendment at committee. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my amendment at committee. And I question. Again. But I really think we need to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear. About this. The idea that national park.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The idea that national park. Authorities should be in some way a subsidiary and junior. Part of this process is something that I really.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process is something that I really. Feel will. Not work. National park authorities are so local planning authorities are so local planning authorities for almost 10% of England. Their statutory local planning authorities charged with balancing development and economic growth. They operate across local authority boundaries and routinely coordinate with multiple councils, agencies and communities. In short, they already do strategic planning. The idea that the new spatial development strategies should in some way be senior should start to completely alter the planning process within national parks so that it becomes subsidiary is something that really goes against the purpose of national parks, as I understand it.

Yet as things stand, the bill gives national park authorities a limited role in shaping spatial development strategies. They will be informed after the event rather than engaged from the outset. I can't see how that leads to good planning. Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. National park authorities were recognised as key partners in preparing regional spatial strategies. That statutory status worked well. It gave clarity and accountability without burdening national parks with inappropriate new powers or undue weight.

It's precisely that kind of formal, consultative and advisory role that I would like to see the government restoring in this bill. Spatial development strategies, created in partnership with national parks are far more likely to be better balanced, more coherent and engage with growth in all its guises. And to be more deliverable. I therefore urge the Minister to rethink their policy on this matter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed page 70, line 38. At end, insert the words as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

38. At end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Lucas.
18:57
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Portrait Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord Lucas. For moving this amendment, and I apologise for not being able to take part in committee stage of take part in committee stage of this bill due to hip surgery. I welcome the inclusion of spatial development strategies as a particularly useful tool for ensuring that larger areas participate in planning for the future. They remind me of the regional development strategies previously in place during my days on the South West RDA. Sometimes they worked, sometimes they left, much to be desired, but they were a step in the right direction when looking at spatial planning on a more holistic basis, it is important to ensure that all those organisations who have an interest are consulted.

This includes the national parks, who are guardians of the environmentally sensitive land across the country. I have lived in Somerset for over 50 years and often visited both Exmoor and Dartmoor National Parks on a regular basis, without proper environmental planning, both these parks would be the poorer and species often depleted. I now live on the edge of the South Downs National Park, and I am again extremely concerned that those who manage and look after their beautiful area should have a say in the spatial planning which affects them.

I know from my frequent visits to the Peak District, my husband comes from Derbyshire, that millions of visitors come to the national parks. Many of these are overseas visitors. The parks are a vital part of the recreational activities, with those who visit, especially for residents who live close by in cities and urban constrained areas. The balance between ensuring free access and enjoyment for all visitors who contribute to the green economy, and ensuring the survival of the environment, and the species who depend on the parks for their survival is absolutely vital.

Each park will have its own ecosystem, whether that be based on open moorland, peatland, ancient woodland or marshland. Each will have animal and insect species which are indigenous to their area and the plant life which sustains them. It is therefore vital that the national parks should, as a noble Lord Lucas has indicated, have a seat at the spatial planning table at a time when species which the countryside support is in devastating decline, it is unthinkable for the voice of local national parks not to be heard.

I fully support amendment 87.
19:00
19:01
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords Amendment 87 G. Tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas seeks to ensure the Secretary of State can establish strategic planning Boards in areas that include a national park. As I explained during the committee stage, a strategy area is defined in new section 12 A, which the bill will insert into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. As the area of the Strategic Planning Authority preparing the spatial development strategy. The strategy area encompasses all local authorities, including local local planning authorities such as national park authorities.

Therefore, the Secretary of State could already use the power in new section 12 B to establish a Strategic Planning Board covering an area with a national park or part of a national park. To respond to the noble Lord comments about the role of national park authorities. While national park authorities will not sit on boards, they will have a very important role to play in the preparation of spatial development strategies. We will expect boards and other authorities with national parks in their areas to engage closely with national park authorities to ensure these valued areas remain protected.

National park authorities will continue to prepare local plans for their areas, which will set out policies on the use and development of land, so there's no change to the role of the national parks authorities in preparing those local plans for their areas. The Strategic planning Boards will be established through statutory instruments. After the bill received Royal Assent, the constituent authorities will be formally consulted on the draft statutory instruments ahead of them coming into force, as is required by new section 12 B4 of the bill.

With these explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
19:03
19:03
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment 89, in clause 52. Lord West. Amendments 89 and 97, both covering content of the new spatial development strategies introduced by this Bill. I was very grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock who moved these amendments in my absence after 2.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A.m. During committee stage of this bill at that time of the night, I bill at that time of the night, I do not think full justice could be done to the two amendments which I brought back in this group, again brought back in this group, again with the support from the noble Baronesses, Thornhill and Bennett of Manor Castle and their Lordships, of Manor Castle and their Lordships, Carlile of Berriew and Young of Cookham. The first of these Cookham.

The first of these amendments, 89, would lead to development of spatial development strategies, requiring all new homes to meet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to meet. Part four.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Part four. M, part M42. Or M43 of the building regulations. These

**** Possible New Speaker ****

building regulations cover accessibility for all new homes. E.g. wider. Doorways.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doorways. Better planned bathrooms with some of the homes provided at the highest standard necessary for highest standard necessary for wheelchair users. The campaign for improved accessibility has been led improved accessibility has been led by habitat and by the centre for Ageing Better and supported by the Ageing Better and supported by the Home Coalition. Housing made for everyone. They have championed the need for the 1.5 million new homes planned for this Parliament to be accessible and adaptable, both to meet the very real current needs of 11.6 million people with disabilities.

Of all ages, and also to create more satisfactory homes, lifetime homes. For all occupiers. The good news is that the battle for adoption of these building regulations standards was won three years ago, when the then government committed to mandating M42 for all new homes. But the bad news is that this commitment has not yet been delivered. There was talk of further technical consultation, but this seems unnecessary now that several authorities have voluntarily adopted M42 without encountering problems. If ministers are worrying that the higher standard could impede the achievement of the government's housing target, it's worth noting that the campaign for all new homes to meet M42 and M43 simply means more careful design, rather than any noticeable increase in cost.

This has been demonstrated over many years in London, where the higher standards were introduced a decade ago. But every month that passes, more new homes are built elsewhere that fail to meet accessibility standards, and many of these will require expensive retrofitting. Later in February last year, the noble Baroness the minister asked the then minister what would be the likely cost to the public purse from the necessity for future adaptations of homes. Because these improved standards were not built in, and she drew attention to increased care costs that will result from a lack of decent, accessible homes that she said the then government knew to be needed.

I feel sure the leadership on both the government benches and also on the opposition benches will not have changed their minds. No U-turns have been announced. Rather, all concerned have been waiting the right moment to mandate the long awaited M42 and M43. This amendment takes advantage of the opportunity to achieve this by including these standards in all the new spatial development strategies, the House building industry is already well prepared for this improved accessibility standard, having expected it for some time.

The House builders have their revised House plans ready to go from the despatch box. Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, told the Bill committee that we will soon outline our approach to accessible new build housing. I note the word soon, my Lords. Successive governments have pledged to change the building regulations and make M42 standard, but we have waited in vain so far. The prize remains. If new homes did meet this standard, there would be payback in reducing numbers of people who cannot be discharged from hospital in helping those using wheelchairs to have a place of their own, in making it easy easier for so many older people with mobility problems to get around in their own homes, can we now take the opportunity before us to make hundreds of thousands of new homes properly accessible? At last, my Lords, I turn now to amendment 97 with the same cross-party support as for amendment 89.

This amendment places a requirement on a strategic planning authority when it prepares its spatial development strategy to have regard to the housing needs of our ageing population. This amendment was also moved by the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock during the committee stage, and I am most grateful to her. The ministerial response at committee stage suggested that national guidance should enable spatial development strategies to incorporate this element, but the reality is that for many years, despite general guidance from government, the housing needs of our ageing population have frequently been ignored in planning policies.

Precious few local authorities have undertaken full assessments of the housing needs of older people, followed by provision in their local plans. Where these plans exist, I fear this blindness to the importance of planning for older people's needs may now be replicated at the level of the strategic planning authority. Conversely, since local plans will have to be in conformity with the new national spatial, with the new spatial development strategies, if the strategies require recognition of the housing needs of older people, this will translate into local plans.

To my Lords, with no change supply of accommodation specifically for older people will struggle to reach even the 7 to 8000 new homes per annum of recent years, despite the governmental Older People's Housing Taskforce estimating that over 30,000 new homes per annum are needed, the APPG on Housing and Care for Older People and I declare my interest as co-chair of that APPG, has recommended that local planning authorities should plan for 10% of new home supply to be specifically for older people.

This amendment would encourage this approach when spatial development strategies are being prepared. Building homes for older age groups may look like a distraction from meeting the acute needs of young families, but the point is that by providing for the older generation, not only can this age group rightsize to somewhere better for their own health and wellbeing, but they can also release a much needed home for the next generation and the social sector. With its ageing tenant population, the building of fully accessible, affordable developments for older people is very likely to mean precious social rented council and housing association homes immediately become available.

This housing for families directly addresses problems of homelessness, saving both the families and councils the outrageous costs of temporary accommodation or rescuing families living in grossly overcrowded conditions. Meanwhile, in the owner occupied sector, one elderly home owner moving to a new retirement apartment can stimulate a chain effect that provides a more suitable home for a long line of movers, leading to a first time buyer starting on the home ownership ladder. So housing for older people has a multiplier effect that hugely increases its value.

Moreover, in relation to the government's target of 1.5 million homes, this Parliament, if planners demanded a stream of housing specifically for older people, the build out of major new developments will be accelerated by enabling parallel construction on the site for the two separate markets, adding the building of new homes for older people in in simultaneous construction means government will hit its ambitious housebuilding target sooner. My Lords I am optimistic that there is understanding within government of the need to assess and cater for our ageing population.

Hopefully the forthcoming National Housing Strategy has something positive to say on this issue. Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook recently replied encouragingly to a question on this matter. I do hope the noble Baroness the Minister can be can provide some reassuring guidance. News of the guidance that is due on this very important theme, and I beg to move amendment 89 amendment proposed. Clause 52, page 73, line 11 at at end. Insert the words as printed in the Marshall List.
19:13
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 91 in my name, which inserts a new subclause into clause 52 on spatial development strategies, which amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. According to the House of Commons paper on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, it was meant to introduce a statutory requirement for lpas to prepare design codes in which they set out design requirements for developments in their area. My Lords, this has not been commenced at the moment.

There is no requirement for a spatial development strategy that specifies an amount or distribution of housing or affordable housing to include a design code for the specified housing development. This seemed an opportune moment to kick start this part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 into process. At the committee stage of the bill, I shared Churchill's quote we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us. Design is so important. Buildings can be beautiful or ugly. They can enhance communities or they can destroy them.

We need quality homes that are sustainable and that in 200 or 300 years, people still think are beautiful, thus upholding architectural standards and considering aesthetic standards is essential. Our environment has a dramatic impact upon our lives, affecting our outlook, our well-being, and most importantly, our mental and general health. This amendment seeks to rectify these issues by including a design vision into the spatial development strategy. It is vital for high quality design to be prioritised in the strategic planning process to ensure that new development meets the practical and visual needs of residents and enhances communities.

Local Ullock Committee stated that whilst the National Planning policy already makes it clear that poor quality design should not be allowed, yet the general quality and design standard of much volume House building in this country continues to be poor. Whilst there was lots of discussion about the variety of initiatives and more views to come, government failed to give adequate response at committee on why this section of the LHB has not yet been commenced. My noble friend Baroness Scott when referencing the bill in a debate on housing of young people in this House last March in 2024, stated the duty introduced through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act for all local councils to produce a design code at the spatial, at the spatial scale of their authority area will give design codes sufficient significant weight when planning applications are determined, and the establishment of the office for place will support the creation of healthy, beautiful places.

This government will not compromise on quality and beauty. Will this Labour government also please commit to not compromising on quality and beauty and accept this amendment? It is just not good enough to just build more houses. They need to be sustainable.
19:16
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Here,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Urgent Question my Lords I rise to move my amendment 112. But I'd to move my amendment 112. But I'd like to start by also thanking Baroness Pinnock for pitching in on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Pinnock for pitching in on Lord. BESS amendments in the wee. Small hours. As I. Attempted to get my. Last train.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last train. And I was very pleased to support both of Lord Best's amendments. I actually know from experience that housing for older people really is still the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people really is still the Cinderella of the sector. And I would also. Like to publicly thank Lord BESS

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like to publicly thank Lord BESS for his persistence in this, in this work to improve homes as we this work to improve homes as we age. Actually, never before has the need for building standards M42 need for building standards M42 been necessary, and I think it is very short sighted of successive governments not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

governments not. To grasp this nettle. Because retrofitting, as. Has been said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has been said. Is difficult and expensive. So I would like to quote the chant. Why.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why. Are we waiting? And I look forward to the Minister's reply. Amendment 91 from. The noble Baroness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness. Hodgson recognises the need for design in spatial development strategies, so I hope therefore that she will support my amendment which is in the next group. So I turn to. Amendment 112, which I also submitted at committee stage. I am very pleased to say that we have had some productive meetings with the Minister, who has been very generous as ever, with her time. I truly believe she understands the the key issues, and I hope she'll be able to give us some assurance that the requirements within this amendment can be taken forward somehow.

And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look forward to. Her response. This is a fairly. Simple amendment. Brought to us from Centrepoint,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brought to us from Centrepoint, that amazing charity for young homeless people. It is basically saying that where a particular saying that where a particular housing type is being set up for. Homeless youngsters, that in order Homeless youngsters, that in order for the finances to stack up and the total model to work, it should the total model to work, it should be permissible to deviate from the nationally described space nationally described space standards. Put simply, this new model that is being called stepping stone.

Accommodation is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stone. Accommodation is. Smaller than what. Would be prescribed, but very. Much more than OK for youngsters Much more than OK for youngsters leaving care. Those who have been sofa surfing, or those who are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sofa surfing, or those who are trying to get off the streets. My Lords. It's their own home with their own front door.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. I waxed. Lyrical, lyrical about. The quality of. This.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This. Accommodation from. My visit. There, so I'm not going. To do it again. But it. Is important.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is important. To say that it was designed with young people and. They love. Living there. The minister. In her response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In her response. To me, said that councils. In their. Plans can already. Do this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is permissible. And she is. Right. And whilst it is acknowledged that nationally acknowledged that nationally described space standards are not in themselves mandatory, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in themselves mandatory, the practical reality has proved to be. Rather different. Local planning authorities, as a matter of. Course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Course. Look to these standards. As the primary. Point of reference. When

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of reference. When formulating policy. Consequently, where discretion is left to local interpretation, planning determinations become protracted, frequently extending over a number

**** Possible New Speaker ****

frequently extending over a number of years, and at committee stage I describe cases. Of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of. Anything between 2 and 4 years. That we know about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That we know about. 2 to 4. Years my Lord. Of additional time. And costs. From these. Charities who can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charities who can. Ill afford to have to. Pay that. Extra money. These are not isolated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These are not isolated occurrences. Rather, they reveal a systemic problem. In which essential provision for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In which essential provision for vulnerable young people is stalled by prolonged and often unnecessary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Debate over standards. This amendment would allow move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These applications forward and at speed and with confidence. at speed and with confidence. Estimates indicate that as many as 30,000 of these homes will be required in England alone. It is required in England alone. It is for this reason that the amendment remains indispensable. By remains indispensable. By establishing a clear and immediate exemption, it would provide certainty to local authorities, certainty to local authorities, prevent unnecessary obstruction, and expedite the delivery of much and expedite the delivery of much needed accommodation.

We hope that the Minister can give Centrepoint, another homeless charities who are another homeless charities who are really watching this, some real incentive to continue their excellent work and feel confident when approaching council officers to the exemption from the to the exemption from the proscribed national Space standards and to be listened to and supported

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and to be listened to and supported for this very specific and narrow course. I look forward to the noble Ladies response. My Lords, I just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I just. Want to make a quick point. Which if we if we're trying.
19:21
19:22
19:22
19:23
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
but I think it goes a bit too far in calling for all housing to meet the standards set out in parts M42 the standards set out in parts M42 and M43. M42 sets a standard for new homes to be accessible and new homes to be accessible and adaptable, meaning they are designed to be easily adapted for future needs, such as those of an elderly person or those with elderly person or those with temporary disability. It's not a standard for full wheelchair accessibility, which is covered in accessibility, which is covered in the much more stringent M43 standard, and M42 requires the dwelling to have features like the provision for a future stairlift or provision for a future stairlift or lift, and may require certain features like low level windows.

My Lords. I think the regulations were naive in believing that one can build homes, which could be easily adapted for wheelchair users. My adapted for wheelchair users. My Lords all of us on all sides happily voted these through. It's like motherhood and apple pie. We like motherhood and apple pie. We thought we were doing something helpful for the disabled, and I don't think we took into account the practicalities and the cost. the practicalities and the cost. And I simply don't believe you can build these homes to be easily converted for the disabled at the converted for the disabled at the same cost as current homes.

It's not just a matter of level access, it's a whole host of different it's a whole host of different features. You need wider doors everywhere. Kitchens may have to be ripped out and built at a much ripped out and built at a much lower level for wheelchair users. You can apply any wall covers. There's not enough space in a kitchen designed for wheelchair users. If when you talked about bathrooms, it's not just that extra grab handles, the whole bathroom is be twice to three times the size of a wheelchair user, and if the wheelchair user is is not ambulatory at all, has to be stuck in the wheelchair, then you need an absolutely level access shower.

That means ripping out the standard shower, putting in a flat one and you might not have the drainage to do it. These are just some of the practical problems I see day to day. If one tries to design that in at the beginning, so and space to install it, forget it. My Lords that would require a massive redesign and potentially enormous cost. The point is, is that there are an estimated 1.2 million wheelchair users in the UK. This number includes permanent users and the 400,000 ambulatory users.

And that includes people like me who can walk a bit provided we've got our wheelchair to help us, and wheelchair users make up roughly 11% of the disabled population. That's why I think it is over the top to call for all housing to be suitable for wheelchair users, or adapted for wheelchair users, when only 11% of the population need it. Perhaps my Lords local authority should be under an obligation to deliver 15% of wheelchair accessible and adaptable housing in all new buildings.

Now turning briefly to the housing needs of an older generation, I have a simple

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one word solution bungalows. Yeah, Bungalows, my Lords either detached or semi-detached, or even a single storey terrace. It's believed that about 2 million believed that about 2 million bungalows were built in the last century before builders stopped building them, since they take up more space and they can now cram a dozen rabbit hutches of about three stories high into the same space, stories high into the same space, taken up by one bungalow. In 1987, there were 26,000 new bungalows there were 26,000 new bungalows registered in 20.

In 2017 there were only 2210. Now I don't have a were only 2210. Now I don't have a solution to that. If builders will not build them, then I'm loathe to demand that there should be a compulsory quota. But perhaps compulsory quota. But perhaps another slogan for the Secretary of State in addition to Bill baby Bill, which is bring back bungalows.
19:26
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

which is bring back bungalows. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, amendments 89 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord. Lord, best mean the homes we build must reflect the needs of our population in an ageing society and in one way, nature. The nature of disability is changing. This becomes ever more urgent. Accessibility and adaptability are not luxuries, my Lord. They are the foundations of a fair and future proof proof housing system. We are therefore grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this important debate back, to report stage and thank him for his tireless work on these issues.

I turn now to amendment 91, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Hodgson of Abinger. My Lords, more homes are important. Of course they are. But homes which respect local character reflect vernacular and are quite frankly pleasant to look at are important to having scrapped the office for place. And together with that, not implementing the law or requirements for design statements alongside local plans in local planning authorities. My Lords, the government appears to be riding roughshod over the very principles of good design and placemaking that Parliament sought to embed in legislation.

So I ask the noble lady, the Baron, the Minister, what is the government going to do to uphold and protect the principles of divine design quality, to ensure that places we build are not only affordable and efficient, but also my Lords, beautiful, sustainable and built to last. And I'm delighted that noble Lady Baroness Lady Thornhill share this sentiment. In speaking to her amendment 92. In the next group which seek to strengthen the same call briefly to amendment 112, also tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill.

As we said at committee stage, stepping stone accommodation can be an idea which has real potential and one that speaks to a compassionate and practical approach to housing need. But as ever in this House, we must balance principle principle with practice and I support wholeheartedly the spirit of this amendment. But I'd just sound a note of caution. Our existing space standards were developed for good reason. They exist to prevent a return to poor quality housing. The rabbit hutch, flats of the past, homes that compromise health, dignity and long term liveability.

If we are to disapply or adapt such standards in specific cases, my Lords, we need to do so with clear, clear safeguards in place. The noble Baroness has helpfully proposed a specific minimum size and has begun to flesh out practicalities of this, of this proposal. That is a constructive way forward. But before enshrining such figures in legislation, there should, my Lords, be a proper consultation, both with the sector but my Lords crucially with those we seek to serve, stepping stones accommodation could play a valuable role in tackling housing need.

But it must be done right, my Lords. It must offer dignity, not just a stopgap. And it must, above all, serve the people. It's designed to help, not simply the pressures that we have in the system at this time.
19:29
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments relating to housing design, accessibility and homelessness solutions? Amendment 89 would require spatial development strategies to ensure that new housing meets the need of older and disabled people. And of course, while I cannot pre-empt the forthcoming national housing strategy, I am sure the Minister in the other place has listened very carefully to the noble Lord West and others on the growing importance of ensuring we provide sufficient suitable housing for older people and those with disabilities.

And I don't know about bungalows, Lord Blencathra, but you're going to give me a whole wardrobe of hats to wear here at this rate. So I look forward to seeing those. The government firmly believes that providing suitable housing for older adults and people with disabilities is essential to supporting their safety and independence. I don't agree, however, that the Noble Lords Amendment is needed to achieve this outcome. Local planning authorities already have the tools to support the delivery of homes that are accessible and adaptable.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that authorities should assess the size, type and tenure of housing required by different groups, including older and disabled people, and set clear policies to address these needs. That's why I spoke just a minute ago about sufficient quantity of housing, and local authorities are best placed to assess that need, and authorities are also able to apply enhanced technical standards from building regulations through planning conditions where there is clear evidence of local demand, authorities are expected to use these standards to help ensure a sufficient supply of accessible homes.

This may include specifying the proportion of new housing built to M42 and M43 standards. The bill also already enables strategic planning authorities to address this issue, where this is considered to be of strategic importance to the area. I would therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraws this amendment. Turning to amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Hodgson of Abinger, which seeks to ensure new housing development planned through a spatial development strategy, is well designed. The government wants to see a step change in housing delivery, but I hope we've made it very clear that it is not units at any cost, and we must ensure that homes and places that are built are high quality, attractive and sustainable, and we're committed to providing a planning system that creates well-designed development and recognises the role of local design codes to achieving this.

A clear framework already exists through the NPPF and the National Model Design Code for local planning authorities to prepare design codes at the most appropriate level to provide maximum clarity about design expectations for development. And if I can just answer the noble Baronesses question about provisions in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act on authority wide design codes, and when they'll be commenced as part of the 2024 consultation on the NPPF, we asked whether local authority design codes should focus on locations where there is greater scope for change.

So, for example, increased densities and new large scale development, rather than setting design requirements that applied district wide, we will keep under review the provisions contained in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act on authority wide design codes, and national policy and guidance on design in relation to how the use of localised design codes and other design tools, including master plans and design guides, can be embedded as part of the plan making process, and we will use the feedback from the consultation to inform future decisions.

In the meantime, local authorities should continue to consider, through their coding process and engaging with communities the scale and issues their design codes should cover to most effectively support the vision for their place and planning decision making, and this may be an authority wide code. The bill also already allows for design matters to be addressed by Sds's, where they are considered to be of strategic importance to the area and just in relation to the office for place, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson and the noble Baroness Lady Scott.

On the 12th of November 2024, it was announced that the office for place would be closed down and that the expertise of its staff would be redeployed within the department. In the written ministerial statement, the Housing Minister made it clear he wanted Design and Placemaking to be a fully integrated consideration in wider planning reforms, including support to local and strategic planning authorities. Furthermore, to support local authorities to elevate design quality in their areas, we will be publishing updated national design guidance later this year.

Turning to amendment 97, tabled by the Noble Lord Lord West, which seeks to ensure that strategic planning authorities reflect the needs of older people. As I have set out, I do agree with the noble Lord that the housing needs of older people should be considered when preparing spatial development strategies, but I do not see a need for the bill to be amended to achieve this outcome. The bill already requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to the need to ensure their spatial development strategy is consistent with current national policy, which contains clear expectations on assessing and reflecting the housing needs of older and disabled people.

Turning to amendment 102, I would like to thank the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill for raising the important issue of exempting local planning authorities from applying space standards on local planning applications concerning the delivery of stepping stone accommodation. I was very grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing along a representative from Centrepoint to meet with me. They are doing very vital work in supporting young people at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and it was great to meet with them and hear about how they're implementing their plans.

Homelessness is far too high, and this government has committed to delivering long term solutions. We are developing a cross-government strategy to get back on track to ending all forms of homelessness, and we continue to engage with the youth homelessness sector to ensure the strategy meets the needs of young people. The funding in homelessness services outlined previously also includes continued funding for 650 units for young people at risk of homelessness or rough sleeping, alongside accompanying support services through the Homelessness Accommodation Programme, a fund that I've benefited from in my own area by delivering the kind of accommodation that the noble Baroness Thornhill referred to as noble Lords, know we must build more homes to tackle the root causes of homelessness.

This bill underpins our commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament, and we have confirmed a new ten year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. The current planning framework already allows local planning authorities to do what this amendment seeks to achieve. Each planning application is judged on its own individual merit and weight, given to competing material considerations, and that's a matter for the local planning authority. It could be, for example, that an authority considers the need for a particular type of housing tenure to outweigh local policy around space standards.

When considering all relevant material considerations. But I do think it is important we leave that choice and decision in the hands of local authorities for the reasons that the noble Baroness Scott gave, that it's very important we don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

undermine the wider picture in relation to space standards. Lady Penn Margravine, where could I therefore? I absolutely understand those points. And obviously as a localism person, I obviously as a localism person, I would agree with that. But I think the key issue is that officers are the key issue is that officers are playing safety first. You know, their immediate response is no, for the reasons that the noble Lord the reasons that the noble Lord spoke earlier. Is there any way we can strengthen the guidance to can strengthen the guidance to actually refer to stepping stone accommodation as being something that, you know, that government that, you know, that government might look favourably on, or be permissible to at the moment? As I permissible to at the moment? As I say, the experience is they're hitting a brick wall each time.

So it's not you know, I'm happy that it's not you know, I'm happy that not happy. I totally understand why it can't be in the bill, but I don't see why we couldn't put don't see why we couldn't put something into guidance that just strengthen their arm as they sit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strengthen their arm as they sit down for the first meeting to talk about it. I'm very grateful to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble lady for making those points, and I think the best thing we can do is think the best thing we can do is perhaps have another meeting outside of the chamber to talk about what we might do in relation. I understand the point she's making that planning officers may be being overcautious in not recognising that they do already have such a power, and I'm happy to meet with her outside of the chamber to discuss how we might move that forward.

But I'm very keen that we don't. This doesn't go into the bill because if it did, it would risk undermining the work that's been done over many years to improve the kind of space standards that we already have for our homes. And they were hard fought for and hard won. And I don't want this to undermine those for all the reasons we've discussed. Could I kindly ask that noble Lords withdraw these amendments? amendments?
19:39
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
My my Lords, I'm very grateful for support, including from the Minister, for both the extension of M42 standards to all homes and for a handful of them for full wheelchair use, as the kind that Lord Blencathra spoke of. Just to make the point to Lord Blencathra. We're not talking about ripping out kitchens, ripping out showers, we're talking about putting in those showers, those amenities that work for everybody. The the accessible standards for new build only.

This is not about retrofitting existing properties with just a minority being the M43, the full wheelchair standards, but all homes being the M42 I have built, I have been responsible for building quite a large number of these homes and it hasn't hasn't broken the bank. So it is possible and I'm grateful for support for this happening. The noble Baroness, the minister mentioned that the the National Housing Strategy may have something to say about housing both the accessible housing and housing for older people, and I look forward to seeing that and hope it is entirely positive.

At this point. I beg leave to withdraw both of the amendments. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. My Lords, this seems to be a convenient time to break for dinner. Break dinner break business. I would think we would return to the would think we would return to the bill before 2019. I therefore beg to move that report. Be adjourned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move that report. Be adjourned. The question is that further consideration on report be now adjourned. As many of that opinion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourned. As many of that opinion will say. Content. Content contrary. Not content. The contents have it. We will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit down for a minute to allow My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accordance. With.
19:42
None Portrait Royal Assent: Bus Services (No. 2) Bill; Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill; Renters’ Rights Bill; Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill; General Cemetery Bill
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following his Royal Assent to the following acts. Bus Services Act deprivation. Of citizenship orders. Effect during. Appeal Act. Renters Rights Act, absent voting elections in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scotland and Wales Act. General Cemetery.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Act questions on a statement made in the. House of Commons on. Wednesday the 27th of October.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On Heathrow expansion. My Lord, this statement does two things. It announces a review of things. It announces a review of the airports. National policy. Statement but gives us little idea idea.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of in. Detail as. To how it is to. Be revised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it tells. Us that the only two credible proposals for Heathrow expansion are indeed still. Being considered, and that the more fanciful proposals have. Been fanciful proposals have. Been dismissed. The two are linked because the core purpose of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because the core purpose of the. Anpr current. APPG is to facilitate the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

APPG is to facilitate the. Expansion of Heathrow. At the. Timing of the statement is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Timing of the statement is nakedly intended. In my view, to persuade the OBR that the project

**** Possible New Speaker ****

persuade the OBR that the project is. Real and deliverable. I wish. To test that. First, there is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To test that. First, there is the question of delivery of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

revised NPS, something that I must say, I think ministers are rather reckless. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Embark on. The last Airports. National policy statement. Was. Produced under the Premiership.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When I say the. Last, I mean the current one. Was produced. Under the premiership.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of my noble friend lady May of Maidenhead, and expressly favoured expansion of Heathrow. It survived

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expansion of Heathrow. It survived scrutiny in the High Court and was appealed. To the Court of Appeal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Court of Appeal. By environmental groups on no fewer than 17 grounds of challenge,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fewer than 17 grounds of challenge, and fell on a single one. The legal meaning of. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. question. The whole. Statement fell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The whole. Statement fell. Now the government was by now in the hands of Mr. Johnson, who was perfectly content with that outcome. perfectly content with that outcome. But Heathrow took up. The cudgels and the case went to the Supreme and the case went to the Supreme Court, which restored the Anpr. The timeline tells its own story. In timeline tells its own story. In 2015, the Airports Commission recommended a third runway. In 2018, recommended a third runway. In 2018, Parliament approved it by 415 votes to 119.

Yet only by December 2020 did the Supreme Court clear the legal path for Heathrow to proceed. Five years and now, in October 2025,
19:44
19:45
None Portrait Statement: Heathrow Expansion: Launch of the Airports National Policy Statement Review Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-

potential challenges involved. So I think it is a brave or reckless government that sets out on this course. Now, of course, the government has an answer to this. And the statement in the statement, the Secretary of State says, if I may quote on judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for review to move through the court system, for the national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Now, at present, the average time for such reviews stands at roughly 1.4 years. So what is the government's target? How long does the government expect it to take for the new airports? National Policy Statement to be approved? Remember, it is the Chancellor's ambition that this runway should open in 2035 with spades in the ground many years before that, given how much muck has to be moved in order to embrace Heathrow's proposed policy plans, I'm making the assumption that it is.

And this, I agree, is a simplifying assumption. It may not be true that the Heathrow proposal is the one eventually chosen by the government in November, and not the alternative scheme. I may, of course, be wrong about that, but I think my assumption is reasonable. And as I say for the moment, simplifying that gives us five years. Meanwhile, public debate on the whole thing has been minimal because we have so very little information about the proposals. The projected cost of Heathrow expansion stands at £49 billion.

The asset value of Heathrow Airport, the market value, which we know from the last time its shares traded last year, is around 9.5 billion, even though its regulated asset base is closer to 20 billion. People are willing to pay 9.5 billion for something which has a regulated asset base of 20 billion. And they're then proposing that despite the fact that they're heavily leveraged, much more so than they were ten years ago when they were discussing this project, we have to reckon with the fact that they want to spend 50, 49 billion.

At least that's the publicly quoted figure, maybe more by now on a third runway to increase capacity by 50%. And my second question then is whether the this is credibly financeable and whether the government believes that it is. But the airlines, of course, don't trust Heathrow because they'll be expected to pay for this facility long before they're expected to pay in advance off the regulated asset base. In fact, they're paying already because the CAA has approved that. Some of the costs that Heathrow incurs can already be charged to the airlines and thus to the to the flying passengers.

And they think that because Heathrow is incentivised by the current regime to make things as expected, to make their expenditure as high as possible, that they are untrustworthy and they point to various things like a new baggage system completed in 2016, which was priced at 234 million, ended up costing 435 million. A cargo tunnel with a budget of 44.9 million that ended up with an estimated cost of 197 million, and they point, by contrast, to Heathrow's plan to spend 49 billion on a single runway, they point to terminals at Barcelona, Frankfurt, Madrid and Munich that all cost half or less when taking the the size of the terminals into account.

The fact that Changi is expected to create a new terminal for 8 billion, and that New York's JFK will open its new terminal 1 in 2026, the centrepiece of a 15 billion transformation that will be completed by 2030. So what, my Lords, is the government going to do about about Heathrow and its regulatory structures? It says it's going to change them. It says that the government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority. I'm quoting again to review the framework for economic regulation, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost effective delivery.

What is the Civil Aviation Authority, the regulator, have been doing for the last 20 years? In that case, if they if they have not been ensuring firm delivery, I'm going to wait minutes. That's my plan. So my third question what is what the government is going to do that about that. So there is also a matter of noise which I would like to pursue at some stage, but not at the moment. And, and so with that I will sit down.

But I believe the government has, has a lot to do to show that this project is credible and that it is not contributing to its fast delivery by revising the airports national policy statement. At this stage. Yeah. At this stage. Yeah.
19:50
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I welcome this debate on the review of the Airports national policy statement and the government's announcement regarding Heathrow. But let me be very. Clear that the Liberal Democrat benches believe expansion to Heathrow would be a mistake from the government and deliver.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A blow. To. Our net zero. Commitments. A reliable. And safe transport system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And safe transport system. Is vital for economic prosperity in all. Parts of the country. And improving.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And improving. Transport is essential to combat. Climate change and air pollution. But we must.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But we must. Ensure new infrastructure supports the UK's climate targets. Analysis from. The New Economics.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The New Economics. Foundation suggests that approving the expansion of Heathrow Airport would cancel out the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Airport would cancel out the climate benefit of the government's Clean Power Plan within five years, and expansion of Gatwick. And Luton airports.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And Luton airports. Would cancel out the. Climate benefit. Of the cap by 2050. So the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the cap by 2050. So the government sudden support for airport expansion just does not stack up. And Ed Miliband, speaking stack up. And Ed Miliband, speaking at the. Environmental Audit Committee on the 27th of January this year, said that I quote any this year, said that I quote any aviation expansion must be. Justified within carbon budgets and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Justified within carbon budgets and if it cannot be justified, then it will not take place. So will the. Noble Lord the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord the. Minister confirm that the four. New tests. The evidence led. Approach set out by the Secretary of State, will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out by the Secretary of State, will have to be met in their entirety before this. Government will. Give the. Green light to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Heathrow expansion. Will the government publish the metrics for each of these. Four new.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Four new. Tests, so that there is transparency in the assessment? Will the noble Lord the Minister. Confirm that they will not proceed with Heathrow expansion? If the Climate Change Committee advises Climate Change Committee advises that the plans do not meet legal. Obligations on climate change,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

including net zero or air quality obligations? Now let's. Look at. Noise pollution. It's a really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

big issue. Around 700,000 people are impacted. By noise from. Heathrow currently. And it's not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Heathrow currently. And it's not just those who are living in places like Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Surrey around the airport site, in places like Lambeth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in places like Lambeth. And. Southwark, residents have the. Clash of Heathrow. Flights and city. Airport

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Flights and city. Airport flights throughout the day, causing serious nuisance. The CAA workbook

**** Possible New Speaker ****

serious nuisance. The CAA workbook has highlighted that those who are overflown could double to £1.5. Million.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Million. Under some Heathrow expansion plans, so noise is an issue which many people feel has escaped any many people feel has escaped any meaningful legal control for too long, leaving overflown communities

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exposed to excessive noise and impacting their health and quality of life. So as. Part of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This work, will the government. Adopt the World Health Organisation's recommended noise levels to address noise pollution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

levels to address noise pollution Airport? And then I want to come to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And then I want to come to. The point about surface access. Well, we don't want to see expansion. And we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And we. Do not believe it stacks up economically or environmentally. The last thing the area needs is an airport expansion plan that does airport expansion plan that does not address and fund fully surface transport to the airport. It's a transport to the airport. It's a problem now and therefore higher modal share for public transport modal share for public transport must be a foundation. Block for the government's assessment going forward. So can the noble Lord the Minister confirm the government's Minister confirm the government's commitment to fully funded surface transport access as part of this transport access as part of this work? As part of the assessment of the two options, will the government ensure that surface rail government ensure that surface rail access, including the Southern Rail Link and Western Rail Link, are an Link and Western Rail Link, are an integral part, and will the government consider the future of the premium Heathrow Express line the premium Heathrow Express line as part of its surface access assessment, and when will this be published? And I particularly pick published? And I particularly pick up the points around rail surface access because in the letter from the Secretary of State in June, it stressed, I quote surface access mode share targets, including elements of surface access strategy.

And it goes on talking about it covering public transport and active travel. And yet the letter that was published last week of the 22nd of October under surface access, it talks about minimising unnecessary disruption. Please provide additional information regarding the construction of road schemes. Rail seems to have been downgraded. I really want some assurance from the noble Lord, the minister today, in an attempt to try to demonstrate growth. The government is misguided in thinking and expanded. Heathrow can deliver for the whole country.

There are many other schemes that would deliver a lot more for communities across the country. We do not support Heathrow expansion and will closely monitor every stage of this process to ensure local communities are heard loudly and clearly. are heard loudly and clearly.
19:55
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I think the place to start here is to say that it's quite clear that having more capacity for an airport that's been at capacity for two decades is a really important step for economic growth and for the future of our country. Heathrow is the only international airport hub in Britain, and it deserves to function properly, and it deserves to function for the economy of the of the nation. I refer to the noble Lord Morland's early point, many of which seem to me to be, on the whole, the criticism of his party's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

previous actions in government, of. What. This government is currently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This government is currently. Doing, and the fact that the last review took an awful long time to get to not much of a conclusion to get to not much of a conclusion is isn't a way of it isn't necessarily a criticism of how this necessarily a criticism of how this government intends to proceed. And indeed, we believe we have a indeed, we believe we have a realistic timetable to do so. He assumes that one of the two schemes which has been taken forward at the which has been taken forward at the present time, the scheme from Heathrow Airport Limited, is the one that will be pursued.

But that's not an assumption that this that's not an assumption that this government is making, because this government is going to consider more fully the two remaining schemes to be considered, which do differ and and clearly have different implications and prices. And it is important that actually they are both considered in comparison with each other. And comparison with each other. And that part of that consideration, as he, as he notes, is, is a consideration of whether they're financeable what they cost and how they're going to be funded.

And it is right that the Civil Aviation Authority looks at the framework for economic regulation. That is, for economic regulation. That is, as he says, what they do, but they need to look again in the circumstances in which we're contemplating such a large scale expansion of the principal hub and the only hub airport in, in in Britain, he says that the government has a lot to do to show that this process is credible, and the government is starting on a process with every intention of showing that it's credible in order to do something that previous governments haven't done with a timescale that's tight but but very realistic in respect of the noble Baroness pigeons comments about expansion is a mistake.

I think the first thing to say is it's hard to see what else you can do if this is the only hub airport in in Britain, there's no other scheme that will create such a hub hub airport and therefore contemplating a third runway is is, we believe, the right thing to do. She asks whether the four new tests will have to be met in their entirety, and the answer is yes, they will. That's quite clear. That's been that's been said from the beginning here.

We know what the tests are and the aspiration, the aspirants to building this. The third runway will have to will have to meet them. And we will also take the advice of the Climate Change Committee, to whom the Secretary of State in the other place is about to, is about to write. She makes a point about noise. And of course, actually one of the points that has also been part of the Secretary of State's statement last week is establishing the UK Airspace Design Service in order to look at airspace design for the London region, supporting both Heathrow and the wider network, and also seeking to make flight paths more efficient so that planes spend less time over London together with slot reform that maximises benefits at Heathrow and other airports in the southeast of England.

Her comments about surface access. I was reading the letters sent to the two successful applicants, and it is she is right that it that they refer to construction of roads, but that's not to the exclusion of the rail access points that she that she refers to. And indeed, it's quite clear that aspirants to build the third runway will have to look at public transport connectivity to the airport. I think it's really important. She's mentioned both the southern and Western links and the future of Heathrow Express, and it's quite clear to us that that potential aspirants will have to reference those links and any others that they propose to, the proposed to put forward in order to have an acceptable policy for surface access to the to the to the airport.

The government doesn't believe it's misguided. It does believe it's setting out a a coherent, speedy but but sensible program to establish the third runway. Thank you. runway. Thank you.
20:00
20:01
20:02
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. I'd like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive comments, and. I think just I do have to have a special interest. As I worked out of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Heathrow for. 25 years. So I was at the sharp end of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

delays. And where we definitely needed a further. Runway capacity. I think. What's ironic.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What's ironic. In all of. This is that Heathrow. and. Then over the. Decades they built over four

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Decades they built over four with obviously various. Terminals and. Obviously ended up with two. And my. Criticism is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Criticism is. For all sides, really, and. All governments, because. Neither were bold.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Enough to have looked 25 years ago and actually building a third obviously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obviously. The major airport in the United Kingdom. It's not just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's not just. About London. In terms of. The point. Raised by the. Spokesman for. The Liberal Democrats.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Liberal Democrats. That. Noble Baroness in terms of. Sustainability and. The environment. I think that's rather a red.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that's rather a red. Herring again. Because so. Much has been stopped. By these sort. Of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Environmental arguments. Notwithstanding the aerospace. Sector, we build. The cleanest, greenest aircraft ever.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

greenest aircraft ever. aviation. Itself is responsible. For 3% of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For 3% of. CO2 worldwide and approximately 4%. Across Europe. Which doesn't mean to say we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

always aim to. Improve these sorts of things. So I think. That's a. Rather a. Negative argument. At present.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At present. Those two runways are running at 98% capacity. And all. You need. Is. A little fog.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A little fog. Or a little delay. And of course. That sends. Things into a real turmoil. So I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I. Would like. To say to the. Minister. I do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support the government. Decision to actually. Support the. Building of a. Third runway. And of course. What we had done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What we had done. Before we we lost power. I think it's tragic the way these these infrastructure projects

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these these infrastructure projects are. Delayed and. I suppose. Not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Notwithstanding that. I. Would certainly question the amount of money, I mean, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Project 40 odd billion pounds. I mean, it's. Absolutely ludicrous. So I'm sure. That businesses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That businesses. Could come up with a far better. I think a. Far better. Amount if I could make one. Final point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Final point. The reason we don't have a third runway is actually nothing to do with the government benches. Nor the Conservative Party. The reason that we do not have a third runway, and we've had the problems with Heathrow expansion is because of Heathrow expansion is because of the Liberal Democrats and the noble Baroness really, I think, explained perfectly all the reasons why we shouldn't have one. And it's really not good enough.
20:05
20:05
Lord Cryer Portrait Lord Cryer (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

about time some government got on with it. And this is the one that's going to. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Shall I go first? My Lords I understand the economic arguments understand the economic arguments for the expansion of Heathrow and the connectivity, which we've we've just we just heard about. However, what I want to address, and it's been mentioned earlier on is the issue of overflying. I was a member of the Other place for a long time, always for an East London constituency. And throughout that time I dealt with issues of overflying largely from to and from London City Airport, but actually to a surprising extent, to and from Heathrow.

And the problem was, or one of the problems was that the technology advanced in such a way that the flight patterns were narrowed. That meant that fewer homes were being overflown, but the homes that were being overflown had much more intense time of it. And the the misery of the noise was compounded. Could my may not be able to answer this question now, he may want to write to me about this, but could my noble friend say something about mitigating the noise factors that might include advancing aircraft, which are going to be cleaner and greener? Well, we're always assured that they're going to be cleaner, greener and quieter.

Whether that actually happens or not. And Baroness Bennett seems to be having an uncontrollable fit of the giggles over that on the opposite side. But perhaps you could talk about that, and perhaps he could talk about how the technology might develop, which would mitigate that problem of overflying. overflying.
20:07
20:07
20:09
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
I've no doubt that the noble Baroness has the right figures in front of her, but I think her conclusion is not necessarily correct because the, the, the the purpose of this is, is, is economic growth. It's quite clear that actually supporting growth in the economy is the is the number one objective of this government. And in terms of who flies what, what her statistics suggest to me is that there is real business traffic at a, at a, at an international hub airport, and that constraining that will actually be a constraint on the economy of Britain, which is a wholly bad thing, whether everybody else wants to fly for, for recreation and leisure purposes is very important.

But what's even more important is that the economy is stimulated by those people who need to travel, and that we have a hub airport, which is big enough

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and flexible enough to cope with the demands. My Lords I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Declare an interest as a non-executive Chair of an aviation company, albeit one that doesn't operate from Heathrow. A couple of operate from Heathrow. A couple of points from me. I strongly support what the government is trying to do in terms of expanding Heathrow. I in terms of expanding Heathrow. I was very surprised that the noble lady Baroness Pigeon, who speaks the Liberal Democrats, didn't mention any of the technology mention any of the technology improvements, both in terms of aircraft, sustainable aviation fuel, hydrogen fuel cells, all of the technology that's going to enable us to fly in a way that is
20:10
20:11
20:13
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Oh, could I just say that on the freight issue, Secretary? Well, as a former Secretary of Transport, the Baron Harper will know that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

primary freight exported out of Heathrow. Is fish. That's overwhelmingly the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's overwhelmingly the majority of freight. And number two is books. So the notion that there's high value product going there's high value product going through the system is absolutely untrue. That and there is no need untrue. That and there is no need for additional capacity to provide that delivery. The numbers the numbers are official and can be numbers are official and can be looked up at any time that can. I also say to the minister that he takes the principle that a hub airport should forever increase and expand in order to support economic prosperity and growth, but that is not the history of aviation.

That's not the history of aviation. That's a there's a place for hub airports, but also for direct flights, for development of regional airports. development of regional airports. But there are many arguments that mean that capacity can be delivered in many other ways without in many other ways without necessarily continuously expanding a hub. And indeed, the numbers that a hub. And indeed, the numbers that are used the government is using at the moment. And I think consultants like Frontier Economics have been like Frontier Economics have been involved in this, that to justify that expansion at Heathrow are not that expansion at Heathrow are not laying out future demand, but a highly speculative relationship between increased capacity.

That and increased growth. That's so, my Lords, I am very concerned that the the projections that the government is doing, first of all, are not even adjusted to deal with increased capacity at other London airports, never mind potential capacity at other regional airports around the country, and that we're getting into this vicious cycle of creating unneeded capacity, which then leads to much more aggressive marketing to persuade more people to fly. It's almost equivalent, as the utility's trying to go out and encourage people to use more energy or to use more water.

That's a capacity in the air is a scarce resource. That's a and we should be thinking from a far more environmental perspective. And I suggest that the policy that he's looking at runs dangerously counter to tackling climate change. And in terms of local environmental impact, especially noise. It continues to run counter because although the industry tells us its planes are quieter, I can tell you living under the flight path, that is not the real lived experience under that flight path.
20:15
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page