Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Banner (Con)]

No, in my assessment. Whenever the law changes, there will be an adaptation period. That is axiomatic, but it will be the case anyway because we will have new legislation. The intention behind it, if anything, is to streamline and therefore reduce costs, including legal costs.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by this exchange, because the thought had occurred to me that, by introducing a principle of proportionality into the legislation, we would then open the floodgates to contention about what is proportional. The question of JR seems to be immediately rearing its head. Therefore, I cannot see how, rather than simplifying the system, it would not add a layer of complication.

The argument about the CIL in relation to small developments is a different one. There is some merit in that because of the flexibility one needs for small builders. However, that is only part of an ancillary argument to the broader and slightly dangerous argument brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in favour of over-complicating the planning system in the way he suggests.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, proportionality is in the eye of the beholder; it depends on your perspective. These ideas—proportionality, reducing bureaucracy, speeding up small developments and reducing costs—are seen from the perspective of the developer. Those are fair arguments to make, but, equally, if we are to be proportionate, we need to see the other side of the balancing scales: the perspective of those on the receiving end of the development. For example, taking away the importance of bats, badgers or whatever might reduce costs and bureaucracy and speed up development, but it would anger local people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, in another life, I had the privilege of taking through the then Planning Bill 2008, which introduced CIL. In this House, we had some very vigorous arguments, not about its purpose but about its methodology. I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord said about the subsequent review. With the support of my Front Bench, we were very proud to be able to lever that additional money for crucial infrastructure.

I have some sympathy for the amendment, because it is a confusing strategy in some respects. I would like to see CIL and local authorities getting greater credit, as well as for there to be more transparency around what developers’ funds go into. While I want to pay tribute to my earlier Government’s effort to raise these funds, I support greater transparency and clarity for developers as well as for local authorities and communities.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and congratulate her on taking through the legislation. At the outset, when she was taking the legislation through your Lordships’ House, she would have contemplated that CIL was going to carry the lion’s share of the cost of infrastructure. Sadly, that never turned out to be the case. To a certain extent, the areas that have had CIL have ended up in a worst-of-all-worlds situation, where they have some CIL but they also have Section 106. That is a disappointment. It has not reached the promise that we all wanted for it, because everything has become so much more expensive. As I alluded to earlier, the developers give up with CIL and just want to build the school themselves. In fact, they are probably best placed to build the school while they are onsite, mobilised and with the construction equipment all around them. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps forcing the council to build the school when they do not have some of that brownfield risk would have been an improvement.

I am getting off the point. In short, I support the amendment, but it needs to be embellished on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Andrews]

172: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Conservation of the historic environment(1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) In sections 16(2), 66(1) and 66(2), for “preserving”, in each place in which it occurs, substitute “conserving or enhancing”.(3) In section 72(1), for “preserving” substitute “conserving”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the fundamental inconsistency between heritage policy and heritage legislation by using the same terminology in both and safeguarding heritage by encouraging desirable change.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel that I have been reprieved on this amendment. I will do my best to keep it short, although it is a bit technical. It is a proposed new clause. The Front Bench will be relieved to know that none of my supporters can be here; they are all in far better places and having a much better time, which will definitely cut down the time taken on this.

The amendment is supported and was mainly drafted by the Heritage Alliance, which represents 200 of the heritage bodies in the country. It is a very weighty amendment that has been extremely well thought-through by the umbrella body for the heritage sector. Who could resist an amendment drafted by such a public-spirited body? It is also in the spirit of the Bill. It is about freeing up growth and innovation through housing, public services and more besides. The clinching argument is that it would bring out-of-date legislation into current policy, guidance and best practice. I think the Minister can only commend this amendment, because it would bring clarity and confidence across the whole field of heritage and planning.

Briefly, national heritage planning policy is based throughout on the principle of conservation, defined in the NPPF, which we have heard about a lot on this Bill, as:

“The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and, where appropriate, enhances its significance”.


The definition goes back decades. It was pioneered in America and we incorporated it into English Heritage’s conservation principles when I had the privilege of being its chair in 2012. It was incorporated into the NPPF in that year too. It has meant in practice that conservation has become the lodestar of heritage practice, encouraging and enabling the repurposing of historic buildings into working spaces for today’s students, crafts men and women, housing families and organisations, while retaining the character of those post-industrial towns and their buildings which means so much.

Anybody who has watched “The Great Pottery Throw Down” will know Middleport Pottery, which was rescued at the very last minute, supported by the King, and restored to all its glory. There is the marvellous work on St John’s, at Waterloo, which has kept its extraordinary heritage and community activities and so on. There are hundreds of outstanding examples. Were the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, here, he would talk about historic farm buildings and the contribution they make to the continuing character and vitality of the countryside.

What needs changing? Lurking in the planning legislation is a residual leftover from another age, when the object of heritage was to preserve and not conserve. Let me explain. The concept of preservation dates back to the 19th century, well before there was any consciousness of what historic buildings might be used for. There was then a binary choice: knock it down and lose it or preserve it. The Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 was the attempt to provide legal protection for the first time. That concept of preservation against loss prevailed for a century and it remains at the heart of the planning system. In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 there is still a legal presumption in favour of preservation. This amendment seeks to bring planning policy and guidance into line and substitute the phrase “conserving or enhancing” for “preserving” in each of the relevant subsections.

Why is it urgent to do this now? Every listed building consent and planning decision near any listed building, and every planning decision in England’s 10,000 conservation areas, must explicitly give special regard to “preservation”, not “conservation”. Planning law overrides and outranks policy and guidance, so this planning legislation can have a chilling effect on imagination, innovation, and the creative use of rare and useful buildings, working against the possibility of housing, public services, leisure and much else.

This is not some nit-picking attempt to tidy up legislation. Heritage is not a peripheral issue in planning. We are an old country, with lots of stuff, and a third of planning applications involve heritage. But heritage is now so often seen, and can be seen in the Bill, as blocking change—a lazy reaction. At a time when we are looking for economic growth, and growth in housing and services, this prejudice prevents the right sort of change and growth. It is bad for the past and bad for the future.

Take town centres, for example—which our Select Committee recently looked at. They are robbed of their original purpose and yet still recognisable in the churches, civic buildings and law courts which make up the heart of the community. They may have lost their original purposes but they are immensely useful buildings which can transform community engagement. They are ripe for repurposing for local authority services, diagnostic medical centres, craft workshops and galleries —all it needs is imagination and the change in the law that we are proposing in this amendment. Historic England estimated that 670,000 new homes could be created in England alone by repairing and repurposing existing historic buildings.

This is an obvious and timely change to make and is extremely discreet. It is a very limited amendment and would have no damaging implications for any other form of legislation. It would simply remove the inconsistency between heritage policy and heritage legislation by using the same terminology in both and ensuring that heritage becomes part of the wealth of the future as well as the past. I really hope the Minister will support this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, heritage assets, as we have heard, are not simply buildings or sites of historic interest; they are living reminders of who we are, where we come from and the values we wish to pass on. Turning to the amendments before us, in Amendment 172 the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raises an important and interesting issue—the inconsistency, as I understand it, between heritage policy and heritage legislation. I am keen to hear the Government’s reflections on this matter and whether they believe that an amendment of this kind is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the system. I will wait to hear what the Minister says, and I would love a conversation about this with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.

Turning to a series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as he so often does, he has raised some significant, thought-provoking issues. We worked tirelessly on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act. Anything that helps to get on with the commencement of some of the key aspects of that legislation would be most welcome. In that context, Amendment 182, on the commencement of provisions concerning the duty to have regard to heritage assets in planning functions, is of particular importance. Ensuring that heritage is properly taken into account in planning decisions is a safeguard for the future as much as a means of showing respect for the past.

We also hear what my noble friend says in Amendment 185C, which proposes that national listed building consent orders under Section 26C of the 1990 Act be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That seems a practical suggestion, and I hope the Government and the noble Baroness will consider it carefully. Heritage is, after all, not about blocking change but about managing it well and ensuring that the past informs and enriches the future. These amendments, in different ways, all seek that balance model.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s reply. I will of course withdraw the amendment, but it is rather disappointing. I am very glad that the Minister has met with the conservation and heritage bodies. They have a view about this, which is why they framed the amendment as they did. Although I accept the argument, there is a point in thinking again about whether we need to align this legislation and guidance, for the reasons I gave.

There is a wider argument. There are other aspects of heritage protections that are now very much in the frame for change. It is four or five decades since we had heritage legislation. The 1985 Act is well out of date. We need new heritage legislation. When the Minister meets with the heritage bodies again, perhaps she could ask them what they think of that idea and whether they would have an interest in framing new heritage legislation which makes more sense of where we are in terms of how we now regard historic buildings in their setting, and their purposes. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 172 withdrawn.

Planning Delivery: Acceleration

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness that changing the planning system is a key part of it, but it is not the only part of the jigsaw. We need to improve the skills capacity in both planning and construction. We also need to unblock some of the sites she mentioned that are currently blocked in planning. Our new homes accelerator, working with the department and Homes England, has unlocked significant numbers of homes already. We have unblocked over 63,000 homes so far, including a further 43,000 homes over the last four months. On 5 August, we announced another six sites that the accelerator has identified for targeted support. We are also helping local government, so that it is able to insist that planning applications are built out, once they are applied for and got.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, for some years now planning departments have been hollowed out, specialist planners and experienced planners have resigned and there is a critical need to introduce more planners to make all the housing ambitions realistic. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s policy is towards recruiting and accelerating planning specialists, so that we will see renewed energy in the planning system in terms of applications?

Housing Associations: Financial Assistance

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The exact details of the programme will be published shortly. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, 30% of the funding in that £39 billion funding pot will be allocated to London. But the noble Lord should look at what has happened in the last 14 years and not blame the Mayor of London for what has happened with housing in London.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very good news about investment in social housing. The role of the housing associations will be critical, obviously. The noble Baroness mentioned the role of the New Towns Taskforce. Can she update us on when we can expect the report? I think we can all agree that it is summer already.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I have discussed before at the Dispatch Box, summer is quite a flexible concept in the Civil Service, but we expect the report of the New Towns Taskforce imminently. I would like to say how successful it has been with the task force running an extensive round of consultation around the current new towns, with people with lived experience of what it is like to live in a new town, both to learn the lessons where things did not work and to see what did work to inform its work. So I am pleased to have been working with Sir Michael Lyons and the task force on that, and I very much look forward to its report.

High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have an opportunity to debate last year’s report on the future of high streets from the Built Environment Committee, chaired with such brio by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It was a very interesting and thoughtful process. We have an opportunity today to consider the Government’s largely positive response. I warn the Minister that I will ask him some detailed questions, although I do not necessarily expect a detailed reply. I am sure that officials will be able to write if necessary.

Most importantly, the Government’s response reflects their sense that the state and prospects of the high street reflect the wider state of the economy and the public realm, and therefore play a critical part in driving, as well as reflecting, national and local growth and renewal. They are part of the national mission. That is very reassuring. I was hopeful for a positive response for the reasons that my noble friend—as he is at the moment as the current chair of the committee—mentioned. Our conclusions are so well evidenced and practical, there should be nothing in this report that is in the “too difficult to implement” box.

The report’s title, Life Beyond Retail?, says it all, in contradiction to the mantra that there is no future for the high street because so much has changed and cannot now be restored. That is primarily in retail, but there are other changes as well. In this context, which is heavy with gloom and doom, we insist that there can be a bright future for the high street, which has evolved over thousands of years to meet changing needs and fashions, but it will take leadership, investment, imagination and innovation.

The Committee will hear a lot in my speech about Lewes, where I have lived for donkey’s years, because it is an exemplar of what is happening, both the worst and the best. Our high street has seen so much change, not to say drama, in its history, which dates back to the Anglo-Saxons. We still have shops with medieval foundations; they were trading in textiles when the Norman castle was being built a millennium ago. We have a 14th-century bookshop. Church, state and law are all physical in our high street. Opposite the county court, in all its magisterial splendour, is the hotel where Tom Paine preached revolution and where people continue to do so—it is that sort of town.

In short, the high street was a stage upon which all dramas played out. It was a marketplace for the community for centuries, but also the place where people met to learn, worship, celebrate, be judged or be improved, both young and old. Much of that community spirit has been retained, but we have lost small supermarkets, butchers, ironmongers, bookshops, post offices and banks. They have largely been replaced, as we have heard, by cafés, charity shops, estate agents, computer shops, hairdressers and nail bars. None of that is unique to Lewes, but it exemplifies in different ways what is happening across the country at different speeds. While the report makes clear that there is no single prescription for a monolithic high street, there would never have been and will never be one.

There are universal explanations for the changes we have seen. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, has already touched on retail. My figures show that between March 2020 and March 2022, 9,300 retail units were closed. PwC found that in the first half of 2024 there was a net loss of 2,284. Often, it is the large department stores and chain stores that go first and are most vulnerable. That has been driven by a combination of factors, such as online shopping, which was furiously accelerated by Covid, unaffordable business rates, poor public transport and parking, a run-down and often sordid public realm with few places where people can socialise without paying for it, neglected green spaces, empty churches and a general air of neglect and alienation. It is not a universal condition, but these are universal challenges, and we discuss them all in the report.

This is not a party-political issue. It is a social and economic challenge. The previous Government threw up a host of complex programmes for the medium and short term, which were warmly greeted, but, as the NAO and various reports said, they did not seem to understand what had worked on the high street and the impact of complex funding arrangements. We heard all about that from our witnesses, who said that they have a new funding application to consider every day, and that in the context of a rundown of public capacity.

Our report recognised that the previous Government had made an attempt to plan for the longer term, but in the short term we said that a clear strategy is needed, based on clear leadership, greater local capacity to develop the high street and town centre and ways of involving the community—for example, town centre managers with training and expertise charged with co-ordinating and driving development and more inclusive and engaged partnership for business improvement districts. The report illustrates what we mean by reference to places such as Frome in Somerset. It also needs long-term, sustained investment. The Budget this year confirmed the 75 neighbourhood partnerships and a revised prospectus. Will the Minister say when we can expect the revised prospectus? Why and how will it be different?

We focus on some specific issues, including housing, transport and community engagement. We have had the repurposing of empty department stores or offices for affordable housing under permitted development relaxation, but we have also seen a failure of quality and design and a missed opportunity. We recommended, for example, a review of the use of class E properties. Will this happen? When will we see a review of permitted development rights? We are told that they are in train. What do the Government think they can achieve in terms of good transport and good parking, which they say has a local role? What will be the impact of local government reorganisation on capacity?

One of the core questions is how we support business in the high street. The chain stores are unlikely to come back. The future will lie with those small, necessary, ingenious businesses that we all love and cherish, such as excellent bakers, plant shops or exciting children’s bookshops. These are the reasons people come to the high street. The Government say they will publish their small business strategy. When will it be published? Will it specifically address the issue of the high street? Will the Government maintain the priority given to the town centre-first retail policy within the NPPF? Will they, when they review business rates, have particular regard to the need to consider and simplify the range of business rates relief schemes to support the high street?

We found reasons to be cheerful. We found innovation, leadership and good practice, which can turn terminal decay, if not decline, into a new proposition. The report is full of examples of innovation, such as teenage markets and regeneration through the heritage action zones. Whether it is churches that have lost their congregations or cinemas that have closed, historic buildings are invaluable assets for their social and collective possibility. The ability to buy those to turn them into local markets, child centres, workshops and climate hubs can really engage people in reimagining what the high street could look like.

We were told by young people, businesspeople and local leaders alike to give the community more power to design the future they want. They want to be involved in this new vision for their high street. The Government have said that they intend

“to commence a package of plan-making reforms … to improve the quality of community engagement”.

Where have we got to on that? The Government say they will invest in initiatives to boost town and city centres, including high street accelerators. I do not really know what that means. I would be grateful for a further explanation.

One of the most positive and popular developments is to reimagine the high street as the place where things can get done and not just bought. The opportunities are there to put in place some of those public services which have disappeared from view because they are increasingly online, and the people who lose out are the people who are in greatest need—the poor, the elderly, the young—who want to talk to somebody, who want advice face to face.

For example, my high street now has a brilliant local authority outlet where complicated questions about a new garden waste bin—I will not bore the Committee with the details—can be sorted in five minutes rather than five hours online. The possibilities are endless: housing offices; walk-in surgeries for routine vaccinations and diagnostic tests; toy libraries for young mums with small babies and giant buggies; repair cafés for the things that have to be thrown away because there is nobody to repair them; empty shop windows where the local university can show some of the work it is doing; empty shops that can be converted into pop-up galleries for FE art students to display their work—the ideas are endless and excellent and they are there, in the community, waiting to be put into place with imagination. They are about experience and quality, not retail.

Our report creates an imaginative future for the high street. I really hope that the Government will take it and do something with its recommendations as part of their wider set of policy proposals.