English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to all of which I have added my name. I have also added my name to Amendments 255 and 257.

The amendments tabled by the noble Earl do two simple things. Amendment 262 defines “cultural interests” with clear examples, while the remaining amendments correct the anomaly of cultural assets sitting subordinate to sporting assets in a way that DCMS’s own cultural policy does not intend. I also associate myself with the email sent yesterday by the noble Earl to the Minister, referred to in his speech, offering suggestions for the statutory guidance on cultural assets. Can the Minister confirm that there will be feedback on this and that comprehensive guidance will be published before the Bill commences?

Amendments 255 and 257 deserve particular attention. They would extend the community right to buy assets that further environmental well-being, but they would do so carefully. The Minister raised a concern in Committee that amendments should not become a vehicle for general environmental protection. The amendments’ wording addresses that concern directly because land already allocated in local development plans is excluded. That is a precise and principled limitation, meaning that what is left is exactly what should be protected—the green spaces, woodlands and riverside walks that communities have already identified as central to their way of life. The Minister’s alternative, that such assets should be captured through guidance under the existing social and economic well-being criteria, does not provide equivalent security. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, put it in Committee, once you leave something out of legal safeguards, you invite people to ignore it.

Guidance is precisely what gets set aside when other pressures arise. A green field matters to a community just as much as a music venue does. It deserves the same legal footing, not a footnote in statutory guidance. Yet recognition alone is not enough if an asset can simply be demolished. Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, addresses that gap. I supported that on the planning Bill, as she knows. The Minister confirmed that the Housing Minister has committed to consult on this in the next review of permitted development rights, but a commitment to consult is not a commitment to act. A future consultation offers cold comfort to a community watching its assets face demolition now. The Government have acknowledged that there is a justified argument for this to change. The time for it is in this Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support for Amendments 255 and 257. I will not repeat what has been so eloquently said by my noble friend Lord Freyberg and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but, as the Minister pointed out in Committee, environmental assets can be included in the register of assets of community value if they are shown to support social and economic well-being. But I am very concerned that the wording of this clause—that these have to be “non-ancillary” uses—will rule out many areas of green space. We know how important green and blue spaces are to communities.

For example, a row of trees or hedgerows between a road and a community would be an important filter for health, filtering noise and visual amenity. But none of that would be easily captured in a way that would allow a community to defend in a legal context that this was a social or economic well-being matter. It is a matter of environmental well-being, mental health, physical health and all sorts of things that would not come under this.

I strongly feel that guidance and using the existing clause as worded will not work for many of the purposes that the Government set out and wanted this clause to capture—all the derelict areas that communities could take up and adopt as green spaces within their community areas. I hope the Government look at this clause again. I will support the noble Baroness if she takes this to a vote.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, at its heart this group of amendments speaks to something fundamental—the importance of preserving those local assets that bind communities together. Whether they are pubs, sports grounds, community halls or green spaces, these are important spaces for local people. They are the places of shared identity and connection. In that context, we see merit in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Her proposal to ensure that buildings designated as assets of community value are protected from permitted development rights that would allow for their demolition is both practical and necessary. Without such protection, there is real risk that assets could be lost before communities have a meaningful opportunity to act.

Similarly, her amendments to broaden the definition of sporting assets and to involve Sport England as a statutory consultee, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, reflect the importance of safeguarding grass-roots sports and recreational spaces. These are often the very facilities that underpin community health and well-being, yet they can be among the most vulnerable to loss.

We also recognise the intention behind the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to address the issue of so-called dormant assets. While these are important questions to consider around the use of compulsory purchase powers, the principle that communities should not be indefinitely frustrated in their efforts to acquire valued local assets is one that deserves careful attention by the Government.

The amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others, seek to expand the definition of community value to include culture and environmental well-being. We acknowledge their intentions, as we have throughout the whole Bill, and the important role that such assets play in community life. However, these provisions do not sit in isolation; they depend on a wider funding landscape if they are to be meaningful in practice. The Government have placed considerable emphasis on Pride in Place funding as the means of supporting local regeneration and community assets. Yet there remains a lack of clarity as to how this funding is being distributed and whether it is truly reaching all parts of the country fairly.

We understand that the Pride in Place programme offers £5.8 billion over 10 years to more than 300 areas. But what then of those communities deemed ineligible for this funding; what financial support is available to them, and how does the department intend to ensure that they are not left behind? Can the Minister also explain the three metrics used to allocate this funding and the rationale behind the weightings applied to them? Transparency in this respect is essential if confidence in the system is to be maintained. There is a further concern. To what extent has this funding been drawn from existing programmes? If that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact of the decisions to withdraw that funding?

If we are serious about empowering communities and protecting the assets they value, it is not enough simply to repackage funding or redistribute it from one initiative to another. Communities need certainty, continuity and a clear sense that support is being strengthened, not replaced. I look forward to the Minister’s response.