Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring that I own a grade 2 listed property.

This is intended to be a probing amendment and a deregulatory measure. We read in the newspapers today that the Chancellor has recently recruited a planning and infrastructure adviser; clearly, the advice from the ministry is not enough for her. However, it is reported that Rachel Reeves is also keen to have fewer regulators and to get on with a deregulatory approach.

In England, there are about 400,000 grade 1, 2* or 2 listed buildings. Of those, according to Historic England, 91.7% are grade 2, 5.8% are grade 2* and 2.5% are grade 1. We often think about what a grade 2 listed building is. When I did my research, I randomly sampled 100 grade 2 properties on the Historic England database. Only six had any internal features. Nevertheless, the guidance is that one has to apply for listed building consent if there is any concern not just about painting but about whether you might change aspects of the internal character or any of the original materials.

From that research—my sample was of 100 properties, but the ONS uses 1,000 as its statistically relevant sample size when it does surveys—I think it is fair to say that very few are currently considered to have internal features that are deemed worthy for listing. Consequently, it feels like a lot of work—through a lot of approaches—is done on exploring listed building consent. Dare I say it, people will often ask for forgiveness rather than permission, in case somebody in the local village or town suddenly decides to dob them in if they have heard that some internal work has been done. Perhaps that is more a story for “Midsomer Murders” than for a learned debate here today.

I completely understand that, for grade 2* listed buildings, we start to see much more consideration of internal features such as prominent fireplaces, prominent staircases and a lot of other relevant things. However, quite often, for grade 2 listed buildings, the focus is on the external. For example, the house that I own is thatched. Apparently, the brickwork was done with a particular thing called Flemish bond; you can see that only on the chimney, which is however high up. Bearing in mind those sorts of features, this amendment would offer a simple, deregulatory approach that would not particularly harm the heritage of our country. Therefore, I beg to move.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not completely in tune with my noble friend Lady Coffey, for which I hope she will forgive me. While I agree that maintenance and repairs are essential and should not be held up in any way, I urge caution about some internal changes.

In recent years, a minimalistic approach has gained popularity. In the case of grade 2 listed buildings, this may mean ripping out features of historic importance and changing floor levels, ruining the proportions and character of beautiful, old buildings. While I acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck, as sometimes, with modern living, removing a wall or making small changes can be beneficial, I would urge that this is not done without oversight.

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that buildings of 1850 and before receive pretty much automatic listing. However, there are many lovely houses that are built after this, especially Victorian houses from 1850 to 1900, and they do not qualify because they are not considered special. They have no real protection. Even where those houses fall in a conservation area, it will mean that only the façade is preserved.

We are losing internal features of many historically interesting buildings. We need to put a brake on this, because once gone, we will never get them back.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the whole purpose of listed building legislation is to ensure the integrity of the listed structure. The requirement to apply for listed building consent is in order to protect the building from inappropriate changes which would compromise the listing. Many people in civic society care deeply about retaining and protecting listed buildings. As listed building applications are free, as we debated on an earlier day in Committee, that helps those who own listed buildings—there is no cost to it. Heritage planning officers know that some buildings need a fundamental change of use if they are not to lie empty and decay. That is okay, as long as it goes through a listed building consent application.

I know that these are large changes, but I will give one example. In my own town, there is a grade 2* listed building which is a former united reformed chapel—there are lots of great methodist, congregational or united reform chapels in the north. It was altered to become an Indian restaurant, allegedly the largest in the world, with room for 1,000 people. Subsequent alterations to the access, inevitably with lots of stairs to reach the front, were given permission, but the listed building consent application enabled local people to know that a treasured building was not being changed without the appropriate permissions. Even if such changes are relatively minor in comparison to the structure as a whole, constant minor changes could nevertheless add up to a big change that would not be appropriate and compromise the integrity of the listing.

As your Lordships can perhaps tell from the comments I have made, I am not a supporter of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 227G, which stands in my name. This amendment would insert a new clause after Clause 106 that would require the Secretary of State, within one month of the Bill being passed, to publish a report on whether the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities remains compatible with the rights and freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 1 of Protocol 1, “Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions”.

The issue relating to Clause 105 is that it allows acquiring authorities, when calculating compensation for compulsorily purchased land, to exclude hope value. That is so even where that hope value is genuine, long-established and grounded in realistic prospects of future development. This risks leaving landowners with compensation that does not reflect the true value of what they are losing. Indeed, it is not just a risk; it is more than that, and it will surely come to pass. There is also no statutory mechanism preventing acquired land later being disposed of at full value—potentially by a private entity—without redress to the original owner. This raises clear questions of fairness, proportionality and potential misuse of public power, and I look to the Minister for clarification on this.

Equally troubling is the absence of safeguards to ensure that land taken compulsorily is actually used for its intended purpose and not sold on later for profit, with no compensation or benefit to the original owner. This risks opening the door to misuse of state power; it diminishes public trust. This would be contrary to the principles of fair dealing that were established at least 70 years ago and have been acted on by Governments of all persuasions ever since.

In this, I refer to the Crichel Down affair, which should be etched on every Minister’s heart. This was a British Government scandal in the 1950s. It involved the compulsory purchase of agricultural land in Dorset for RAF bombing practice. The land was later transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture. The ministry then significantly increased the land’s price, making it unaffordable for the original owner’s successors. The ensuing public inquiry, which criticised the ministry’s actions, led to the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture—note that; the resignation—and the establishment of the Crichel Down rules. This requires government departments to offer surplus land back to former owners or their successors.

Although this situation is not exactly the same as the one my amendment addresses, the mischief is similar. The principles underlying it should be no different. It is called “fair dealing”. I invite the Minister to say plainly that, where property is taken by compulsion, there must always be fair dealing.

The Crichel Down scandal established that principle. Public bodies making use of CPOs should not later, if they change their minds, make a financial gain at the expense of the original landowner—so much for the English common-law position. As I have explained, those principles apply to a different but comparable position to that which this amendment addresses.

I turn shortly to Article 6 of the convention. This requires access to an effective remedy, yet the opacity around how compensation is assessed in the absence of procedural safeguards in some cases may give rise to a challenge under that provision.

This amendment does not seek to obstruct regeneration; it seeks legal clarity, transparency and reassurance that the Government remain committed to fair dealing and to honouring their obligations under the convention. I urge the Minister to recognise the importance of these protections and accept the need for a report when the Bill becomes law.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 325 in this group but, first, I would like to support the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst. I echo what has been said about compulsory purchase orders. We live in a country that is meant to have property rights. What can be worse than forcibly removing property that someone rightfully owns? Which one of us would like our property to be compulsorily removed?

Generally, in the past, this has been done only for huge infrastructure projects—not that that makes it better for those whose property it affects. It has been rarely done, although we have just heard of a very awful example from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. However, I am sure that many of your Lordships will have read about the property removed to make way for HS2: the family farms that were taken and the homes that people had to leave. Do the general public really think this is a good thing? Surely, it is a human rights abuse. The Bill incentivises this approach by allowing acquiring agencies to buy the land at agricultural prices and then sell it on for development. We are meant to be making life easier and better for people, not causing utter misery.

I thank noble Lords who have allowed me to insert Amendment 325 into the group. Amendment 325 would insert new subsection (2A) into Clause 83 to ensure that fields used by people to graze their animals and high-quality agricultural land that could be used for food production cannot be compulsorily purchased by Natural England as part of its environmental delivery plans.

I spoke earlier in the debate about how one of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have these property rights. In the Bill, there are provisions to make compulsory purchase easier and for local authorities to be able to seize land more cheaply, as I just said, where it is required for new development.

I spoke last week about how high-quality agricultural land should be used to produce food, which is in proposed new paragraph (b) of this amendment, so I will not repeat all that we talked about then. I would like to focus on proposed new paragraph (a), which concerns

“land … that is in personal use for the grazing of animals”.

People who have a few fields, for horses, donkeys or maybe llamas, goats, the odd pet sheep or anything else, need those fields to keep their livestock and pets. These fields are often on the outskirts of villages or towns. They therefore look rather attractive for development but, if this land were removed, what would happen to the animals and livestock?

A while ago, the Prime Minister himself purchased a field, so that his mother could care for neglected donkeys. Sadly, she has now died and the field has been sold, but what would have happened if this field had been taken while it was being used for the donkeys? In short, as I have said before, I believe that compulsory purchase—seizing someone’s property—is against human rights and should be used by a Government in only the most extreme of circumstances, and that land that is being utilised for family animals should never be considered.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I start by declaring that I have shares in a family company that owns a farm in the Midlands. To avoid giving a Second Reading speech, and to save us all quite a lot of time, I will jump over what I was going to say on Amendment 210 and just say that I agree thoroughly with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst, on those matters. After all, so-called hope value is just another term for what the market is prepared to pay—in other words, market value.

When we look at land, the owner may already have paid inheritance tax on it, invested in its maintenance and improvement, and spent substantial sums, time and effort seeking planning permission. For the state or local authority simply to swipe the increase in value that the owner has nurtured and invested in over the years is not only deeply unjust but a powerful disincentive to bring forward land for development, for EDPs or anything else.

There is a different perspective, at least in the case of land: the increase of value may be derived from societal need—for example, space for housing—rather than entirely from the efforts and investments of the owner of that land. As such, perhaps society should be entitled to at least a share of the uplift in value. But it already is. The state, without lifting a finger, receives at least 20% capital gains tax on the price achieved by all vendors and other very valuable benefits in exchange for granting planning permission—in the form of planning conditions, Section 106 agreements and so on.

We will be discussing the closely related matter of compulsory purchase shortly in subsequent amendments, but this is on hope value. In February 2025, the Compulsory Purchase Association, in its response to the consultation on the process and rules for compulsory purchase, had strong objections to the removal of hope value on the grounds that it would—I will try to list these briefly: make the development process slower and more complex; produce distortions in a two-tier market with some land taken from its owners subject to the removal of hope value via compulsory purchase and some land sold at true market price; discourage developers and owners from promoting land for allocation or development; encourage owners to fight attempts to compel them to part with their property; and have equalities impacts on the human rights of those affected—for example, through potential abuse by acquiring authorities and time pressure put on owners to accept terms. As one lawyer in a government department put it to me recently, compulsory purchase brings people to the table. I would argue that it brings them to their knees. Finally, it would damage the reputation of the compulsory purchase process as a fair and equal one.

There is a case for society to capture some of the value from development. As I have tried briefly to illustrate, society already does so in the form of significant tax and planning conditions. The real issue is not to confiscate hope value but to ensure that land, once given planning permission by the state, is actually developed. This requires, first, a review of how long a planning permission can run before being lost, and, secondly, an end to the practice of a planning permission being acquired with the expectation that, for example, affordable housing percentages will later be haggled downwards. Contractual obligations in this area need to be far tougher. Putting together the time limit and this contractual aspect with limited planning permissions would address issues such as land banking, which are the subject of other amendments. I support this amendment because such state confiscations would be an economic mistake and a deeply negative pressure on the possibility of land being brought forward voluntarily. I look forward, albeit with some scepticism, to hearing the Minister’s response to this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger]

221: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Party Wall etc. Act 1996: review(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 as it relates to planning and development.(2) The review must include—(a) a consideration of whether the Act is consistent with current planning and development practices,(b) a summary of all correspondence to date related to the implementation of the Act as it relates to planning and development which is held by the relevant government department and its predecessor departments,(c) consultation with industry bodies related to the construction and maintenance of, and negotiation and litigation in respect of, party walls, in relation to planning and development,(d) consultation with members of the public who have made use of provisions of the Act within the last five years in relation to planning and development, and (e) recommendations on how the Act could be amended to ensure that its provisions, as far as they relate to planning and development —(i) are consistent with human rights legislation,(ii) are consistent with current planning and development practices, and(iii) uphold the principle that no criminal damage, trespass or interference should occur in relation to a person’s property.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, clarifying whether the Act is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether that Act could be amended in order to update its position in planning and development processes.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 221 and 223, which are in my name. Before I do so, I should perhaps remind the Committee of the interest I declared at Second Reading: I have been the recipient of three party wall notices in the past three years. That has brought to my attention the whole issue of the practicality of the party wall Act.

Both amendments deal with the issue of party walls, which is particularly pertinent in London and other cities where residential buildings either adjoin or are close to other housing. Amendment 221 calls for a review of the party wall Act. However, I will deal with Amendment 223 first. This amendment is applicable mainly to residential buildings and stops any developer interfering with the structural integrity of somebody else’s house without their permission. That simply means that no one should have their foundations affected by the work next door.

The oft-used quote, “An Englishman’s home is his castle”, comes to mind. We all presume that we have property rights and, if we own a home, that we should be able to live in it without interference. I am not a human rights expert, and I know that there are many noble and learned Lords in the House of Lords who are, so I tiptoe into this issue with nervousness. However, it is my understanding that human rights law protects against interference with property. That is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 1 protects the right to

“the peaceful enjoyment of … possessions”

and Article 8

“protects your right to respect for your … home”.

Someone else interfering with the foundations of a house causes stress and anxiety to the owner, because it has the ability to undermine and/or badly damage the property. In fact, there have been cases of houses becoming unstable and, in some rare cases, actually collapsing. I understand that at least one fatality has been caused.

This is not the first time this issue has been raised in the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, put forward a Private Member’s Bill—the Planning (Subterranean Development) Bill—in 2015 to address this very issue. Most of the interference with other people’s foundations comes about because of basements being dug or floors lowered. Having personally been on the receiving end of this, I can attest to the huge distress, noise and interference that this causes, to which I and many others have been subjected. It is therefore time to stop others in the future being affected in this way. The development should not interfere physically with anyone else’s property without their permission.

This brings me to Amendment 221, which calls for a review of the Party Wall etc. Act. This Act was bought in as a Private Member’s Bill in 1996 by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I understand that it was meant to address circumstances where damage had occurred and to deal with this meant that the neighbouring house would also be affected. I understand that this was bought in with good intentions. However, it was in the days before the fashion for digging basements. The provisions in the Act are very one-sided and basically take away the rights from the adjoining owner so that damage—sometimes criminal damage—trespass and nuisance may occur.

Moreover, the party wall Act appears to take this work out of planning, so there is no mechanism to allow an adjoining owner to object. It robs the adjoining owner of any rights to stop the work, even where it may adversely affect their property. This unfairness is exacerbated by the way that surveyors have interpreted this Act. Although the adjoining owner is allowed to appoint a surveyor, unlike most professionals representing a client the surveyors choose to act neutrally, often refusing the adjoining owner any input or say about what happens to their property—while the surveyor to those doing the development is briefed by their client on what to do.

It is almost 30 years since the Act was passed. There has not been any post-legislative scrutiny and there has been no review. I tabled a number of Questions on this issue in October last year, asking whether the Government would conduct a review. In July 2021, Newcastle University’s School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape produced Bunkering Down, a report which cited that 7,328 basements had been improved in 32 London boroughs between 2008 and 2019, saying that these have now become

“as normal as loft conversions”.

The department has, by its own admission, received correspondence from parliamentarians and members of the public alike concerning the efficacy and application of the Act over the years. Any review or consultation must include this correspondence in its evidence.

I thank the Minister, who found time to see me about this. One of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have property rights. People need to be reassured that their home is safe and that all things are in line with the ECHR. I hope that, if the Minister does not feel that she can accept this amendment, she will commit to a consultation and a review forthwith. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling Amendments 221 and 223 regarding the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which is an important piece of legislation providing a legal framework to resolve disputes between property owners concerning shared walls.

Amendment 221 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the party wall Act and clarify whether it is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether it needs amending to update its position in planning and development processes. We should all recognise the importance in amending previous legislation so that it is consistent with current law and practice. I therefore hope that the Government take this amendment seriously.

Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that the structural integrity of homes is protected by requiring the permission of neighbouring property owners who may be affected by the development rights conferred by this Act. This amendment clearly aims to uphold people’s existing property rights and their structural integrity. This is an important principle which I look forward to the Government addressing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for her amendments relating to party walls and for meeting with me to help me understand the issues that she has faced relating to this.

Amendment 221 seeks to create a legal duty to review the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. The party wall Act provides a framework for preventing or resolving disputes between neighbours relating to party walls, party structures, boundary walls and excavations near buildings. While I have no objection in principle to reviewing legislation, it has been the view of successive Governments since the late 1990s that the party wall Act does, indeed, deliver what it was intended to do. It creates a framework for communication and agreement between adjoining property owners when work needs to be carried out to a shared structure, while the Building Regulations establish the minimum legal standards and functional requirements in new building work.

The party wall Act already requires that the owner of a building carrying out work under the Act must serve any adjoining property owner a party structure notice stating: the name and address of the building owner proposing the work; the nature and particulars of the proposed work, including, in cases where the building owner proposes to construct special foundations, plans, sections and details of construction of the special foundations together with reasonable particulars of the loads to be carried thereby; and the date on which the proposed work will begin.

Amendment 223 seeks to create a legal duty for building owners to gain permission from the adjoining property to carry out any works under the party wall Act. As I mentioned, the party wall Act provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, to protect neighbouring buildings from the impact of building works and hold those completing works accountable for any negative impact. Ensuring structural compliance when undertaking work is already regulated under Structure: Approved Document A of the Building Regulations. Any development work must comply with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. Amending the party wall Act will therefore have no regulatory effect on the structural safety of buildings beyond what is already regulated for. The party wall Act should therefore continue to provide a robust framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, party structures and excavations near neighbouring buildings.

I accept that there are occasions when things go wrong and I am very happy to continue the dialogue with the noble Baroness, but for all the reasons I have set out, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am slightly mystified by the phrase that the Act provides a robust framework for resolving disputes. As somebody who has had party wall notices served on me, I do not see any mechanism for resolving disputes except that the developer can actually just do the work—there is no mechanism for the adjoining owner to object and stop the work, so I do not think it actually does resolve disputes. I hear what she says about structural compliance. Often, people carrying out the development get a building inspector from outside the council, and there is no requirement for them to speak to the adjoining owner, even when they ask whether the work has been carried out correctly, because they say that they are not their client; it is the developer who is the client. So, I query some of those statements and I very much hope that there can be a review of this Act. I would be delighted to continue the conversation with the Minister, and on those grounds, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 221 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger]

227C: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Land purchasing: duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land(1) Any developer or company approaching a landowner to buy or lease land for the purpose of development must declare whether they are also approaching other owners of land in the vicinity to buy or lease land for the purpose of development.(2) The declaration required under subsection (1) must include whether the combined amount of land intended to be purchased or leased will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project as set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008.(3) In subsection (1), “in the vicinity” means any land immediately adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing or whether there are others being approached so that the total sum of the land obtained may result in application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 227C in my name would insert a new clause after Clause 106 creating a duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land round about. As the explanatory statement highlights, this is

“to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing”,

or whether those making the approach are also reaching out to other owners of land in the vicinity for the purpose of the development. Subsection (2) states that the above statement

“must include whether the combined amount of land … will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project”.

Meanwhile, subsection (3) provides a definition of what is meant by “in the vicinity” in this context, namely anything

“adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I would be very loath to do that because, whenever you start looking into legal matters, in particular, it is always more complex than you anticipated. With the will to help make this make sense, I hope that we will be able to bring our combined forces together and get some resolution to the issue. But, for the reasons I set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered response. I am disappointed in her response to my amendment, because I think that, although I understand her point about confidentiality, there may be ways of communicating when landowners are approached, whether it is just an isolated approach or whether it is part of a larger project. I hope that there may be more thought about this.

I am sure that other noble Lords will have been heartened by the Minister’s response to Amendment 227E when she said that there will be further conversations to find a way to resolve this. I very much hope that further consideration will be given to the whole transparency issue, which might be brought back on Report. With that, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 227C withdrawn.