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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will concentrate chiefly on Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, to which I have attached my name, but I shall briefly comment on Amendment 148, very comprehensively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Indeed, we have majored on chalk streams and I suspect we will hear a lot more about them. I am just going to cross-reference a contribution I made earlier this week about the River Itchen and the amount of plastics and fibreglass fibres that have just been discovered in new research in that chalk stream. This amendment addresses permissible activities. We do not know where those fibres in the River Itchen are coming from, but we desperately need to think about what activities we can afford to allow and what the planning permission can be beside those chalk streams. The extraction of water is the obvious issue here, but we also have to think about pollution and we really have to apply the precautionary principle to these crucial environments.

Amendment 150 says that a spatial development strategy must take account of local wildlife sites, which is crucial in this terribly nature-depleted country. There are, by a very precise count, 43,992 local wildlife sites, of which we know the status of only 15%. That is what the Wildlife Trusts say. SSSIs have greater legal protection. We know that very often does not work, but these local wildlife sites too often fall under the radar and are not sufficiently considered. They are often stepping stones for wildlife to get from one place to another crucial environment, or parts of corridors that enable wildlife communities to mix, to get genetic diversity, among other crucial factors, so it is crucial that the spatial development strategy totally takes these into account.

I think this also cross-references Amendment 152ZA, to which I shall speak briefly. I am strongly in favour of this amendment and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for bringing it. I am sure that she is going to introduce it shortly, but it is about the welfare of animals being considered in spatial development strategies. We think about such things as light pollution, noise pollution, the cutting off of corridors and the isolating of populations. These things that human developments are doing do not sufficiently consider the welfare of animals, and they very much relate to local wildlife sites as well.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 152ZA and 216A. I hope that noble Lords will not think I am in any way discourteous, but I think that there has been a transposition of numbers on Amendment 216ZA. I cannot find any such amendment in the Marshalled List. I think what was meant was Amendment 261A. I am not surprised if anybody has become confused, with the amount of amendments, so I will speak to both.

The purpose of these two amendments is to ensure that the welfare of all sentient animals, both wild and domesticated, is systematically considered within the new planning frameworks established by the Bill. Amendment 152ZA addresses this for spatial development strategies and Amendment 261A addresses it for environmental delivery plans. We all understand the Government’s objectives within the Bill to streamline the planning system, deliver the necessary infrastructure and build more homes. Of course, these are vital aims. However, the Bill contains a significant omission that these amendments are designed to address. It is entirely silent on the welfare of the individual sentient animals living within the environments we seek to develop. This is not simply my opinion; it is also the view of the Animal Sentience Committee, the independent expert body established to advise on whether government policy pays proper regard to the welfare of sentient animals.

In its letter to Ministers this June, the committee expressed significant concern about the Bill. The committee warned that under the current proposals, existing animals—not just species of high conservation concern, but common species such as rabbits, voles or wrens—face severe negative impacts. They

“may be killed directly … by plant machinery … killed indirectly … if their burrows or food sources are destroyed … or displaced to highly uncertain futures”.

Furthermore, planning decisions will have a long-term impact on millions of wild and companion animals. The committee warned that the Bill appears to conceptualise “biodiversity” or “the environment” as abstract entities without recognising that these are populated by individual animals capable of experiencing pain, distress and suffering. Wild animal welfare is aligned with but distinct from species conservation.

Rather than protecting species at the population level, it is about improving well-being at the individual level. In fact, it is interesting that the Government grouped these amendments with others on the protection of rivers and chalk streams today, rather emphasising the committee’s concern that all “biodiversity” or “the environment” is being considered as one homogeneous group. Conscious of the time allotted to the Bill, I did not request to degroup on this occasion, but I assure the Minister that I will do so at the next stage if the Government do not give due consideration. The Animal Sentience Committee’s concerns have been echoed by NGOs such as the Wild Animal Welfare Committee and the UK Centre for Animal Law.

My amendments are designed to implement the recommendations of the Animal Sentience Committee in a constructive and proportionate manner. They are intended not to block development but to ensure that how we build is done responsibly and humanely. Amendment 152ZA would require that spatial development strategies consider animal welfare. It does not mandate specific outcomes and it provides flexibilities for planning authorities. In practice, it could mean such things as considering the impact of development on known wildlife movement corridors and roosting or breeding sites at the concept plan stage; specifying bird-safe lighting and glazing standards for tall or waterside buildings; or the creation of refuge areas with appropriate food and shelter for animals displaced during construction.

Amendment 261A would require that the environmental development plans drawn up by Natural England pay due regard to the welfare of all animals. This is about practical steps at the delivery stage, such as ensuring thorough preconstruction checks for hedgehogs or ground-nesting birds, avoiding key breeding seasons or requiring the humane relocation of animals where harm is unavoidable.

If Ministers are unwilling to consider legislative options on this, I hope they will give serious thought to what non-legislative policy commitments they could make in order to address the concerns of the Animal Sentience Committee. This could include, for example, making a commitment that the Secretary of State will include due regard for animal welfare as a prescribed matter for spatial development strategies or mentioning animal welfare in the regulations that they will establish for Natural England’s duties when preparing an environmental delivery plan. They could also issue voluntary guidelines on wild animal welfare-friendly approaches to planning, infrastructure, development and building. This could build on guidance that has been issued elsewhere—for example, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Good Practice Guidance for Habitats and Species, but with a specific focus on welfare.

However, I hope that the Government have a sincere commitment to animal welfare and will therefore feel able to accept these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for putting her name to my Amendment 157. This amendment seeks to provide local planning authorities with a clear duty and power to protect land that plays a vital role in both shaping our environment and defining our communities. It would require councils to identify within two years the land most in need of protection and, crucially, would offer long-term certainty through its designation as green belt for the next 20 years. We on these Benches recognise that the Government have set out their plans for the green belt in the NPPF, but where we differ is on the freedom of local authorities to release green-belt land.

The character of our towns, villages and countryside is at stake. The green belt has long served as a safeguard against the unrestrained spread of our cities. Without it, the pressure for housing demand and speculative development risks turning neighbouring towns into single sprawling conurbations. Local distinctiveness would be lost, with cherished historic towns increasingly subsumed by continuous development. I welcome Amendment 215 in this group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, which sets out a similar objective. Preserving the gaps between towns helps maintain not only their character but their identity and community. The Minister—who is not in her place—fully understands this, given the protections around her own new town of Stevenage.

This amendment tries to set out a quid pro quo, in effect, for green-belt release, identifying new areas and protecting them over a long period. The amendment is pragmatic rather than dogmatic; it does not seek to prevent all new housing development—far from it—but would firmly direct growth to the right places by requiring authorities to prioritise the redevelopment of previously used urban land, as set out in proposed new subsection 2(d). It would strengthen the case for making full use of the extensive brownfield sites that lie dormant, particularly across our cities. Research from planning bodies such as the CPRE already shows that enough brownfield land exists right now for 1.2 million homes to be built. These sites are often in locations with existing infrastructure and transport. This promotes a principle of “brownfield first”, which we will continue to pursue throughout the progress of the Bill.

Moreover, the new clause proposed in this amendment would provide local communities with a degree of confidence and stability. One of the greatest frustrations, which we all experience when we knock on doors in communities, is the total uncertainty over whether some new development will take up valued local green spaces that will suddenly be lost to it, and that the infrastructure will be stretched beyond its means. By guaranteeing that the newly designated green belt is protected for at least two decades, people will know that, when their council takes action to protect land, the decision is secure over the long term and not subject to immediate challenge or reversal.

Finally, we must recognise that the objectives of housing delivery and environmental stewardship are not in conflict but entirely complementary. Directing resources towards brownfield regeneration helps us in that all-important effort to revitalise high streets, make better use of existing public transport and breathe new life into underused urban spaces, all while protecting the green lungs of our towns and cities. For all these reasons, this is a balanced and necessary amendment that would strengthen local control, ensure sustainable development and safeguard the green belt for today and tomorrow. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 215 is in my name, but I also support Amendment 157 and echo many of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. Amendment 215 would insert a new clause after Clause 106 that would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework. We have already discussed the importance of design and the impact that the built environment can have on health, productivity and sense of community cohesion, and that we need to put the right house in the right place. This clause is, in part, an extension of these arguments, in that it also looks to preserve the special character of individual villages, and of historic villages in particular. Be it medieval cottages or Victorian buildings, historic architecture reflects an era and the influences that shaped a village.

The UK is known for being a green and pleasant land, with villages and communities that are embedded in the landscape, hewn over centuries of rural life and livelihoods. Many people prefer to live and work in smaller communities closer to nature, often with a strong sense of being rooted in a community. Yet you need only read the debate in the other place to see many Members sharing examples of where some of their villages are no longer recognisable, having grown exponentially, often with housing insensitively tacked on. Members spoke of fields with as many houses as a developer can cram in, with no reference to local styles or consideration of infrastructure, rather than villages being developed organically in a way that existing residents feel comfortable with. Too often, this challenges the rural identity of an area and sounds a death knell for the green belt.

There are key elements that contribute to a village’s identity: architecture; cultural traditions and community narratives; and local pride, with traditions and festivals often reinforcing historical awareness as well as supporting heritage tourism. According to a report by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, heritage-led regeneration projects in UK villages have led to a 20% increase in local business activity, demonstrating the economic benefits of maintaining historical identity. Meanwhile, Historic England argues:

“Understanding the significance of places is vital”.


The risk that the Bill poses is of opening up development so much that we lose these gems or, in the worst-case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a styleless, depressing urban sprawl.

There is a significant threat to the authenticity and continuity of historical narratives that define UK villages and their identity. The Government have reported that between 2000 and 2017, more than 1,000 listed buildings were lost due to redevelopment. How could that have happened? It seems to happen all too easily. I argue that we should afford villages the same protection as towns under the NPPF, to ensure that they can retain their character and charm. This amendment would enable that and I hope it will gain the support of the Committee.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hodgson. At this point, I wish to thank the hard-working Whips’ Office, which, in this combination of amendments, has done an excellent job of tying together two things. I acknowledge just how much of a difficult job we have been giving it with Bills at the moment, with our alphabet soups. I think we should acknowledge that and say thank you.

Amendment 157, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, might have been written after my visit to Belper in the Amber Valley in Derbyshire in about 2012. This was a visit focused on trying to protect the green-belt patch of land between Belper and an adjoining village. The plan was to build across the lot and join up that village and Belper together. It was also for speculative development, as the noble Baroness said, and there was a lot of frustration about that. Then we went to lunch. We were sitting in the café and above us there was a lovely woodcut, a historic piece of art, of an old mill in town when it was in operation. I said to the local party, “What’s happening with that mill?”, and they said, “Oh, it’s derelict and we worry about it being burned down”. We were going to build on the green belt and destroy the village environment, and there was that obvious place where we could have been putting housing, right in the centre of town, where all the facilities were, where there was public transport, et cetera.

I am afraid that the Government often do not seem to understand the point of the green belt, and I think that is clear in the invention of the term “grey belt”. Yes, green belt can be to protect beautiful green spaces, nature, farming land, et cetera, but it is also to prevent communities—towns, cities and villages—sprawling and linking up together. The whole idea of “grey belt” really avoids understanding that.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger]

115: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Rainwater harvesting and recycling(1) A local planning authority may not grant planning permission for a development of houses that does not incorporate rainwater harvesting in its design.(2) For the purposes of this section, rainwater harvesting includes—(a) rain collected from roofs and other surfaces above ground level, and(b) rain collected via a system of above ground pipes and tanks,and cannot include any rainwater harvesting which interferes with normal groundwater flow.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that rainwater harvesting systems are a compulsory part of a new developments, so as to ‘future proof’ housing in the light of climate change.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 115, 116 and 117 in my name address additions that, if included when a house was built, would help a home to be future-proofed and cheaper to run, and would address the challenges of climate change.

Amendment 115 would insert a new clause after Clause 51 to ensure that rainwater harvesting systems were a compulsory part of new developments, and would prevent a local authority from granting planning permission unless those were included in the design. Unlike many other countries around the world, the UK has very little regulation around the collection and use of rainwater. This year we saw a wetter spring, increasing storms and flooding, followed once again by a hotter, drier summer, drought and hosepipe bans. Taking water from the main supply has a financial cost and an environmental one too.

Rainwater harvesting cuts reliance on mains water, relieving pressure on available supplies from water companies and increasing resilience. The World Bank reports that rainwater harvesting can also reduce the carbon footprint associated with water treatment and distribution. Harvested rainwater can be used to water the garden or flush the loo, or it can be used in a washing machine. It is often soft water, reducing the need for softeners in hard water areas. Subject to how it is managed and how large the systems are, there is also a potential reduction in localised flood risk.

Obviously the financial and environmental savings would be higher for commercial and industrial buildings, farms and schools, but that does not mean we should overlook the long-term environmental and financial benefit to individual households or community and co-operative models. In fact, statistics from the US suggest that households can reduce water usage by 40% to 50% by using harvesting. The UN has said that, with urban populations expected to reach 68% by 2050, it is clear that, with climate change, pressure as well as rainwater harvesting will play a critical role in sustainable urban water management here as well as abroad.

The Government’s revised draft regional and water resource management plans, updated last December, highlighted that by 2055 England is looking at a shortfall of nearly 5 billion litres of water per day between sustainable water supplies available and the expected demand. Legislation under the previous Government set a target to reduce the use of the public water supply in England per head of population by 20% by 2037-38 from the 2019-20 baseline. Surely this is one small change that could also help to meet those targets alongside the overall financial and environmental benefits. In addition, technological developments in recent years have made the systems more efficient and user friendly.

--- Later in debate ---

While we agree with the intent of the amendment, it is not necessary to include it in the Bill as it would pre-empt the publication of the future homes standard, which has been developed following close consultation with industry and other stakeholders. The standard will include the necessary exemptions and guidance to achieve a smooth implementation and ensure that the majority of new homes are built with solar panels in the years to come. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response and welcome him to his new role on the Front Bench. In doing so, I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and echo what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said about him.

I too should declare an interest in owning a water butt—I did not realise that was essential at the beginning of these amendments—but, more seriously, I thank others who have spoken to this amendment, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett, who added their names to Amendment 115. I was delighted to see the cross-party support for the concept of these amendments. I absolutely note the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but I am sure where there is a will there is a way. A couple of years ago, I was in Tunis for a conference and I went around the old souk. I went to this little house that was set up as a museum and I got talking to the owner. Among other things, I said, “What do you do for water here?” It was midsummer; it was really hot. He said, “Come with me”. He took me to the floor and pulled up a stone that could be lifted and, rather like we heard about in Bermuda, there underneath was a whole water supply that had been gathered during the rainy season.

I note what the Minister says about not prescribing one size fits all and that we must be open to innovation. I suppose I would urge that, in all the interests we have talked about, we use what we know now and leave the door open to innovation in the future. We need to build homes that are equipped for the future. Developers will always have an eye to their financial pockets and will resist including future-proofing, as they say it will cause them expense, but some of them make huge profits and there is a little room to address these issues within that.

This is a perfect opportunity to include measures in legislation, rather than to wait for some opportunity in the future. These measures are good for the environment and will help the people who buy these homes with their bills. So, I will ponder what the Minister has said and may revert to this topic, but I will withdraw the amendment at this time.

Amendment 115 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to give a few words of support to my noble friend in sport Lord Moynihan—that is his expression, but I will use it today. Sporting activity is an incredibly important part of building most communities in our country. It brings them together and contributes to health. We have heard a lot about the Department of Health; it may not be represented here, but I am sure the Ministers are quite capable of carrying the message to it that if you do not have good sporting facilities and activity, you cannot utilise this. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond she will tell us how they are going to work this—or some duty that looks at all the benefits—into the new structure. We have a great deal here about driving something forward; as other noble Lords have said, if we drive forward something that does not deliver a decent environment—the opening comments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, got to the heart of it—you will ultimately create unpleasant environments. We have done so in the past. We have already heard Billy Connolly’s description of being moved out of the Gorbals, because it was a slum, to somewhere which rapidly became a slum except with new buildings, because it had no facilities. Can the Minister give us a description of how they are going to work in access to green spaces, active travel infrastructure, sport and physical activity? If these are excluded from planning up front, those making the decisions will not follow up on them—if you do not have to do it, you will not, because you are busy and you have a prime objective. I hope that the Minister will tell us how they are going to deal with this, because if they do not do so, I am afraid we are going to have to put it into the Bill, one way or another.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 123 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

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. It was Winston Churchill who once remarked:

“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]


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.

We already have many beautiful buildings in the UK, big and small, but it would seem that this aspect is all too often forgotten in new construction. Houses need to include local area designs, and, where possible, use local, natural materials. We should not forget that concrete and steel contribute significantly to carbon dioxide emissions, exacerbating climate change.

I understand that this was discussed in detail in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, commonly known as LURB. I ask the Minister, when are the provisions in LURB going to be implemented, and can she guarantee that they will be? Is the office of the place up and running in this regard, and will this have an effect on what is going to be built?

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendments 138A, 185SC and 185SD in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has articulated very well why these amendments are so important and should be considered.

The focus of the amendments, as we have heard, is to ensure that any national or local plan or strategy relating to planning and development must be designed to provide access, spaces and facilities, and to preserve existing sites for sport and physical activity, so that we can improve the health and well-being of society.

A proper local plan and strategy is critically important. Why? Research from StreetGames, the sports charity I chaired for several years, showed that children and young people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods typically tend not to travel outside of their immediate locality, and with other barriers, they have less access to opportunities for sport and play.

Sport England’s active lives survey shows that individuals in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to be inactive, partly due to a lack of safe, affordable and welcoming home spaces and facilities. This disparity has not helped factors such as limited school facilities’ access for community use, with data showing the correlation between facilities available and activity levels.

The Fields in Trust charity, this year celebrating its centenary, publishes the green space index. It estimates that by 2033, 4,000 new parks will be needed to maintain the current level of accessible green spaces across the country—and the current level is not enough. To preserve these park spaces and sports facilities, planning in future will need to be truly focused if our country is not to be worse off. The pausing or ending of the Opening Schools Facilities Fund is also unhelpful and detrimental, as this fund was providing its worth.

If we are to tackle health and socioeconomic inequalities, we need to improve community provision of opportunities for all, including those in the most deprived neighbourhoods. To do this means making sure that integrating sport and physical activity in all planning decisions is an absolute requirement.

StreetGames and many other similar organisations daily demonstrate the importance of local community facilities, sports fields, leisure centres, gyms and parks. We know how sport and physical activity help to improve lives, whether the issue be obesity, isolation, physical and mental health, or crime and anti-social behaviour. These organisations help aid social cohesion and provide places for social interaction, provided they have access to the right facilities. They deal daily with the rebalancing of issues of health inequality, and without concerted efforts through planning, they will be unable to do their work.

For these reasons and many more, I hope we can prioritise the issues raised in these amendments. I support these amendments because they protect the provision of sport and physical activity in the National Planning Policy Framework. In so doing, sport and physical activity become the underpinning of health and well-being within communities, and help eliminate inequalities.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger]

89: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition of solar power development on higher-quality agricultural landNo permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and(b) building or installation at ground level.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher-quality agricultural land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 89 in my name. This amendment would insert a new clause after Clause 28 which would prohibit the development of solar power generation on high-quality agricultural land, in particular, as set out in paragraph (a),

“agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a”.

As many know, agricultural land is classified into five grades based on various physical and chemical characteristics that affect its long-term agricultural use, grade 1 being the highest and grade 5 the lowest. Grade 3 covers good to moderate-quality land and is divided into two sub-grades, with 3a defined as land capable of consistently producing moderate to high yields of a wide range of crops. I excluded sub-grade 3b, which is more limited in its agricultural use, often suited only to grassland and extensive grazing. Paragraph (b) in Amendment 89 then prevents solar power generation development, which would involve building or installation at ground level.

As I and others argued at Second Reading, the Government need to be joined up when considering infrastructure. Despite the high-level meetings over the summer in Alaska, the current situation in Ukraine remains significantly worrying, and the threat will remain even when the war in Ukraine has been resolved. Our defence policy has pivoted to deterrence against possible war: that we should be war ready. Although defence is the first priority of the Government, surely our second, as an island nation, should be food security.

Solar farms will take up large areas of land that should be used for food production. The Minister has suggested that these concerns are not proportionate, as it is estimated to impact only 1% of agricultural land. According to the Government’s own statistics released in March this year, covering the UK up to 1 June 2024, utilised agricultural land accounts for some 16.8 million hectares in 2024. One per cent of that is the equivalent of 105,000 football pitches, around four-and-a-half times as big as the Isle of Wight. That is not something to be just brushed aside.

We have already had clear examples of impact estimates being widely out, from those leaving the private school sector to the impact of job taxes on enterprise and business. The Government’s own national security strategy tells us that we must actively prepare for war. Currently, we import more than 40% of our food. This Bill would see badly needed productive land lost to solar farms. Our agricultural land is needed for food production. It is vital that we become more self-sufficient and resilient. Producing more food in the UK is an essential part of that. Regarding resilience, solar farms are easily identifiable, hard to guard and therefore could be so easily disabled by drone strikes. This amendment seems fundamental to safeguard future need regarding food production.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that if the noble Baroness wished to put that forward in the land use framework it would be considered. I always worry about de minimis rules because there will always be the exception to the rule that goes slightly over it, and then you end up with a big problem sorting that out. However, if she wishes to feed that into Defra’s part of the land use framework consultation, I am sure it will take account of it.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her extensive response and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, especially those who have given support. Many interesting points have been raised, and some very worrying statistics. I simply repeat that, especially given the international situation, we really need to think about national food security and resilience. We import 40% of our food and, if we got into a war situation, we would need to grow more than we are at the moment. It seems counterintuitive to be allowing good agricultural land to be used to generate electricity when this can be done elsewhere.

I will not repeat all the points previously made, except to say that we also need the good will of the British people. We need to ensure that local people can have their views heard. I was heartened when the Minister said that there would be community consultation, but too often these consultations are binned and not acted on—people listen and then some other outcome happens. I hope that community consultation in which local people expressed that they really did not want solar farms would be respected and the schemes would be turned down.

I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not address the points about foreign investors leasing this land long term. I imagine that we do not know who they are and we are not checking on who is buying what. I am very disappointed to hear that the Minister is not prepared to recognise the depth of feeling on this issue. I withdraw the amendment now, but hope that we can have further consultations and some movement can be made to address what all of us have tried to say about making sure that prime agricultural land does not have solar farms on it. I reserve the right to bring this back at the next stage of the Bill.

Amendment 89 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of a family company that holds a little farmland and has occasionally done small-scale development. I am also the recipient of three party wall notices in the past three years.

We all recognise the need for more homes. While the Bill aims to speed up the process for building houses, like other noble Lords, I am concerned about the damage that it may do. The Bill flouts Labour’s manifesto promises to uphold local communities’ ability to shape housebuilding in their area and its pledge to preserve environmental protection, as well as being an attack on human rights. There are other ways to do this.

As other noble Lords have said, there are some half a million land-bank plots currently being held by the big house developers, with eight of the major companies holding land of a value in excess of £198 billion. The Government state that they want to build 1.5 million homes, so will they please refuse to give the big companies more planning permission until they develop what they already have?

The Government’s steps to weaken the green belt are very concerning; surely we must use brownfield sites first. The CPRE briefing said that existing brownfield sites can deliver 1.2 million houses, but allowances need to be given for cleaning up these sites over building on the green belt.

Once our lovely countryside has been concreted over, we will never get it back. Green spaces are so important for good mental health. We are the custodians of a beautiful country, and we must preserve it. Demolishing buildings leads to further climate insult, so can we give tax breaks for repurposing buildings for housing and stop councils allowing so many buildings to be torn down?

As we have already heard, this is not just about quantity but quality. I welcome the good intentions to build better, smarter and in a more environmentally friendly way, but I worry that the Bill will, in reality, help build the slums of the future. I agree with the discussions in the other place that sought to ensure we preserve the setting and special character of historical villages, rather than losing them in an unchecked sprawl. We need smaller developments with local designs using local fabrics that are in keeping with their areas. This would help boost local business by allowing small developments with local builders.

One of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have property rights, and we must resist at all costs authoritarian tendencies to wish to remove them. In the Bill are provisions to make compulsory purchase easier and for local authorities to be able to seize land more cheaply where it is “required” for new development. Compulsory purchase—seizing someone’s property—is against human rights and should be used in only the most extreme circumstances. Also, in building and developing, no one should be allowed to interfere with existing housing or to undermine the foundations of a private property without the owner’s permission. People need to be reassured that their home is safe in line with the ECHR.

Government needs to be joined up, so I turn to wider issues around infrastructure. In the current climate of growing uncertainty, we see our defence policy pivoting to deterrence against possible war. Although defence is the first priority of a Government, surely our second, as an island nation, should be food security. I know my husband, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has already made this point, but plastering our countryside—and, more importantly, our productive agricultural land—with plastic solar panels is a terrible mistake. As he said, the national security strategy tells us that we must actively prepare for war, and our land is needed for food production. We currently import more than 40% of our food; we need to be more self-sufficient and resilient. Instead, let us insist that all new houses should have electricity-generating panels and roll them out on commercial and industrial buildings. Will the Government commit to put solar panels on all their buildings?

I will share one example of land under threat from such a solar farm development: Lime Down, a massive project in beautiful Wiltshire countryside, mostly on good agricultural land. Lime Down threatens 2,200 acres with solar panels, 45 acres of batteries, three new electricity substations, approximately 1 million panels and a two-year construction period involving thousands of lorries thundering up tiny lanes. It takes in six villages and stretches eight by three miles, with compulsory purchase being threatened to access the site at East Pye. The proposed installation will be in place for 60 years.

I would be interested if the Minister could clarify if and why a non-UK firm can have the right to compulsorily purchase UK land. Projects such as this not only cause misery to those affected but erode our food security. In war, they will make easy targets in this era of cyber conflict and drones. We have seen what can happen with the recent electricity outage in Spain and Portugal.

To conclude, we need to use existing buildings, brownfield sites and existing planning permissions before we start eating into our beautiful countryside. Solar panels should be on roofs not agricultural land, and, most of all, as a democracy, we need to preserve our property rights.