Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

100: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Local plans and planning applications: flooding(1) Local plans prepared by local authorities must apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development, taking into account all sources of flood risk and the current and future impacts of climate change, so as to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property.(2) Local authorities must fulfil their obligations under subsection (1) by—(a) applying the sequential test and then, if necessary, the exception test under subsection (7);(b) safeguarding land from development that is required, or likely to be required, for current or future flood management;(c) using opportunities provided by new development and improvements in green and other infrastructure to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding, (making as much use as possible of natural flood management techniques as part of an integrated approach to flood risk management);(d) where climate change is expected to increase flood risk so that some existing development may not be sustainable in the long-term, seeking opportunities to relocate development, including housing, to more sustainable locations.(3) A sequential risk-based approach should also be taken to individual planning applications in areas known to be at risk now or in future from any form of flooding.(4) The sequential test must be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).(5) Applications for some minor development and changes of use should not be subject to the sequential test, nor the exception test, but should still meet the requirements for site-specific flood risk assessments.(6) Having applied the sequential test, if it is not possible for development to be located in areas with a lower risk of flooding (taking into account wider sustainable development objectives), the exception test may have to be applied.(7) To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that—(a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, and(b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.(8) Where planning applications come forward on sites allocated in the development plan through the sequential test, applicants need not apply the sequential test again, but the exception test may need to be reapplied if relevant aspects of the proposal had not been considered when the test was applied at the plan-making stage, or if more recent information about existing or potential flood risk should be taken into account.(9) When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.(10) Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that—(a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location;(b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment;(c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate;(d) any residual risk can be safely managed;(e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Sequential and Exception Tests are planning tools that help (a) ensure new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding and (b) make development that is necessary in areas of flood risk safe throughout its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. However, these tests are currently only guidance. A statutory basis would help ensure that Local Planning Authorities place due regard on them when preparing Local Plans and considering individual planning applications.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 100 and 101. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for lending her support to Amendment 101.

Amendment 100 sets out a very simple request that the sequential and exception tests be recognised as planning tools that help to

“ensure new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding and … make development that is necessary in areas of flood risk safe throughout its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere”.

Currently, however, these tests are only guidance and are not always being carried out. A statutory basis would help to ensure that local planning authorities placed due regard on them when preparing local plans and considering individual planning applications.

In Amendment 100, I ask the Government to provide clearer statutory guidance on how and when to undertake the sequential and exception tests so that they can be applied by developers and local planning authorities more robustly. In particular, proposed new subsection (7) says:

“To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that … the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, and … the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall”.


The reason for bringing this back on Report is very genially to prod the Minister a little bit further. We produced a number of bricks and mortar reports through the auspices of Westminster Sustainable Business Forum. The evidence we took in our third report was, very specifically, repeated accounts of developers providing unsatisfactory site-specific flood risk assessments, and sometimes not performing the sequential or exception tests at all. Therefore, I urge the Minister to ensure that the sequential and exception tests be placed on a statutory footing to make sure that they are carried out.

To give an anecdotal example, a planning application in Yatton, north Somerset, was recently refused by North Somerset Council on the basis that it had failed the sequential test. However, the application was later granted on appeal as the planning inspector concluded that the failure of the test was not a strong enough reason for refusing the application, citing local housing need. I argue to the Minister that there is a very clear and pressing need to place the guidance on a statutory footing.

Amendment 101 states specifically that local planning authorities should

“ensure that the maps included in their Strategic Flood Risk Assessments are based on the most up-to-date flood risk assessments provided by the Environment Agency”.

In 2007, when surface water flooding became an issue for the first time, it was generally considered and concluded by Sir Michael Pitt’s review in 2008 that there was insufficient mapping. There have been developments since then. In particular, I applaud the opening of the joint forecasting centre in Exeter—a joint venture, as I understand it, between the Met Office and the Environment Agency—but much more could be done and drilled down to local street level to assess and give a strategic flood risk as to where the flooding is likely to appear.

The Environmental Audit Committee’s report, Flood Resilience in England, of 13 October states in paragraph 14 that the Floods Resilience Taskforce should begin to implement, no later than 2026, a mechanism to provide

“strategic oversight across all sources of flood risk, fluvial, surface water, coastal, and groundwater, and set national priorities for risk management authorities”.

That is even more important now than before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 100 proposes placing the sequential and exception tests on a statutory footing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her amendment. We share the view that these policies play a fundamental role in directing development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, but it is equally fundamental that we retain our ability to adapt the position in response to emerging evidence and changing circumstances. National planning policy already plays a critical role in the planning system, being a framework which both plan-makers and decision-makers must have regard to. Enshrining these tests in statute would not only unnecessarily duplicate the policy but also make it harder to adapt and refine our approach over time. Our policy and guidance do not stand still. Guidance on the flood risk sequential test was updated only last month, and we have committed to publishing an even clearer set of national decision-making policies for consultation by the end of this year. This will include updated policies on flood risk.

Amendment 101, on strategic flood-risk assessment maps, would require local authorities to base their assessments on the most current data from the Environment Agency. As previously outlined to the House, this is already established practice. The Environment Agency updated the national flood risk assessment in 2024 and the flood map for planning in 2025, based on the latest national flood risk assessment data. For the first time, the flood map displays surface-water risk and information on how climate change may affect future flood risk from rivers and seas.

The new national flood risk assessment also allows for continuous improvement of data quality. The Environment Agency intends to update flood risk data quarterly and coastal erosion data annually, as well as refining its modelling to increase data and mapping coverage from 90% to 100%. The Environment Agency also has a long-term strategic partnership with the Met Office, called the Flood Forecasting Centre, which forecasts all natural forms of flooding, including from rivers, surface water, groundwater and the sea, to support national flood resilience in a changing climate. Local authorities must use the latest available data when preparing their assessments, and the Environment Agency routinely updates its flood-mapping tools.

Nevertheless, I wish to reassure the noble Baroness that these concerns are being listened to. The Government are committed to reviewing whether further changes are needed to better manage flood risk and coastal change through the planning system as part of the forthcoming consultation on wider planning reform later this year. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful to all those who have spoken, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Grender. I thank my noble friend Lady Scott for her support. I have some reassurance from what the Minister said, but I think she will accept my concern that a sequential test is not carried out in every case. That is why I would prefer a statutory footing, but I heard what she said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, put her finger on it when she said that surface water is the most common source of flooding, yet it is underestimated. There is one question still on the table that I shall keep under review. If there is another water Bill coming down the road, we can return to this to make sure that local authorities have access to the best possible data— I think the Minister in her reply said they do—right down to street level. I welcomed the Flood Forecasting Centre; that has made a huge difference, and I hope that that the quarterly and annual reporting will make a difference. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 100 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

87FA: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Applications for development consent: consultation for water and sewerage undertakers(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1) of section 42 (duty to consult), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) water and sewerage undertakers,””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakings are consulted by applicants for a development consent order in the same way as the Environment Agency currently is.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak briefly to this short but perfectly formed amendment. I hope to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government on the question of making water and sewerage undertakings statutory consultees on a development consent order, as the Environment Agency currently is.

Things have changed since Committee, and there is a reason why I have tabled this amendment on Report. We have already had the report from the Cunliffe review, commissioned by Defra, which now has a new Secretary of State. Recommendation 72 of the Cunliffe report states:

“The role of water companies in the planning process in England should be strengthened to ensure they have sufficient sight and influence over upcoming developments”.


The report goes on to say that the Cunliffe review believes that water companies should have a clear ability

“to comment on planning applications above a certain threshold in England”.

The review is asking the Government to consider making water companies statutory consultees or to introduce a requirement to notify, and I am hoping that the Government will confirm this. This would ensure that water companies can deploy site-specific technical advice and avoid delays. It would also save the Government time. For example, if it was inappropriate to build a major development of, say, 300 new houses in an area of water stress, making water companies statutory consultees would expedite the planning application.

On 13 October, the Environmental Audit Committee published its report on flood resilience in England, which made a similar recommendation. Recommendation 25 of the report states:

“The Government should initiate consultation on statutory requirements for assessing the cumulative impact of development on flood risk within local and regional plans by the end of 2025”.


It goes on to say that

“water companies should be made statutory consultees on major planning applications”.

The Cunliffe review was set up at the behest of the Government, so I presume that they will follow the recommendations in its report. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report looks at how the current system is failing to prepare residents in this country for future flooding.

With those few remarks, I hope this evening to extract a commitment from the Minister that the Government will proceed on this as a matter of urgency and that we will see it as part of the Bill. If they wish to bring forward an amendment of their own, that would be ideal. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support this amendment, which seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are formally consulted by applicants for a development consent order. The amendment is similar to the Environment Agency system and would help to avoid significant problems downstream.

Far too often, we have seen developments progress without any consideration of water supply, drainage or wastewater infrastructure, leading to unnecessary strain, additional cost and, of course, the human consequence of flood risk, which is worst of all. By ensuring that the relevant utilities are engaged early in the process, the amendment would promote better planning and ultimately save time, money and, above all, anguish for so many people.

The amendment aligns with some of the longstanding commitments we have worked on together in some of the APPGs. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 87FA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are consulted by applicants for development consent orders. I begin by acknowledging her long-standing interest in ensuring that infrastructure development is undertaken responsibly, with due regard to environmental and public health concerns.

The importance of early engagement with key stakeholders in the planning process is definitely not in dispute. Indeed, the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that meaningful engagement takes place at the formative stages of project development and where stakeholders are able to meaningfully influence, where appropriate.

As has been made clear in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Government have already taken steps to streamline the statutory consultation process under the Planning Act. Section 42, which this amendment seeks to modify, will be repealed via Clause 4. This reflects a broader concern that the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation were not functioning as intended, leading to delays, excessive rounds of engagement and an ever-growing volume of documentation.

That said, I want to reassure noble Lords that this does not mean that issues relevant to stakeholders will be ignored—quite the contrary. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will issue guidance to assist applicants with the steps they might take in relation to submitting an application. The Government acknowledge that stakeholders play a vital role in safeguarding public health and environmental standards, and the importance of their input and engagement will be made clear in guidance. The guidance will include expectations of who the applicant should consider engaging with and would positively contribute to a scheme focused on delivering the best outcomes for projects, and its impact on the environment and communities. This may include engaging with relevant statutory undertakers, such as water and sewerage undertakers, where it is beneficial to do so.

To be clear, the removal of statutory consultation at the pre-application stage does not remove various organisations’ ability to actively participate and influence an application through registering as an interested party. Statutory bodies will still be notified if an application is accepted and will be provided with the opportunity to make representations under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.

This amendment risks re-adding statutory complexity after the Government have responded to calls to simplify the system through Clause 4, which repeals statutory pre-application consultation. This has already been agreed and is not under debate.

In this context, although I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention to strengthen the role of water and sewerage undertakers in the planning process, I must respectfully resist the amendment in the light of the planned changes to pre-application consultation associated with applications for development consent. I hope that, with these assurances and noting the inconsistency with Clause 4, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken and in particular for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I omitted to declare my interests: I am co-chair of the Water APPG and an officer of the Flooding and Flooded Communities APPG.

I am a little disheartened by the Minister’s response because it sounds like a retrograde step, and one that is not in keeping either with the conclusions set out in the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee’s report or with the Cunliffe report. The Water APPG met Sir Jon Cunliffe last week, and he is under the clear understanding that a water Bill—not a water bill as in water rates but another piece of legislation—will be coming down the track to implement many of his recommendations. I will watch this very carefully and consider how to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 87FA withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

56: After Clause 47, insert the following new Clause—
“Deregulation of low hazard reservoirsWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the current regulatory regime for low hazard reservoirs, and set out proposals for the deregulation of such reservoirs to facilitate their construction.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is an amendment to encourage the consideration of measures to facilitate the construction of small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, given that the debate was two days ago, I will briefly remind the House why I am pressing this to a vote. The Minister explained clearly that there will be a review of the Reservoirs Act 1975, which currently prohibits or sets very strict criteria on the construction of small reservoirs. Given the last two summers we have had, and the difficulty farmers have in accessing water at short notice during the summer months, it is extremely important that this review is brought forward and takes place as soon as possible to make sure that farmers have a regular supply of water to ensure that their stock is fed and their crops are watered. On that basis, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Unfortunately, this absence of a clear legal safeguard has wider consequences. I refer to planning performance agreements. They have become yet another growing unregulated financial burden on small builders. PPAs were designed for large, complex projects but are now routinely applied to small developments. In one case, a developer of fewer than 100 homes in London was charged £150,000 for a PPA. These are big sums for small builders. Without proportionality established in law, there is no check on such arbitrary and inconsistent charges. That is why the SME sector believes that the current system is far from fair. I urge the Minister to think again, and I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I find that there is much to commend in her amendment, which I hope gains the favour of the House and, indeed, the Government. I am also very taken by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, who will explain it momentarily. I have tabled Amendment 60 on Report to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government that fees will include the cost of enforcement measures.

In Clause 48, the Government recognise that the local planning authority in England may set the level of a fee or a charge. Indeed, Clause 49 goes on to consider the raising of a surcharge on planning fees, which I think is going much further than my modest little Amendment 60. I am deeply concerned about the issues raised by insurance companies such as, in this case, Aviva: that the Government seem to be in denial as to the implications for potential future floods of their commitment to build 1.5 million homes in the course of this Parliament.

We will come on to discuss greater flood resilience measures and, indeed, possibly not building on the most functional flood plains, but at the moment the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has no measures to improve the flood resilience of new homes. We have to accept that these measures are expensive. They include such measures as increased insurance costs and measures to make homes more resilient. Many of them are geared to reducing the impact of climate change, and I think it is generally felt that it would be a small price to pay if these measures were included and recovered in a modest increase to planning fees. I do not think it would be disproportionately high, as the Minister responded when summing up on the amendment in Committee; that is why I have sought to raise this.

I am sure that the Minister, the department and the Government would like to see these resilience measures included. Many of them are now hopefully becoming more affordable than has been the case in the past. Life is about choices. If the Government are going to build on functional flood plains, we have to accept that those future homes have to be flood-proofed and resilient. These measures cost money.

The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the increased cost of ensuring that those measures are adequately and properly installed will be covered in the cost of a fee. I do not believe that the fee will be disproportionate. Therefore, I have returned with this amendment today to make a plea to the Minister that she will see that this is only a potentially modest increase. It is something that she, her department and her Government are asking householders to do, and I believe that the enforcement cost should be covered in the fee. That is the proposal that I put to the House this afternoon.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 61 in this group is in my name. I will talk to that in a moment, but first I want to say one or two things about the helpful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I think it points in the right direction, but we need to understand where we would end up if we were to go in that direction.

Some noble Lords will have participated in the debate that we had toward the latter stages of the last Parliament about the new regulations relating to planning fees. One thing that came through quite forcibly from that was that householders—for example, making applications in relation to their own houses—were paying significantly less than the cost of dealing with their application. I completely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that there is, and has been subsequently in the Government’s changes to the planning charges, some balancing of that, and that householders are paying more.

If I understand correctly, it is the noble Baroness’s intention that the fees charged should be proportionate to the number of households or the scale of a development—although that is not actually what her amendment says. The amendment simply says that it should be proportionate; it does not say proportionate to what. Basing it on the size of a development could mean basing it in a positive correlation or a negative correlation. I am afraid that when you write legislation, you have to write specifically what you want. Otherwise, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and his colleagues will take it apart. We do not want that; we want to be very clear about what we are setting out to achieve.

I am sure it is not the noble Baroness’s intention to press the amendment, but it raises an important issue. When Ministers bring forward regulations to set out how the planning fees should be set and the criteria by which they should be set, it is at that point that I hope they will take full account of what the noble Baroness said and the purposes she was describing.

My amendment is derived from our debate in Committee. I did not have an amendment then, but we had an exchange about Clause 49, which relates to the surcharge that can be charged for the purpose of meeting the costs of statutory consultees and other bodies that support the planning process. When we reach Clause 49, we see that new Section 303ZZB(6) states that the level of the surcharge must be set so as to

“secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons”.

I noticed, in listening to the debate, that new Section 303ZZB(8) says that:

“Regulations …may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons”.


We therefore have the curious situation where, in the same section, it says that it should not exceed the costs and also that regulations have the specific power to exceed the costs. I have not had a conversation with the Minister, but I have been thinking about this quite carefully. The purpose of tabling this amendment is to ask whether my understanding is correct. If it is, I think it would be very helpful for that to be said explicitly.

New subsection (8), which says that the surcharge could exceed the costs of the listed persons, relates to a specific application, so the charge does not have to be set so as not to exceed the costs of the work done in relation to any individual application. New subsection (6) tells us that, in effect, it is not just taking one year with another or looking at the costs, but looking at costs across all of these activities and applications, and that, overall, the listed persons should not receive more by way of income from the surcharge than meets their costs. I hope that the explanation of the Bill is precisely that: subsection (8) should only be referenced in relation to an individual application and could not be used to set surcharges so as to provide greater income to statutory consultees or others than the costs they incur dealing with planning applications.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Natural England plays a vital role in ensuring that environmental impacts are embedded into planning decisions, and this amendment will allow it to target its input where it is needed most. I trust that noble Lords will agree with this pragmatic amendment and will support it forming part of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the premise on which the amendment she moved is based. My Amendment 194 seems to be a little out of place. I should have asked for it to be taken with the rest of Part 3, because it seeks to amend Clause 86 in Part 3 to insist that the power to designate a person to exercise functions under this Act should indeed belong to a public body.

Clause 83 provides the power to acquire land compulsorily, including new rights over land, to Natural England, subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) provides that the power can be exercised only if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an EDP. This came as a surprise to many, not least, as the Minister will be aware, the NFU, which is deeply anxious about the purport of Clause 86, in particular the definition of a “designated person”. It is alarmed that Clause 83 gives Natural England the compulsory purchase powers set out in that clause. It is further exasperated by Clause 86 allowing the Secretary of State to designate “another person” to exercise Natural England’s functions, potentially giving another party compulsory purchase powers. On what basis would those powers be given and who would these people be?

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for lending her support to this amendment. I am grateful to her, and indeed to the Ministers, for agreeing to meet us to discuss this amendment last week. I would like to understand what bodies the Government have in mind. Are they individuals? Are they organisations? Can the Ministers name them this evening, so that we have an idea who they are? Is it an indication that, as I understand it, Natural England is losing staff over the coming months and therefore the Government are accepting that, possibly, Natural England will not have the capacity to cope with the volume of work set out in Part 3?

We will go on to consider the whole remit of compulsory powers in Clause 83 onwards. I think that will be next week, unless we are here all night. I would just like to understand the basis on which it will not be Natural England, when these powers are being given to Natural England for the first time, who the other bodies or individuals might be, and to make a plea that, for the purposes of that clause, a “designated person” must be a public body.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group. Government Amendment 68 would permit Natural England to not respond to requests for advice under Section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, so that it can prioritise more important cases. That reflects pretty well what is happening at the moment, if the truth were known, because the reality is that Natural England’s resources are very thinly stretched and, in many cases, it provides advice simply on the basis of standing guidance and sometimes on the basis of empty silence. I want to probe the Minister a bit further on this and I apologise for giving her grief when she is clearly beset with some affliction.

I have three questions. The first is, it is my understanding that Natural England would have to consult only the Secretary of State on the development of this statement about how it intends to deal with requests for advice. Should there not be a wider consultation on such a statement, which is important for how local planning authorities are assisted to make more informed planning decisions?

The second question is: has the Minister any concerns about Natural England reducing further its support to local planning authorities when we know that only one in three local planning authorities now has in-house ecological advice? We are facing a reduction in the advice coming from Natural England and a reduction in the available advice to local authorities. I know that they can buy that in, but it is less flexible and less readily available.

My third question is: should we perhaps wait for this change to happen once the Government’s forthcoming consultation on statutory consultees has taken place? This is a consultation about consultation—this is the sort of world we live in these days.

Noble Lords are being asked to approve this change, which it is intended will come in immediately on the passing of the Bill, and there is a specific clause that effects that, without seeing the wider picture of reform for statutory consultees within which the statement of prioritisation would sit. If a requirement to consult more widely on the statement that Natural England is supposed to produce were placed in the Bill, that would enable proper consideration once the picture on statutory consultees had been settled. So I think that hastening rather more slowly on this would make for a much better decision.

I support Amendment 194 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government would expect any delegation by the Secretary of State of Natural England’s role in developing or implementing an EDP to be generally to a public body. In talking to the Minister—I was pleased to be able to talk directly to both Ministers about this issue—the only examples that so far have been put forward for this power of delegation have been either to National Parks England or the Marine Management Organisation, in circumstances where the expertise might be more relevant to a particular EDP. That is entirely appropriate. If a reliable public body is publicly accountable and has the right sort of expertise to draw up and implement an EDP, it is appropriate that that happens. But, if it is normally going to be a public body, why do we not just say “a public body” in the Bill rather than “another person”?

There needs to be a lot of clarity here about the difference between delegating to “another person” to develop and implement an EDP and the sorts of partnerships that I am sure most EDPs will involve, where Natural England can partner with or delegate the delivery but not the preparation of part of an EDP to a whole range of partners, including businesses, including some of the natural resources businesses that are growing up, NGOs, landowners and farmers. I am sure that there will be a huge range of people joined with Natural England in delivering EDPs and that that will happen widely. But that will happen with Natural England as the co-ordinating body, co-ordinating the delivery by partners in line with the EDP.

That partnership working is absolutely admirable and can happen without this delegation provision. Clause 86 is, in reality, about taking the development and/or the delivery of these potentially highly controversial EDPs away from the body that is the Government’s statutory adviser and agency on nature conservation and potentially giving extensive responsibilities and powers to a person or persons as yet unidentified. If they are to be public bodies, why not state that in the Bill? If they are not, can the Minister help us understand a bit more who these non-public bodies might be? Can she give us some examples? I would find it very difficult to believe that a private individual or organisation would have the range of expertise and experience that statutory bodies accrue from doing these things successively over time, and which they will develop even more as they take forward successive EDPs and learn increasingly how to do it.

If I were a landowner, I would be very anxious about not knowing who might, in the future, have all these Natural England powers to develop and implement EDPs; not knowing their background and expertise; not knowing the extent of the powers they are to be given, and their stance on and approach towards compulsory purchase. Public bodies are, to a large extent, known quantities; another person or persons unknown are not. If public bodies screw up, the Government can sack the chairman. I know all about that. The Government have no sanctions of that sort for private bodies. Can the Minister tell us how they will hold them accountable? Can she reassure landowners about their concerns? If Ministers are pretty clear that, in reality, they would delegate these important duties and powers only to a public body, I would suggest that the safest way forward is simply to reassure everybody by saying in the Bill that it will be a public body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will first go through the responses to the government amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his support.

My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked why we feel this amendment is needed now. I remind noble Lords that Natural England currently receives around 22,500 town and country planning consultations every year. Many are low to medium risk and about 30% of them do not actually need Natural England’s input because they either fall outside the statutory remit under the development management procedure order or do not relate to its general purpose as set out in the NERC Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, specifically asked what problem this was trying to solve. It is mainly because, over the last decade, the volume of planning casework received by Natural England has increased by 75%. There is nothing lurking behind it—it is just the huge amount of extra work that Natural England now has to deal with. Because of this, there is less time available for the work that makes the most impact, such as shaping local plans, advising on major infrastructure and protecting nature where the risks are greatest.

My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked about local authorities. We are looking to work with LPAs in advance of any change coming through and work through the details of exactly how it is going to work and what it is going to mean for them, so we are involving local authorities.

Regarding access to sufficient ecological advice, Natural England will continue to provide advice to local planning authorities in cases where bespoke advice is necessary, which will include any high-risk and high-opportunity casework. In addition, Natural England will still be required to provide a response under the development management procedure order, which is not affected by this amendment. This includes where a development is likely to affect a SSSI or would involve the loss of more than 20 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, local planning authorities are ultimately responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of individual planning applications in line with relevant planning policy and legislation, and this will remain unchanged.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked specifically about the Supreme Court judgment in the Fry case, which was handed down this morning. We are very grateful to the Supreme Court for the clarification. We will continue to drive the delivery of the homes and infrastructure the country needs but, as we move forward with the Bill we are debating today, we are clear that the planning system has to do everything it can to support sustainable development. On his more detailed questions, the judgment was only this morning so we need time to analyse the decision; I am sure we will be coming back to this.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would provide that only a public body could be designated to exercise the functions of Natural England under this part. Obviously, we have discussed this previously and debated it in Committee. While I absolutely recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns, I reassure her that the policy expectation is that this power would only be ever used to designate a public body to carry out such functions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, sometimes there could be unforeseen circumstances where it could be appropriate for a private body to take on some functions under this part. My noble friend Lady Young and others asked about examples. As I said in Committee, it could be national parks, the MMO and others as appropriate. The noble Baroness reminded us of the examples I had given earlier. This is not to do with shifting decision-making away from Natural England and has nothing to do with it not having the capacity. It is entirely to do with expertise and having the most appropriate body making these very important decisions. That is why we do not want to remove the possibility of it going to a private body. However, our expectation is that it would always be a public body because it would be unusual for a private body to have an expertise that a public body did not.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The reason for bringing the amendment back is that we do not seem to have moved on from Committee stage. If the expectation is that it will be a public body, then I go along with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, that it should be in the Bill. I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, that there are circumstances in which it would be entirely inappropriate for it to be given to a private company.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is why the delegated powers are subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation. It is not just Natural England’s decision; it is subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation and the use of the powers is subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. That is why I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the ongoing role of Parliament will be sufficient and allow her not to press her amendment. This is not just about a Natural England decision; it is really important that that is clear.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

70: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Property flood resilience measures: planning permission(1) Planning permission for the building of new homes at higher risk of flooding can only be granted if property flood resilience measures are implemented as part of the construction.(2) For the purposes of implementing subsection (1) and within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that property flood resilience measures are included in any new homes at higher risk of flooding.(3) Property flood resilience measures under this section may include—(a) raised electrical sockets;(b) non-return valves on utility pipes;(c) airbrick covers;(d) resilient wall plaster;(e) any other measure as the Secretary of State may specify.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 70 and 81. I also say in passing how appealing I find the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There was a much-ignored review by Anna Walker on water efficiency, and the amendments that the noble Baroness has proposed encapsulate the recommendations, so I look forward to hearing her and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, speak to them.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for supporting both these amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for supporting Amendment 70. These amendments are flip sides of the same coin. The Government have a choice. If they are going to build on flood plains, particularly on the most hazardous, the riskiest and the most prone to flooding, they must take the precautions of introducing property flood resilience measures, as I have set out in Amendment 70. These are very practical: raised electrical sockets and non-return valves, among other specifications that I have set out.

In fact, I am sure that many of these could be introduced through building regulations, so would take the form of secondary legislation. I do not believe that we necessarily need to have the detail. But I would like the Government either to make a commitment to increasing property flood resilience measures where we are building on functional flood plains or to desist from building on functional flood plains completely.

When I tabled a similar amendment to Amendment 81 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—now Act— I was very encouraged to have the support of the then Opposition for the proposition now contained in Amendment 81, so I hope that this support can be repeated and that the Government will now support the contents of that amendment. It is very clear. It just seeks to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on flood plains or in areas at a high risk of flooding.

In particular, I have focused on zones 3a and 3b. Why is that important? Some 6.3 million homes in the UK are currently at risk of flooding and this will increase to 8 million, or one in every four homes, by 2050. If the Government continue that trend, 115,000 of the planned 1.5 million homes would be in higher-risk flood areas. Perhaps the core reason it is inappropriate to build on flood plains which are zone 3a or 3b is that, as we know, since the Flood Re scheme came into effect, any house built on a flood plain since 2009 will not be insured under the scheme. They may be able to have insurance, but it will be very expensive indeed. It seems mind-boggling that we would even consider building on those most at-risk flood plains. If the Government persist with their desire to build on these particular flood plains then I am asking that we make them resilient through these measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

I will first address Amendments 70 and 81, concerning flood risk and resilience within the planning system. They draw attention to the important matter of how we prepare for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in light of the growing challenges posed by climate change. The Government treat these concerns with the utmost seriousness. We are aware of the distress, disruption and financial cost that flooding brings—so ably illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender; of the heightened risks associated with a changing climate; and of the necessity to maintain a robust but proportionate framework for managing these risks.

Amendment 70 seeks to require property flood resilience measures in new homes located in areas of high flood risk. As has been made clear in previous debates, enhancing the resilience of properties exposed to flood risk is indeed an important objective, which I know we all share across the House. In support of this, building regulations already promote flood-resilient construction in flood-prone areas through approved document C, while ensuring that where properties do not require additional measures, they are not subject to undue burdens.

Amendment 81 seeks to impose a statutory ban on residential development in flood zone 3. While we agree with the principle of steering development away from areas at highest flood risk, this amendment would prohibit development even in major urban areas such as Hull and central London, which, although within flood zone 3, are protected by robust engineered flood defences. Such a blanket ban would prevent development coming forward that could otherwise be made safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Instead, the National Planning Policy Framework already provides strong safeguards, directing development away from the most flood-prone areas, including flood plains, and makes it clear that inappropriate development in these areas should be avoided.

Our policy also ensures that new housing and most other development types are not permitted in functional flood plains—flood zone 3b—where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is allowed, it must be proven safe for its lifetime, with full consideration of the vulnerability of its users. The effectiveness of our current policy position is clear: in 2024-25, 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk, and these figures have remained stable over time.

Finally, I highlight that we are making a record £10.5 billion investment in flood and coastal erosion defences, the largest programme in history, including £300 million for natural flood management over a 10-year period and unlocking further investment from public, private and charitable sources.

Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I am sorry that she is not in her place because it would have been my first opportunity to welcome her back to the Chamber. The amendments, ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, concern sustainable water management and draw attention to the important need to reduce demand on water resources. The Government fully acknowledge the critical nature of sustainable water management and water efficiency.

To address that issue, in September the Government launched a consultation to review the water efficiency standards within the Building Regulations 2010. This will ensure increased water efficiency for new housing and tighter standards for water-stressed areas. The consultation includes a call for evidence on water reuse systems in new developments to enable even greater water efficiency. We are investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely. Reuse of grey water or rainwater should be subject to careful policy consideration, as any accidental, inadvertent or incompetent contamination of potable water could lead to a public health incident. In support of this, we are also examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and construction sectors, ensuring that they can safely install such systems. Additionally, in December 2024, we updated our National Planning Policy Framework to expand the requirement for sustainable drainage systems to all developments that have drainage implications. These systems can incorporate rainwater harvesting, which not only aids water storage but helps regulate flow rates from sites.

In the light of this, I am concerned that the additional measures proposed through Amendment 86 would be duplicative and would remove the appropriateness of efficiency measures to be determined on a case-by-case basis. We must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements, as a one-size-fits-all mandate may not be suitable in all local contexts. This can instead risk unintended consequences, such as increased expenses for developers and home owners, and may slow down the housing delivery that we so desperately need.

On Amendment 120, planning authorities already consider water efficiency targets in applications and can set tighter optional water efficiency standards through the planning process. Water efficiency standards and guidance are determined through building regulations. Duplicating this, adding further monitoring and evaluation requirements, could impose administrative and financial burdens on local authorities.

On Amendment 121A, planning authorities must already consider water supply and quality through strategic environmental assessment, also informed by strategic flood risk assessments, while water efficiency standards are set and enforced through the building control process. We should not duplicate existing planning guidance and building control processes.

Regarding Amendment 121B, the Government support sustainable water management and water efficiency and are already giving consideration to how water reuse can reduce water scarcity and drainage and wastewater pressures on growth where they are needed—for example, through the current consultation on Building Regulations and the associated call for evidence on water reuse systems in new development. In addition to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for all new development with drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, planning policy also requires that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for water supply and wastewater.

The existing statutory requirement that local planning authorities engage with specific consultees such as the Environment Agency and sewerage and water undertakers when developing local plans is supported by our planning guidance, which encourages early engagement between strategic policy-making authorities and water and sewerage companies. Strategic and local planning authorities will need to consider these requirements when preparing their spatial development strategies and local plans. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who spoke in favour of my amendment, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Deben. I am deeply disappointed by the Minister’s response because, actually, she made the case for precisely why these amendments are needed. I hope that, at the behest of my noble friend Lord Deben, the Minister might agree to come back with amendments in her own name at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

71: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section—“agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities);“provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a relevant planning authority within the meaning of section 91 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities).(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle. (3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain, in addition to any relevant requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595), a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for lending his support, and his considerable knowledge and expertise, to Amendment 71. In moving Amendment 71, I will also speak to Amendment 82.

Amendment 82 is a consequential amendment, which would follow on from Amendment 71 if that amendment finds favour with the Government and your Lordships. I draw particular attention to the part of my amendment that says that a

“local authority must have special regard to the desirability of preventing unreasonable restrictions”

for a

“business or facility resulting from the implementation of the development”.

This goes to the argument set out in Amendment 71 as to why the agent of change principle needs to be adopted on a statutory basis.

When I brought forward this issue in the Committee debate, the Minister replied that she felt it was already in the planning framework and that we did not need a statutory footing. I thank her for having a meeting with me in which we briefly touched on the agent of change principle. I draw her attention to the excellent letter from the Music Venue Trust, in which it expressed its concern about the agent of change principle not being on a statutory basis. As many noble Lords will be aware—I spent so longer preparing for my professional qualifications that I never experienced being a raver, but perhaps it is not too late—of the 366 small music venues in which Ed Sheeran played while learning his trade, over 150 have now closed. Of the 34 venues in which Oasis played to launch its members’ careers, only 11 remain. The figures speak for themselves.

One concern at the moment is that the right noises are being made by the various departments, but they are not joined up. The Home Office, which is responsible for licensing, issued updated Section 182 guidance in February, which it went on to say should not be too onerous. I repeat that that guidance is not statutory. The Department of Business and Trade’s licensing task force,

“made up of representatives from government, industry, police and local government”,

published its policy paper report to government for consideration on 31 July 2025, updated on 14 August 2025, calling for reform and wide-ranging proposals, titled, Licensing Policy Sprint: Joint Industry and HM Government Taskforce Report—“sprint” is an odd word to use but is apparently the expression being used—recommendation 10 of which was to

“Make the agent of change principle a factor that must be considered when making licensing decisions”.

Then, of course, we have the Treasury which we understand is important in moving this Bill at pace through both Houses in order that it can be on the statute book as soon as possible. We also have the Department for Business and Trade policy paper.

If the Minister is responsible for planning law; if the Government are hoping to have growth, and if we are trying to protect as many of the remaining live music venues as we are, what is the status of the policy? We were very fortunate to have a licensing practitioner advise the ad hoc committee of this House on the review of the Licensing Act 2003. She was firmly of the view, as are all those like-minded practitioners, that where the agent of change is already embedded in the Section 182 guidance, following the 2003 Act, this needs to be put on a strong, statutory basis. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I have explained several times during the course of the Bill that I do not think it is correct to say that the National Planning Policy Framework is a statutory framework in itself: it is not. It sits within the statutory framework of planning. We need it to be more flexible than a statutory framework, so it can change as times change. When we bring in these policies, they will not be coming through as pieces of law. They will be planning policies, so that they can be flexible and adapt to the situation as it changes. That is a very important part of planning. The National Planning Policy Framework must maintain that degree of flexibility: otherwise, every time we want to change it, we will have to come back through Parliament. That would not be agile enough to deal with the changing situation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It is very seldom I am lost for words, but I am hugely disappointed by that response to this short debate. I am grateful to all those who spoke in support of my amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, expressed the considerable cost that is incurred by those who have to take mitigation measures; the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, set out why it is currently not working. To repeat what he said, it cannot override the noise abatement laws. That is why I think that we are failing both developers and residents at this time. I do not believe we are giving the clarity to licensing practitioners that they request. That is precisely what Sarah Clover, who was the expert specialist adviser to the committee looking at the Licensing Act 2003, has pointed out on successive occasions. So, while I will not press to a vote and test the opinion of the House at this stage, I reserve the right to bring the amendment back at Third Reading.

Amendment 71 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) When carrying out a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects on—(a) the environment;(b) residents living in areas in which such projects are being developed.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to my Amendment 2 and, I hope, to extract a reassurance from the Minister in this short debate. The amendment looks at how it is expected that nationally significant infrastructure projects will operate in the planning process as set out in the Bill. I am not satisfied with the way that the process has been set out, and therefore the thrust of Amendment 2 is to call for a potential review, during the course of which the Secretary of State should assess the

“cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects on … the environment”

and, in particular,

“residents living in areas in which such projects are being developed”.

I first raised this issue on one of the statutory instruments giving effect to the clean energy Act. I was very grateful to the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for explaining to me how cumulative impact was meant to operate. It is clear that the cumulative impact of all the proposals set out in this Bill will be unexpectedly deep and wide for all those living in rural areas, yet their opportunities to be involved in the process will be curtailed if the Bill proceeds in its present form. This relates a little to the previous debate on the purpose of the Bill, because I believe that if the Bill is to function well—as I am sure the whole House would wish, having spent however many hours on it in Committee—it should ensure that it operates effectively.

I am deeply uneasy that the thrust of the proposals on nationally significant infrastructure projects are to benefit those living in the deep south of England and London, to the specific disbenefit of rural residents across the whole of the north of England. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that this amendment relates not so much to the housebuilding aspects of the Bill as to nationally significant infrastructure projects in the energy sector. I am thinking in particular of solar farms and the unimaginable scale currently foreseen.

This is not unique to this country. I follow developments in Denmark very closely. For the first time ever, a solar farm was going to be created in a deeply rural part of the northern mainland of Denmark, Jutland, but a very effective campaign, under rules in Denmark that are very favourable to this type of project, has been so successful that I am delighted to say that the project will not go ahead. I envisage similar concerns in this country once the full impact of the Bill is known.

My main concern, as the Bill is currently drafted, is this question to the Minister: should there not be a requirement that the cumulative impact assessment should be included in the local plan? My understanding is that currently that is not the case. If that is so, why is there no specific provision in either the planning applications or the Bill itself that such an assessment should be included in the local plan? Surely it is incumbent on developers, planners and the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that residents will see a joined-up planning application and that we will no longer see what we have seen historically.

For example, if there is an application for an offshore windfarm over here, people living in East Anglia think, “Well, that’s perfectly harmless, it won’t affect me, so that’s fine, it can go ahead”. Suddenly, the second stage of the planning application is to foist on them a major substation that they had no idea was going to be built on their doorstep. Then the third stage of the application is for overhead pylons, which is causing such great concern, particularly in East Anglia and other parts of eastern England: I am thinking here of east Yorkshire.

There have been two if not three Planning Inspectorate policy guidance publications, one in April last year and one in September last year. The Government are bringing forward their own proposals but, as I said earlier, the legislation is currently defective in this regard. What is most concerning about the September 2024 advice is that it specifically states:

“This advice is non-statutory. However, the Planning Inspectorate’s advice about running the infrastructure planning system and matters of process is drawn from good practice and applicants and others should follow our recommendations”.


So I have a further question for the Minister. If the advice published in September last year is non-statutory, how do we know that the advice and guidance will be followed? Surely it should be in the Bill, it should be statutory and it should be spelled out in plain English for all to see and understand, so that, when the fast-track process comes about, everyone knows. While the guidance was welcomed by civil engineers at the time it was published, lawyers were split as to how significant the changes would be for infrastructure developers. That makes me wonder whether it will have any effect whatever.

Therefore, in moving Amendment 2, I conclude by asking the Minister what assurance she can give the House that there will be joined-up planning applications in future. What checks will there be and what penalties will be imposed if the Planning Inspectorate’s advice is not followed in the fast-track procedure? I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, having attached my name to the amendment so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I will speak very briefly to explain why this is something the Government need to address and respond to.

We know that the Government tend to operate in silos and look at one project at a time, without taking a comprehensive view of the overall impact on the country. New paragraph (a) proposed in the amendment focuses on the environment. In the past 10 years or so, we have seen real progress in understanding that we need to think about the landscape on a landscape scale, rather than just going, “We’ve got a nice little protected bit here and a nice little area there”. This amendment starts to get to the issue of thinking on a landscape scale in terms of the environment.

It is not impossible to imagine. Recently, we have become very aware of the importance of corridors through which different populations of wildlife can be linked up. There could be projects where one on its own does not look like it will have a serious impact, but two together would effectively cut off and separate two populations of animals that might already be lacking in genetic diversity and not be able to afford that separation.

Then there are the humans: the “residents living in areas” where the “projects are being developed”, as the proposed new paragraph says. Over the recess, I was speaking to a couple of people very much affected by the Sevington customs facility and the impact of light pollution. This is the sort of thing that we do not think about nearly enough, but where we may see effects on people’s lives build up and up.

The other obvious area where the impacts may be cumulative is traffic. If there are projects for growing and linking together, the impacts of traffic could be absolutely disastrous on the lives of residents in those communities.

So I think this amendment is modest: it just asks the Government to think on a broader scale than I am afraid Governments—very typically—generally do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her Amendment 2. It would require the Secretary of State to assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—on both the environment and the communities in which such projects are being developed, when reviewing a national policy statement.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue. I wholeheartedly agree that cumulative impacts—particularly those affecting the environment and local communities—must be given due consideration in the NSIP consenting process. I am therefore pleased to reassure her that the existing regime already provides for such considerations. It is already a statutory requirement for the Government to undertake an assessment of sustainability when designating or updating a national policy statement. These appraisals of sustainability—which include the strategic environmental assessment process—play a vital role in shaping national policy statements by evaluating their potential environmental, social and economic effects and any reasonable alternatives that could be used.

The strategic environmental assessment regulations require that the effects assessment includes an assessment of cumulative impacts. Non-spatial national policy statements that do not identify the likely locations of NSIPs are strategic-level documents, which means that it is not possible to identify cumulative impacts in detail. However, cumulative impacts are addressed, so far as possible at this level, to meet the requirements of the strategic environmental assessment regulations at this stage.

It is important that detailed consideration of cumulative effects takes place at the project level. By virtue of factors such as their nature, scale and location, NSIPs are likely to have significant effects on the environment around them. Under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, an environmental impact assessment process must be undertaken, and the Secretary of State is prohibited from granting consent until an EIA has been carried out. The environmental statement must identify and assess the direct and indirect significant effects on specified factors, including environmental factors, population and human health. Cumulative effects are one of the required types of effects that must be identified and assessed.

In short, while the concern raised by the noble Baroness is entirely valid, the existing framework already requires the consideration of cumulative impacts, both in the preparation and review of national policy statements and in the assessment and consideration of individual development consent order applications.

The noble Baroness asked me about the local plan process. The whole process of local plans focuses on cumulative impacts. One of its purposes is to start off with individual policies and work through a process towards cumulative impacts. This will be enhanced by the addition of strategic level plans, giving a direct link from neighbourhood planning to local plans and then to strategic plans, allowing the cumulative impact across the whole picture to be assessed. In light of this, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful for that response. I most humbly apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not thanking her for cosigning the amendment in the first place, for which I am very grateful. I am grateful for her supportive comments, and for those from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock; they clearly set out why this is so important. I took comfort from the support from my noble friend Lord Jamieson on my own Front Bench, and from the Minister. I hope we can explore this further in the context of spatial planning.

I was a little bit concerned when the Minister used the expression, “This is addressed so far as possible”. She helps to make the case for me, but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I intervene very briefly. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, rightly pointed out, many of these matters were not dealt with in Committee, but they are arising now. The Minister referred to Capel Celyn and the controversy that arose in Wales with regard to what was known as the Tryweryn Valley scheme on that occasion. I would be grateful for some clarification as to whether the amendments being moved have any bearing whatever on the powers of Senedd Cymru to come to a determination on schemes in Wales—schemes that may be put forward by providers from outside Wales but which are located in Wales. Does Senedd Cymru have the powers, which it has always believed that it should have, to decide on schemes that may be regarded in Wales as being of national significance?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group of amendments and for the very helpful meeting that we had last week, particularly when we covered the role of smaller reservoirs. I said to the Minister then that, while I shall not stand against the creation of large reservoirs, I have some concerns about them. They are not always particularly efficient. Given the weather that we have had in successive summers with their intense heat, they can be inefficient as the water can evaporate quickly, as we have seen in north Yorkshire, where I think a hosepipe ban is still in place.

I do not know how many noble Lords remember the wonderful David Bellamy, who made his name when he was a professor of botany at the University of Durham—I see a number of alumni in the Chamber this afternoon. He was particularly concerned when a reservoir was due to be constructed at Cow Green in upper Teesdale, where I grew up, in the Pennines. The significance was that blue gentians grow in only some parts of the country, outside the immediate alpine regions of Austria and Switzerland, and upper Teesdale was one of them. We were all particularly grateful to Professor Bellamy at the time, as he spoke passionately against the need for creating such a reservoir.

That massive reservoir has meant that what was the highest waterfall in England at the time now has only one waterfall, in most cases, rather than the two, which were spectacular to see when the River Tees was in spate. It was not just about the tragic loss of a number of farms, which were flooded with the construction of the reservoir; it was the fact that the water was never actually needed. It would be helpful to understand how, in the process of these planning applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the need is felt to be so great at one stage—but then, when they are constructed, the water is never actually used.

There are alternatives to large reservoirs. We were asked to create a large reservoir for the “Slowing the Flow” project in Pickering, to prevent that town flooding to the extent that it had. I think that it was three times in 10 years but it may have been longer, perhaps over 20 years. Since it was deemed to be unaffordable to build the large reservoir required, a smaller reservoir was created along with other schemes, such as planting trees and creating smaller dams to soak up the water, which have proved extremely effective to date. Since the creation of the smaller reservoir, Pickering has no longer flooded.

Yorkshire Water also introduced a multimillion-pound project to transfer water from the water-plenty parts to the water-stressed part of the region. We now have the technology to do that across water regions. I hope that the Government may also look at that, rather than just considering the easy option of building a mega-reservoir.

My amendment looks at the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs and the case for smaller reservoirs. It was pleasing to hear what the Minister said as she set that out. I am sure she is also aware of the recommendations set out in 2019, some six years ago, following the Toddbrook and Whaley Bridge dam safety incident. My concern is that there is no sense of urgency and we have not seen anything happen since 2019 as regards a revision of the Reservoirs Act 1975. Currently, I understand that they are looking at not just amending that Act, which was the particular genesis of Amendment 56—the previous Government and I think this Government are probably pursuing that thinking. It would be good to have it on the record this afternoon that the Government’s intention is to replace the Reservoirs Act and to bring into effect the Balmforth recommendations, which were made as far back as 2019.

There are many pressing reasons for smaller reservoirs, both on farms and on sports clubs such as golf clubs. In the particular case of small farms, an excellent article recently in Farmers Weekly showed that because of the increasing water stress and water shortage owing to climate change, the many competing claims that farmers are finding, and the fact that water abstraction is to be curtailed in the future, it is particularly concerning that:

“Food is not seen as a public good when it comes to securing water supplies”.


If farmers face losing abstraction licences in April next year, this is a source of great concern to them. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on applications for smaller reservoirs on farms or on golf clubs, for the reasons that I have set out. For these reasons, I would still like to consider either testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 56 or bringing it back at Third Reading.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 7A in this group, which, like my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 5, is an amendment to government Amendment 4. I welcome many of the changes to the Bill that the Government have brought forward, particularly to Clause 41, which we will touch on later on Report. I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for their time over the Conference Recess to discuss the changes that they have made in that area of the Bill. But the 67 amendments which the Government tabled last week cover some significant new issues and it is regrettable, in many ways, that we have not had the same opportunity to discuss those, either in Committee or with the Minister and others in the intervening period.

Like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I agree in general terms with the Government’s intention to ensure that more reservoirs can be constructed, and more quickly. But just as with the Government’s original proposals in Clause 41 for infrastructure projects carried out under the Transport and Works Act, which they have, I am glad to say, brought forward amendments to alter now, the plans in the proposed new clause under discussion about projects relating to water give rise to concerns about the proper safeguards for our shared heritage. Noble Lords and, I am happy to say, the Government benefited from being able to discuss their proposals with regard to Clause 41 with a number of heritage groups. I am glad that those discussions fed into the changes that they have tabled later in the Bill, but of course the construction of a reservoir is a major undertaking as well. It is a significant and lasting intervention in our heritage—both our natural and built heritage.

I am almost the same age as Kielder Water, which was opened by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Northumberland the year before I was born. That holds 44 billion gallons and is the largest artificial reservoir in the United Kingdom by capacity. Like the manmade forest that surrounds it, it is a source of quiet marvel and pride across Northumberland, a county that is rich in an impressive array of civil engineering feats. Of course, there was a price to pay regarding displaced communities and lost heritage for that impressive reservoir. Some 95 residents lost their homes, a number of farms and a school were lost, and indeed the route of the former Border Counties Railway was partially submerged by the new Kielder Water reservoir.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will keep my comments relatively brief, because I had a lot to say at the beginning of this group. I start my concluding remarks by pointing out to noble Lords that it was concerns about water provision that encouraged the Government to bring forward further amendments in this respect. I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in engagement both in the recess period, which I was very grateful for, and subsequent to that. I thank all those who met with me.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his contribution. He set out his concerns very clearly and we appreciated that. That is why we are able to accept his amendments.

On the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I understand the great and ongoing concerns around the Capel Celyn issue. I am afraid that the powers in this Bill are for England, but I will come back to him in writing about what powers the Senedd has to act in a way that might help with his concerns. If that is acceptable to him, I will write to him on those specific issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, discussed the efficiency of reservoirs. There have been recent improvements in that, but there is room for further improvement, and I am sure that colleagues in Defra are as exercised as she is in making sure that that is the case. I am very glad that she mentioned Professor Bellamy; that brought back some very happy memories. I will not try an impression—I am not very good at them—but he was a real character. His contribution to the natural world in this country was enormous, and I am very grateful for that.

The noble Baroness asked about how the need for water is assessed; the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to that too. Water companies have a statutory duty to provide a secure supply of water for customers efficiently and economically and to set out how they plan to continue to supply water through statutory water resources management plans. They are assessing that constantly. These set out how each company will continue to meet this duty and manage the water supply and demand sustainably for at least the next 25 years. There is therefore a constant assessment of that.

On the noble Baroness’s points about smaller reservoirs, I hope that I set out clearly in my comments that these can be undertaken currently under permitted development. We recognise the need to look at those permitted development regulations, and we will return to them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I understand that I bounced this idea into the debate and that the Minister was not aware that I would do so, but can she write to me on the state of the proposals to dispense with the Reservoirs Act and bring forth recommendations from the Balmforth review from 2019? That is an incredibly long time. Can she set out what the timescale will be?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am happy to do that.

I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, out of order, because, as he said, some of the issues that he raised could not happen now; the Planning Act 2008 means that many of those issues would not be the case now. I am making my response to the noble Lord out of order because I want to come back to the points about heritage issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. As the noble Lord said, my colleague from DCMS and I have now set up a very useful round table with heritage organisations, or organisations representing heritage issues. I will raise some of those specific issues with the round table; it is important that we do so. The National Policy Statement for Water Resources Infrastructure has a dedicated section on the historic environment, which sets out what applicants should do in their development consent order application.

The Secretary of State will, when determining applications, specifically identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development. All applicants for development consent, including dam and reservoir schemes, are required to provide information about heritage impacts from their projects when they submit their application. Where development is subject to an environmental impact assessment, the application is also required to take that assessment, as I pointed out earlier.

With the examining authority considering that as part of the examination, and the Secretary of State identifying and assessing the particular significance of heritage assets, I hope that that gives some reassurance that proposed developments must comply with specific obligations related to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments. That obligation is placed on the Secretary of State and set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the noble Lord.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, discussed some of the other measures that can be taken to conserve water; I do not disagree with her on that. Colleagues in Defra are exercised in ensuring that we make efficient use of water and that we are not setting up reservoirs unnecessarily. Because I come from one of the areas of great water scarcity in the country, I know what a huge issue this can be. I point out to her that, in contrast to where reservoirs were built for the steel industries and then the water was not needed afterwards, we are now looking at data centres as a new generation of economic activity. They need water, so I know that there will be new needs for water going forward.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

337: After Clause 87, insert the following new Clause—
“Sustainable drainageThe Secretary of State must bring into force in England all uncommenced parts of Schedule 3 of the Water Management Act 2010 (sustainable drainage) within three months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
In England, developers have the automatic right to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is capacity for this. Implementation of Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) would end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), paving the way for their widespread use.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have reached this small but perfectly formed group of amendments in my name. I take the opportunity to thank for their support the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I wish her a speedy recovery for her toe—and Lady Willis of Summertown. I am very grateful to them all.

If I could declare my interests, I am co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water and an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Flooding and Flooded Communities. I have co-authored a number of Bricks & Water reports with the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum, and I am very grateful for its support on that.

I will initially set out the contents of the amendments and then explain why I think the Government should support them or come forward with their own amendments in lieu on Report. Turning first to Amendment 337, as the Explanatory Notes make clear, developers currently have an automatic right to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is capacity for it or not. Implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 would end that automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems, paving the way for their widespread use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling these amendments and for her thorough introduction. I meant the other day to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to take our very good wishes for a speedy recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who I hope is recovering quickly. I am sorry that I did not do that before.

Effective implementation of SUDS, including adoption and maintenance, can reduce the impact of new developments on sewers by adding up to 87%, creating headroom for additional developments where they may not be possible with only conventional drainage. I have previously shared with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, some of the outstanding schemes that I have seen in Sussex and with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in Cambridge. The responsible developers make provision for the ongoing maintenance of these schemes. We need to see sustainable drainage in more developments, to designs that cope with changing climatic conditions, deliver wider water infrastructure benefits and help to tackle our water pollution problems. We have already taken steps to improve the delivery of SUDS through the planning system. The update to the NPPF, published on 12 December, expanded the requirement to provide SUDS to all development with drainage implications. I restate that, although the NPPF is not a statutory document in itself, it is part of the statutory planning system.

Sewerage undertakers have the ability to refuse a connection where it appears to them that it would prejudice their network or not meet their reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to a sewerage system. The Independent Water Commission, chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe, is reviewing the water sector regulatory system in England and Wales. The UK and Welsh Governments will consider the report, including whether it has implications for the right to connect. That report should be factored in before considering any potential legislative changes to Section 106. Regardless, the Government are strongly committed to requiring standardised sustainable drainage systems, or SUDS, in new developments and are considering how best to implement our ambitions.

The Government published updated non-statutory national standards for SUDS in June 2025, which were welcomed by stakeholders as a positive step. We intend to consult on the national planning policy related to decision-making later this year, including policies on flood risk and SUDS. I will take back the noble Baroness’s point about run-off, because it would be useful to consider that at the same time. Also this year, we will consult on ending freehold estates, which will include options to reduce the prevalence of private management arrangements for community assets including SUDS. For this reason, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to all who have spoken and those who have supported the amendment: the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who echoed my concerns about why the original legislation was not implemented; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for reminding the House about the “slow the flow” scheme, particularly the Pickering pilot scheme that I was closely associated with; and my noble friend Lady Coffey for pointing out the reason for the blockage and delay. It is like, “We are going to do it, but just not yet”. There is a degree of urgency and let us bear in mind that, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the Front Bench pointed out, if your house was built on a flood plain since 2009, you cannot be insured, or the only insurance that you can get is probably so cripplingly expensive that you cannot afford it.

For a host of reasons, I believe that the time is now. I was told during the passage of the levelling-up Act that we would have to wait for a different opportunity. The time is now, so I will revert to this at a future stage of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 337 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

There are three reactions coming to the fore about Part 3. A bunch of folk want to kill it because it is awful and unnecessary; a bunch of folk are predisposed to accept it, because although with the government amendments it is still not very good it is good enough, and we can probably get more amendments in the process of its passing through this House; and the third position is finding an alternative way of focusing on and resolving the issues that are stopping development happening. The last one is the way that I espouse.

Originally I had my name down to the mighty list of clause stand parts drawn up by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which would have completely kneecapped Part 3. I thank him for giving us the opportunity to discuss the problems with Part 3 that arouse such strong antipathy across the piece, regardless of which of the three reactions you espouse. However, I took my name down from the clause stand parts when I tabled my Amendments 185F, 185G and 242A. I presented those amendments with a heavy heart to the small but dedicated band who were still here, since it was the final group of Thursday night’s session. I had never experienced a death slot quite like that one before; it felt like a wet Tuesday night at the Aberdeen Empire.

I believe that EDPs are a risky and not very good way forward, for a number of reasons. One is that they are probably unnecessary because they are too sweeping, regarding EDPs as needing to cover a plethora of issues that have already been resolved or, in the eyes of developers, are not really the problems that are getting in the way. Another is that the habitats regulations have stood us in good stead over many years. We invented them as a bunch of Brits, and they represent the highest level of protection for that tiny, most important set of sites and species. Developers have got used to applying them over 30 years; they have developed an understanding and expertise within their operations. Many developers admit that the habs regs and nature are a long way down their list of blockages. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, are not in their places tonight, because they have developed a wonderful road map that shows how EDPs simply add another route to getting permissions rather than simplifying the existing routes.

My amendments would take the, I hope, constructive avenue of trying to find a middle way by restricting them to those issues for which they can be effective, which are strategic and landscape-level issues of nutrient neutrality, water quality, water quantity and air quality, and by adding amendments that I combined with them to give the heavy lifting on habitats regulation assessment to regional spatial strategies and local plans. By the time a developer came to put forward a planning application, not only would the majority of surveys and assessments have taken place but developers would be clearer where they should avoid sites with tricky protected species and instead aim for those sites rather less likely to have wrangles at stake. These already debated amendments have had a second opportunity to find their way to the light at a slightly more auspicious point in the timetable, and I hope that Ministers will consider them. They would be less dramatic than the clause stand part massacre of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.

I do not wholly support the solutions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to the nutrient neutrality issue, mainly because I do not actually understand what his amendments intend to achieve. I will swot up on that before Report.

However, I will briefly speak in support of Amendments 302 and 303, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I have added our names. They confirm that only impacts addressed by an EDP should be disregarded for the habs regs. We must make sure that any disregarding of the habitats regulations is absolutely forensic and rapier-like, not broad, woolly and unformed. They are important building blocks for nature conservation and recovery in this country. They do not get in the way of development if they are properly administered. They are about process rather than substance, and we can streamline them in a whole load of ways without wrecking them.

This is the nub of the Bill. If the truth were known, Part 3 is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that I have seen, and my first conversation with Ministers in the Commons did not reassure me. When I said that I was worried about the environmental impacts of the Bill, they said, “Don’t you worry about it. This isn’t an environment Bill; it’s a planning Bill”.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I support a number of amendments in this group, but I will limit my remarks to the debate on whether Clause 83 should stand part of the Bill. I was beaten at the post by my noble friend Lord Roborough in signing the clause stand part notice, so I added my name and support it wholeheartedly. I am concerned about this for a number of reasons.

It was remiss of me not to welcome the Minister back to her seat after the reshuffle last week; it is good to see her in her place.

I understand that Natural England is looking to lose some members of staff in various parts of the country, which raises an additional question mark over the resources and staffing that it has at its disposal to do this sizeable task. My noble friend Lord Roborough, in introducing this group of amendments, asked why these powers are necessary. There is great concern among the farming community that these powers are before us in the Bill. The cost of buying land and then paying to deliver the mitigation is not the best use of the nature restoration levy. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about the role of EDPs in achieving what the Government seek to achieve. The case is yet to be made as to why we need EDPs. Therefore, I would like to explore other solutions—perhaps private market solutions—to environmental mitigation in this regard. I support my noble friend Lord Roborough’s argument about the number of houses delayed from being built because of the policy that the Government are pursuing in this regard.

What the Government have achieved is probably something that they did not set out to achieve: both sides of the argument—the green lobby, or what have been called the environmental NGOs, and landowners and farming communities—are equally unhappy with how Part 3 has been drafted. I accept that the Government have tried to recover some of the ground through their own amendments, but I am particularly unhappy about the drafting of Clause 83. It begs the questions of what resources are available and why this role has been given to Natural England. This is happening against the background that Natural England, it appears, will be losing staff and resources at a time when the Government envisage such a major role as set out in Clause 83. I therefore lend my support to the amendments and stand part notices in this group, particularly that Clause 83 should not stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for moving her amendment and for giving the preface to my Amendment 333, to which I would like to speak. I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Lucas to explain why he has amended my Amendment 333. This is a probing amendment. I hope that the remarks of my noble friend Lady Coffey will bear fruit—that the Government really want to apply the contents of Amendment 333. I have done the Government a great favour in this regard.

The reason I have tabled Amendment 333 is that Clause 86, as currently drafted, permits the Secretary of State, by regulation, to designate another person to exercise the function of Natural England. Clause 86(2) says:

“for a designated person to replace Natural England, or … for Natural England or a designated person to exercise functions under this Part only in relation to an area or a kind of development specified in the regulations”.

My noble friend Lady Coffey has prepared the ground very well in this regard because, as she pointed out, Natural England acts as an adviser to the Secretary of State. My Amendment 333 would insist that a “designated person” must be a public body. That public body should act independently of the Secretary of State and the Government. That is why I believe it should not be Natural England; it should be a public body that can operate in that regard. I would like to understand the reasoning behind the Government drafting it in this way—so that the functions and the powers of compulsory purchase of Natural England could be passed to a third party.

I put on record that my concern is about the threat to the future use of farmland, as we currently know it, for purposes other than farming, and perhaps the ease with which a designated person could ensure that these powers to compulsorily purchase land were used in a way detrimental to farming.

I would just like to confirm that I have understood what the Minister said in summing up on the previous group. I think she said that the powers in Clause 83 would be used only where negotiations had failed. Is my understanding correct? I would like to place on record my fervent hope that the efforts under Clause 86 would come into effect only if the parties—that is, the Government and the landowner or farmer—failed to reach a voluntary agreement. That is what I understood the Minister to say, so I ask her to confirm that.

For the benefit of clarity, I would like to know that, where a body other than Natural England is designated in Clause 86, it will be a public body that can act independently of Government and, in that capacity, is more likely to gain the trust and understanding of those to whom the compulsory purchase order will apply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for cosigning Amendment 333.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

The noble Baroness might not thank me when she hears what I am about to say. I signed up in support of this amendment without realising that we were talking in exactly opposite directions about what the desired effect should be. I believe this is a probing amendment. I was very pleased when the Minister, in her response to the previous group, said that she believed that it should be another public body. For the avoidance of doubt, we should have that in the Bill.

I do not see this as something we would want to do frequently. It would be useful to know the Minister’s thinking about why this provision is in the Bill. If Part 3 is about taking a strategic approach to landscape-scale conservation and nature restoration, it is important that there is some controlling mind organising all this. I do not think it can be the Minister; it has to be Natural England. If there is any delegation from Natural England to another public body, it should be at the behest of Natural England, not the Minister. It would be extremely useful to know why this is in the Bill in the first place and to get at least a requirement that another public body is designated. Perhaps the Minister will outline the circumstances envisaged in this amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Briefly, I support the amendments in this group and congratulate my noble friend on tabling them. I am particularly pleased by the reference to Slow the Flow projects, which were successful in places such as Pickering. Is it possible to achieve this through building regulations? Is it something that we should already be encouraging, without waiting for primary legislation? That would really expedite proceedings. Also, I understand that Germany is piloting solar panels on fencing. In many new developments, that might be a better than or equally good option as putting them on roofs.

I welcome these amendments and hope that the Minister might look upon them in a supportive way, but I would hope to achieve them through building regulations, which would be speedier than through primary legislation.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my succinct and simple Amendment 94G, and in doing so draw attention to an issue—planning fees—that might seem a bit techy on the surface and perhaps even boring, but in reality strikes at the very heart of fairness, opportunity and the future of our housing market. I recognise and acknowledge that this Government are trying to address the concerns of SME builders in different ways; thus I believe that this amendment is in line with their thinking. It seeks a simple fix to a gross unfairness within the planning fees regime.

The reality is that the way our planning fees are currently structured disproportionately penalises the very people we need most—the small and medium-sized enterprise builders, the SMEs who once formed the backbone of housebuilding in this country. Our high watermark was the 1960s and 1970s, when SMEs delivered almost 50% of our homes. But now, there are just 2,500 SME builders, down from just over 12,000 in the late 1980s.

When the large developers apply for planning permission, they can absorb the cost of these fees—dozens, or even hundreds of units. For them, the fee for a major scheme is just a fraction of their overall margin. It is, if you like, just one more line on a long spreadsheet. But for the SME builder, often working on only one site at a time, sometimes building just a handful of homes, usually locally in the community where they live, the same planning fee represents a very different calculation. Proportionally, it is far higher—sometimes eye-wateringly so—relative to the potential return. For some, it can make the difference between a scheme being viable or never getting off the ground.

Let us not forget that many SME firms operate on tight margins—it is just a fact of the market today—and have limited access to capital. They do not have the balance sheets of the volume builders, nor teams of in-house planners and consultants to smooth the path. They are nimble, creative and often willing to take on small and difficult sites—precisely the kind of brownfield or infill plots that larger developers might overlook. In that sense, they perform a vital public service, delivering homes in places where others cannot or will not. If the Government are serious about reviving the role of SME builders, whose share of new homes has plummeted to barely 10% today, we cannot afford to ignore the structural barriers that hold them back. Planning fees are one such barrier, and it is entirely within our power to address them in this Bill.

My amendment addresses this issue without costing the Treasury a single pound. I am not suggesting that planning departments should be starved of resources—quite the opposite: we all hope that they will be even busier in the future. We all know they need proper funding to recruit and retain skilled staff and to deliver timely decisions, but surely there is a case for a more proportionate, graduated system—one that recognises the scale of development, the number of units and the genuine impact on the planning service. Without such reform, we risk reinforcing the dominance of volume housebuilders, who are of course essential; this is not a downer on them but a recognition of the role that SMEs can play in increasing innovation and diversity. They bring local knowledge and understanding to their role. By ignoring this, we weaken our ability to deliver the variety of homes this country so desperately needs.

The reason for my amendment is that planning costs are probably the most significant disparity, with SMEs facing costs that are over 100% higher than their plc counterparts. In fact, planning fees at the moment are £626 per home for the first 50 units, and only £189 per home thereafter. Therefore, a 50-home scheme pays three times more per unit than a 1,000-home scheme. This is where it creates a real structural disadvantage for SMEs, deterring those much-needed smaller developments and slowing delivery on small and medium sites. Under the Bill, fee-setting powers are being devolved to local authorities and/or mayors, so there is a genuine opportunity to fix the imbalance.

This is not about special pleading; it is about fairness, proportionality and the kind of housing market we want to create. Do we want one dominated by a handful of big players, or one where smaller, local builders have the chance to thrive? I urge the Government to look again at the planning fees regime and at how it might better support our SME builders. Without them, our housing crisis will only deepen. My amendment would help ensure that SMEs are not burdened with excessive costs; and, over time, alongside other government measures, it might reverse their sad decline. I am pleased to note that it also chimes with Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I hope the Minister agrees.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott for opening this small group of amendments and for lending her support to my Amendment 95, to which I will briefly speak.

As drafted, the Bill leaves out the question of enforcement measures being recovered from the fee. I put a very simple question to the Minister: was this a wilful omission or was it omitted by default? As my noble friend Lady Scott said, it would be helpful to know why the question of enforcement measures not forming part of the fee that can be recovered has been left out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, that was a very interesting, wide-ranging, detailed and thoughtful debate around many planning matters, including some of the amendments that had been tabled. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. As a planning geek myself, it is never a trouble to listen to these types of discussions. I will answer some specific points, but I would like to make a couple of general comments first.

In introducing her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked for a more radical approach to planning. The noble Lord, Lord Young, set out the radical approach even better than I could myself. I have, of course, heard completely opposing views on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill before us, with one set of people saying that it is too radical and another saying it is not radical enough. I always think that if you get to there, you are probably in about the right place, but your Lordships will be the judge of that.

The Bill is a step in driving forward the infrastructure planning and changes to planning that we want to see in order to get economic growth going, but it is not the only step. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, outlined, as we continue with our planning for new authorities, there will be further change in introducing the strategic plans—that is coming forward in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I look forward to debating those changes with noble Lords in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, also mentioned the investment that is needed in planning. We are very aware of the fact that the cuts to local government funding that we all experienced over a couple of decades have meant that the investment in planning was not always there. We have already put £46 million in to try to improve the investment in planning and the quantity and capacity of planning departments. We will continue to work on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of local plans. We are already making progress on that. The Secretary of State has made it very clear to local authorities that she expects to see local plans in place. You jeopardise the whole process of development in this country when you get an out-of-date local plan, and developers can ride roughshod over local wishes because there is no local plan in place. It is a very important part of the process. The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the issue of how these local plans will be reconstructed when we get new authorities in place. Of course, much of the work will have been done. We will not need to redo all the studies; they can be aggregated into those wider plans. But it is important that those plans will be in place.

To pick up a point that is not in these amendments, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that I am aware of the issue with level 7 apprenticeships in planning. I was very keen on planning apprenticeships and having that route to good quality and more capacity in planning teams. I am discussing that with colleagues in the Department for Education and will comment on that further when I have had more discussions with them.

Turning now to Amendments 94FB and 94 FC, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I understand the importance of ensuring that local planning authorities or the Mayor of London are not burdened with unnecessary obligations, particularly in relation to fee setting. That is why I want to be very clear. The Government’s intention is to pursue a local variation model. The approach will not require local planning authorities or the Mayor of London to set their own fees but instead provides those authorities with the option to vary from a national default planning fee where they consider it necessary to do so to better meet their costs.

However, we believe it is important to retain a flexibility within that power. The inclusion of “or require” preserves the ability to mandate local fee setting should there be a compelling case for it in the future—for example, to improve service delivery or address disparities in performance. Removing that flexibility would risk constraining our future ability to evolve the system. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about how we will monitor planning performance. He will know very well that an extensive planning monitoring regime in already in place, which local authorities have to meet. Keeping an eye on this, as well, will help with that. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that retaining this power in its current form represents a balanced and prudent approach and that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for tabling Amendment 94G. I am entirely in accord with her on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the nature and size of the planning application. In her very clear explanation of her amendment, she rightly highlighted the importance of our SME building sector, which we also saw highlighted, as she will remember, in the report of the Competition and Markets Authority. I share her intent to do all we can to support SMEs. Indeed, it was a local SME builder who helped me kick off my housing development programme when I was a council leader. It was a mutual arrangement—we helped support them and they helped support what we were doing. There can be very good arrangements locally.

However, the Bill already provides a clear and robust framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the proportionality issue. As I just mentioned, the Government intend to introduce a local variation model under which a nationally set default fee, developed through benchmarking and public consultation, will serve as a baseline, as is currently the case with planning fees. To answer the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Neville-Rolfe, this will account for variations in the size and nature of sites.

The model ensures both consistency and transparency in fee setting while allowing local planning authorities the flexibility to depart from the nationally set default fee where circumstances warrant. The Bill requires that any locally set fee must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service—I hope that picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—and that local communities must be consulted on proposed changes. Importantly, the Secretary of State will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate, thereby providing an important safeguard to uphold consistency and equity across the system. I am therefore confident that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve.

On Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I agree that well-resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need, but also for safeguarding those communities from unauthorised or harmful development. We appreciate the intention of the amendment in supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity but, as planning enforcement serves the wider public interest, it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support these services. Allowing planning authorities to raise planning fees to cover enforcement costs could result in disproportionately high fees. We are concerned that that may deter development at a time when we are committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building.

To answer the noble Baroness’s question directly, this was not an oversight in drafting the Bill; we did consider it. More broadly, the Government have, as I have already mentioned, committed to the £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful for the Minister’s response to the amendment. My concern is that it looks as though the Government are going to build on functional flood plains. That is why the role of property resilience measures is so important, and why the enforcement should be included in the fees. So, I hope she will think again.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that and for her long-standing lobbying on flooding issues. We have a group of amendments later today on flooding. I hope that I can pick up some of the questions she has raised under those amendments.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his Amendment 96, which seeks to ensure that guidance to local planning authorities on setting planning fees explicitly advises them to include the costs of essential services, such as archaeology, provided by local authorities. We recognise that, especially in two-tier areas, planning authorities may need to obtain expertise from other authorities to determine applications. Where local authorities choose to set their own fees, they will be expected to take account of the costs incurred in obtaining such contributions and reflect them appropriately in their fee-setting process.

As I have just highlighted, we are currently undertaking a national benchmarking exercise and engaging with local planning authorities to develop a consistent and evidence-based approach to local fee setting. A consultation on the national default fee schedule and the framework for local fee setting will then be published later this year. These matters are best addressed through secondary legislation and detailed guidance, as that provides the flexibility we may need—I can see the noble Lord nodding; he has probably given that answer himself from the Dispatch Box—to respond to evolving practice and local circumstances. That is particularly true in planning, which is such a dynamic area. As such, I do not consider it necessary to place the requirement in primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

108: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Residential buildings on floodplains(1) Local planning authorities must not grant permission for residential properties to be built on functional floodplains or areas at high risk of flooding. (2) An area is a functional floodplain or at high risk of flooding for the purposes of subsection (1) if the Environment Agency assesses it as a Zone 3a or 3b flood zone.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on floodplains or on areas at high risk of flooding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to address Amendments 108, 109, 155 and 156 in this group. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Willis of Summertown, for their support for these amendments. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who will outline her amendments, which are very closely aligned to the content of mine; I think we are more or less on the same page.

The background and starting point to this group is that houses built since Flood Re came into effect in 2009 will no longer qualify for flood insurance if they are built on a flood plain. Flood Re excluded them for a very simple reason: it did not want developers and local authorities to give planning permission to houses on functional flood plains. That is an obvious starting point. I welcome that the Government have commissioned the flood ready review, currently being undertaken by Peter Bonfield. I hope it will report fairly soon, possibly even while the Bill is still going through the House. I will be interested to see what the future holds following that review.

The review will look at property flood resilience measures, which are simple, low-cost, proven interventions installed in a home to resist surface water flooding, significantly reducing the time and cost of recovering from a flood. In my previous life as a shadow Flooding Minister, one of the most poignant and saddest things I had to do was visit homes where there had been major floods, both in my own constituency and elsewhere. I am only too aware that people can be evicted from their homes for three to six months for public health reasons while the house is being put back into shape.

The type of property flood resilience measures that I am looking at and that the review will look at are self-closing air-bricks, non-return valves on toilets, sump pumps and such. The Government’s own studies have found that these measures provide significant cost-effective opportunities to improve flood resilience. Property flood resilience significantly reduces the time and cost of recovering from floods, so I hope the Minister will respond positively to the amendments I am about to go into in some detail.

Flooding costs the UK economy £2.4 billion a year. The average cost of repairing a home after a flood is £30,000 and the average time spent out of a home is nine months. Currently, 4.1 million homes are at risk of surface water flooding. This is a comparatively recent type of flooding, only identified since 2007. This follows on specifically from the measures outlined in the Sir Michael Pitt review of that year. There are now three times as many properties at high risk of flooding from surface water compared to that from rivers and the sea.

Currently, 3.1 million UK homes are exposed to flood depths where property flood resilience measures would be most effective and where they could realistically benefit from such interventions. Some 83% of properties exposed to surface water risks are unprotected—far higher than proportions for river or coastal flooding. The Government will be well aware that, by 2050, 6.1 million homes will be at risk of surface water flooding and the number at high risk is expected to have increased by 66%. So these amendments are very timely and could stem the flow of increased properties at risk. In the 12 local authorities with the highest flood risk, over 7,000 homes have been recently granted planning permission on flood plains. In 2021-22, 7% of new homes were built in flood zone 3. Therefore, identifying those most at risk of flooding is especially appropriate.

Recognising that surface water flooding now has a greater effect than either river or coastal flooding and the fact that, in a group much later in the Bill, we look at my own pet subject of sustainable drainage—I look forward to my meeting with the Minister and her colleague from Defra, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to discuss that—I would argue that introducing flood resilience measures to new properties as well as retrofitting old ones would be an extremely valuable opportunity.

I will discuss each of the amendments in turn. I completely omitted to declare my interests, for which I apologise profusely. I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water and vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I have co-authored a number of reports with Policy Connect and the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum, which is a local think tank in London. We have co-authored a number of reports on bricks and water—four to date, and we hope to do a fifth. I am drawing heavily on the recommendations in those reports, and I would be delighted to share them with the Minister for some reading, perhaps during Conference Recess when she has a quiet moment.

Amendment 108 looks at residential building on flood plains. The idea of this amendment is to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on what I would describe as functional flood plains or on areas at high risk of flooding. As Flood Re established, if they are not going to be covered for insurance, it seems very unfair on a householder who may not in fact need a mortgage to find out that, subsequent to buying that house, they are not eligible because of flooding. The amendment would narrow it down so that flood zones 3a and 3b are excluded.

Amendment 109 looks at property flood resilience measures, which I described briefly before, particularly raised electrical sockets, non-return valves on utility pipes, air-brick covers, resilient wall plaster and others such as the Secretary of State herself may wish to identify. These resilience measures are being installed at only a fraction of the pace required to make vulnerable homes insurable once the Flood Re insurance scheme is withdrawn in 2039. That might seem a long time away, but it is only 14 years before the Flood Re scheme expires. Amending building regulations to require the use of basic property flood resilience would offer an affordable way to accelerate uptake and would mean that houses built in higher-risk flood areas are adapted for that purpose. It would constitute a far cheaper option than retrofitting, which, while it brings benefits, is obviously infinitely more expensive for new houses.

I turn to Amendment 155, which looks at local plans and planning applications regarding flooding. The sequential exception tests are planning tools that would help to ensure that new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, and would make necessary development in areas of flood risk safe throughout their lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, as the displaced water is often simply moved to flood existing or other developments. However, these tests are currently only guidance. I propose in Amendment 155 to put them on a statutory basis, as that could only help to ensure that local planning authorities place due regard on them when preparing local plans and considering individual planning applications.

Amendment 156 looks at the strategic flood risk assessment maps and would make sure that these included the most up-to-date flood risk assessment provided by the Environment Agency. In this regard, a statutory duty should be placed on local planning authorities to do so. Strategic flood risk assessments are vital to ensuring that planning decisions take into account risks from all sources of flooding, including an allowance for climate change. They would also help to identify whether any proposed development fell into flood zone 3b, the functional flood plain. Placing a duty on local planning authorities to keep strategic flood risk assessments up to date would ensure that they can reliably inform the development of local plans and incorporate the latest information from the Environment Agency’s new national flood risk assessment.

The Minister was temporarily unable to listen because she was being consulted by the party managers, but I am sure that she shares my concern that 7,000 new homes have been built on flood plains in 12 local authorities alone, and that 7% of new homes were built in flood zone 3b in 2021-22 alone. With those remarks, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these key amendments and put them on a statutory footing. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Grender, will not press their amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken and for the support from the two leading Baronesses who are very much experts in this field, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis. I am very grateful indeed. My amendments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, are very closely aligned, as I said earlier.

Although I am grateful for the full response I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, she is missing the point. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, described eloquently what the role of a flood plain is. It is just not fair if Flood Re is specifically excluding them from any form of house insurance for flooding; they should be there.

The point that the NPPF is non-statutory was made very firmly by those who supported this group of amendments. I quoted the figures for the increasing number of houses which do not meet its requirements. I share what can only be a concern of the Minister that the NPPF is not being adhered to.

But, given the lateness of the hour and the other groups to be debated, I ask for an urgent meeting with the Minister, the co-signatories of the amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and perhaps our own Front Bench. I really believe that we have to crack this. We mean this in a helpful way to the Government because, in effect, it does not matter who is in power; we have to ensure that we are giving the best support we can to developers who are developing houses to meet the government targets, while ensuring that they are flood resilient to the best degree. So I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to such a meeting, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 108 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

110: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section— “agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities); “provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a relevant planning authority within the meaning of section 91 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities).(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle.(3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain, in addition to any relevant requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595), a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity; I fear that my preparation will not be as polished as customary.

The genesis for this group of amendments was the ad hoc committee on the scrutiny of the Licensing Act 2003, which I had the great honour to chair. I would just like to record my deep sadness that, since that time, two of the leading members of that committee, Baroness Henig and Lord Blair, who contributed greatly and lent a great deal of knowledge and expertise to its work, have very sadly passed away. I know that Baroness Henig supported me vigorously when I tabled similar amendments during the passage of the levelling-up Act.

I am delighted to say that, for Amendment 110, I have the support, for which I am most grateful, of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Parkinson, for family reasons cannot be here this evening, but I know that I have their staunch support. Sadly, on Amendment 111, I am very much on my own, but there we go. I recognise the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who was also a leading light and a great authority on that committee, and I am delighted he is in his place this evening.

The purpose of tabling these amendments is similar in one respect to that of the previous group. We have, if you like, the principle of agent of change, which is recognised by the Government, but I would like to see it enshrined in law. I welcome that there has been a recent press release from the Government, as analysed closely by the Institute of Licensing and many of those in the industry who follow this. The press release from the Government is very good news indeed. Obviously, it might be from a different department to that of the Minister who will be summing up the debate this evening. The Government have announced reforms to planning and licensing laws aiming to reduce bureaucratic barriers and fast-track the revival of town centres with a wave of new cafés, bars and music venues. What is important in adopting the two amendments—there should be nothing in them that is objectionable to the Government—is simply to establish the principle that, where people wish to put a new development in place against an existing music or other cultural venue, the onus is on those developers to ensure that the change of use will be recognised and that the ongoing existence of the current venue will be secured.

Why is this important? In 2024, the number of venues making a loss increased from 38.5% to 43.8%, so this is an industry which is very much under threat. If you look at developments since 2020, the impact of Covid probably hit this sector—music venues and the hospitality sector more generally—more harshly than any other sector.

I welcome the fact that the agent of change principle is guidance in the NPPF, and Section 106 agreements between local councils and developers have been vital tools. However, I make the strongest possible submission to the Minister that there are real concerns that they are not being respected as they should be, and I would just like her to agree—or, if she feels that the Government could come forward with amendments that are better crafted than those that I have drafted, I would welcome that indeed. I would like to see Amendment 110, which would insert the new clause “Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities”, and Amendment 111, inserting the new clause “General duty of local authorities”, given the force of statute. With those few remarks, I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on the agent of change principle. As the noble Baroness says, just one example of the effect of this amendment is that it would be of significant help to grass-roots music venues, which are such an important part of the music industry’s ecology. Bands and individual artists cut their teeth in such live music settings. The loss of those venues is then a loss not just to the local community—which is important in itself—but to the music industry as a whole.

Precisely because of their importance within the overall ecology, the Government should do everything possible to protect those venues, which is a major reason why the existing guidance should be turned into law. As the Music Venue Trust says, with almost every constituency housing a grass-roots music venue, this amendment would, unusually, have an impact on over 720 venues across England, in communities from small villages to big cities.

As UK Music points out, this has been inspired by similar protections in Australia. In cities such as Melbourne, it has helped to revitalise the night-time and cultural economies. When a similar Bill was introduced in Parliament in the UK in 2018, it had the backing of music stars such as Paul McCartney, Chrissie Hynde, Brian Eno, Feargal Sharkey and many others. In 2019, the agent of change principle was made statutory in Scotland. It remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK—better than nothing but not nearly as effective as it might be.

The Government are keen to build new housing, so there is immense practicality about this amendment as well as a moral right in the principle. It would pre-empt and avoid complaints and ill feeling, potential court proceedings and the loss of important cultural assets. As Caroline Dinenage pointed out in the other place earlier this year, such legislation is

“supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smallest clubs, pubs and venues to the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will benefit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure, from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/25; col. 710.]

Potentially, one can add sports venues—anywhere where sound is a significant aspect of the activity concerned. Any loss of these assets will have an effect on the local and wider economy, not to mention local pride in cultural facilities.

There is a strong argument that locally appropriate soundproofing should be a default concern for new builds in particular. Also, as the Music Venue Trust points out, full legislation would decrease red tape and speed up the planning process, meaning that housebuilding would be speeded up as well. The Music Venue Trust makes the important distinction about how the process operates in Scotland and England. In Scotland, because the agent of change principle is statutory, an objection submitted by the Music Venue Trust can refer directly to the national legislation alongside the impact of omitting the principle, so that as soon as the planning committee receives the objection, it can go straight back to the developer to ask them to change their plans. It is a relatively simple and speedy process. In England, because it is not statutory, there is a constant back and forth between the Music Venue Trust’s emergency response service and the local authority, with the same venue often appearing in their service multiple times for different applications. Sometimes the venue does not even appear in a noise impact assessment. All this contributes to a slower and fundamentally unsatisfactory process in England, leaving many applications awaiting decisions for far too long. These are significant concerns that making the agent of change principle statutory would address.

This is a very important amendment. Such legislation was a recommendation of the DCMS Select Committee’s 2024 special report on grass-roots music venues. The Government need to take this very seriously. I fully support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments. I share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to ensure that new developments do not place unreasonable restrictions on existing businesses and are integrated effectively into their surroundings, and the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just made that live music venues are the things that make our communities vibrant and alive. We have just had our fantastic Old Town Live festival in Stevenage, in a series of music venues right along our high street; they are the things that bring people together and make it a good place to live.

The agent of change principle is already embedded in the National Planning Policy Framework. I reiterate my comments earlier that, although the National Planning Policy Framework is not a statutory document in itself, it forms part of the statutory planning process. The Government are clear that where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on a new development in its vicinity, the applicant or agent of change is responsible for providing suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.

Local planning authorities can also use planning conditions to make developments acceptable by addressing specific concerns, such as environmental impacts from noise pollution—for instance, by the use of engineering to reduce noise at source, or the use of noise insulation to mitigate the impact of noise on residents. Where they receive complaints, local authorities are obliged to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate. This allows them to consider a variety of factors in determining whether a complaint constitutes a nuisance in the eyes of the law. Additionally, local licensing authorities can incorporate the agent of change principle into their statement of licensing policy if they consider it useful to do so. This is at their discretion, as they are best placed to understand their own local context.

I understand the desire to embed these principles into law, but we believe this to be unnecessary given the provisions that already exist. It also risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments. We will continue considering how the agent of change principle can be better implemented within the planning system through national planning policy reform. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the support I have received from those who have spoken, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lady Scott.

The Minister is missing the point. Each of those who spoke explained how the NPPF is not working because it is not on a statutory basis, and that the integration and harmony we would like to see between residential properties and businesses is being harmed by this. The very fact that one of the venues that Ed Sheeran sang at early in his career has since closed, along with the other examples we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, shows the importance of this.

I again ask the Minister whether she would be minded to have a meeting before Report with those who have expressed an interest in this area today, because I really believe that we need to progress this and put it on a statutory footing. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 110 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Coffey in her Amendment 112. When I first read this, my mind immediately went to pubs—historic pubs. Of course, we are losing pubs as an accelerated rate. But then I realised, having done some research, that since 2017 it has not been possible to demolish a pub without seeking planning permission. So, my noble friend’s concept comes straight into the ambit of other non-pub things. But then my mind went to the Crooked House, that wonky pub in the West Midlands. I will not say that the owners were crooked, although there have been arrests and there is a police investigation. That building was on the local environmental record.

I wonder whether the noble Baroness might consider strengthening her proposal, because this is not something that is done locally on an ad hoc basis by the local council. Historic England publishes some criteria—pubs aside—for other assets that are not quite yet assets of community value. Of course, “assets of community value” is not as restrictive as you might think: there is no restriction on gifting the pub or on it being sold. The designation does not even last forever; it is for only five years, provided that the use is maintained. I just wonder whether there is any merit in saying that, where a property meets that Historic England designation on the proper national criteria, her anti-demolition provisions ought to be extended to those pro tem, so that at least we do not accidentally and carelessly lose these buildings—non-pubs, or other community buildings —accidentally. We could give additional breathing space to local communities to put a bid forward for protection.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly lend my support to both amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 185H from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, which I have signed. It dovetails neatly with the discussions we had in the debate on the last group. The noble Earl has said that this is a probing amendment, but I hope the Government will look sympathetically on it. We lose buildings of cultural value—cultural assets—at our peril, and the noble Earl made a strong case about all the challenges they have with the oncosts, lighting and heating, that they have to meet, given the sheer size of some of these buildings. I hope we can look favourably on establishing a scheme that would look at assets of cultural value in the ways he set out, and I believe it would greatly enhance the possibility of these buildings remaining for generations to come to enjoy.