English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Jamieson

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Throughout the debate on this Bill there has been agreement across the House that there should be a focus on brownfield first, putting homes where they are most needed—close to jobs, facilities and infrastructure. It is better for the environment, helps to regenerate our towns and cities and saves our valuable green fields. The current crisis has highlighted the need to grow our own food.

While prioritising brownfield is in planning guidance, it is not working. Greenfield development continues to represent around 50% of all housing development, with the loss of around 50,000 hectares in the last three years according to government statistics—and that excludes solar farms. Why? Because it is easier and quicker for developers to build on green fields. If we are genuinely to move the dial, we need to do more. We need a more proactive approach. Strategic development strategies are an opportunity to proactively look at how more can be done to build on brownfield to regenerate those urban areas and build the homes we need, to remove barriers and to support doing the right thing. That is why we are moving this Motion to make clear that this should be the case and to give it legislative backing.

The Minister raised some concerns, and I appreciate the time she has given to discuss this. We have listened to those concerns and have changed our original amendment, which the Minister thought might have unintended consequences and, as such, legal challenges. Our amendment in lieu reframes this as policy-led and aligns more closely with how spatial planning operates in practice. We have specified the amendment as pertaining to spatial development strategies and have recognised that land is allocated to meet specific identified development needs. Our amendment recognises that authorities must have regard to relevant national planning policy; housing and economic requirements for relevant areas; environmental impacts; and deliverability and economic viability of brownfield development. We do not believe, as the Minister said, that it will cause delay. In fact, it is the reverse: this is an opportunity to have more sites available for development.

I reiterate that we are not seeking to stand in the way of development. Rather, we want authorities, mayors and central government to properly address and overcome the challenges of brownfield development. I hope the Minister will recognise the constructive intentions behind our amendments in lieu, on which I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I also thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her efforts on her amendment in lieu, to bring it more in line with the arrangements in Scotland while seeking to reflect English planning laws.

We must remember that this is not just about music or cultural venues. It involves several other existing businesses and facilities, which deserve recognition in this debate. I look forward to the responses from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of my noble friend from the Front Bench, and I will speak to Motion G.

I take this opportunity to most warmly thank the Minister for meeting with a group of us this week and following that up with a meeting with the Music Venue Trust yesterday. I listened very carefully to what she had to say. I understood that, possibly, last week, the Government were minded to bring forward an amendment; it is still not too late for them to do so.

I declare that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate, and I would like to look to the Scottish model in this regard. The Scottish model gives a statutory legal basis, giving legal effect to the agent of change principle. The amendment is wider than the Scottish proposed law, which has now been in force for seven years, and our proposed amendment goes on to reflect English planning practice.

In the last seven years since the Scottish provision came into effect, the world has not caved in, and I do not think that, in that time, a significant number of music centres have closed, nor indeed have there been other instances of massive mitigation costs being sought. The Scottish provision has brought clarity and legal certainty to all those concerned. I am afraid I part company from the Minister: I think the House and the Government need to move on from light, fluffy, non-statutory policy to give statutory basis and legal certainty in the provision that I have set out.

We have set out in Amendment 94B that, in the event of an impact-sensitive development, regard is held and it is the agent of change—the new business—which takes any precautionary measures and pays the expense. It gives protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments.

I am very mindful of the fact that this mostly concerns music centres in England. We have had some figures recently from the Music Venue Trust in this regard. This is a wider issue than that. It reflects the fact that we have an urban-based problem here—a conflict between existing businesses facing competition and restrictions perhaps being imposed by others. While it is without doubt mostly music venues that have been affected by mitigation costs and the risk of businesses closing, the problem is wider and arises from dense urban living, brownfield regeneration and mixed-use development. The beauty of the amendment before us today is that it engages planning, licensing and nuisance in a way that would resolve this problem.

I firmly believe that the Government would be sticking their head in the sand by trying to go along with fluffy, non-statutory guidance followed up by a letter, and I ask the Minister to explain what status a letter would have. The provision proposed today, which would come into effect two months after the Bill is enforced, would resolve the issues once and for ever. It would give clarity to planners, developers, existing businesses and practitioners, and we could move on from the constant lack of clarity and uncertainty in various iterations of the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance. I am minded to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Jamieson

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the many and varied amendments in this group. For Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125, 126 and 308 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, we owe especial thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his efforts since Committee stage.

I begin with Amendment 41, which links the local growth plan to an authority’s preparation of its spatial development strategy. This would require spatial development strategies to identify policies of strategic importance to the priorities set out in the local growth plan. It is common sense that these should not be developed in isolation from each other, and we see no reason why their link should not be set out in statute.

Amendments 122, 123 and 125 would require mayoral combined authorities to identify the infrastructure projects to be included in a spatial development strategy and local growth plans in order to support growth, especially in relation to employment, industrial, commercial and logistic growth opportunities. With the increased pressure on authorities to meet housing targets, it is more important than ever that these plans and strategies should be consistently co-ordinated. The Minister agreed with this in Committee and hinted that the revised NPPF may address this. Can the Minister confirm this and set out more details? Why should these amendments not form part of the Bill before us now?

Amendment 308 would simply require that neighbourhood priority statements be commenced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, while updating them to match the provisions of this Bill. For those unaware, I point out that neighbourhood priority statements summarise what are considered to be the principal needs and prevailing views of the neighbourhood community in respect of local matters. This amendment would allow for both town and parish councils to make those statements—and include single foundation strategic authorities as well as development corporations with planning powers—to the relevant authorities. That sounds like community empowerment to me.

In Committee, the Minister stated that now was not the right time to commence neighbourhood priority statements due to the changes in the plan-making system, but if not now, when? Indeed, is there no better time than amid the restructuring of local government for town and parish councils to make clear the needs of their communities?

In the interests of time, I will comment on only two of the other amendments. Amendment 307 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would require the appointment of a statutory chief planner. In Committee, we on these Benches said that the proposal had merit; our position has not changed.

We also support the agent of change principle outlined in Amendment 246 to ensure the integration of new developments with existing businesses and facilities. Centuries-old church bells should not be silenced by a new neighbouring housing estate.

These are all important issues; I look forward to hearing a detailed response from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to a number of amendments I have in this group. I will limit myself to those in my name and in the names of others who have been kind enough to support them.

The Minister will be quite familiar with Amendment 120 at this stage. I read very carefully her comments in reply in Committee; I have to say that I still take issue with what she said. I would just ask her to think again, and to bear in mind that the department is responsible for preventing flooding and for dealing with situations where, for example, surface water flooding combines with sewage in combined sewers and can cause a public health issue by coming into people’s homes, forcing them to be evacuated.

The Minister will be aware that Defra is extremely keen to implement the provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to ensure that there should be mandatory sustainable drainage in all major developments. I would ask her to think again. This is the one disagreement; I know that the Minister referred in Committee to the NPPF, but I believe it would be better to have this mandated to make sure that major developments have provision—there could be sustainable drains, ponds or culverts—to take the excess water to prevent these sewage spills which cause such grave issues when they happen, including mental health and public health issues.

The second part of the amendment deals with situations where there is no capacity to connect to major developments. The Minister may be aware that the Independent Water Commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe said that water companies should have the opportunity to say that they cannot connect and that there is no way for wastewater—that is, the sewage—to leave a major development. In light of the fact that the Government are going to bring forward major water legislation following on from the Cunliffe report, I hope that the Minister will look kindly at Amendment 120.

I turn to Amendments 124 and 127 and take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for co-signing them. They might appear to be of minor significance, but they are extremely important to enabling planning. The Local Government Association asked in its briefing that the Minister support these amendments. With culture having been given as a competence to mayors acting in their strategic role, it is extremely important that local growth plans should include provision about cultural venues. These two amendments together would seek to ensure that, so they follow on from the earlier amendment, now in the Government’s name, to add culture as a competence. I will not press the two amendments to a vote, but I hope that this is something that the Minister will acknowledge.

Amendment 246, I think, enjoys cross-party support. Let me take the opportunity once again to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, as well as my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for lending their much-valued support, especially given the experience and expertise each of them have in this field.

We have had numerous attempts as a Parliament to introduce the agent of change principle. I was fortunate enough to serve on and to chair the ad hoc committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Great concern is caused among the cultural community where existing successful and well-established businesses face a development—normally a block of flats or something—built right next to them at a later date. Of course, the residents of the new block will then ask that changes be made, normally at the expense of the existing business, to make sure that the two can live together.

Adopting the agent of change principle into a statutory framework would ensure that in every planning application involving music venues, they would have, if you like, a higher right than newer developments in every community. This matter goes to the heart of the Government’s growth agenda, so the Minister must see that there is a great merit in this principle.

We are asking that we should have the same situation as exists in Scotland, where the agent of change principle is enshrined in statute. This would significantly shorten the planning process and empower local authorities—this is the devolution and community empowerment Bill, so I believe it is where such a principle should be placed —to have something specific and enforceable to go back to developers with when their plans did not consider existing music or other live entertainment venues.

We believe that the agent of change principle remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK. It is not perhaps the strongest protection of the businesses, but I think it is something that they could live with. In her response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that

“we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 621.]

In my view, we have had so many consultations and very powerful evidence was given to the committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Looking to the growth agenda, I remind the Minister that 35% of grass-roots venues have closed in the last 20 years; they are coming under increasing threat. I will listen very carefully to what she says in summing up, in particular on Amendment 246, and will reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.