Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. I intend to speak only to Amendment 117 in my name. I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support for the amendment.

I raised this issue in Committee and explained the urgent need to give local authorities additional powers to limit the number of gambling premises on our high streets. It is no coincidence that gambling operators wish to locate their premises in deprived areas where people can least afford to gamble yet sadly gamble most. Research shows that the most deprived local authorities have three times as many gambling premises per head of population as the least deprived local authorities. There are not only clear links with increased crime but, crucially, higher levels of gambling harm and the problems that this creates for individuals, their families and those communities.

But councils that wish to reduce this harm by limiting the number of gambling premises come up against the most pernicious part of the Gambling Act 2005: Section 153, which actually requires them to permit the use of premises for gambling in the absence of very specific reasons not to do so. Therefore, the power they need, which they already have in the case of alcohol licensing, is to be able to conduct prior evidence-based assessment of the impact of the number of gambling premises in particular areas. If that assessment shows that in any area there are already so many gambling premises that any more would be harmful to the well-being of the community, they can publish that assessment—a cumulative impact assessment. Once they have done so, it then acts as grounds for refusing permission for yet more gambling premises. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the relevant Minister at the time, knows that it is exactly what the Conservatives supported in their 2023 White Paper. It is also what the current Government have said they want to achieve. On 9 June, in reply to a Written Question in the other place, the DCMS Minister said that

“cumulative impact assessments … would allow local authorities to take into account a wide range of evidence to inform licensing decisions and to consider the cumulative impact of gambling premises in a particular area. We will look to complement local authorities’ existing powers in relation to licensing of gambling premises … when parliamentary time allows”.

Even the Prime Minister has made clear that he supports it on behalf of the Government. He said:

“It is important that local authorities are given additional tools and powers to ensure vibrant high streets. We are looking at introducing cumulative impact assessments, like those already in place for alcohol licensing, and we will give councils stronger powers over the location and numbers of gambling outlets to help create safe, thriving high streets”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/9/25; col. 281.]


The Minister and the Prime Minister both spoke about local authorities, and so have I. However, we have to bear in mind that, where a gambling operator wishes to open new gambling premises, it needs both planning permission from the local authority, wearing its planning authority hat, and a gambling premises licence from the local authority, wearing its licensing authority hat. Because this is a planning Bill, the amendment that I moved in Committee would have given the powers to make the cumulative impact assessment to the planning authority. In reply, the Minister said:

“The Government are … of the view that the most appropriate body to assess the cumulative impact of licensed gambling premises is the local licensing authority, rather than the planning authority”. —[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1449.]


That is why they were not willing to support it.

The amendment that I am now moving would accordingly give the licensing authority the power to make a cumulative impact assessment, exactly as happens for alcohol licensing, and the planning authority the duty to take it into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission for gambling premises, again, exactly as applies to alcohol licensing. I have been absolutely assured that this falls within the scope of the Bill.

This is a power that local authorities urgently need to prevent the undue proliferation of gambling premises. On Monday, in the other place, the Minister from MHCLG, in a Written Answer, extolled the virtues of cumulative impact assessments to tackle these issues. She said:

“We will introduce Cumulative Impact Assessments when parliamentary time allows”.


The Bill provides the parliamentary time, and the amendment can deliver what the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister and the Government say that they want.

I am more than happy to accept that the Minister may say there are some technical deficiencies with the amendment. I genuinely do not think there are. But if that is her response, and if she is willing to agree to have a meeting to discuss it before Third Reading, I assure her that I will not delay the House and will be willing later to withdraw the amendment. At this stage, to enable the debate, I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister also send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman?

[Noble Lords]

Lady Hayman.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Sorry, Lady Hayman. The noble Baroness is always an ally on the topic of small businesses, which is the subject of my Amendment 121G; I will concentrate on this rather than on gambling premises, which are also considered in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, spoke with great eloquence, for which I thank him.

I tabled Amendment 121G following our discussion on Amendment 119. It is an attempt to persuade the Minister to think again. Although it was a late debate, there was considerable support in the House for my attempt in Amendment 119. I continue to prefer that formula and am planning to divide on it; however, this alternative formulation would ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under the Bill gave due consideration to the difficulties often faced by SME developers in engaging with the planning system. Such businesses, spread across the country, could make a much larger contribution to the Government’s house- building target of 1.5 million homes. The achievement of this target is going backwards—as we know from the leaked letter sent by the Home Builders Federation to the OBR—with productivity, which I care a lot about, also adversely affected.

Small entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country. If they are freed up, as we recommended in the cross-party report by the Built Environment Committee on demand for housing, they can make a huge difference. The difficulties that they face have meant that, in the past 30 years or so, the share of smaller operators in housing has officially declined from 39% to 10%; actually, I heard from a noble Lord last week that it has now declined to a new low of 9%.

The good news is that there seems to be a wide measure of agreement that we must reverse this trend. I believe that we must use the Bill to make things easier. My new amendment, to which it may be easier for the Government to agree, would introduce a duty to reduce the difficulties faced when engaging in the planning process, but it would do so in planning guidance. This would leave the Minister much more room for manoeuvre than my previous amendment did. It would ultimately be for MHCLG Ministers to decide how best to achieve the shift towards SMEs, and to translate that into guidance, but we must have in the Bill a reference to reducing barriers for SMEs if such businesses and their charitable counterparts are to start resuming their historical place in housing.

The changes in the site size thresholds working paper, which the Minister referenced, are generally welcome. However, we need something more concrete to deliver the crucial diversification of housing. For example, perhaps we could have an SME target for local authorities, Homes England and/or Natural England—or some other means; that can be decided on later—but a reference to the SME mission, which the Government purport to support, is needed because, in Whitehall and among these bodies, there is limited support for small businesses. I know this from my long career in dealing with all of them.

As noble Lords know, I am passionate about reducing barriers for SMEs. Referring to this in the Bill is, I believe, the way to inject more competition, diversity and enterprise into the sector. SME building in small developments is good for community cohesion, local employment and, above all, growth. It is extraordinary that there is nothing in the Bill to promote it. I hope that the Minister will be willing to agree to amend the guidance accordingly, either in a formal undertaking to the House—going beyond the consultations that are going on—or through a government amendment. She would gain many plaudits, and I encourage her to think again.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak solely to Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, to which I have attached my name. The noble Lord has already introduced it eloquently and powerfully, but I want to add a bit of context and a little more information to what he said.

The context is that, at the Treasury Select Committee yesterday—it was, of course, talking about taxing gambling rather than licensing it; none the less, this is a relevant comment—the head of the Betting and Gaming Council was asked about the social ills of gambling. She said that there is no social ill and that the industry is doing

“everything that it possibly can in order to mitigate any harms that may be caused by our products”.

I would suggest that that testimony is either not honest or is astonishingly, unbelievably ignorant. What the industry is doing is everything possible to make money. We have an extreme inequality of arms. You have the industry, and then you have local authorities—particularly those in deprived areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said—that cannot do anything to stop the social ill and the damage that they can see being done.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

119: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning process: duty to consider small and medium-sized enterprises(1) When discharging any duty under this Act relating to planning and development, the people and bodies in subsection (2) must—(a) have regard to the fact that small and medium-sized enterprises may in practice face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process, and(b) consider whether such barriers can be removed or reduced.(2) The people and bodies are—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) mayors,(c) local authorities,(d) Natural England, and(e) all other people and bodies with duties under this Act.(3) In this section, “small and medium-sized enterprises” are companies with fewer than 250 employees involved in the design, application for planning consent or construction of between one and nine residential dwellings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this Act pay consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have tried to get a reference to SMEs in the Bill and I thank everybody who has supported me. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, Amendment 119 is workable, but I know the system and, if we pass it, the Government with the help of parliamentary counsel will amend it suitably. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on this important amendment.