Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Therefore, the amendment requires a transparent calculation and budgeting process, accountability for how these large sums are spent, and the timely return of unspent funds to their rightful owners, rather than them being pocketed by Natural England. The amendment would thereby prevent such temptations being placed in the path of Natural England—the temptation that my recent discussions with it already suggest it may be succumbing to.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who had to go back to Cornwall this afternoon, I speak to his Amendment 301A, which is very simple and straightforward. It basically makes the point that the money that the developers pay should go to the schemes that they are expecting to come to fruition and should not be used by the Government, as too often happened in the past, to reduce the core funding of the department or, in particular, that of Natural England.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was hoping that the Minister might be able to give from the Dispatch Box some reassurances that that would not be the case, and equally—although I know the Government cannot ring-fence—that the Treasury will not try to claw back any of the additional money that has gone to Natural England for funding of the delivery of the EDP, when developers had given it in good faith.

The noble Lord very much wanted to support Amendment 309, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. I do so too—and not just because I am a resident of Surrey.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, we are really getting under the bonnet here, looking at the minutiae of the EDP, and we are missing the bigger picture.

I speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on Amendment 307A, and Amendment 256, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. We find ourselves in this situation because the organisations with the statutory duties, powers, staff, income and systems to clean up our rivers, in so far as nutrient neutrality is concerned, have not been doing so. Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the water companies in particular and the drainage boards are all in scope. They have got their job, but they have not been doing it.

I am concerned about the levy. We are talking about how we are going to charge this levy, but we are not really talking about where the money is coming from to deliver the EDPs. In effect, Part 3 lets these statutory undertakings off the hook. Instead, it falls to those people who do not have the powers or responsibilities, such as councils and local developers. If my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was in her place, I am sure she would intervene and tell us that it will also fall to the small builders and small companies that spend money in local supply chains and so on. Here, we have the ultimate moral hazard; it is the reward for failure.

I do not deny that the costs of these EDPs could be apportioned appropriately across the canvas that is required for the purposes of the EDP and in proportion to the number of units it is going to sell. However, I am disappointed that the Bill does not require those with the responsibilities—Defra, the Environment Agency and so forth—to have the first pull. It is an omission, and one we should place on the record and return to later on Report.

I want to question the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He talks about the surplus. In a previous group, I explained how I have been involved in this for some time. There will be no surplus, because we are talking about 80-year tail liabilities. The money that is ponied up front to deliver an environmental improvement is going to have to be jam-spread over 80 years, in the case of nutrient neutrality, or 30 years, in the case of biodiversity net gain, and whatever other regulations come along. We are not going to know whether there is enough money in the kitty until year 79. I do not think this is fully understood.

Other noble Lords in previous groups have given numbers. Earlier, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke about £1,900 versus £2,300, and he was concerned—on the current account, if you like, or this year’s P&L—what the extra margin might be. But there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of how the accountancy works. That is why I wanted to explain it in an earlier group, and why I will talk about it in a later group when we get to private involvement. We need to have proper accounting standards for how we will approach accounting for these 80-year tail liabilities.

Nevertheless, until we do, when we are setting this levy it should be on the basis that those who are required to and paid to do this work should carry the first burden. Otherwise, small family building businesses will be cross-subsidising the large water companies which raise business water rates and should be upgrading their own sewage plants. Instead, the owners and purchasers of new homes—young families trying to get their foot on the ladder—are, in effect, going to be cross-subsidising. EDPs should be explicit in asking those who are paid and have the duty to do this work to do it first, and then, if there is any requirement left over thereafter, that has to be apportioned to the developers and, in due course, passed on to the purchasers of new homes.

In this group we have really only scratched the surface as regards the costs, accountancies and financial models. We need to do a lot more work on this, otherwise the money will run out in year 42 or 52. It does not really matter when, because we are not going to get to year 80, and, in the meantime, the costs of EDP and annual inspections, renewals and accountancy and everything else have not been factored in at all. This is not at all straightforward. As we get to Report, we will have to dig much more deeply into who pays, who should pay, and how we are going to value these tail liabilities. It is almost an actuarial problem. Until we do that, there will be no money to go back to anybody.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I also support all the amendments in this group, which I think would support the Government’s stated aim to help nature in this Bill by making sure that the places that we build for humans at least minimise harm to wildlife and, in the case of swift bricks, actually help it.

I speak to Amendment 225 in my name and thank the noble Lords who have also put their names to it and support it. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on bird-safe design of buildings and to ensure that new buildings and significant changes to existing but not exempted heritage buildings incorporate this guidance as far as is practicable. Incorporating this amendment would not only bring the United Kingdom into alignment with what is seen in other jurisdictions around the world but would make the UK the first to introduce national bird safety legislation, which is something that could provide a welcome positive message for the Government to project.

I know that there are broader environmental concerns with the Bill, which we shall come on to later tonight, but the potential positive effects of this single amendment are enormous. Remember that the number of birds thought to be killed by flying into glass in buildings in the UK is over 30 million per year. The problems are simple. First, birds cannot see glass. Clear glass or glass that is reflecting nearby trees or sky is a hazard. Secondly, at night, artificial lighting, particularly in tall buildings, can disorientate migrating birds, making them end up circling the lights until they are exhausted and crash into a building.

The solutions are also simple, well researched and legislated for in many places. I have been able to base the wording of this amendment on that in many other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, which has mandated bird-safe standards since 2011, Washington DC, New York, Portland in Oregon, Toronto, Calgary, Hesse and Zurich. There are also bird-safe design guides based on 40 years’ worth of research that can provide an easy reference from the United States, Canada and Singapore. We have experts in the UK too. They all agree on some simple features of buildings to avoid—essentially, ones that make it look as though a bird can fly through safely to reach sky or a perch in a tree, but where there is actually a sheet of lethal glass. These can be removed through thoughtful architectural design, or you can use bird-safe glass. That is simply glass that is made visible to birds, either through patterns that we can also see or through patterns that reflect ultraviolet, which are invisible to us but visible to birds.

Research has shown that specific patterns, such as lines no thinner than two millimetres, spaced no wider than 50 millimetres apart, can effectively stop a bird flying into glass—a more than 90% reduction in collisions in tests. These test centres can therefore certify bird-safe glass, and there are many designs available from different manufacturers, including the UK’s Pilkington glass, which has a certified variety.

Then there is night-time lighting. Many cities around the world now have lights-out times. Even New York’s Twin Towers memorial beams get switched off for periods during bird migrations to help birds escape their fatal attraction. In the UK, awareness of this problem and its simple solutions is surprisingly low compared to North America. Experts I have spoken to around the world were delighted to hear from me, because they think of Britain as being so far behind in bird-safe buildings despite a world-leading status in so much animal welfare research and legislation. This amendment could put us back as global leaders in having the first national bird safety legislation, it would help put the Bill in line with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, as the Animal Sentience Committee has already pointed out, and it could save tens of millions of birds every year.

As for the cost, producing guidelines is easy, as I say, given the plethora of sources already available. Bird-safe architectural design is also easy once you know the guidelines. In a double win, many of the coatings and shades that help make glass less dangerous to birds also help with thermal issues and energy efficiency in glass buildings. The regulations on night-time lighting could help energy efficiency too. The cost of glass varies depending on specifications, but manufacturers that I have spoken to estimate that, at the moment, the cost of bird-safe glass in commercial buildings is about 5% more than normal glass and about 10% more for a domestic glazing unit, but all have said that those costs would come down quickly with scale. Not only that, but bird-safe glass apparently used to be made here in the UK, with 90% of it exported to projects in China, Europe and North America, driven by their legislation. With the market mainly being overseas, manufacturers have now mostly moved from the UK to Germany to follow demand, but could return if we caught up with global bird-safe legislation.

Amendment 225 seems to me an example of the much sought after win-win. Putting it into this Bill, alongside others in this group, would help demonstrate the Government’s stated commitment to helping nature and nature recovery, alongside helping British businesses and not slowing down any housebuilding. I very much hope that the Minister will agree.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Grender, I will speak to her Amendment 338. I am grateful, as I am sure she would be if she were here, for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. This is a debate where I think we are going to have unanimity around the House; we on these Benches agree with all the amendments in this group. I will make a few swift points about the specifics of the amendment from my noble friend, which is about homes for nature at the same time as homes for people; it would amend building regulations to protect biodiversity in all new developments.

If we are to have homes where nature can live, feed and breed, we will have to take specific measures. I absolutely support what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, articulated so well in moving the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I am not going to talk about swift bricks, which are included in the amendment from my noble friend Lady Grender, but I want to talk about some of the other very much endangered species which it also covers, including bird boxes, bat boxes and hedgehog highways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 253 in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give me some comfort as to the Government’s intention towards the private schemes—after all, the Minister and I were both involved in the Environment Bill when it was going through. We set up a system where people were making 30-year commitments to look after a piece of land properly, and now the whole system appears to have been turned on its head. No one knows what its future is, nor whether they should be going ahead with the schemes that they have put together to provide the biodiversity net gain where it cannot be provided on the site.

One farm owned by my local council is entirely suitable for restoration of the best quality chalk grassland, but the scheme is dead in the water. Nobody knows what the Government’s intentions are. Will this be viable? When we get EDPs, will everything be undermined by Natural England doing it itself? Will there be a role for the private sector in this area? Nothing is certain any more.

When you set out to get people involved for 30 years, there really ought to be an understanding on both sides of the House that the 30 years should be respected and that we should try to keep things stable for that length of time. Can the Government give me, and the people I find myself talking to, a real understanding of what their intentions are with respect to all that the private sector has done to date and might do in the future? What direction are we setting out in and what comfort can the Government give that it is worthwhile for the sector continuing to do what it has started to do? I should be very grateful to hear.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. We cannot think about EDPs in splendid isolation. It is important that we as a Committee look at the wider context, including biodiversity net gain, that the EDPs will slot into. In that regard, it is incredibly important that, before we get to Report, the Government make clear their response to the consultation that they launched on biodiversity net gain, which closed before recess. If the Government were to decide to significantly change biodiversity net gain for the smaller sites that are up for grabs, it would have hugely detrimental impacts for the environment. It is important for us to know that before Report, so that we can then think about other amendments we might wish to bring forward.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 261 is to be considered in this group. Specifically, it would require that an EDP must pay not just regard but due regard to the local nature recovery strategy that has been published by the appropriate public authorities for that area.

This matters. We have been on this journey, right across the country. I genuinely believe that, rather than the EDPs we are debating, the local nature recovery strategies will be the building blocks of how we rescue nature in this country. The reason for that is that local people know what is going on, and have a sense of the relationship between place and their community, and there are powers in local government to consider not only planning decisions but other aspects of infrastructure that come together towards it. By and large, across our country, the local nature recovery strategies are being made at county level, though that is not true in every geographic county. There are some unitary councils—such as Northamptonshire, though I cannot remember the reason now—where they are split in two, which is somewhat sad.

Nature knows no boundaries of administrative convenience of how councils are determined. Building on the Lawton principles, which will be absolutely vital in trying to ensure that we have nature recovery, it is important that public authorities at the higher level—key to this is that it is the upper tier, not the lower tier, that tends to do the planning—have due regard to the discussions about what has been put in place. That will have already gone through extensive consultation, as is happening right now, right around the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses concerns that EDPs, as drafted in this Bill and despite the welcome improvements offered by the Government, create considerable unease over their effectiveness and the timeliness with which they will be developed to address the harm being done elsewhere.

Amendment 235A in my name recognises that 10 years is a blink of an eye in environmental terms. It might take only days to destroy a natural environment, but it takes decades to restore it and centuries to return to a more natural state. In our environment, the fastest-maturing native trees take over 30 years to mature and the slowest take over a century. Likewise, it can take decades to restore a blanket bog or peatland.

My Amendment 235B suggests 30 years as the appropriate timeframe for an EDP. The advantage of 30 years, as opposed to 10, is simply that this is a proxy for our own generational timing; that in itself is appealing, but this is also consistent with biodiversity net gain units. I fail to understand why 10 years has been regarded as appropriate for EDPs, and I look forward to the Minister explaining why this should be so. In that regard, I prefer this to Amendment 236 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. However, his Amendment 234 is a sensible measure that would ensure there is a coincidence in the timing of the EDP and the commencement of the development.

One of the concerns expressed by developers is the reputational risk they carry if they are undertaking a development which has included the NRL as its environmental contribution, but there is no evidence of the EDP associated with that development occurring. I am sure the Minister can understand this concern and will be keen to ensure that developers do not carry that reputational risk to the actions or lack of action by Natural England.

I hope the Minister can reassure us in her reply to this short debate that these concerns are being addressed. However, there is a strong case that these issues should be dealt with in the Bill, rather than relying on guidance that can change over time. The obligations around timeliness and effectiveness of EDPs are simply too loose in the Bill.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will speak to his Amendment 265, which has a notable similarity to Amendment 237 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. If the noble Lord were here, I am sure he would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for co-signing the amendment, as I did.

Amendment 265 deals with one of the fundamental concerns that we have with EDPs: the issue of timing. As it currently stands, if you have to engage with the habitats regulations or biodiversity net gain, remedial measures have to take effect before the developments are undertaken. In contrast, that is not the case for the EDPs. There is the fundamental question: what happens if the desired mitigation measures, as outlined in EDPs, do not happen? They might not happen for a number of reasons; for example, because some of the money may not come in from the developers—they have the right to appeal, as we have heard in earlier debates—or because not enough developers sign up for an EDP and therefore not all the measures can be delivered. In that case, you do not get enough of a quantitative biodiversity gain to deliver the mitigation measures for what may have already taken place in a site that has already been damaged.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, does two things. First, it calls for an implementation schedule for an EDP, and I believe that the Minister, in summing up, will say whether government Amendment 245A partly addresses that by promising an implementation schedule. However, I have not seen anything from the government amendments that deals with the more fundamental issue that the remedial measures for an EDP do not come until after the damage has been done. Secondly, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, says that, if Natural England believes that there will be irreversible damage, those measures have to be undertaken before the damage is caused. That is the issue on which we are seeking some reassurances from the Minister this morning, and if we do not get them, I am sure that we will return to it on Report.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I will very briefly speak to my Amendment 237. I apologise to the Committee; I had not realised just how similar my amendment was to the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and to which my noble friend has just spoken. My noble friend made all the arguments that I was going to make. I absolutely agree there is a risk here, and I think the Committee wants further reassurance. It is a real worry to lots of people that this damage can be done before mitigation measures are put in place. Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is probably better worded than my own, so I will likely not press my amendment between now and Report. These are important issues, and we seek further reassurance on these matters. Without that, I am sure that an amendment doing this will come up on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 250 is an important clarifying measure that would ensure that, when Natural England seeks to impose planning conditions as part of an EDP, they must be directly related to developments that fall within the scope of that EDP. This addresses an important point of legal and procedural clarity. Without such a safeguard, there is a risk that conditions could be sought or imposed on developments beyond the defined remit of the EDP, which could lead to regulatory uncertainty and potential challenge.

By linking conditions strictly to developments within the EDP’s scope, this amendment would protect against regulatory overreach and maintain the principle of proportionality, ensuring that developers are subject only to conditions that are relevant, necessary and reasonable. This is not about restricting environmental protections but about ensuring that they are applied fairly and transparently, thereby supporting the credibility of the planning system and maintaining public trust.

Briefly, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 238 to 240 would sharpen the focus of EDPs by requiring that all relevant environmental features are identified and that the nature of any direct impact is properly addressed. This is not simply a drafting improvement; it is about ensuring the robustness and accountability of the system that we are creating.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her Amendments 240A and 251A. These would be important improvements in the Bill.

This short debate has highlighted that further tightening and improvement is still needed in this clause, despite the Government’s welcome amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond encouragingly.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will introduce Amendment 266, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, is somewhat surprisingly in this grouping. It seeks to ensure that the EDP delivers a significant improvement in the ecology of a habitat, a species or an ecosystem.

I think that the Minister will say, with some justification, that government Amendment 247A in this group addresses this by making it clear that Natural England can do this EDP only if it can contribute to a significant environmental improvement. We welcome that, but I want to press the Minister a bit further on how Natural England will make the judgment that it will deliver a significant environmental improvement. How will it ensure that the information it uses is robust? The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has been concerned in debates that I have heard her speak in about whether the modelling that it uses will be sufficient. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned earlier, nature does not always behave as modelling might suggest. How will Natural England make that judgment?

If the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was here, I am sure he would thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Whitty, for supporting this amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. I begin by speaking to the government amendments in this group, Amendments 246A, 247A and 258B.

In providing flexibility through this new model, the Government have been careful to ensure that these flexibilities are used only where this supports the delivery of better environmental outcomes. That is at the heart of the new approach. Government amendments 246A, 247A and 258B relate to the use of network measures, making it explicit that Natural England can deliver network measures only where it considers that it would make a greater contribution to the improvement of the environmental feature in question than measures that address the impact of development locally. Crucially, network measures could never be used where to do so would result in the loss of an irreplaceable habitat. This would inherently not pass the overall improvement test, because the very essence of irreplaceable habitat is that it cannot be replaced elsewhere.

I turn to the non-government amendments, and first to those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Amendments 238, 239 and 240 seek to require an EDP to highlight all the environmental features which may be affected by development and state what the environmental impacts on the environmental feature would be. The Government have been clear that we wish to use EDPs to take a targeted approach to address the impacts of development on specific environmental features. Under this approach, an EDP could be brought forward that addresses the impact on one or more environmental feature, with conservation measures brought forward to address the impact on the identified feature. In response to the question of the noble Lord regarding the wording, this means that any features that are not identified which are covered by the EDP would then need to be considered and addressed under the existing system.

I understand the points that he is making, but the proposed amendment would then require EDPs to be comprehensive in identifying and addressing all the impacts of development on all environmental features. This was never the Government’s intention, as it would add considerable burden to the creation and delivery of EDPs. By taking a targeted approach, we can put EDPs in place to address the specific issues that benefit from the strategic approach. This will unlock development and secure better environmental outcomes. Expanding EDPs in the way proposed by these amendments would result in slowing down delivery and prevent EDPs being used in the targeted way that the Government have envisaged.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 146 and speak to Amendment 354 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough. Amendment 146 would require spatial development strategies to list any rivers and streams within their areas, to outline specific measures to protect them from environmental harm, and to impose a clear responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments. Amendment 354 would designate a river or stream as a protected site. Amendment 147, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, similarly requires spatial development strategies to specifically identify chalk streams within their areas.

Amendment 152ZA, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, seeks to ensure that animal welfare is explicitly considered when spatial development strategies are produced. This amendment responds directly to the concerns raised by the Government’s Animal Sentience Committee in its June letter to Ministers, which highlighted that the Bill as drafted does not pay due regard to the welfare of sentient animals. It is crucial that our planning framework acknowledge and integrate animal welfare as a key consideration alongside environmental protections.

These amendments are vital. They recognise the urgent need for bespoke protections for our rivers and chalk streams, which are not only key environmental assets but are deeply woven into our national heritage. I am grateful to see many noble Lords across the Committee expressing the same concerns and recognising the unique value of these precious water courses.

I will also speak briefly to Amendments 148 and 150, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 178, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Amendments 148 and 150 seek to ensure that spatial development strategies include explicit policies to protect chalk streams and take proper account of local wildlife sites. Amendment 178 would ensure that local plans align with the land use framework and local nature recovery strategies. Chalk streams are not merely beautiful and iconic features of our landscape; they are symbols of our natural and cultural heritage. Often described as England’s rainforests, they are globally rare, ecologically rich and uniquely vulnerable, yet they face increasing threats from development pressures, pollution, over-abstraction and the escalating impacts of climate change.

Tragically, none of England’s rivers, including our chalk streams, currently meets the standard of good overall ecological health. This Bill offers a significant opportunity to embed the bespoke protections identified by the CaBA Chalk Stream Restoration Strategy directly into our planning system—protections that these rare waterways so desperately need. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill should ensure that growth is paired with stringent protections for these vital habitats, especially given that, across the south and east of England, chalk streams are already heavily impacted by over-abstraction and wastewater outflows.

In conclusion, can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the Environment Agency’s 2024 event duration monitoring dataset, particularly regarding the role of chalk streams in achieving the Environment Act’s targets to restore our precious waterbodies? I look forward to her response, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 147 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and Amendment 148 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, both of which deal with the issue of chalk streams, which has been well touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I give the apologies of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who is unavoidably in Papua New Guinea on a diocesan link meeting. If he were here, I know that he would wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support for his amendment.

There are many noble Lords in this Committee who know a lot about chalk streams. It was interesting to hear the Minister last week say that she knows about them because she has a chalk stream in Stevenage. They are globally significant, and their pristine water conditions and stable temperature are home to some of our most endangered species, including water voles, the long-clawed crayfish and kingfishers, so they really need our protection. I will not go into the issue of where the protections come from, because that was covered so well by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

When this issue was raised in the Commons, the Minister said that these additional protections were unnecessary. I contend that that is the wrong approach. The reasons the Minister gave in the Commons for it being unnecessary to have these additional protections in spatial development strategies were, first, that protection was provided in local nature recovery strategies. For those of us who are familiar with chalk streams, we know that they cross counties, and local nature recovery strategies are specific to individual areas. LNRSs therefore cannot deliver the protection that chalk streams need to cover that cross-county boundary.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

164: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Local planning authority duty: statutory environment and climate change targetsIn the exercise of any of its planning or development functions, a local planning authority must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute to Environment Act and Climate Change Act targets.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for supporting me in this amendment, which would give a statutory duty to local authorities to promote climate change and nature recovery targets. It would specifically ensure that planning decisions actively supported climate adaptation, mitigation and nature recovery, thereby helping us to deliver our legally binding targets for net zero and the restoration of biodiversity.

We know that local authorities play a fundamentally important role in meeting our net-zero and nature restoration targets, because planning decisions fundamentally determine where infrastructure goes. We have to think not just about houses but about transport, which is responsible for half of our climate change emissions in the UK. Our land use determines whether we are providing the necessary homes for nature.

It is not just us making this case: the Climate Change Committee in its report to Parliament last year argued strongly that net-zero objectives should be consistently prioritised in planning decisions. Many businesses have been arguing for some time for a statutory duty in this regard, in order to provide policy certainty and encourage the necessary investment in net-zero and nature recovery objectives.

When the Government produced its Statement on the climate and nature crisis on 14 July, Ed Miliband said that

“the actions we need are not just about Government, we are also determined to help communities take climate and nature action in their own area … supporting mayors and local government to accelerate action”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/25; col. 31.] 

This amendment would do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We believe that what is already there is specific and offers clarity. It is fundamental to the planning regime that we want to bring in. If the noble Lord wants, I can write to him in greater detail about what is on offer here.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister at least for the consistency of his reply with that given in the Commons. I thank all other noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made the point well: time is not on our side, and local authorities have a critical part to play in meeting our net-zero targets. The Government cannot do it on their own and we as individuals wanting to drive electric cars cannot do it if local authorities have not put in place plug points or if the houses are in the wrong places. They are pivotal. At some point, you have to start creating the overall conditions to show that the Government and local government are acting in partnership to achieve the legally binding targets which this Government are signed up to and which I am sure they wish to keep to.

To pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, what will this Government do if the big local authorities start refusing to take these responsibilities seriously? They will have no chance of getting to the targets that they want to achieve and which this country needs unless they start biting the bullet now and putting some target statutory duties in, as the previous Government gave local authorities statutory duties to promote growth. Without that, they will not get there. I ask them urgently to think again on this. I suspect that we may well return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 164 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Climate change is not going to go away. Any new housing that is going to be built should be good quality, well-designed and aesthetically pleasing and, with relevance to these three amendments, it needs to be future-proofed to ensure resilience going forward. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I support all three amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, has brought forward. But for brevity, I am going to address my remarks to only one of them. The Private Member’s Bill she referred to when talking about her Amendment 117 was brought to the House by a Liberal Democrat Member, Max Wilkinson.

I particularly want to address the issue of rainwater harvesting. As the noble Baroness rightly said, there is an ecological issue already with us; there is insufficient water because of the changes in our weather patterns from climate change. But if the Government are not prepared to listen to those reasons, then surely from an economic point of view this amendment makes perfect sense.

First, we are already facing housing developments not being built because of water shortages, and secondly, if the Government want to get the large number of new data centres introduced, they are going to need a heck of a lot more water. It has been estimated that the large data centres use the equivalent of 50,000 homes- worth of water a day. Unless we use every single means at our disposal to utilise water properly, we are not going to be able to build the homes or the data centres that we want, so we need to look at measures such as this right now.

Some noble Lords might say that the public would not like the idea of using rainwater harvesting in their own homes. However, a recent survey by Public First asked 4,000 UK residents that question, and there was overwhelming support for the use of rainwater harvesting, both outside in people’s gardens and inside their homes for flushing the loo or using the washing machine—as the noble Baroness has said.

It is not just the noble Baroness, me and others who are making the case for rainwater harvesting. In Jon Cunliffe’s recent independent review of the future of the water industry, he made a specific recommendation about the need for rainwater harvesting to be addressed urgently. During the repeat of the Statement on the Independent Water Commission in this House on 23 July, I asked the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—whether the Government would not wait for the proposed water Bill to pick up Jon Cunliffe’s recommendation but rather look at opportunities like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to bring forward changes to building regulations so that rainwater harvesting could be mandated on new homes.

The Minister, somewhat surprisingly, immediately thought that this was a good idea—I do not often get such positive responses from the Front Bench opposite—and promised to take the matter forward and discuss it with the Minister for Water. I hope that, when the Minister responds to these amendments, she can show the House that those discussions have taken place, that the Government are taking the issue of rainwater harvesting seriously and that there will be a mandate to change building regulations.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Parminter, and to offer support for Amendment 115, to which I attach my name, and for the general intention of Amendments 116 and 117. In the interests of time, I will restrict myself to Amendment 115.

I do not often take your Lordships’ House back to my Australian origins, but as this amendment has come up, I really have to. I am going back about 35 years to a place called Quirindi in north-west New South Wales. Somewhere out on the internet there is a photo of me sitting on a horse in a field, or paddock as we would say, that is dead flat and dead dry, without a blade of grass on it—that is Quirindi.

As an agricultural science student, I remember the farmer explaining how to live there. He took me out the back to the water tank, which was a very large tank that caught the water off the farmhouse roof. There was no town water in Australian farming, so that entire operation and household depended on the water that they caught off the roof. I still remember the farmer rapping on the side of the tin tank and saying, “That’s where the water is; we’re in trouble”.

Noble Lords might think, “Oh, that’s Australia—that’s far away; that’s a very distant place”. Quirindi has an annual average rainfall of 684 millimetres a year. There are parts of south-east England that have an annual rainfall of 700 millimetres a year, which is essentially the same amount. There is also the impact of the climate emergency and the fact that we are seeing more weather extremes and more drying out.

There is something Britain can learn from the Australian practices that have been enforced over history and that can be imported here for a win-win benefit. No one loses from the proposal in Amendment 115. As I think has already been mentioned, we in the UK use about 150 litres of water a day per capita. That compares with France, which uses 128; Germany, which uses 122; and Spain, which uses 120. This is expensively treated drinking water that we are using for all kinds of practices that we do not need to use drinking water for.

I am going to quote Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust:

“We also need to finally implement the use of rainwater rather than drinking water where we can, such as car washing, gardening, washing pets, filling paddling pools, and flushing the loo. Other water-stressed countries have used this approach for decades and we need to join that party.”


I really stress the “party” element. I do not think we have mentioned the issue of flooding yet. Many of us have been speaking about the need for land management to slow the flow. What could be a better way to slow the flow than to catch that water so that it is not flooding out into our drains, water treatment plants, rivers and seas and so that we can have it available for use?

Often, when we talk about water use, there is a lot of finger-waving: “People should switch the tap off when they’re brushing their teeth and people should have shorter showers”. But what we really need is a system change that makes doing the right thing the easiest, cheapest, simplest and most natural thing to do. That is exactly what this proposal is putting forward. So this is a win-win all round: for householders, cutting their bills; for preventing flooding; for protecting the environment; and for saving energy—we do not think about this much, but moving water around and treating water uses a great deal of energy. I looked up the stats, and we do not seem to have any good stats in the UK, but globally, the United Nations says that 8% of energy use goes towards treating and moving water. That is such a waste when you have water falling on your roof that you can use right there in place. Pumping it out to a reservoir, treating it and pumping it back in—all that uses energy. This is a common-sense measure; why on earth not?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I will contain my remarks to Part 3 of this Bill, which rips up the current planning rules that have, for decades, ensured that the environmental outcomes of developments have been taken into account. In their place, the Government are saying great things about their proposals: that they will speed up the planning process; that they will deliver the homes we need; and that they will restore nature through this overall improvement test. To my mind, however, the proposals in Part 3 will allow developers to buy out of their obligations and will dismantle the environmental protections that we have had in favour of some vague promise that Natural England will somehow make the situation better in the long term.

Worryingly, as it stands, the Bill will get rid of three fundamental environmental governance structures. It will get rid of the precautionary principle that we do not allow environmental destruction until we know exactly what is going to be lost; with the proposals, we will move straight to buying offsets elsewhere. It will lose the mitigation hierarchy, which many other noble Lords have raised as being of great concern—not just because we need first to move to ensure that we avoid harm but because the mitigation hierarchy has been the means for, when you cannot always avoid harm, improving the area around. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, said, we need planning to help build green spaces into communities.

With the new proposals, under which you can go straight ahead without worrying about mitigation moving to support an EDP, these EDPs could be anywhere in the country. As it stands, the Bill does not say that they have to be in the same locality, and Natural England confirmed today that it does not know how many EDPs there will be or where they are going to be. For example, we could have planning applications in Burnley but the EDPs could be down in heathlands in Dorset. The Minister is looking at me—I hope that she will be able to clarify in her final remarks that there is no guarantee in this Bill about how many EDPs there are going to be or when they will come forward in the next timeframe. This is an extremely worrying point that I do not think has been picked up fully yet this evening; I am glad to have had the opportunity to make it. We need to look at this issue seriously.

The third main environmental governance tool that is disappearing is the “polluter pays” principle. In the past, people paid up front for the amount of pollution and destruction that they were responsible for. Now, there will be a fixed fee, paid at some point in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, there is even an economic viability opt-out in the Bill. Those of us who have sat on planning committees for a long time know just how much the economic viability clause has in the past prevented social housing being built in developments. We are facing the same prospect happening here with environmental projects.

I am not opposed to strategic landscape-scale nature recovery—we all know that it can have benefits—but not for irreplaceable habitats and species. I am not going to revisit that point, because others have made it so well.

What particularly worries me about these proposals is that it is the Secretary of State at DCLG who is going to determine whether these EDPs are strong enough to outweigh the harm undertaken by the developments. In the Bill, it is not that they have to; it just says that they will determine whether it is “likely” that they will outweigh the harm. That is not strong enough. Nor does the Bill say anything about the Secretary of State having to look at scientific evidence—to make sure that the decisions are robust—that can give us any form of confidence or certainty that the environmental losses we are having to take up front will be mitigated for in the future.

This Government are saying that the environmental regulations need to be changed because planning needs to be speeded up. Other Members have said why environmental regulations have not been the cause of those delays. In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, made the very important point that this new system will create uncertainty, which will be legally tested. Part 3 will deliver more uncertainty, while stopping the Government delivering on their legally binding environmental targets. We need more quality affordable homes, but we also need homes for nature.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I shall speak to my amendment, Amendment YYZB, to which the Minister offered her support. It proposes two brief additions to the new clause proposed in Amendment 247YY, prompted out of concern about the wording of the clause we are being asked to approve.

I make it clear that this amendment is a probing one only. I very much regret—this follows a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben—that we are being asked to deal with this at such short notice at Report, particularly in view of the importance of the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Moylan. This is a great misfortune, because we should really be dealing with this in the ordinary way in Committee, when we have the freedom to propose and discuss amendments and improve their wording stage by stage. We are faced with a measure produced at Report, and my amendment is an attempt to probe and draw attention to defects, not to cure a basic defect in the way the whole process is being handled.

My wording, and the points I have mentioned in my amendment, have been reinforced by what was said by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in paragraph 9 of its report: that the power proposed to be given to the Secretary of State by this clause is

“subject to little by way of constraint”.

That is a generous understatement, I suggest. It is a broad, open Henry VIII clause. In its full vigour as it stands, it lacks any requirement for consultation or any indication of the criteria that must be satisfied in this highly sensitive subject.

There is one other aspect of this clause that I, as one who believes in the quality and integrity of the legislation we are asked to approve, find very disturbing. This is a very controversial subject that has been worked through already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, pointed out in her reference to the Environment Act. The question raised in my mind when I saw that we were dealing with the whole issue of nutrients in water was, “What does the Environment Act say about it?” There is no indication in the Government’s new clause that that Act has been given any thought at all.

Water is dealt with in Part 5 of that Act, and the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to water quality are set out in some detail in Section 89. We find here a set of carefully designed powers that are combined with requirements for consultation before they are exercised. They also take account of the fact that some of England’s rivers flow into or have their source in Wales or Scotland, so there is provision for consultation with the devolved authorities.

There are other safeguards in that Act as well. Section 20 provides for Ministers making Statements to Parliament about Bills making changes to environment law. We have not had that, because of the way this has been handled. Of course, Section 22 provides for the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection, with important regulatory and reporting powers. What disturbs me—I may be mistaken—is that all this seems to have been ignored by the Government in formulating this new clause. It is as if the environment protections, which we spent so much time two years ago discussing in great detail, in an Act which the Government themselves promoted, did not exist. I think that many of us remember the satisfaction we felt when that Act was eventually passed, because we had done such detailed work on improving the Act in the interests of our environment. Yet apparently—and I stress the word “apparently”—it has been ignored.

My amendment seeks in a modest way to meet the point that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee makes in paragraph 11 of its report about the warning by the Office for Environmental Protection. There appears to have been no public consultation prior to the publication of these new measures. The first paragraph of my amendment would require regulations made under this clause to be consistent with what Section 89 of the Environment Act requires, and the second would require consultation.

However, this is a probing amendment, and I will not be moving it when the time comes. The first reason for that is that I support those who argue that this new clause should not form part of the Bill. It is not just a matter of small amendments; it is a much more fundamental objection, as others have made clear. The second is that, quite frankly, I am not confident that my amendment, with its mere reference to Section 89 of the Environment Act, is an accurate way of trying to reconcile the clause with what is in the Environment Act. It requires more careful study, and simply to accept my amendment as the Government propose to do is not the way to deal with it.

I do not suggest, and I never did, that I have the complete answer to this; I simply raise issues for the Government to consider. If the Government succeed in the vote that will take place, then I urge them to consider an amendment along these lines at Third Reading. However, if they bring back the legislation at some later stage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, contemplated, then I very much hope that they will pay attention to the points that my amendment raised.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in the spirit of brevity, I will not speak to the amendments to which I have given my name. However, I would like to address the amendments that the Government have brought forward, which, if accepted, will be a profound change in how we regulate for the environment in this country. To be clear, we are not talking about all water catchments or all houses. We are talking about the most environmentally sensitive sites: those which are home to our curlews, lapwings, and shelducks. These are our internationally and globally significant chalk streams—sites of greatest environmental sensitivity. That is what we are talking about, not the whole country and not all homes.

Here on these Benches, as on other Benches, we recognise the need for more homes. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I took slight exception to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The current situation around nutrient neutrality is not a ban on housebuilding. There is a system whereby, if you wish to build houses in a particular sensitive fresh-water area, you can do so if you buy credits to mitigate the damage you will cause. For example, in Poole harbour, one of our most magnificent sites for wildlife and wetland birds in this country, a proposal came forward to build homes. In 2021, a site of 420 acres was built in Bere Regis to mitigate the damage that would have been caused, and 2,111 homes were built. There is not a ban; there is a system of mitigation where the developers must pay—I will return to this point in a moment—to mitigate the environmental damage they are going to cause.

There may well be problems. It is a system that has been in existence for six years; all of us would accept that it is not perfect. Mitigation credits are not, perhaps, coming on as quickly as they need to. The guidance to local authorities about what is acceptable for mitigation may not be as clear as it needs to be. However, that does not mean that, at the 11th hour, the Government can suddenly throw in an amendment to a Bill. You collaborate; you consult with all the parties; you give adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, I am sure Parliament would accept that.

We have heard a lot this afternoon already about a report which we are going to get from the Built Environment Committee. I will give you something from a report we have already had: the report of my committee, the Environment and Climate Change Committee, which has looked this year at how we will meet our 30 by 30 target, to protect our nature which is in such a dire state. We looked at the habitats regulations, which are what the government amendments will amend. We concluded, on a balance of the evidence, that those habitats regulations should be retained. However, we said that if they were going to be subject to amendment, because there were clearly some teething issues with this scheme, then any changes should not be

“subject to amendment without an appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny or where the protections afforded by the regulations are weakened”.

We can hardly call this process today an appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny. The Office for Environmental Protection has been clear: these government proposals will weaken regulations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I am distraught—I think that is the word I would choose—at how the Government have responded to the clear communication by the OEP, which was set up to be the watchdog for the environment in this country.

Nutrient Neutrality: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

In the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill we address pollution at source by placing a new statutory duty on water companies in designated catchment areas to upgrade wastewater treatment works by 2030. Interestingly enough, the analysis suggests that this will lead to about a 69% reduction in phosphorus loads and around a 57% reduction in nitrogen loads in total from wastewater treatment works across all the affected catchments, reducing a significant source of nutrient pollution and supporting the recovery of habitat sites most affected by this pollution. This is on top of the much wider improvements being driven forward through our plan for water.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, when the Minister introduced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill into this House on 19 December, in accordance with the Environment Act, she made a statement. I quote from the front page of the Bill:

“Baroness Scott of Bybrook has made the following statements under section 20(2)(a) and (3) of the Environment Act 2021 … In my view … the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law”.


Given that, as my noble friend Lord Teverson said, the Government’s statutory watchdog, the OEP, has said that the amendments that she has tabled to this Bill to reduce water quality will demonstrably reduce the environmental protection afforded by current laws and that they are a “regression”, does she stand by her statement?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, I stand by our statement. As I think I have said before, we do not accept that this constitutes a regression on the environmental outcomes and therefore we do not agree with the Office for Environmental Protection, because it took into account the amendments without the mitigation alongside them, as I understand. The package of environmental measures, which are backed by significant additional investment, will more than offset that very small amount of additional nutrient discharge attributed to the development of 100,000 houses between now and 2030. So, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. I stick by what I said because we are mitigating any small amount of additional nutrient discharge.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

182: After Clause 86, insert the following new Clause—
“Local nature recovery strategies(1) A local planning authority must ensure that their development plan (taken as a whole) incorporates such policies and proposals so as to deliver the objectives of the local nature recovery strategy.(2) Any policies or proposals in subsection (1) must be consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s plan making functions.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause sets out the relationship between local nature recovery strategies (LNRSs) and statutory development plans to ensure LNRSs objectives are delivered and aligned with development plans. This is to help secure implementation of Environment Act requirements.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, which have been kindly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, who cannot be here this afternoon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for which I am extremely grateful.

I do not wish to detain the House long by explaining what local nature recovery strategies are; we have been through that in Committee. They are an important new initiative created by this Government to find a mechanism to ensure that we can bring forward the nature recovery we need. However, they will not work unless they have a firm purchase in the local plans and spatial plans and various other constraints of the planning system. That is what the arguments we made throughout Committee were about. Presently, local authorities do not have to sufficiently have regard to them. The amendments we proposed called upon the Government to bring forward legislation which would incorporate the policies and proposals of local nature recovery strategies in local plans.

I am pleased that, over the summer, following much consultation with Ministers and their civil servants, while we may not have come to an accord we have come to a position where the Government have certainly moved more than half way. They are now proposing seven amendments, whereby local authorities “must” take account of local nature recovery strategies in their various plans and proposals. That does not mean they have to incorporate the policies and proposals, but to my mind—and indeed to legal minds—if the local authority plans were to go, for example, to an inspector, the local authority would have to show how they had taken the local nature recovery strategies into account.

I think we have made demonstrable progress. It has not gone as far as I would have liked but I am a politician and I know you do not always get what you want. However, we have in this House made the arguments and the Government have been prepared to listen in a way that they have perhaps not been prepared to, and are not going to be prepared to, on other environmental arguments.

I thank Ministers and their civil servants, who have gone to the trouble of putting together seven amendments to make the intentions of the Government crystal clear. I hope that, when the guidance comes forward to local authorities on how they should implement this new legislation, it is crystal clear that they “must” take account, as the Government’s new wording says, and that we can therefore do what I think both sides of the House want and ensure that local nature recovery strategies have a firm footing in the planning process. We know that without that we will not deliver the environmental gains that we all want. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has set out extremely well why we are keen to make local nature recovery strategies an effective tool for helping the Government hit their legally binding 2030 nature targets.

The noble Baroness quite rightly said that we did not believe that the current requirements for local planning development plans to simply “have regard to” their local nature recovery strategies would be an effective delivery mechanism. A planning authority could disregard all the spatial recommendations of the local nature recovery strategy and still be compliant with the duty. They could simply write that they “had regard to” the local nature recovery strategy without providing any evidence of how it had shaped the substance of their plans.

When we debated this in Committee, the Minister extolled the virtues of the guidance, and the noble Baroness made reference to the forthcoming guidance. But we did have a very good debate, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which highlighted the many omissions of the guidance already published. I will not go over all of that, but there is still a concern about the detail of it, and I hope that it will now reflect this new wording in the Bill.

As I said, and like the noble Baroness, I am grateful for Ministers having had subsequent meetings and for the further consideration of our arguments that has now taken place. The Government’s proposals make it much clearer that all tiers in the planning process must take account of local nature recovery strategies when they make their plans. It is not perfect, but it is a welcome concession. I therefore share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that we should not pursue Amendment 182 at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I am extremely confused about the order we are taking this in, but I understand that the government amendment has to be put. I just want to say one thing: every single time I have a conversation with Ministers or civil servants about the land use framework the Government are preparing, they tell me that local nature recovery strategies are fundamental and central to that. That is why it is important that the government amendment to strengthen the link between local nature recovery strategies and the planning system not only happens but is vigorously pursued and implemented.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I apologise if the order has been a bit wrong; it is just that we are not very used to saying thank you to the Minister. So, I will just sit down and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 182 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, what my noble friend has said is absolutely right; he has said much of what I was going to say. I want to raise one point about what the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, said. It is a point that we ought to consider. She said that some species are thriving better outside national parks than inside them. As I said at great length on the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill, the management system is absolutely crucial. You can have whatever targets or designations you want on our land, but it is the management system within and on that land that will provide the right answer.

There is no doubt that, in the national parks, we can continue to produce food which we need for an expanding population. We can make them more productive and improve biodiversity. But having served on the Rural Economy Committee in your Lordships’ House, I know what a small proportion of the whole rural economy farming is, although it is still the backbone of it. Like my noble friend Lord Lucas, I have sympathy with all three amendments. I am not wedded to their wording but hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to come forward, as he did with our amendment on water, with wording that captures everything we all want but in the right format to make the Bill a better one, and to make our national parks and AONBs the places we would like them to be—but also living communities and not just set in aspic.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, I add our Benches’ support for Amendment 139 and will make three brief points. The first has been touched on by other Members, but I do not think the figures have been set out as strongly as they need to be.

If the Government are to achieve their 30 by 30 target by 2030, which is seven years away, they will have to rapidly increase the amount of protected areas that we have in the UK. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, 25% of our protected areas are national parks and AONBs—15% of them AONBs and 10% national parks. If we do not use the opportunities in those protected landscapes, it is frankly inconceivable that we will be able to get to 30 by 30. We cannot just extrapolate and say that all those areas will be able to equate to the 30 by 30 target, but the strongest increases in purposes will enable the landowners, and people who care for that land, to help move towards that target.

The second issue is connectivity, which the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, touched on. Given the size of the national parks and AONBs, and given the threats to our species and the impacts of climate change, we know that we need more connectivity between our sites. These large areas of our national parks and AONBs offer the best opportunities, if not for 30 by 30 then for providing areas of respite and connectivity for species. I wanted to highlight that point.

My third point has been touched on by other Members and I just want to reiterate it. This amendment gives equal weight to the other existing statutory purposes for national parks and AONBs. It does not say that nature is above the requirements for economic activity in them, which we accept, or above the rights of people to live and work in—and enjoy—a national park, which we accept. It is saying that, at the moment, it is not on a level playing field, and given the nature biodiversity crisis that we have, we need all the statutory purposes to be on a level. We need people to work; we need our farmers; we need people to want to live there.

With the AONB where I am in Surrey, I know how much nature underpins the economic activity and businesses—the food producers and wood crafters. We need all that activity. We are not saying that nature needs to be above that but that, at the moment, as the Government themselves admitted in the Glover review response, the terminology—to conserve and enhance—is not strong enough. That is what the Government said; that it is not strong enough and that they would do something about it. This is the chance to give it that level pegging and this is the Bill to do it in. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, says, if the Minister is not prepared to accept the wording, can he please be clear in explaining why not?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to say how much we support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. We have heard that it would deliver a new focus on nature by implementing the key recommendations from the Glover review of protected landscapes, all of which were previously agreed by the Government. This is an opportunity to move forward on them and I really hope that the Minister can give us some hope that we are going to achieve some of that.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

The point I am trying to make, which I hope the Minister will accept, is that we need to be absolutely certain that proposed new Section 96D(5) is not used as a lever to exempt plants which otherwise should be properly brought up to standard and made compliant with the regulations. I hope the Minister fully understands that I am probing a situation which at the moment is ambiguous and very much a commercial pressure point for the companies operating these plants. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he has heard what has been said will perhaps be able to come back on Report with something accurately reflecting the nature of the debate we are having.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, in her Amendment 390, to which I have added my name. It is a really important amendment as we struggle to meet the Government’s environmental target and our need to build more homes and develop our land. We have to do that in a way that understands there are fundamental environmental problems we need to address, particularly nutrient pollution.

It is clear that we need a statutory underpinning for nature-based solutions because, without that, they are not going to happen. We have evidence of that. You only have to look through previous price reviews, in which Ofwat turned down recommendations from water companies for nature-based solutions because, on a crude cost-benefit analysis, putting in a grey concrete storm tank was a damn sight cheaper than wetlands and various other proposals. If my memory serves me right, Ofwat turned down some very detailed and thoughtful proposals from Anglian Water because of the cost. Unless there is statutory underpinning, Ofwat will just carry on with its usual economic model.

This amendment is an important way of ensuring we get that win-win of nature-based solutions as we seek to address our nutrient pollution problems. It is an elegant way to move forward on the Dasgupta review, which talked about finding new ways to build nature into our economic model. Giving this a statutory underpinning would, as I have just made clear, give Ofwat the confidence to build into its economic models support for nature-based solutions. We know these are going to be fundamental if we are going to get to our 30 by 30 target.

The only thing I want to say, because it is late and so much has been brilliantly said by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is that you would expect us to say this. We are the usual green environmentalists. But I hope the Minister hears that we are also saying that we understand why this is important. We need development, and there is stalemate in many housing developments because the nutrient pollution issues cannot be solved. We are trying to be constructive in resolving that problem. We are not just saying this with our usual green hats on. We realise that this is a tricky issue which needs resolving.

It is not just us in the environmental groups, such as Wildlife and Countryside Link. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee did an excellent report on nature-based solutions recently. Again, this underpins the support for this amendment. The Government’s own environmental improvement plan talks about the benefits of nature-based solutions. If you are going to deliver on your own words, then you should be supporting this.

For me, the most important and powerful thing is that the water companies support this amendment. In addition to the comments made individually to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, Water UK put out a release saying that the water companies want this amendment. It would be wonderful to be able to say that this amendment has been supported on a day when the water companies have said, “Mea culpa”, said sorry for the appalling way that they have handled our sewage problems, and promised that they will put £10 billion-worth of new investment into this area. This would ensure that we get the win-win, both to overcome some of our problems with building the homes we need and to ensure that we get the benefits we need for our hard-pressed nature.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I will come to the various points but, first, I say that I agreed with nearly everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, particularly the quotation from Dasgupta. But her criticism of Ofwat is slightly out of date: I had those arguments with it a decade ago. It liked a bit of concrete and steel then because it could measure water going into it and the quality going out, and it did not trust nature-based solutions because it could not get that degree of measurement of asset value. There has been a sea-change in how we do that, but I agree with her in every other respect.

On this group on nutrient pollution standards, I begin my remarks with Amendment 390. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, and others that we should ensure that water companies deliver this new statutory duty in a timely way. Throughout the delivery of the Water Industry National Environment Programme, the Environment Agency regularly liaises with water companies to ensure progress and to address risks to delivery. Under Section 202 of the Water Industry Act, the Government have the power to request that water companies provide information regarding the delivery of improvements to wastewater infrastructure, and we intend to use these powers if necessary.

Should it become evident that a delay in upgrading a particular wastewater treatment works is unavoidable, the legislation makes provision for the Secretary of State to disapply the requirement placed on local planning authorities to assume that the upgrade will be delivered by 1 April 2030 for the purposes of a habitats regulations assessment. The Secretary of State must notify local planning authorities accordingly so that they can factor this into their planning discussions.

I agree with the noble Baroness that we should ensure that water companies are delivering against this duty in a way that maximises benefits for the environment, and ensure that nature-based solutions are a vital part of our sewage treatment infrastructure. The Government want to see water companies making use of these solutions as part of the treatment processes that they apply. In the strategic policy statement for Ofwat, we set out that water companies should

“increase … the use of nature-based solutions where appropriate”.

The new statutory duty has been designed to ensure that water companies can use nature-based solutions as part of the wastewater treatment process—for example, water companies may use integrated wetlands to remove nutrients from wastewater. The legislation also allows water companies to use nature-based solutions as part of this process. I am repeating myself, so I will move on, as the hour is late.

In the most recent strategic policy statement for Ofwat, the Government set the clear expectation that it should continue in this form. Therefore, I assure the Committee that sufficient provisions are already in place to ensure that nature-based solutions are taken forward where appropriate.

I turn to Amendment 391 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. Upgrading wastewater treatment plants smaller than a plant capacity of 2,000 population equivalent would require significant investment in new infrastructure and deliver minimal environmental benefit, and it is therefore unlikely to represent value for money. However, we have provided a power for the Secretary of State to lower the plant capacity in individual catchments so that, where appropriate, we can require upgrades at smaller treatment works too.

Although I welcome Amendment 392 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, it is unnecessary because the Secretary of State will of course consider all relevant information and advice before making any exemptions from achieving the nutrient pollution standard. In addition, if a wastewater treatment plant is exempt from this statutory duty, the Environment Agency will still make use of environmental permits to set limits on the quality of wastewater being discharged, thereby ensuring that the water environment is protected.

In relation to Amendment 393, I reassure the Committee that wastewater treatment plants with a capacity of less than 250 population equivalent can already be designated as not exempt where appropriate. If the evidence shows that it is necessary to put enhanced treatment in place at a wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of less than 250 population equivalent, the legislation allows for the Secretary of State to do so within a set timeframe.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that we should ensure that nutrient pollution standards for wastewater are protected. However, as already made clear, wastewater treatment works that are exempt will still be subject to all the other existing standards set by the Environment Agency on a site-specific basis, but I am happy to continue discussions on this as the Bill progresses.

Amendment 400 raises the issue of accurate monitoring and reporting. I agree that this is critical. Under this Government, we have gone from just 7% of storm overflows being fitted with event duration monitors in 2010 to over 90% today, and by the end of this year that will rise to 100%. The Environment Agency already regulates many water quality monitoring stations through permits to ensure that they operate to established regulatory standards. We aim to bring forward regulations to implement a new duty on water companies to report data on sewage discharges from storm overflows in near real time. In those same regulations, we will implement a duty to monitor the water quality impacts of those discharges. That will make the UK world leaders in understanding the impact of sewage discharges on the receiving environment. I therefore reassure the Committee that this amendment is not necessary, as the Government are already taking steps to ensure the accurate and timely reporting of monitoring data from wastewater treatment works. The Committee should expect further announcements on this soon.

Considering Amendment 401 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I will assume that she is referring in it to the environmental improvement plan. The plan includes the steps that we are taking to meet the legally binding long-term target to reduce phosphorus loadings from treated wastewater to the water environment. Every five years, the Government must review the environmental improvement plan and update it as necessary to ensure that it contains any further policies needed to achieve long-term and interim targets. It is therefore important that we retain flexibility to update the actions in the plan rather than setting them on a statutory footing, so that we can ensure that the actions reflect the most appropriate path to achieving our policy. It will be for this and the other place to hold Ministers to account on this in future years.

Government Amendments 393A to 393J will improve the enforceability of these provisions by making it clear that the Environment Agency needs to treat excess nutrient pollution discharge which results from the failure to deliver upgrades on time as environmental damage. The sewerage undertaker would then be liable to remediate the excess nutrient pollution determined as having been discharged. For the reasons set out, which I hope provide sufficient reassurance, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to withdraw Amendment 390, and noble Lords not to move the other amendments in their names and to support the government amendments.