Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we start the first group, I remind the House, as I did last week, of important guidance on Report, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly.

First, I note paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:

“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.


While debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, a number of earlier contributions strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny, while allowing us to make good progress in good time.

Secondly, I remind noble Lords of the Companion guidance in paragraph 8.82:

“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”


or pressing an amendment. Speeches appear to be getting longer, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we would be able to get on in a more timely manner.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify that 67 government amendments, I think, came in very late to the Bill? They have therefore not had a Committee stage. I hope he and the Minister will accept that some of those will need Committee, as well as Report, discussions.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

It is Report and all I would say is that, as long as the debate is relevant, we have no problem with that.

Amendment 84

--- Later in debate ---

There are a lot of amendments in this important group so, with that, I thank your Lordships.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of the intent behind this important group of amendments, all of which seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions around green infrastructure, heritage protection, sustainable land use and, importantly, play and sports areas, as in Amendments 170 and 121E.

Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would recognise the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic gardens and designed landscapes are a vital part of our cultural and national heritage, and their protection must not be left to chance. Giving the Gardens Trust formal status in the planning process is a logical and proportionate step, in our opinion.

On Amendment 88, we strongly support the call for a strategic approach to green and blue infrastructure—that is, parks, waterways and green spaces that are publicly accessible and which protect biodiversity and enhance well-being. These provisions would help to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of nature or public access to it. However, this amendment includes “network”, which carries a significant implication from a strategic planning perspective. Once we define these assets as a network, local authorities could be required not only to safeguard individual sites but to consider the functional and spatial connections between those sites. That raises questions of the maintenance, responsibilities and resources required to deliver a genuinely joined-up approach. We therefore could not support the amendment as drafted but there is another amendment, later on in our debates, about new towns. It is a different issue in new towns than it is strategically, which could be across three or even four counties or areas.

There is also clear cross-party consensus behind prioritising brownfield development and protecting our most valuable farmland and greenfield sites. Amendments such as Amendments 95, 96 and 118 rightly push for a sequential, sustainable approach to land use, beginning with sites already in use or disused, and protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land for food production and environmental benefit.

Amendment 96 in my name would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield land and urban densification, and to promote sustainable mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs and services. It underpins the widely supported “brownfield first” principle, which already commands public support and political consensus, but it goes further, linking that principle directly to community building, sustainability and the protection of the villages and open spaces that give our places their character. As Conservatives, we are passionate about protecting our green belt and safeguarding the countryside from inappropriate development. This Government have often relied on guidance rather than firm statutory safeguards, leaving too much to shifting policy documents and not enough to clear legal safeguards.

This is about a joined-up approach, encouraging regeneration where infrastructure already exists, reducing needless commuting and making sure that the new development creates mixed, vibrant communities rather than those isolated housing estates we see too often on the edges of our towns. It is about putting what is already in the NPPF—brownfield first, compact growth and protection of the countryside—into statute. I anticipate that the Minister may say, as the Minister said in Committee:

“I agree with the intent behind this amendment; however, it is already comprehensively covered in the National Planning Policy Framework”,—[Official Report, 9/9/25; cols. 1455-56.]


but if we all agree that brownfield first is the right principle, then why leave it only to guidance, which can be changed at will? If it truly is covered, then legislating to secure it should cause no difficulty. If it is not, then this amendment is precisely what is needed.

This is a proportionate and pragmatic step. It strengthens what the Government claim they already believe in, gives local communities greater confidence that brownfield will be prioritised and protects our green belts and villages from unnecessary pressure, and I will be pushing this to a vote when the time comes.

Finally, on Amendment 239, in my name but spoken to by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, I do not want to say any more, because she said it all and I do not want to take time repeating it. But this is so important, and again we may divide on this one when the time comes, because this concerns the protection of our villages in this beautiful land.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this very interesting debate for the very valuable contributions we have heard this afternoon. I have engaged with many noble Lords on these matters in the preceding weeks and our debate has focused on something on which I think we all agree, which is the need to ensure that, as we deliver the housing we need, we recognise the importance of green and blue space, sustainability, heritage and the important uses that allow our communities and the people that constitute them to thrive and succeed.

First, I remind noble Lords of my letter regarding the strength and influence that planning policy bears on the protection of vital green and blue spaces across the country, the power it exerts in practice and the degree of flexibility it allows for sensible choices to be made at a local level. The benefits of green space are not in doubt as far as I can see, for all the reasons set out in our debate. That is why there are such strong protections within the NPPF and in the planning system.

I turn now to the amendments we have debated. Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that the Gardens Trust is retained as a statutory consultee for planning proposals and that it is considered as a statutory amenity society. The Government have set out their intention to reform the system of statutory consultation. We want a streamlined, effective system of consultation that avoids uncertainty and delay. We will shortly consult on these reforms, including on the impacts of removing the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher-graded parks and gardens, so this consultation will help us to deliver a streamlined system and address duplication.

As part of our consultation, we will be very keen to test mitigations to ensure they continue to play a valuable role in protecting our heritage. Planning policy remains key. Registered parks and gardens are defined as designated heritage assets, and they will remain subject to the strong heritage policies protecting these assets in the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies require local planning authorities to carefully consider the impact of a development proposal on a designated heritage asset, and, if the development proposal would cause substantial harm, to refuse such applications.

I note the noble Lord’s proposal about amenity society status with great interest. Amenity societies are not subject to the full requirements of statutory consultation but are notified of relevant development. The Government really value the work of amenity societies, and I will add my own anecdote here about the level of volunteering. I was at our local community awards on Saturday, and I was delighted to see our amazing green space volunteers—across our gardens, green spaces and parks—getting awards. These kinds of volunteers who look after our green spaces—whether in committee rooms or out in the parks themselves—are incredibly valued, as are those who enable and encourage sport and physical activity, which we will come to later. I pay tribute to those who won those local awards on Saturday.

The Government are keen to explore whether this model would be suitable for certain types of development through our consultation. We believe there is an important, ongoing role for the Gardens Trust, working with local authorities and developers. No decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts from the consultation. My department will continue to engage with the Gardens Trust to understand the impacts of these proposals over the coming months.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, has tabled Amendment 88, and I thank her for our meeting last week to discuss the importance of networks of green and blue spaces to communities all around the country. I was very grateful for the information and research that she provided both to me and to officials from my department.

The NPPF, which will guide the development of new spatial development strategies, already highlights the need for plans to support healthy communities. I agree with the noble Baroness about equality in the provision of green space. I am grateful to her for agreeing to share the research she talked about, and I am happy to respond in writing to her on that.

I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on the amazing work she did during the London Olympics. When I was on one of my visits, I went to see a fantastic project on balcony gardens in Walthamstow, which has also invigorated that community. In my own area, we started a community orchard project. I completely understand the benefits of these types of projects.

Strategic planning authorities already have the ability to set policies that reflect the value of these spaces. Under new Section 12D(4)(c), a spatial development strategy may specify infrastructure that promotes or improves the social or environmental well-being of an area; this could include networks of green and blue spaces.

We should also remember that strategic development strategies will not be site-specific; instead, they will relate to broad locations. Some of the noble Lords who have had meetings with me will be aware that my noble friend Lady Hayman, the Defra Minister, is currently working on a comprehensive access strategy, which will come forward from Defra, to indicate how that meshes in with the planning process. While an SDS may consider green and blue networks at the strategic level, detailed site-specific matters relating to them are likely to be best dealt with through local plans.

Amendment 95 seeks to protect best and most versatile land, and Amendments 96 and 118 seek to encourage a brownfield first principle. I absolutely agree that we need to protect our best agricultural land. To that end, strategic authorities will need to have regard to ensuring consistency with national policy when preparing their spatial development strategies. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural. Planning policy recognises the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land, and if development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land—not in the top three grades that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned—should be prioritised. Furthermore, the forthcoming land use framework will set out the evidence and tools needed to protect our most productive agricultural land and identify areas with the biggest potential for nature recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, although I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment is brought forward and the specific issues it raises, it would introduce a level of prescription that may not be necessary. The planning system already provides mechanisms for consultation with relevant bodies, and it is important that we maintain a balance between thorough engagement and procedural efficiencies. We must be cautious not to overextend statutory requirements in ways that could complicate or even delay the development consent process. Flexibility and proportionality are key. As ever, my noble friend Lady McIntosh raises important issues. We look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, not for the first time in this House, I will strike a slightly contrary note. I believe Amendment 89 is well intentioned but goes a bit too far in calling for all housing to meet the standards set out in M4(2) and M4(3).

M4(2) sets a standard for new homes to be accessible and adaptable, meaning they are designed to be easily adapted for future needs, such as those of an elderly person or those with a temporary disability. It is not a standard for full wheelchair accessibility, which is covered in the much more stringent M4(3) standard. M4(2) requires the dwelling to have features such as the provision for a future stairlift or lift, and may require certain features such as low-level windows.

The regulations were naive in believing that one could build homes that could be easily adapted for wheelchair users. All of us on all sides happily voted these through. It is like motherhood and apple pie: we thought we were doing something helpful for the disabled, and I do not think we took into account the practicalities and the cost. I simply do not believe that you can build these homes to be easily converted for the disabled at the same cost as current homes.

It is not just a matter of level access; it is a whole host of different features. You need wider doors everywhere. Kitchens may have to be ripped out and built at a much lower level for wheelchair users. You cannot have any wall cabinets; there will never be enough space in a kitchen designed for wheelchair users.

As for bathrooms, it is not just a matter of extra grab handles; the whole bathroom needs to be twice to three times the size to fit a wheelchair user. If a wheelchair user is not ambulatory at all and has to be stuck in the wheelchair, you need an absolutely level access shower. That means ripping out the standard shower and putting in a flat one when you might not have the drainage to do it. These are just some of the practical problems I see day to day if one tries to design that in at the beginning. As for space to install a lift—forget it. That would require a massive redesign at potentially enormous cost.

The point is that there are an estimated 1.2 million wheelchair users in the UK. This number includes permanent users and the 400,000 ambulatory users, which includes people like me who can walk a bit, provided we have our chariot wheelchair to help us. Wheelchair users make up roughly 11% of the disabled population. That is why I think it is over the top to call for all housing to be suitable or adapted for wheelchair users when only 11% of the population needs it. Perhaps local authorities should be under an obligation to deliver 15% of wheelchair-accessible or adaptable housing in all new buildings.

Turning briefly to the housing needs of an older generation, I have a simple, one-word solution: bungalows, either detached, semi-detached or even a single-storey terrace. It is believed that about 2 million bungalows were built in the last century, before builders stopped building them, since they take up more space and they can now cram a dozen rabbit hutches of about three storeys high into the same space taken up by one bungalow. In 1987, there were 26,000 new bungalows registered. In 2017, there were only 2,210.

I do not have a solution to that. If builders will not build them, I am loathe to demand that there should be a compulsory quota. Perhaps another slogan for the Secretary of State, in addition to “Build, baby, build”, should be “Bring back bungalows”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 89 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would mean that the homes we build must reflect the needs of our population. In an ageing society and one where the nature of disability is changing, this becomes ever more urgent. Accessibility and adaptability are not luxuries; they are the foundations of a fair and future-proof housing system. We are therefore grateful to the noble Lord for bringing back this important debate on Report and thank him for his tireless work on these issues.

On Amendment 91, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, more homes are important—of course they are—but homes that respect local character, reflect vernacular and are, quite frankly, pleasant to look at are important too. Having scrapped the Office for Place and having not implemented the LURA requirements for design statements alongside local plans in local planning authorities, the Government appear to be riding roughshod over the very principles of good design and placemaking that Parliament sought to embed in legislation.

What are the Government going to do to uphold and protect the principles of design quality, to ensure that places we build are not only affordable and efficient but beautiful, sustainable and built to last? I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, shares this sentiment. She will speak to her Amendment 92 in the next group, which seeks to strengthen the same call.

On Amendment 112, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, as we said in Committee, stepping-stone accommodation is an idea with real potential and one that speaks to a compassionate and practical approach to housing need. But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of this amendment, but I sound a note of caution. Our existing space standards were developed for good reason. They exist to prevent a return to poor-quality housing—the rabbit hutch flats of the past—homes that compromise health, dignity and long-term liveability.

If we are to disapply or adapt such standards in specific cases, we need to do so with clear safeguards in place. The noble Baroness has helpfully proposed a specific minimum size and has begun to flesh out the practicalities of this proposal—that is a constructive way forward. But before we enshrine such figures in legislation, there should be a proper consultation both with the sector and, crucially, with those we seek to serve.

Stepping-stone accommodation could play a valuable role in tackling housing need, but it must be done right. It must offer dignity, not just a stopgap. Above all, it must serve the people it is designed to help, not simply the pressures we have in the system at this time.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments relating to housing design, accessibility and homelessness solutions.

Amendment 89 would require spatial development strategies to ensure that new housing meets the needs of older and disabled people. While I cannot pre-empt the forthcoming national housing strategy, I am sure the Minister in the other place has listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others, on the growing importance of ensuring we provide sufficient suitable housing for older people and those with disabilities. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not know about bungalows, but at this rate I am going to be given a whole wardrobe of hats to wear, which I look forward to.

The Government firmly believe that providing suitable housing for older adults and people with disabilities is essential to supporting their safety and independence. However, I do not agree that the noble Lord’s amendment is needed to achieve that outcome. Local planning authorities already have the tools to support the delivery of homes that are accessible and adaptable. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that authorities should assess the size, type and tenure of housing required by different groups—including older and disabled people—and set clear policies to address these needs. That is why I spoke earlier about having a sufficient quantity of housing, and local authorities are best placed to assess that need.

Authorities can also apply enhanced technical standards from the building regulations through planning conditions. Where there is clear evidence of local demand, authorities are expected to use these standards to help ensure a sufficient supply of accessible homes. That may include specifying the proportion of new housing built to M4(2) and M4(3) standards. The Bill also already enables strategic planning authorities to address this issue, where it is considered to be of strategic importance to the area. I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

96: Clause 52, page 73, line 29, at end insert—
“(9A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise development on brownfield land and urban densification.(9B) A spatial development strategy must seek to increase sustainability and community building by minimising travel distances between places of employment, residence and commercial or leisure activities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield and urban densification, and to promote sustainable, mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs, and services.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have tried every way possible over a number of years to ensure that brownfield sites are used for development, over and above our precious agricultural land. This is not working, so something addressing it needs to be put in statute. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 96.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a very important issue that the Government need to think about, but, as the noble Lord explained, the issue relates not only to the new combined county authorities with a mayor that will be created following reorganisation; it will also affect the metropolitan mayoral authorities, where the mayors will be given the new power for a spatial development strategy but where the constituent local authorities will inevitably have their own local plan, which will not necessarily have any coterminosity in terms of their duration. There is a dual issue for the Government to consider, which is: which has primacy—a constituent authority’s local plan until its term ends, or the spatial development strategy, which might override the local plan, which would then require, presumably, an amended local plan and all the effort that would have to go into that? An important issue has been raised, and I suspect that the Government need to come up with a solution.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we are actually engaging with the industry about this to understand its concerns. I do not want to say anything further on it this evening, apart from expressing my full support for my noble friend Lord Lansley. We will return to this issue for a much fuller discussion in a later group of amendments that we have tabled.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 97A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to ensure that any spatial development strategy that had been prepared by an authority remains in place for the strategy area following the restructure of the strategic planning authority; the strategy could not be replaced or substantially altered within five years of its adoption unless the Secretary of State authorised a strategic planning authority to do so. Given that the Government are currently undertaking an ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in England, I understand why the noble Lord seeks to make provision to account for this and ensure a degree of continuity for an operative spatial development strategy.

However, new Section 12T empowers the Secretary of State to include transitional provisions in strategic planning board regulations. This power complements existing powers to make transitional provision in regulations to reflect changes to local government organisation. If a local government reorganisation leads to uncertainty over the boundaries of a spatial development strategy or its applicability to an area, it is more suitable to address this through tailored transitional provision in regulations rather than through primary legislation. This means that the effects of local government reorganisation can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Preventing a strategic planning authority from replacing or significantly revising its spatial development strategy until five years after its adoption following local government reorganisation would restrict its ability to respond to major national policy changes or new major investment in its area. Strategic planning authorities are well placed to determine when updates to their strategies are necessary and should retain the discretion to do so. Given this, I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for yet again raising the flag on flooding—all strength to her— and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for adding her name. These amendments are clearly designed to address the escalating risks of flooding by embedding precise statutory safeguards into local planning.

Amendment 100 would convert the existing sequential test and the exception test from mere guidance into a legal requirement for local plans. The effect would be direct. Local authorities would be obliged to locate development according to robust risk-based criteria. Our colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos MP, talked in Committee there at some length on this issue and highlighted the dangers where planning permission is still granted for homes on functional flood plains and high-risk areas, often with households left uninsured and exposed to the heartbreak and terrible experience that we discussed a great deal in Committee. Amendment 100 would also mandate the incorporation of sustainable drainage systems, SUDS, except where demonstrably unsuitable. A lack of statutory backing for SUDS, as the APPG on flooded communities has made clear, continues to compromise local flood resilience.

Amendment 101 speaks to the need for reliable current evidence in planning and stipulates that strategic flood risk assessments, SFRAs, must be based on the latest available data from the Environment Agency. On these Benches, the one question we have about it is the level of burden and expectation on local authorities, which already have so many burdens and expectations, but the further burden on households and families of flood risks and living in homes that are built on flood plains without due care is obviously so significant that we cannot ignore it. These amendments establish enforceable statutory standards and require some practical action, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 100 and 101, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, are sensible and pragmatic proposals. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, the risk of flooding is increasing rapidly, and it is happening now. It is therefore entirely right that our planning framework should embed flood risk prevention and resilience more firmly at every stage, from local plans to individual applications, and I hope the Minister will give these amendments serious consideration and can reassure the House that stronger statutory safeguards against flood risk could still be part of this Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Hear, hear to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I had a lot to say but I do not think I need to say it. My noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Lansley, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hunt, have said everything that can be said about this.

The amendments just seek to restore clarity and flexibility, ensuring that large schemes are not paralysed by legal technicalities. They would allow practical adjustments to be made, while fully preserving the principle of proper planning control. Surely that is what we want to deliver. We are not wedded to a precise drafting at this time—the Government are free to bring forward their own version—but I urge the Minister to please get on with it.

Without a clear mechanism to adapt site-wide permissions, investment is stalling and will continue to stall, projects will be abandoned, as they are being abandoned now, and the planning system itself will be discredited by outcomes that make very little sense on the ground. Down on the ground is where they are building houses—there will be fewer houses built, and more houses are needed. We need to get on with it. I urge the Government to commit to a good solution in this Bill and not to push it down the road.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hesitate to step into this very knotty lawyer’s wrangle, but it is necessary to do so because our common aim across the House is to sort out Hillside. We all know why we need to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, said, it is symbolic of all the issues that we are trying to get out of the way so that we can get on with the development that this country needs.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling Amendment 105—a repeat of his amendment from Committee that seeks to overturn the Hillside judgment—and for his new Amendment 113, which responds to some very constructive discussions we have had since Committee.

As I said in Committee, we recognise that the Hillside judgment, which confirmed long-established planning case law, has caused real issues with the development industry. In particular, it has cast doubt on the informal practice of using “drop in” permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments that could build out over quite long periods—10 to 20 years.

We have listened carefully to views across the House on this matter, and I appreciate the thoughts of all noble Lords who have spoken in this useful debate. One seasoned planning law commentator—I do not think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banner, or the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—called Hillside a “gnarly issue”, and it has attracted a lot of legal attention. It is very important that we tread carefully but also that we move as quickly as we can on this.

Therefore, in response to the concerns, the Government propose a two-step approach to dealing with Hillside. First, we will implement the provisions from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for a new, more comprehensive route to vary planning permissions—Section 73B. In practice, we want this new route to replace Section 73 as the key means for varying permissions, given that Section 73 has its own limitations, which case law has also highlighted. The use of Section 73B will provide an alternative mechanism to drop-in permissions for many large-scale developments—although we recognise not all.

Secondly, we will explore with the sector the merits of putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing to provide a further alternative. This approach will enable provision to be made to make lawful the continued carrying out of development under the original permission for the large development, addressing the Hillside issue. It will also enable some of the other legal issues with drop-in permissions to be resolved.

In implementing Section 73B and exploring a statutory role for drop-in permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments, I emphasise that we do not want these routes to be used to water down important public benefits from large-scale development, such as the level of affordable housing agreed at the time of the original planning permission. They are about dealing with legitimate variations in a pragmatic way in response to changing circumstances over time.

Amendment 113 seeks to provide an enabling power to address Hillside through affirmative secondary legislation. I recognise that this provision is intended to enable the Government to have continued discussions with the sector and then work up a feasible legislative solution through the regulations. As with all enabling powers, the key issue is whether the provisions are broad enough to deal with the issues likely to emerge from these discussions, as hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

Based on the current drafting, this enabling power would not do that. For instance, there have been calls to deal with Hillside in relation to NSIP projects. That would require a wider scope, so we cannot accept the amendment without significant modifications. That is why we think it is best to explore putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing first and then drawing up the legislation. This will give Parliament time to scrutinise.

To conclude, I hope that the approach I have set out addresses many of the concerns expressed in this debate. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to respond to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. It aims to remove the size and complexity tests currently required for awarding a water infrastructure project licence. While this is a technical amendment, it would have significant implications.

Under existing regulations, a water infrastructure project licence is awarded only if the project is considered large or complex enough to potentially threaten the incumbent water undertaker’s ability to deliver services. The test involves assessing factors like projected costs, risk profile, delivery complexity and the water company’s competencies, among others, to determine whether specifying the project to an extended provider would result in better value for money and service stability. The amendment’s goal is clear: it is to remove this test.

I have listened to what the noble Baroness said. It is argued that the amendment would allow smaller or less complex projects potentially to be outsourced or treated as specified infrastructure projects, SIPs, and offer better economic efficiency. While we recognise that this could lead to broader applications of the project licences and potentially facilitate more third-party infrastructure projects in the water sector—we share this ambition to accelerate infrastructure delivery—we are cautious on this amendment, and I follow the line that we took in Committee. The current regulatory framework, which includes a size and complexity threshold, exists as a crucial safeguard. Ofwat’s regulations are intended, and the test ensures it, for ambitious projects, if managed by an incumbent company, not to threaten the water company’s fundamental services obligations to its customers.

Given the widely acknowledged fragility of the water sector more generally and the broken infrastructure that has led to substantial water wastage, we must think carefully before rushing to add to this. Instead of risking unintended consequences through a quick legislative fix, we prefer a more robust path that could be considered by the Government co-funding models, for example, similar to those used in the nuclear sector, if crucial projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver.

It is also essential to take note of the Government’s concerns raised in Committee regarding the amendment. They confirmed that they actively resisted this amendment, certainly in Committee. They have already made a commitment to review the specified infrastructure projects, SIPR, framework. Our understanding is that Defra intends to amend it to help major water companies to proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. The Government stated their concerns that removing the size complexity threshold now would pre-empt that planned review process. They emphasised the importance of ensuring that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry to create a regime that remains targeted and proportionate to the sector’s diversity needs. The Minister assured the Committee that this essential review, which follows the publication of the Cunliffe review on water industry modernisation, will be completed in this calendar year.

For those reasons, while we welcome the spirit of Amendment 58A, we believe that the responsible course of action is to allow the Government to complete their committed to and planned regulatory review, so we are unable to support this amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 58A, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. As we have heard, under the current framework, only projects deemed sufficiently large or complex can be considered for a separate infrastructure licence. This threshold may have made sense at the time that the regulations were introduced, but it now risks being a barrier to innovation and investment in the sector, which is already under increased strain. By removing this test, the amendment would allow projects to be assessed on their value for money alone—a clearer, more practical standard. It would not lower the bar for scrutiny but rather broaden the scope for alternative delivery models, where they can be demonstrated to give clear public benefit.

Given the ongoing challenges around water security, pollution and climate resilience, we should be enabling a wider range of solutions and not limiting them to outdated regulatory constraints. This is a modest and targeted amendment that would give Ofwat and the relevant authorities greater flexibility to support efficient investment in our water infrastructure. We agree with its intent, we support it, and we hope that the Government will think again.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which seeks to ensure that the specified infrastructure project regulations are amended to enable a broader use and to ensure that we get value for money for customers.

Two procurement models for delivering infrastructure exist at the moment: SIPR and direct procurement for customers—DPC. I acknowledge that we have to do all we can to make sure that customers get the good value for money that we are all seeking. That is why, in the Government’s response to the independent water review undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, we will address our proposals for changes across both those procurement models, in the White Paper that will be published shortly. For that reason, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations be proportionate to the nature and size of the development to which it applies. Proportionate fees are of course vital to ensure fairness between applicants and avoid placing undue burdens on smaller developments. However, we cannot support this amendment as further prescription in the legislation risks reducing flexibility for local authorities and the Secretary of State to respond to changing circumstances. We agree with the principle of proportionality, but we do not think this is the right way. I hope that the Minister will look at our Amendment 103 later today.

Amendment 60 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh would allow the cost of enforcement measures, such as checking whether specified flood mitigation or resilience measures have been properly installed, to be included in the fees. While I entirely agree with the intention to ensure that local planning authorities can recover their costs, we cannot support this amendment. We are concerned that this might blur the line between the cost of enforcement and the wider issues of fees, which are separate statutory functions, although this is an issue we should continue to look at into the future.

Finally, Amendment 61 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley seeks to reduce what may be included in fees for planning provisions made under subsections (5A) and (5B). I recognise my noble friend’s concerns about the overreach in fee structures and I hope the Government can take the time today to set out the reasons and intentions behind these subsections.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

73: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a hotel has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is a hotel proposed for use as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 73, 74, 75, 263 and 264, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 87E tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, are about fairness, transparency and democratic consent in how planning decisions are made, particularly when it comes to the provision of asylum accommodation.

Too often, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. Asylum hotels have dominated the news this summer, sparking protests and dividing communities—divisions that could have been avoided if people had just been given a voice.

The principle is straightforward: changing the use of a hotel or a house in multiple occupation—HMO—to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use under planning law. That would mean that planning permission is required, ensuring proper consultation and clarity for councils, residents and local businesses. At present, the law is uncertain and councils are left to fight retrospective battles in the courts. This is not about the approach of the current or the previous Government; it is about what is right for the British people.

Protecting local voices has been a priority and an issue we have fought for consistently throughout the Bill. It is a terrible shame that, when the same principle arises in relation to asylum, an issue that is dominating our local communities, people such as the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to support our plan to give local people a voice on this issue. We had hoped that all noble Lords would have been consistent with their commitment to protecting the voices of local people. These amendments are not a question of asylum policy; this is simply a question of giving communities a voice. The country is watching, and it is vital that we act. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, given that its focus is on the planning issues surrounding the use of hotels for asylum seekers, pending assessment of their applications. Amendment 87E in my name offers a different solution to those challenging issues. On these Benches, we recognise the importance of reducing the backlog of asylum applications and we are committed to constructively ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. I note that the Government have also committed to doing so by the end of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

I can very briefly come to the Dispatch Box now. Can I first say how much I respect the noble Lord? We are very clear: I know that the noble Lord and his party did not support the suggestion of starting at 11 am, but that was a decision of the House. My intention is that, when these votes are finished, we will rise. We have three votes, so after about 30 minutes we will be rising; I have no intention of going beyond that. We will have the votes and then go home.

I am also always very happy to discuss things in the usual channels, and obviously we will discuss things in the coming days and weeks. But we will have our votes and then we will adjourn the House.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, going back to the debate, it is quite extraordinary that the Minister has chosen to use her reply once again to dwell on the Government’s record on asylum hotels. This debate is not about asylum policy; it is not even directly about those who arrive in this country. It is about the rights of local people: the rights of communities to have a say when there is a change of use in their area, just as they would for any other form of development or planning decision.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Will the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, explain to the House why it has taken five years for her party to come to the conclusion that planning permission for a change of use is needed?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

When we were in government, we had a plan—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We did—and the party opposite voted against it. We had a plan and we were bringing down numbers quite considerably in asylum hotels. In fact, we would not have any open now if we were still in government.

At its heart, this debate is about fairness and local accountability. Time and again, communities feel that decisions are being made over their heads and imposed without notice, consultation or trust. This is precisely what this amendment seeks to put right. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Minister has sought to distract from the substance of this issue. The Government’s record on asylum hotels is neither here nor there. What matters is whether local voices are heard and respected in the decision-making process.

On Report, the Minister suggested that I tabled these amendments for a different purpose. She knows me well enough to know that, when I say something, I mean it. The purpose is clear and principled: to ensure that local communities are not treated as bystanders in decisions that reshape their neighbourhoods. Time and again, the pattern emerges: decisions are made from the centre, delivered without dialogue and defended without accountability. This cannot continue. This amendment is about restoring the balance between national necessity and local democracy, and we on these Benches are determined to stand up for local people and local communities. Now I wish to test the opinion of the House, first on hotels and then on houses of multiple occupation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

74: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a house in multiple occupation has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is proposed for use as a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, once more, the Government have chosen to add a new clause, through Amendment 64, at this very late stage in the Bill’s progress, as other noble Lords have pointed out. It really is not acceptable practice, for the reason the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave, which is that we have not been able to give this new clause proper and appropriate depth of scrutiny. The new clause has only four lines, and that includes its title. The other two and a half lines, if enacted, will have, as other noble Lords have said, a significant and maybe serious impact on local planning decision-making.

When I first saw the amendment, I was concerned and thought that I had perhaps got it wrong. However, we have now heard from across the House, including from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Banner, our expert in this House on planning matters, questioning the Minister on the meaning of what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Young, have all raised considerable concerns about the extent of what this brief clause will actually achieve. In her own inimitable way, the Minister has been able to underplay the clause by saying, “It is just an anomaly. It’s not going to make any difference really”. If it is not going to make any difference really, do not bring it in at this late stage. If it were so important, I am sure the Government would have noticed it, either in the discussions at the other end of the Parliament or at least in Committee here, so I have a feeling that it may not be as unimportant a clause as the Minister has been making out.

Where does that leave us? All noble Lords who have had experience, as many of us have, of the process of planning applications will know that planning committees are rightly required to make their decisions in accordance with planning legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework, all relevant national policies and their local plan, which includes local planning policies.

If a planning committee wishes to refuse a planning application, it has to do so, as others have said, with valid planning reasons. Failure to do so means that the applicant, rightly, takes that to the Planning Inspectorate for an appeal against that decision. If the planning committee has made a foolish decision, not giving valid reasons for refusal, the Planning Inspectorate, rightly, awards costs against the council, which is why there are not many planning appeals where costs are awarded against councils because planning officers in a local planning authority will advise their members accordingly.

Then you ask yourself: if that is the case and a refusal could go to inquiry or a written resolution of it, why is it necessary to call it in before a refusal has been given? The only reason I can come up with is that the Government wish to push through applications that are not relevant or appropriate to a local plan. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, hit the nail on the head: it substantially changes the tone and direction of planning, so that it becomes more of a national rather than a local decision-making process.

For somebody who is a cheerleader for local decision-making, who wants proper devolution, who thinks that making decisions locally is the right thing to do —as do many other parts of western Europe, which have successful governance as a consequence—to bring things back to the centre all the time is simply not acceptable. We on these Benches will strongly oppose government Amendment 64. I have explained to the Minister, out of due courtesy, that we will be doing so. This is overreach and will not do.

I turn to Amendment 87D. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have referred to it. The noble Baroness and I had a brief discussion the other day. She knows that I support Amendment 87D. If she wishes to take it to a decision of the House, we will support her. But, fundamentally, the balance between local and national decision-making is being tipped too far in the direction of national decision-making on policies, and that is not acceptable. As I have said, we will oppose Amendment 64.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Government Amendment 64 in this group. As we have heard, this amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission in principle by a local planning authority in England. Under Section 77(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by calling in an application for their own determination. Therefore, I ask the Minister, what has changed? Will the existing guardrails and provisions governing the call-in process remain intact? Will the mechanisms by which call-in operates continue as they do now? How will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision-making?

The Government should explain precisely what this amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law. If it represents a fundamental change to the call-in power, the Government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, we will be inclined to test the opinion of the House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power, the Government’s real focus should have been elsewhere: on proportionality and addressing the implications of the Hillside judgment. Energy should be directed towards tackling the real blockages in the planning system.

I turn to Amendment 65—which I hope will not be required—tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. This amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt up-to-date local plans and, in doing so, regain control over the granting of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. This raises an important point: the absence of up-to-date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration with the planning system. The Government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due regard and set out in clear detail how they intend to address the concerns it raises.

Finally, I am not quite sure why my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87D is in this group, but we have heard the feeling of the House on this. I know it is an issue my noble friend is rightly passionate about, and it is important. On the one hand, the Government have given communities their assets or enabled them to take them over; on the other, they are not protected from being lost. This is an important issue for the Minister, and I look forward to a very positive response to this especially important amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hear the strength of feeling in the House on this amendment. It might be helpful if I set out in a bit more detail the way the Section 31 direction works. It is important to note that a Section 31 direction allows time for the Secretary of State to consider whether to exercise call-in powers. It is exactly what it says on the tin: a holding direction to enable that process to go through.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the use of holding directions helps to prevent exactly the circumstances he described by restricting the issuing of a decision on a planning application—whether it be to grant or to refuse—to allow time for full consideration of whether it raises issues of more than local importance, such that it merits calling in, and to help prevent the rushed consideration of such matters. I have dealt with a number of these call-ins of applications since becoming a Minister. Every time we look at a called-in application, we have to consider the criteria against which the Secretary of State will consider the call-in of a local application. I hope it will be helpful if I very quickly go through those.

Compliance with the local development plan is not the question here; it is whether the Secretary of State will use the call-in powers, and they will use them only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, may conflict with national policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I point out that this is yet another late-in-the-day government amendment. However, the Minister will be pleased to know that this time I am in agreement with Amendment 67.

To extend the time limits from implementing a planning consent where there has been a legal challenge seems right and fair. I did not quite catch whether the Minister explained the full extent of it, but I assume that it means that for general applications that are subject to a judicial or statutory review it will be a one-year extension, a further year if it goes to the Court of Appeal, and then a further two years if it goes to the Supreme Court. The noble Baroness nods. So that is right and fair. That is a balanced approach, which is one of my ways of judging things: “Is it right, fair and balanced?” I think that is fair to the applicants. So, with the nod that I had from the Minister, I agree with Amendment 67 and with Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which is very similar.

The other amendments in this group, Amendments 77, 78 and 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, would make serious changes to the ability of citizens to go to law where they feel that due process has failed them. Restricting those rights does not feel to me acceptable without further and full consideration by those who are expert in these matters—which is not me. With those comments, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, and to government Amendment 261. We are grateful for the Government’s engagement with my noble friend on this issue.

These amendments would prevent planning permission from timing out as a result of protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews, as we have heard, often outlast the three-year planning deadline, leaving permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications and discouraging serious investment. Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste and deter vexatious claims. It carries no real downside for the Government.

The Government say that they agree with the policy intention. We welcome the Government’s move to address the concerns held on these Benches and their work with my noble friend Lord Banner on these issues. This is a question of proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted permissions should not be undone by process; it should be done by merit. Far from slowing down planning, this change would help to speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving confidence to investors and allowing us to get on with building in the right places.

Finally, I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts processed behind these amendments are good ones, built on a sound principle. However, we do not believe that these amendments are practical. The proposed process would involve going straight to a hearing. In our view, the court would simply not have the necessary bandwidth. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose of his amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from across the House for the Government’s amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has had to rush off to the Supreme Court, apparently, but I am grateful for his support for our amendment.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this amendment has been developed in response to a discussion that we had in Committee and with extensive engagement with fellow Peers to improve the process of judicial review, which has been an ongoing issue. I hope that this reassures her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 103, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner and co-signed by my noble friend Lord Jamieson and me. At present, planning processes have become anything but proportionate. The precautionary principle is too often applied as though it requires zero risk. Environmental statements run to thousands of pages; inspectors demand reams of questions; statutory consultees require unnecessary detail, even at outline stage; and consultants, fearful of liability, produce overlong reports that few people will ever read. None of this improves the quality of decisions, but it clogs up the systems, slows delivery and undermines confidence.

This amendment would not abandon the precautionary principle; it would preserve it in its proper sense by ensuring no regression on environmental protections while restoring a degree of pragmatism and common sense. It would help to strip out duplication, shorten an unnecessary process, and empower the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure flexibility and future-proofing. In Committee, the Minister conceded the main point. She openly accepted that proportionality is desirable and that the system has become overly complex. In doing so, she essentially validated the case for this amendment before rejecting it. That position is not sustainable. If we agree that the system is disproportionate, we should act to correct it.

This amendment does exactly that. It would embed proportionality into planning as a guiding principle, striking the right balance between proper scrutiny, environmental responsibility and the need to deliver homes and infrastructure in a timely way. When the time comes, we intend to divide the House on this amendment.

I turn to Amendment 119, tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment seeks to ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under this Act give due consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system.

New Homes Target

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is an appropriate question for today because I met the leader of Plymouth City Council just this morning, and we talked about some of the issues facing Devon. We understand that the reorganisation of local government adds to the considerable pressures that local authorities already face. However, it is essential to ensure that local authorities are as efficient and sustainable as possible. We are working closely with our local authorities on that project. We have helped our local planning authorities with resourcing through an increase in planning fees for householders and other applications, as well as through measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to enable local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to cover costs. We have also provided a £46 million package of support to help train and build capacity in local planning authorities.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in an Oral Question in September, my noble friend Lord Jamieson raised a concern with the Minister about the proposed removal of the lower rate of landfill tax for inert construction waste, a change that could reportedly add up to £25,000 to the cost of building a single new home. At the time, the Minister did not directly respond to the question; she promised a written response that has not been received. Given the Government’s ambition for 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, can the Minister now clarify their position on this proposal and explain how such measures would support, rather than hinder, their wider housing delivery ambition?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The treatment of landfill is important for the environment, so it is key that we deal with that efficiently. I attended an SME round table as part of the APPG for SME House Builders last week; they raised the issue with me, and I will take it back to the department. I thought that I had replied to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, but I will go through and make sure that we did so. This is a particular issue for SME builders, so we are thinking that through and will issue a response shortly.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I have just a few brief points to add to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, stated. For me, this goes back to the governance system. Of course we have made progress in recent years; we have the strategic spatial energy plan, which is being managed by NESO, but we are hearing some feedback on that plan. In effect, it tries to map out what energy projects should be located where, in minute detail across the country. The industry has highlighted a number of problems with trying to do this at that scale; we need local knowledge flowing up into these plans. As well as the top down, we need the bottom up. We need to capture all the great knowledge that local areas and local authorities have.

I will just take heat as an example. One area may be better suited to heat pumps and another to heat networks. One area may have relatively well-insulated housing stock; another, poorly insulated housing stock. We need to capture all that and bring it into the energy transition. It is an important piece of the puzzle to making this energy transition work and making it cost effective. A recent study by UKRI highlighted tens of billions of pounds of savings if a place-based approach is taken over a place-agnostic approach, so it is important that the Government make some progress on this. We have not seen the progress needed.

We have had some good pilots using this approach in various areas across the country, but we now need the Government to get behind this approach to feed all the benefits of that local knowledge into the energy transition. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister at least on timescales, on how they see this programme developing and on it reaching a decision on the role that local area energy plans will play in the energy transition.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to ensure that small-scale renewable energy products are prioritised by the independent system operator and planner. As the noble Baroness knows, we on these Benches are very concerned about energy prices and want to see Ministers taking a pragmatic approach to delivering the energy infrastructure that we need.

I know that there is a particular interest in renewables, but we need to take a whole-system approach, tackling policy costs as well as the marginal costs of electricity. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the current support for renewables at a smaller scale, and it would be helpful for the House to know what plans the Government have on smaller renewables.

Although we feel that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is too prescriptive, it raises an important question about planning our energy supply for the future. Clearly, local needs should be taken into account. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Amendment 24 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, though well intentioned, is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome of greater support with the grid connection process for smaller renewable energy projects. The amendment seeks to require the independent system operator and planner to prioritise support for smaller renewable energy projects when they apply for a grid connection. I recognise the noble Baroness’s helpful attempt to support smaller renewable energy projects. The Government appreciate the important role that smaller renewable energy projects, such as rooftop solar and community energy, can play in meeting our clean power mission, reducing energy costs and engaging communities in renewable energy.

Along with the independent energy regulator, Ofgem, the Government also recognise that more needs to be done to support smaller electricity network connection customers, including renewable energy projects, but this is achievable within the regulatory framework without the need for primary legislation. Indeed, Ofgem has already proposed stronger incentives and obligations on network companies to provide better connection customer service. Following a consultation earlier this year, it expects to publish further details and next steps in the coming weeks.

The amendment’s wording would also not meet the desired outcome. Section 16 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires electricity distribution network operators to connect customers. The amendment would place an obligation on the independent system operator and planner only in terms of the way in which the duties under Section 16 are complied with. However, the independent system operator and planner has no duties under Section 16. Given the legislative unworkability of the amendment, and given work already under way to support smaller renewable energy connection customers, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw it.

Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to require the Government to commence a programme of research and analysis on the imposition of a statutory duty on local authorities to produce local area energy plans, and publish a report on their findings; and to require the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a formal policy decision on a statutory duty within two years. We recognise that the amendment moves the debate on from Committee so that an immediate burden is not placed on local authorities to produce a local area energy plan, and nor are the Government required to immediately produce national guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans. The amendment places this work in the context of planning for electricity infrastructure, but the approach set out in the amendment risks constraining and duplicating work already under way, and it may constrain the way the Government continue to work in partnership with local government.

The overall approach to this work is being undertaken jointly with local government through the ministerial Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which meets quarterly. This is co-chaired with the Local Government Association. The group has discussed the development of a framework for local government to provide more clarity on the roles and responsibilities for net zero and energy. This group will need to reflect on the role of local government on energy planning and net zero in the context of the warm homes plan and Great British Energy’s local power plan, both due shortly.

The kind of research envisaged by the amendment is already under way. This has been commissioned by DESNZ from local government officials working in local net zero hubs. This includes preparing guidance for local authorities on what they need to do on energy planning to prepare for the regional energy strategic plans that Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—are producing. Ofgem and NESO are looking to consult on the approach and methodology later this year. They are also developing guidance and tools for local government to help it specify and procure high-quality data to support energy planning, with outputs due by January 2026.

In conclusion, we do not believe that primary legislation is the right place to set out in such detail a programme of work to review local energy planning. We are sympathetic to the points raised and agree with the point made in Committee about the importance of including local understanding in delivering the bigger picture on energy planning. I hope I have been able to give some assurances that the Government agree that local involvement in energy planning is important and that the kind of work the amendment envisages is already under way.

I must stress the need to review local area energy planning in the context of ongoing work and other policies and strategies as and when they are published, rather than to the timetable and in the way set out in the amendment. Preferably, this should be in partnership with local government, reflecting needs and approaches. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is satisfied with our response and will consider withdrawing her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, group 14 concerns a matter of principle that cuts across the Bill: the appropriate level of parliamentary oversight for far-reaching executive powers. New Section 38A introduces a consumer benefit scheme to provide financial compensation to those living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The principle behind this is entirely sound. It is right that communities that host nationally significant infrastructure should share in its benefits.

We support Amendments 26 and 27 in the name of the Minister. Amendment 26 would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, not just those relating to offences or enforcement. These regulations will define who qualifies for support, how benefits are delivered and the responsibilities of electricity suppliers. These are substantive decisions that should not be made without oversight of Parliament.

Amendment 27 is a necessary consequential amendment to reflect this change. Given the wide scope of delegated powers in the new section inserted by the clause, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament has a say in how much a significant scheme is developed and applied. The affirmative procedure does not prevent progress. It simply ensures that when Ministers exercise broad powers, they do so transparently and with accountability.

We believe these amendments strike the right balance between enabling the Government to deliver the scheme and ensuring that Parliament plays its proper role. We are pleased to support them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for speaking, and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for getting Halifax and Huddersfield mixed up. But neither Halifax nor Huddersfield will be getting their own clause in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

This is a massive missed opportunity, because the Government did not spend a moment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, did, to work out for themselves what they wanted to achieve or set a purpose that works with the grain of the nation, rather than always kicking against the bricks that should be laid by the bricklayers—the ground workers, tilers and carpenters—who now sit idly as a result, until the moment when we get another planning Bill. I shall not stand against the noble Baroness, but I hope that she will reflect in winding that perhaps she could and should have gone a little further to frame her amendment in enhancing that delicate balance between the private and public interests, so that the economy can get going and these houses can get built.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward this purpose clause. It serves as a timely reminder of what the Bill is meant to achieve: the delivery of 1.5 million new homes and important infrastructure projects. It is increasingly hard to escape the conclusion that this goal is slipping further and further from reach. The problem is not simply one of ambition but of process and principle. The Government have tabled no fewer than 67 new amendments to the Bill, in almost 30 pages of legislative text, and have done so at a very late stage.

The media were briefed in advance, I note, yet this House received no explanation from Ministers when those amendments were laid until last Tuesday. Under normal circumstances, such sweeping provisions would warrant detailed scrutiny in Committee, not introduction on Report. To describe them as minor or technical, as Ministers have attempted to do, simply does not match the scale and significance of what has been briefed to the press. The Financial Times and others have reported that the Government’s own description of these measures is that they represent substantial reforms to the planning system, so which is it? Are these minor adjustments or a fundamental rewrite of national planning policy? It appears that we are witnessing a major talk-up—an oversell of provisions designed to mask the Government’s ongoing failure to deliver the homes. It is a conjuring trick, saying one thing to the press and quite another in this Chamber.

According to reports, the Prime Minister himself ordered a last-minute rewrite of the Bill, with Ministers working throughout the weekend to agree a package intended to speed up major housing and infrastructure schemes. That was on Friday 10 October. Earlier that same week, the Financial Times revealed that that rewrite forms part of a broader effort to boost growth and patch up public finances ahead of the November Budget—a Budget date already circled in the calendar of many families in this country and of businesses and pensioners, though not with much enthusiasm.

Monthly construction output fell by an estimated 0.3% in August 2025, after showing no growth at all in July. I therefore ask the Minister how the Bill will change that. Should not the Government instead focus on things such as modular construction, utilising 3D modelling and reviewing outdated regulations? No Act of Parliament can succeed if the construction industry itself is faltering under the environment the Government have created.

It is therefore fair to ask whether these amendments reflect deliberate legislative design or the political and fiscal pressures of the moment. By mid-October, the Treasury would already have seen the OBR’s preliminary focus and, I rather suspect, blanched at what it showed. It may be that in the face of deteriorating growth and revenue projections, someone in Whitehall decided that a hasty burst of planning reform might steady the nerves ahead of the Budget, but legislation made in haste rarely makes good law. The planning system must balance the urgent need for homes and infrastructure, with, as we have heard, the rights of local communities and the principles of democratic scrutiny. Bypassing consultation, local accountability and indeed proper deliberation in your Lordships’ House, the Government risk undermining the very trust and co-operation they will need to deliver their own housing ambitions.

The Government have clearly not learned. They crudely cut £5 billion from welfare in haste in the spring in pursuit of a green tick on the OBR’s scorecard. I fear that they are now making the same mistake again, rushing to legislate for the sake of appearance rather than outcomes for this country. That is why this purpose clause is so valuable. It brings us back to the first principles. What is the purpose of the Bill? Is it truly to build homes or to centralise power? We do not even know who is in charge of this legislation. Is it No. 10, No. 11 or MHCLG? The Minister knows that throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to offer the Government constructive support, but it becomes ever harder to do so when their approach borders on chaos: saying one thing and doing another; briefing the press with grand claims while sidelining Parliament and scrutiny. I hope the Minister recognises the depth of disappointment felt across this House.

In conclusion, whatever the Government’s intention, the manner in which these amendments have been introduced must not diminish the scrutiny they receive. The House has a duty to examine legislation carefully, especially when it touches on this delicate balance between local democracy and national authority. We will approach these amendments in that spirit—with diligence, patience and respect for due process—and we will not be rushed or intimidated into setting aside our responsibilities in the name of political convenience. The scale and consequence of these proposals demands nothing less than the full and thoughtful consideration of your Lordships’ House.

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

Well, well, my Lords, that was a wide-ranging debate for an opening debate on a purpose clause. Nevertheless, I thank those who contributed to the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank her for her extensive engagement between Committee and Report.

This is indeed an ambitious piece of legislation. It is our next step to fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. The Bill will support delivery of the Government’s hugely ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that his Government had 14 years to fix the sclerotic planning system that has hobbled growth in this country for over a decade, yet they failed to do so. Our Government are working across departments—yes, and I welcome that—to deliver what the last Government failed to do, which is to build the homes we need and the infrastructure that will support those homes, and to get our economy moving again.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I am afraid she cannot have it both ways on the amendments that the Government have tabled. She has accused me in this Chamber of not listening. Well, we did listen in Committee and some of the amendments are in response to issues that were raised then. A number of those amendments relate to the devolved Administrations and we rightfully had consultations with those Administrations between Committee and Report. There are some truly pro-growth measures that we feel are rightly pressing and need to be done to improve the delivery of infrastructure, and there are a number of technical, minor amendments.

The Bill is not the only step towards improving the economy and delivering against our plan for change. The noble Baroness will know that we have reissued the National Planning Policy Framework; we have provided funding and training for planners; and we have provided a huge packet of support for SMEs. I met the APPG for SME House Builders the other day and it was pleased with the package that is being delivered. There is more to be done in working with the APPG, and I will be happy to do that. We have also carried out a fundamental review of the building safety regulator. All these things will contribute to the growth we all want to see.

I outlined the core objectives of the Bill at Second Reading, and we also discussed these at length in Committee. I do not suggest that I do so a third time. I recognise that planning law can be a complex part of the statute book to negotiate and interpret, whether you are a developer, a local authority, the courts or even a member of the public. I also appreciate that where a Bill has one sole objective, a purpose clause could clearly articulate this, assist people with understanding the Bill and affect the interpretation of its provisions. This Bill has a number of different objectives, with much of it amending existing law. A purpose clause is not helpful in these circumstances and could create unintended consequences. It is simply not possible or prudent for all these objectives to apply equally to each provision.

I believe we are all united by a shared objective today. On whichever side of the House we sit, we all agree that this House plays an important role in scrutinising legislation to ensure it achieves the intended objectives and to maximise the Bill’s benefit. I firmly believe that the intention behind this amendment is noble. I understand that it is tabled to aid interpretation of the Bill. My issues with purpose clauses, and the reasons I cannot accept this amendment, boil down to two things: their necessity and the potential for unintended consequences. Well-written legislation provides a clear articulation of what changes are proposed by the Government to deliver their objectives. It is for the Government to set out in debate why they are bringing forward a Bill during parliamentary passage. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the intended changes to the law should speak for themselves.

The Government’s objectives are clear. They are also woven into this legislation through reference to a number of different targeted documents that set out the Government’s strategic intent in specific areas of policy. It is right that these objectives vary according to the topic—some of these objectives will be more important for one issue than another. If this was not the case, the Bill would lose its strategic vision.

The Government strongly support a strategic approach to planning. The word “strategic” is mentioned 196 times in the Bill, as amended in Committee. The Bill inserts a part specifically called “Strategic plan-making”, intended to ensure that planning decisions are undertaken at a more strategic level. Large parts of the Bill are drafted to take a more strategic, targeted approach to achieving the Government’s objectives. For example, this legislation gives regard to other strategic documents, such as the clean power action plan. This is all done with the intention of making clear how this legislation seeks to deliver the Government’s objectives.

Adding a purpose clause to the Bill is not the answer to addressing the complexity of the statute book, or even this legislation. In practice, it would do the opposite; it would add additional room for interpretation to a Bill intending to accelerate delivery and simplify a system. It risks creating additional complexity in interpretation, gumming up the planning system further. It risks reinserting the gold-plating behaviour we are seeking to remove. Developers and local authorities, for example, would feel obligated to show how they have considered priorities that are much more relevant to other parts of the Bill for fear of legal action. A purpose clause would provide a hook for those looking to judicially review or appeal decisions in order to slow them down.

The measures in the Bill should be allowed to speak for themselves. They have been carefully drafted to be interpreted without a purpose clause. The courts should be left to interpret the law without having to navigate their way through a maze of different purposes sitting on top of strategic objectives. A purpose clause would create ambiguity rather than clarity.

It does not appear to me, from the debate I have heard, that the House is confused by why the Government are seeking to bring this Bill forward. I think we all know that we seek to achieve the growth and the homes that this country deserves. We should therefore move forward to further debate how best to achieve them. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I am speaking ahead of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who has Amendment 7B. It is a pity she said 20 or more houses, because the loss of any number of houses to a large reservoir should cause us to stop and think. That will have a significant impact on people, on their family histories and on the whole way their little community works. If the noble Baroness pushes her amendment to a vote, we on these Benches will be inclined to support her.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 4—the new clause to be inserted after Clause 2—relates to projects concerning water. As I understand it, this amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties, appointed by water undertakers, to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project under Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008, provided that the other conditions set out in Sections 27, 28 and 28A of that Act are met.

While I appreciate the intention to streamline delivery and facilitate investment in critical water infrastructure, I must raise a number of concerns and questions to the Minister. First, what safeguards will ensure that the thresholds for NSIP designation—particularly those relating to scale and national importance—are still meaningfully applied? It is essential that this designation remains reserved for truly nationally significant projects, not simply those that happen to be large or, indeed, convenient.

Secondly, can the Minister clarify why the existing provisions—which limit NSIP status to projects undertaken directly by water undertakers—are now deemed insufficient? What problem, precisely, is this amendment intended to solve?

Additionally, are the Government considering similar extensions of NSIP eligibility in other sections of infrastructure? If so, it would be helpful for your Lordships’ House to understand whether this represents a broader shift in planning policy or an exceptional measure just limited to water infrastructure.

Finally, will the Government commit to a review of the amendment’s impact after, say, three or five years, to ensure that it has not led to unintended consequences, particularly in relation to accountability, environmental standards or the integrity of the NSIP regime?

I also welcome my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments in this group. I understand he has had many discussions with the Minister, and I thank the Government for their response on these amendments.

Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also raises important questions for Ministers about the ability of farmers and landowners to develop small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities. We know we need more reservoirs, and the Government have talked about this a great deal. We look to Ministers to show willing on smaller reservoirs too, and we encourage the Minister to listen to my noble friend on this important issue.

Finally, Amendment 7A in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson and my Amendment 7B are on introducing due process for communities and heritage threatened by reservoirs being delivered through the NSIP process. We tabled these amendments in response to the Government’s amendment tabled last Monday and we are keen to work with the Government to get a workable amendment into the Bill, if it is necessary.

I also say at the outset that we are fully supportive of the steps to get on with the delivery of critical national infrastructure, but where consultation of local communities and heritage protections are disapplied through the NSIP process, we have to be sure that is appropriate in those cases. As the Government seek to deliver more reservoirs, we want to ensure that communities, heritage and local individuals who have their homes, gardens and history invested in those areas are protected and that the Secretary of State takes proper account of their views. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay has spoken about a number of historical examples. If villages are to be flooded in the future, with all their history and heritage, we must make sure a proper process is followed.

It is not just in the north of England that we have reservoirs. I farmed near Bough Beech and I knew Bewl Water in Kent; both of these were where some communities were flooded. Decades and generations on, people are still talking about the community that is under that water.

We will therefore seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7B and ask the Minister to seriously consider making sure that future communities will be protected.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

7B: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Projects relating to water which require the demolition of villagesAfter section 35(4) (directions in relation to projects of national significance) of the Planning Act 2008 insert—“(4A) Where a development falls within the definition in section 27 and requires the demolition of more than 20 residential properties the Secretary of State may not give a direction under subsection (1) unless the persons who live at, or otherwise occupy, premises in the vicinity of the land have been notified and given the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State.””

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. However, for future communities who may be affected by the issues we have been debating, and in order to ensure not just proper consultation but proper engagement in those schemes, I wish to divide the House on my Amendment 7B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened in Committee to the concerns that were raised about the acceptance process. I am pleased that there has been a rethink. The changes proposed in the amendments are not opposed by these Benches.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have before us the Government’s latest set of amendments to Clause 6—or should I say what used to be Clause 6 before the Government took a pair of legislative shears to it? This clause as originally drafted, as we have heard from the Minister, would have changed the test for when an application for a development consent order is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. The Government now appear to have decided that their proposal was, in fact, unnecessary, perhaps even unworkable, so we are back to the status quo: the clear, objective test that ensures that applications are accepted only when they meet the proper standards of completeness and adequacy. Thank goodness for that. The test protects everyone: developers, communities and the integrity of the process. It ensures clarity at the gateway stage, not confusion. I thank the Minister for making these changes to the Bill.

Amendment 13 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. It seems that all the experience we have is that there is not coherence where there ought to be. I thank the Minister for her earlier willingness to react to the House and show that she was able to make the changes the House asked for. I hope she will say to her colleagues how much it helps the Government if we feel that they listen on things which are not party political but about how best to organise ourselves.

With the range of regulators we have, it is crucial to get coherence. I believe that we all know we have not got it at the moment. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, may not be ideal—I do not think he sees it in those terms—but it seeks to get from the Government a coherent programme for coherence. We all know that every day the urgency that climate change forces upon us gets more and more obvious. I have just come back from Northern Ireland, where businesses right across the board were saying how important that was and—I have to say to my noble friend—pointing out how unacceptable it is to try to change the architecture we have to try to deal with this. That architecture will work much better if we get a greater coherence across the board.

Therefore, I hope the Minister will be kind enough at least to give us some understanding of the way in which the Government hope to bring about that coherence and, in that, give us something about dates and times. I was a Minister for rather a long time and I know perfectly well that it is very easy to promise in general about the future almost any nice thing but what really matters is when and how it is going to be done.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 20A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, was considered in Committee. A number of questions were asked, and I think a number of questions remain unanswered. While we fully recognise the importance of sustainable development, we are not persuaded that this amendment is necessary. It appears to us that the Government already have—or should have—the tools they need to guide public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process, and I think we are satisfied that these powers are sufficient.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for meeting me during recess to discuss this. His Amendment 20A seeks to ensure that, in relation to NSIP for low-carbon energy, relevant authorities should have special regard to the achievement of Government’s environmental targets and sustainable development.

The amendment is similar to one debated in Committee. It refers specifically to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting and adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts under the Climate Change Act 2008, the achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021, and achieving sustainable development.

As the Government made clear in Committee, we recognise the importance of this issue, but we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It is vital that we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure we need, not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. The Bill will deliver a win-win for growth and nature. Developments such as clean energy infrastructure are key to tackling the climate crisis and supporting nature recovery. The Government also appreciate the important role that these bodies play in the planning system. That is why we have taken action in response to the Corry review to ensure that these bodies are joined up and aligned with the Government’s broader priorities. I will say a bit more about that in a moment.

As I did in Committee, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are already utilising the tools they have to guide the considerations given by public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process. The first of these relates to national policy. The energy national policy statements already take full account of the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and to ensure that the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. We are also strengthening national policy statements through this Bill by requiring that they are updated at least every five years, and by making it easier to undertake interim updates for certain types of material amendments. The Government have recently concluded consultation on drafts of EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5, which will be updated to reflect the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan.

The second relates to guidance. It is critical that public bodies engage fully in examinations so that the examining authority has access to their expertise and can properly scrutinise the application before reporting to the Secretary of State. Through the Bill, the Government are introducing a new duty on public bodies to have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State in making representations as part of examinations. This guidance will support government objectives by ensuring that these bodies engage effectively in the process and can provide the right information in a timely way.

We are currently consulting on reforms across the NSIP system to streamline the process. As well as consulting on what pre-application guidance to applicants should contain, we are seeking views on whether to strengthen expectations that statutory bodies attend hearings in person where relevant. As we then review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider how this, alongside government policy in national policy statements, can support the intent of the amendment.

As I have made clear today, the guidance the Government will issue to statutory bodies about their role in the NSIP process will play a vital role, I hope, in addressing noble Lords’ concerns. The Government are clearly in the process of developing policies to update, streamline and rationalise the operation of these bodies and that of regulators and their role in the operation of the planning system, in response to both the Corry and the Cunliffe reviews. My colleagues would welcome further engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and others in the House who have a particular interest in this area, as we undertake the important work.

Complex projects engage multiple regimes, and I understand that they find themselves batted backwards and forwards between Defra regulators. So we are piloting a lead environmental regulator model to provide a single point of contact for developers on the most complex schemes. We have already made a start, working with the Lower Thames Crossing on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked about the timescale for releasing strategic policy statements for Defra regulators in response to the Corry review. This is one of nine fast-tracked recommendations—and I mean fast-tracked. We will communicate on this very soon—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that I am sorry to use that term—and, when I say “very soon”, I am talking about days, not weeks or months; I hope that gives him some guidance. As the noble Lord knows, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters that are relevant and important to decisions. For all those reasons, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is right to raise this as an issue of importance. Equally, she pointed to the fact that the impact and effect of EDPs will be discussed at more length when we discuss Part 3. Although EDPs do have a significant part to play in any NSIP consenting regime, the essence of this is about EDPs. Therefore, I hope we can look to a further debate on the whole issue of EDPs when we come to Part 3 later on Report.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing forward Amendment 21. Ensuring that planning consent adequately considers environmental protections is vital and must not be overlooked. However, we are clear, and indeed passionate in our conviction, that the implementation of environmental delivery plans in their current form is deeply problematic. As drafted, the policy risks riding roughshod over our current environmental regime. We must also not forget the interests of farmers and land managers, who are, after all, the principal stewards of our natural environment. My noble friend Lord Roborough will speak in more detail on this topic and develop our position further from Committee in the coming days. My noble friend Lady Coffey is right to highlight how a local environmental delivery plan will interact with a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Government must be clear on how this will work in practice and what they intend to consider when reviewing the impact of these projects.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan, or EDP, is taken into account by the Secretary of State when making a decision whether to grant permission to a nationally significant infrastructure project.

I can assure noble Lords that the way in which EDPs will work in practice means that this amendment is not necessary. Meeting the relevant environmental obligations with an EDP, just as when satisfying them under the current system, is a separate part of the process to the granting of permission. When a promoter commits to pay the levy in relation to an EDP, the making of that commitment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.

I emphasise again that it will, aside from in exceptional circumstances, be a voluntary decision for the promoter of a nationally significant infrastructure project to decide whether they pay the levy to rely on the EDP. This means that while the Secretary of State will need to consider a wide variety of matters, for the purposes of these decisions, the EDP will not be a consideration other than as a way of reflecting that the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature will have been addressed. It does not need to be considered beyond that in the decision to grant permission. This notwithstanding, the Secretary of State may already have regard to any matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision.

I therefore hope, with this explanation, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 11B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, seeks to allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to up to three weeks of rent. Like many of the charities involved in the animal welfare sector that have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, I am disappointed that we are having to return to this subject after it was clearly rejected in the other place, having been the subject of intense discussion. Charities including Battersea, Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust strongly support the Government’s position, and so do I. The reason for that is clear. Such an obligation would defeat the very purpose of the pet provisions in this carefully balanced Bill, which are designed to make pet ownership easier for tenants and remove the iniquity that owning a pet is the preserve of the increasingly small number of people who can afford to own their own home. I declare my own interests as the owner of a cat.

Let us be clear: as I said in Committee, for tenants seeking to have a single pet in rented accommodation, there is likely to be only very minimal, if any, damage. The standard security deposit is more than sufficient to cover any damage beyond standard wear and tear, as a survey conducted in 2021 by YouGov on behalf of the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection concluded. In rare circumstances, where damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit, measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant. As such, charging an additional pet deposit is unnecessarily and wholly disproportionate.

This costly proposal would put the wonderful aspiration of pet ownership beyond the reach of many. Allowing landlords to require a pet deposit equivalent of up to three weeks’ rent could see tenants forced to find up to an additional £1,500 for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas such as London—a figure which is unaffordable for many. It would also introduce an unfair geographical disparity, with those living in cities, where rents are higher, being far worse off compared with those living in rural areas.

Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency regarding what a landlord decides should constitute pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Many landlords, I fear, would see this as an extra fund to provide an option to withhold more money simply for standard wear and tear.

The pet provisions in the Bill have been thoroughly and energetically debated, both inside and outside this House. It is clear from all those discussions that the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet and that this amendment is completely unnecessary. Its only result would be to neuter one of the key planks of this vital legislation, destroying the hopes of so many tenants who dream of having a pet in their home. Today, we should make that dream a reality, so I am afraid that, if the noble Lord presses his Motion, I shall be voting against it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters: first, the Ministry of Defence accommodation, and then the pet deposit. On the Ministry of Defence housing, we thank the Government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised, and the Government’s response has been both proportionate and pragmatic. On these Benches, as ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the Government’s Motion.

Turning to pets, I support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on an issue that has filled my inbox and, I know, that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson as well. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet-related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. However, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, emphasised, no such insurance product actually existed. Once the Government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing was put in its place.

The noble Lord’s amendment would restore that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring that renters can keep pets in their homes while landlords have reassurance that any pet-related damage can be covered. If there is no damage, the deposit will be returned. Recent research by Propertymark shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets. Yet more staggeringly, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.

Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these Benches will support him.

Finally, I thank the Government for their constructive engagement and the assurances given in writing and from the Dispatch Box on the standard of proof. Those commitments provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister’s response.

Taken together, we believe that these measures improve the Bill, and make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for tenants and landlords alike.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their positive approaches throughout the course of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his support—I will come on to some of the points that he raised in a moment—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

I think the responses to this part of the debate are pragmatic. I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. He mentioned the Government’s change in position on pet insurance. We had an extensive debate, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We drew on the expertise of Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees. The Government consulted further with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following that engagement, we concluded that we were no longer confident that the insurance and underwriting sector would have sufficient or suitable products available for landlords or tenants to purchase.

In view of that, we did not want to leave tenants in a position where they could not comply with conditions set as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean they would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having pet provisions in the Bill. I am pleased to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has indicated its support for the Government’s approach, including the approach of not accepting this amendment. I received just today a letter of very strong support from Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, and another email from Shelter expressing its support and hope that this amendment would not be accepted, because it did not feel that it was in the interest of tenants or their pets. We used the information from the University of Huddersfield as part of our consideration.

It is important to say that, as I noted in my opening speech, we will continue to keep this under review. We have powers to allow for higher deposits for pets, if needed. We are satisfied at the moment that the existing requirement of five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any increased damage by pet ownership. I know some landlords are concerned about potential damage that may be caused by pets. Landlords can deduct damage costs from the normal tenancy deposit, as they do now. In rare cases, where the deposit did not cover the cost of the damage, the landlord could take the tenant to the small claims court and bring a money claim to recoup any outstanding amounts, in line with the wider rules in the sector.

We do not want to put tenants in a position where they cannot have a pet because there are no suitable insurance products available or they cannot afford the additional cost of a deposit. We will keep this matter under review, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 53”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move motion H1 as an amendment to motion H. I speak briefly to two important possession grounds, those concerning students and carers, and I also thank the Minister for her support on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which this side of the House supported strongly.

First, on students, as your Lordships know, Amendment 53A sought to expand Ground 4A so that it also applied to one and two-bedroom properties let to students. Extending this ground would maintain essential stability in the market, ensuring that students arriving each autumn are not left without somewhere to live. Without it, landlords may be unable to gain possession in time for the new academic year, reducing availability, pushing up rents and increasing uncertainty. This is not simply about convenience—it is about fairness and inclusion. Many of these smaller homes are occupied by students who need quieter or self-contained accommodation. Often these include those who are neurodiverse and find shared living environments particularly challenging. For them, access to such housing is not a preference, it is a necessity. To exclude these properties from Ground 4A risks creating a two-tier system that leaves the most vulnerable in our society behind. I hope the Minister, and indeed our Liberal Democrat colleagues who once spoke so passionately in defence of students, will reflect very carefully on the points I bring forward.

We have a number of case studies that illustrate the implications of this ill-conceived plan, from Cornwall and Portsmouth to Loughborough. In Portsmouth, a letting agent and Propertymark member reported very high numbers of students renting one and two-bedroom flats, accounting for 20% or 30% of their portfolio—not a small number—and those included many international students. In Loughborough, feedback from another Propertymark agent on student tenancies showed a lower number of HMO lets compared with houses and flats. The evidence flatly contradicts the Government’s claims that one and two-bedroom student properties account for only a small fraction of the market. Regional variations exist, but the pattern is clear. These homes are a substantial and vital component of the student housing sector, and by excluding them from Ground 4A, the Government risk creating a two-tier system both geographically and between students themselves, particularly those with specific or additional needs.

I turn to carers and express my strong support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As I said on Report, this amendment is tightly drawn and provides flexibility in exceptional circumstances, where a property close to home could be used to care for a loved one, enabling people to live independently and with dignity, rather than entering into the institutional care system. Propertymark has also highlighted a helpful precedent from Wales where, under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, carers can have succession rights if the tenant they care for dies. While I understand that provision does not apply to landlords’ carers, it does demonstrate that such flexibility is possible in law and can be delivered responsibly.

If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will support him. I also beg to move Motion H1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I still do not understand why a group of students is not being looked after quite the same as other students. Therefore, I urge the House to support my Motion H1 to send the Bill back to the other place with our concerns for equality in the student housing sector, with housing for students who want, indeed need, small homes. Not every student can either work or live comfortably in an HMO, and not every student can afford specific student accommodation. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am concerned about this amendment, in particular subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, because it talks about repealing primary legislation. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is getting at in trying to make legislation straightforward. That is why we have all these schedules to legislation nowadays, to try to bring that about. I fear, and I have heard on the grapevine, that the noble Lord has been advised by somebody who is now advising somebody very important in the Government and who has also made subsequent comments about how nature is getting in the way of development. While I am conscious of the positive intentions that the noble Lord seeks to achieve through the amendment, I am just flagging my concern.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing forward Amendment 356A for the consideration of the Committee today. The proposed new clause would allow for pre-consolidation amendments to be made to planning legislation in anticipation of a full future consolidation Bill. Its purpose, as I understand it, is to probe the desirability and feasibility of consolidating the extensive and at times unwieldy body of planning law. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the matter.

It comes at a timely moment. We hear that, hot on the heels of the first planning Bill, the Government may now be contemplating a second. As we have said from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, if the Government had proceeded to commence either in full or even in part the schedules and clauses already contained within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, we might well have avoided the need for yet another Bill in the first place.

That brings me to the specific questions for the Minister. Can she confirm whether there is any truth in the strong rumours circulating that a new planning Bill is indeed on its way? If so, will such a Bill aim to consolidate the many changes that have been made right across the breadth of planning law in recent years? Do the Government accept that consolidation is both needed and desirable, not least to provide clarity and certainty to practitioners, local authorities and communities alike? Finally, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered what such a consolidation process might look like and under what timescale it might realistically be delivered? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for Amendment 356A and for highlighting the merits of consolidating our planning legislation. As someone who has been on the sticky end of it for a number of years, I can absolutely see his point.

My noble friend is not the first to consider this. Indeed, the existing legislative framework provides the Government with sufficient powers to consolidate the planning legislation at an appropriate time. Specifically, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, Section 132 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides the Secretary of State with broad and flexible powers to make regulations that amend, repeal or otherwise modify a wide range of planning-related statutes.

While we have no immediate plans to consolidate planning legislation in England, we will keep this under review, as we recognise that consolidating planning legislation could offer some benefits. Since the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the legislative framework has undergone numerous amendments, and consolidation may help to streamline and simplify the system. However, a comprehensive consolidation needs to be weighed against the risks of uncertainty and disruption, particularly at a time when the Government are prioritising targeted planning reform to drive economic growth.

Any move towards consolidation would also require substantial resources, so we would need to be confident that it has clear benefits. At this stage, we believe that targeted reform is the best way forward, but we are live to the possibilities that consolidation offers. I hope that my noble friend and other Peers with an interest in planning will continue to work with us. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, SME builders play a very important role in the housebuilding sector of the country because they are able to build on small sites that often need to be redeveloped or are in villages or small townships. We need to encourage SME builders, because they add variety to the range of housebuilders that we rely on in this country. It does seem that, throughout this Bill, there has been too much emphasis on the major house developers—on the basis, I guess, that they are the only source of the very large numbers of housing units that the country requires.

I know that throughout the Bill the Government have attempted to support SMEs, although I am not sure that that has been sufficient. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has important points to make about SMEs. As always in planning, it is the balance—between encouraging SMEs, maybe at the expense of some of the regulations regarding environment, and relying too heavily on the major housebuilders, which will be able to cope with the growing need for consideration of environmental responsibilities. I look forward to what the Government are going to say about this; encouraging SME builders is really important.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are nearly there. I thank all noble Lords from across the House for their contributions to the Bill. Over long and often intricate debates, sometimes stretching well into the night, your Lordships have engaged with candour, with insight and with seriousness befitting the weight of these issues. The cross-party spirit of scrutiny and the diligence shown in Committee has, I believe, genuinely strengthened our deliberations.

Amendment 361, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is sound and reasonable. I shall not detain the Committee with another extended rehearsal of why Part 3 is, in our view, both damaging and unnecessary. But let me be clear: despite the Government’s determination to plough ahead with this part of the Bill, the opposition to it will only crystallise further on Report. Part 3 needs to go. At the very least, there must be an independent oversight of its administration. Without that, the concerns raised in Committee will only deepen.

The two thoughtful amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe are practical and considered proposals that go right to the heart of the issues we have debated throughout Committee. Amendment 363 would ensure that the Secretary of State updates all national policy statements before the Act can be commenced. This is vital; out-of-date national policy statements do not provide the clarity or certainty required for developers, planners or communities.

Meanwhile, Amendment 364 would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes an analysis of how each section of the Bill will affect the speed of the planning process and construction before any provisions are commenced. If the central purpose of the Bill is, as Ministers insist, to accelerate planning and speed up delivery, it is only fair to ask how it will achieve that objective in practice. Will it, for example, make any real progress towards the former Deputy Prime Minister’s target of 1.5 million new homes, a promise which, under this Government, looks ever more distant as housebuilding rates continue to decline?

I conclude by returning to the point that I made at the start of Committee. This Bill does not go far enough. It makes adjustments to processes, to roles, to fees and to training. But it leaves untouched the fundamental framework of planning—the very framework that needs serious, bold reform if we are to unlock the scale of housebuilding that this country so urgently requires. We now hear rumours of a second planning Bill to come. If that is true, what your Lordships’ House has been asked to consider is not reform but merely a prelude.

The Government have missed an opportunity with this Bill. They had the chance to set a clear vision for the planning system that delivers for communities, supports growth and tackles the housing crisis head on. Instead, they have brought forward a piecemeal piece of legislation more about tinkering at the edges than about grasping the real challenge. The Government have chosen to use up their remaining political capital on Part 3 rather than building more homes, and the Minister will soon realise that she and her department have wasted their energy on this Bill.

I repeat my thanks to all the staff in the House: the doorkeepers, the technical staff and Hansard have all had to work very hard on nights when we have sat late on this Bill, and I thank them very much for that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the amendment, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee debates and the meetings we have held around the Committee stage of the Bill. We have apparently spent 60 hours in the Chamber debating the Bill and covered 650 amendments. Noble Lords’ knowledge and experience have helped us to shape this important new approach to planning, growth and the environment, which has been especially valuable.

I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople who have shown great stamina and fortitude, which has been really greatly appreciated. I also thank all the outside bodies who have contributed to our debates in the House. I especially thank all the officials who have worked on the Bill. The processes in the House of Lords mean that our officials often have to work at very short notice on putting together papers for Front-Benchers. I also thank the staff of the House, who have worked often very long hours on the Bill.

I also give my personal thanks to my fellow Front-Bench government spokespeople, the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Wilson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who have supported me so ably on the Front Bench during Committee. I am extremely grateful to them for their support.

This final group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, relates to the commencement of the legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her support and encouragement of the growth agenda that the Bill is aimed at promoting. As we have made clear throughout Committee, our Planning and Infrastructure Bill will play a key role in unlocking economic growth, and we must progress to implementation as swiftly as possible to start reaping the benefits of these measures and getting shovels in the ground—including shovels operated by SME builders. My noble friend Lord Livermore yesterday quoted the fact that this Bill has already been assessed to be making a great contribution to the economic growth we all want to see.

On Amendment 363, while I commend the intent of bring all national policy statements up to date, we must resist this amendment because the clauses in the Bill already address this through the introduction of a requirement for all NPSs to be reviewed and updated at least every five years. These clauses include transitional requirements, the most stringent of which require the NPSs which were designated more than five years before the date when the clauses came into force and have not been amended, to be brought up to date within a two-year period. Delaying the commencement of the rest of the Act until such a time as all NPSs have been updated is therefore unreasonable and would have a detrimental impact on the objectives of the Bill, stalling delivery and growth in our country.

Amendment 253 also seeks to have all remaining sections of the Bill come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. Commencement regulations under this amendment are to be subject to a negative resolution. The commencement of each section of the Bill has been carefully considered with regard to the specific issue and relevant circumstances to determine whether that provision should come into force on the day the Act is passed, or a set period beginning with the day on which the Act is passed, or on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. This bespoke consideration should not be displaced by a blanket rule requiring commencement regulations, and I do not believe there is any reasonable basis for requiring all commencement regulations to be subject to the negative procedure rather than the generally standard procedure of commencement regulations not being subject to any procedure.

Amendment 364 would require the Secretary of State to publish analysis regarding the impact of each section of the Bill on the speed of the planning process before we can commence any of its provisions. I appreciate the noble Baroness’ intentions behind this amendment, and we are aligned in that we want the Bill to have as big an impact as possible in unlocking growth and accelerating development across the country. However, we have already published a full impact assessment on the Bill, including analysis of how each measure will impact on the planning system. As I mentioned earlier, this analysis showed that the economy could be boosted by up to £7.5 billion over the next decade by this pro-growth legislation, and we should not look to delay the implementation of these clauses and the reaping of the Bill’s benefits across the planning system.

We are confident that the Bill will streamline and turbocharge planning processes. For example, our analysis of the Bill’s reforms to the pre-application stage of the NSIP regime shows that these changes could reduce the typical time projects spend in pre-application by up to 12 months. This is a dramatic acceleration of the current system and of delivery of major economic infrastructure and demonstrates clearly how the Bill will get Britain building again. With these reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.