Business Improvement Districts: Town Centre Renewal

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I greatly value the role played by religious buildings from all denominations in our public spaces, and the right reverend Prelate was right to refer to some of the development that has taken place. The Pride in Place Strategy sets out how we will deliver £5 billion over 10 years to 244 neighbourhoods, which means that our communities can take part in developing their neighbourhoods in a way that is right for them. We will deliver £20 million of funding and support to be spent by local neighbourhood boards, and we are encouraging all members of the community, including community organisations, to get involved with those boards to drive local renewal. We will then have a separate pride in place impact fund, which will deliver a cash injection of £150 million to an additional 95 places, to be spent to improve high streets and community spaces.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, although business improvement districts work hard to revive our town centres—for which we thank them—many of them face tightening fiscal environments, despite the previous answers from the Minister. Business rates are rising, employers are dealing with higher national insurance contributions and the freeze in personal tax thresholds compounds pressures on local workers—and this coupled with costly local government reorganisation. Do the Government believe that this combination of rising costs and administrative upheaval is helping or hindering town centre renewal and local growth? What assessment have they made of the impact of these measures on our town centres?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The local government reorganisation that is taking place will create more resilient and stronger local councils, which will be able to support their communities with the suite of activity that we have provided in the pride in place funding, to make sure that they are developing and that the community spaces they value are being supported and developed in a way that is right for them. Local government has been absolutely denuded of funding over the past 14 years, so I will not take any lessons on how to support local government from the Tory Benches in this House. It is really important that we get local government on a firm footing with its funding, so that it can support the local communities that have felt that their high streets have been neglected for far too long.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Government for accepting the substance of my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment —an important step that these Benches strongly support. We now look forward to scrutinising in full the regulations establishing a national scheme for the delegation of planning decisions through the affirmative resolution procedure.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on accepting such a sensible amendment. She was kind enough to write to me about non-hazardous reservoirs. She said in that letter that the regulations and guidance will be kept under review. I urge her to use her good offices to ensure that both Houses will be able to review that. I once again record my huge disappointment that the non-hazardous reservoirs legislation will not come into effect before 2028, which is far too late, given the impact. Reservoirs are operating below capacity already, and the deficit we will face in Yorkshire over the next year especially is deeply regrettable.

Local Elections

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, three weeks ago, in this Chamber, the Minister assured the House that the Government intended to go ahead with all local elections in May 2026. What has changed in just three weeks? Were local government and the Electoral Commission consulted on these changes?

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. All local government elections that are scheduled for 2026 will go ahead unless there are exceptional circumstances. These elections, which are inaugural elections for four new mayors in the areas concerned, have not taken place before, and my colleagues have taken the opportunity to reflect on the most effective way of ensuring that those mayoral institutions are best placed to deliver.

We know that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. Moving forward, we are seeking to facilitate the establishment of those foundational strategic authorities to build the local capacity and collaboration that is needed ahead of accessing mayoral powers. We think that this will make them stronger in the long run and make sure that those authorities are built on firm foundations. That is why the decision has been taken to have those mayoral elections in 2028. My colleague, Minister Fahnbulleh, spoke to all local authorities on 3 December.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

I hope the House will forgive me if I begin by noting a certain irony in the title of the Bill. It contains the words “community empowerment”, yet the measures before us would appear to do precisely the opposite, empowering the centre rather than the community. As we reflect on that, we cannot ignore the democratic chill cast by the Government’s decision to cancel the forthcoming local mayoral elections. When democratic participation is suspended for administrative convenience, it becomes difficult to sustain the claim that community consent lies at the heart of these reforms. Instead, what emerges is a model of compulsion over consent. These proposals risk leaving communities without a meaningful voice, enabling the Secretary of State to redraw local government boundaries, restructure authorities and compel mergers, against local wishes.

The introduction of sweeping powers under new Section 109B, and others, marks a striking departure from the voluntary, negotiated, deal-by-deal approach that has defined English devolution to date. That approach was rooted in respect for local identity, geography and choice. The Bill before us seems to move away from that principle with unsettling ease. Our discussions with colleagues and stakeholders underline something fundamental: that local consent is not an optional extra. It is the democratic foundation of any credible programme of localism, yet this Bill weakens that foundation at the very moment when it should be reinforced.

The Government claim that reforms empower localities, but too often we see the power devolved in name only, while genuine authority remains firmly centralised. Without clarity on what powers are truly being passed down, how responsibilities differ from those already held and how local leaders will be held to account, there is a real risk of creating an accountability gap at the very centre of the system.

These concerns are sharpened still further by the Bill’s uncertain financial implications. Community empowerment is impossible without financial empowerment. Local authorities cannot reasonably be asked to shoulder the burdens or the liabilities of their neighbours; nor can local taxpayers be expected to underwrite centrally imposed restructuring. Yet the Bill provides no assurance that council tax will not rise, no clarity on whether solvent councils may be required to absorb the debts of failing ones, and no explanation whatever of how these reforms will deliver value for money. Additionally, we are still in the dark as to how these new mayoralties will be paid for.

We hear much about synergies and efficiencies but nothing about what they are, how they will be realised, or what modelling, if any, underpins them. Rhetoric is not a substitute for a costed plan. The Government must commit to publishing a detailed cost-benefit assessment. Information available shows that the creation of more top-tier councils in place of the county councils may increase costs year on year, not reduce them. It reverses the economy of scale and offers no prospect of long-term savings.

Recent freedom of information disclosures reported by ITV Meridian indicate that the councils in Essex, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, and on the Isle of Wight have already set aside £11.22 million for 2025-26 to support this transition, with more than £1 million being spent in the current year alone. In Hampshire, over £500,000 has already been allocated to consultants for local government reorganisation. How can local taxpayers be assured that this represents value for money? Will there be a transparent framework, underpinned by evidence, to demonstrate whether these substantial outlays can genuinely be recovered through future efficiency gains?

This reorganisation will impose real costs on our constituents, at a time when many of them are already paying more in income tax and national insurance, whether through their earnings or their pension contributions, because of this Government’s choice to value welfare over work. We cannot in good conscience simply accept that reform must be expensive without being provided a credible vision for future savings and long-term fiscal stability.

Nowhere is that risk more acute than in social care. Adults’ and children’s social care are among the most vital, sensitive and fragile of all our local services, but the Bill is silent on how these functions will operate across new combined structures, how responsibilities will be shared and how accountability will be maintained. At a time when care systems are already stretched to their limit, reorganisation without clarity is not merely unwise but dangerous. Vulnerable people cannot be left to navigate the fog created by institutional reform.

This is not the only area where ambiguity prevails. The Bill creates new regulatory layers, including a local audit office, the relationship of which with existing bodies is left largely undefined in the Bill. We all agree on the importance of rigorous oversight, but the creation of new regulators must be justified by purpose, rather than just by preference. Likewise, spatial development strategies, critical tools for planning and housing, are referenced in a manner that leaves scope, governance and oversight uncertain. Without clarity, there is a real risk of slowing down the very growth and housebuilding the Government claim the Bill will accelerate.

I will touch on the significant alterations proposed to some of the Local Government Pension Scheme arrangements. When local government reorganisation occurs, and assets and liabilities are carved up, it is essential that independent assessments are undertaken, to allow proper oversight of what funds and actuaries in each region are doing. We must also explore the workability of the new duty requiring combined authorities to assist in identifying or developing LGPS investment opportunities. These are legitimate concerns that such a requirement will place authorities in direct conflict with the scheme managers’ fiduciary responsibilities, which must remain independent and focus solely on the interests of the scheme members.

Taken together, these examples illustrate a broad problem: the lack of clarity speaks to a wider issue in the Bill’s design. This is a substantial piece of legislation that is constitutionally significant in both scale and ambition, yet the Government have offered no clear explanation of what it is ultimately for. Is the goal efficiency, local empowerment, public service reform, fiscal consolidation, housebuilding or economic growth? A Bill of this breadth and consequence should be founded on a coherent purpose, yet the rationale before us is diffused, undefined and, at times, contradictory.

The Bill professes to empower communities but many of its consequences appear likely to impose costs on them instead. New mayoral precepts, expanding borrowing powers, increased parking charges and the creation of further layers of local bureaucracy, including mayoral commissioners, will all place additional burdens on our residents. If that is empowerment, it is of a kind that, we believe, comes with a higher council tax bill attached to it.

The House will recall that we have made the point previously that uncertainty, particularly in planning, is the enemy of delivery. If responsibilities for housing, infrastructure and spatial strategy are to shift, the transition must be clear, orderly and transparent. Developers, councils and communities need certainty, not disruption. Local authorities understand their housing needs, their land, their constraints and their potential better than anyone in Whitehall ever could; therefore, reform should strengthen that local knowledge, not sideline it, as the Bill does.

Consistent with that theme, I will address another important issue: local identity. Imposing reorganisation from above, drawing maps in Whitehall and instructing local people to accept new boundaries pose a genuine threat to the character and cohesion of the communities we represent. Local identity is the foundation on which trust, participation and civic pride are built. We must also reflect the role played by our town and parish councils. They should and could be custodians of our children’s parks, our green spaces and the amenities that give neighbourhoods their distinct character. If their powers are to be subsumed into larger unitaries, dominated by broader, macro-level concerns, how can we ensure that the priorities of those towns and parishes across our country will still be recognised and respected? These councils are not peripheral; they are central to the everyday life and well-being of our communities. In fact, we believe that we should be encouraging more towns and parish councils when representation is subsumed by a larger geographic area.

If the Bill is truly to live up to its title, it must move from the rhetoric of empowerment to the practice of it. It must restore local democracy, not dilute it. It must clarify responsibilities, not obscure them, and it must build trust, not central control. Communities do not require permission to have a voice; they require the power to use it. True devolution rests on partnership, consent and clarity, not on imposition or ambiguity.

In Committee, I will challenge the Government on whether the Bill meets that aim, not only in areas where reorganisation is already under way but in areas such as London and Greater Manchester, where devolution exists but we believe it could deliver better. If the Government wish to empower communities, let the Bill begin by listening to them; only then can they claim with any confidence to speak in their name. As drafted, the Bill takes power away, increases costs for working people and, most of all, leaves communities without a voice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand that there has been no agreement in the usual channels for the Bill to be committed to a Grand Committee. I put on record that it is very disappointing that the Government have tabled this Motion without the agreement of the usual channels.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip consulted the usual channels in the usual manner. I am also aware that he spoke to some key Peers with an interest in the Bill.

NHS Industrial Action

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I agree that it is essential that we move forward to modernise industrial relations, which is exactly what this Government are doing. We know that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay, but we have to move to a situation where there is more communication, negotiation and space for collaboration in order to deliver our objectives and take people with us.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, during the doctors’ strike in 2023, I was left to die, with untreated gallstones and sepsis, in an NHS hospital. The only thing they offered me during that time was, “Do not resuscitate”. I am here today only because my friends and family managed to get me transferred to a private hospital for emergency surgery, just in time. I thank all of them for everything they did. But I know that, sadly, many others would not be able to do that, so when will enough be enough and what will the Government do to ensure that doctors fulfil their duty to patients? They exist only to do that and to serve.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am very sorry to hear of the noble Baroness’s unfortunate experience and pleased to see her back on the Benches, fighting her corner. This is absolutely the backbone of what this Government intend to do. We knew when we came into government that standards had slipped. The pressures on medical staff have been enormous and it is our job to transform the service. That is what we have put in place.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

Gosh, that was brief. I will say a few words on behalf of our Benches. I apologise that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is stuck—there are no trains anywhere—so the House will have me, very briefly.

We have been pleased with the engagement that we have had with the Ministers throughout Report and leading up to Third Reading today, which has brought about some important changes in the Bill, including on the issue of how we plan for electric vehicles in infrastructure, and the commitment that the Minister has made to look again at spatial standards for housing so that hopefully we can ensure that more young homeless people can find accommodation in the future.

The amendment that the Minister ably introduced—I am grateful for the many meetings about it that she and colleagues had with me and other Peers on these Benches—tries to give us reassurance that the environment will have the safeguards that are needed in this new process of strategic planning. I am particularly grateful that she has brought forward regulations—not guidance, which was an issue of concern—because we need regulations to provide the necessary clarity and transparency for those of us who are concerned about the need for environmental safeguards and the appropriate way in which the negative effects of developments will be addressed.

Can the Minister make clear how the mitigation hierarchy, a very well-established environmental principle which has served this country and indeed many countries around the world so well for so long, will apply in this new approach to strategic level planning for housing? How the mitigation hierarchy in this new process of EDPs will provide the necessary safeguards for the environment?

It is my hope that it will reduce the risk of viable impact avoidance and mitigation solutions being overlooked—I say it is my hope; at this stage, that is all it can be. However, it will definitely make it much clearer for those of us concerned about the environment just how Natural England will make its decisions. What evidence will it use in order to move forward with EDPs? That will give us some reassurance that the environmental protections will be in place. If they are not, we know there will be legal challenge. That is neither in the interests of the developers or, indeed, of the environment that will suffer.

It is a compromise on the amendment I introduced on Report, and I accept that. For some, will be a compromise too far; I accept that as well. I am a Liberal Democrat and prepared to face the political reality and the evidence that this Government believe this new approach with EDPs will deliver the housebuilding that we all want, while at the same time giving us on these Benches and others some security that the environmental backstops will be in place. That is what we need and what our ever-diminishing wildlife and habitats desperately need.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening and for bringing forward Amendment number 1, which this side of the House supports. We also take note of Amendment 2.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the Commons will consider amendments to this Bill on Thursday. I genuinely hope that the Government strongly and carefully consider the contributions noble Lords have made during this Bill, particularly on Amendment 130, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown.

On the advice of the clerks, I speak at this point to put on record my concerns about the Clause 20(3) statement that was put in the Bill by both the Minister and former Secretary of State. It is a matter that is being considered in the courts right now—whether it is justiciable or not. As a former Secretary of State for Defra, my understanding is that it almost certainly would be. However, it turns out that the Government and House of Commons do not believe it is, but that it is a parliamentary proceeding. That is why I want to express my concerns about not only this Bill but how we consider this element in future Bills.

I do not say this lightly, because I am conscious of what the Office for Environmental Protection has said, but it is one reason why I have tabled Questions to the Senior Deputy Speaker and the Minister. With that I hope that we will see a Bill enacted in due course that will enhance the environment, rather than my concerns about what Part 3 will do to it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a challenging Bill. Over eight days in Committee and five on Report, we have examined it in extraordinary detail, with early mornings and late nights. Yet, despite the effort, it still falls short of the Government’s stated ambitions. The scale of late-stage amendments, with 67 tabled on Report—and even two more today, which we supported—speaks to a Government with no clear plan to deliver the homes we need. At the last election, the Government pledged to deliver 1.5 million new homes, yet construction output continues to decline, falling by 0.3% in August following no growth at all in July. That is hardly the sign of a system ready to meet its targets.

This Bill, regrettably, does not confront the real blockages to delivery. From the outset, we on these Benches have sought to focus on substance: the practical and legal barriers that genuinely hold back new housing, such as the Hillside judgment, the absence of proportionality in planning enforcement, restrictions linked to Ramsar sites and the complexities surrounding nutrient neutrality rules. These are the real challenges confronting developers, councils and communities seeking to build, not the voices and views of local people that are being curtailed. These are the issues that matter; the measures that would build homes, infrastructure and hope for millions still locked out of home ownership.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 208 and 231A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and other noble Lords, seek to remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill. These Benches are not supportive of these amendments. While we appreciate the arguments that have been made about streamlining and simplifying the legislative framework, it is more important to recognise the significance of Ramsar sites and to treat them in the same category as European sites when it comes to environmental protection.

These wetlands—there are 176 designated sites in the UK—are often of extraordinary ecological value, supporting biodiversity that is not only nationally but internationally important. To remove the relevant provisions at this stage would risk sending the wrong signal about our priorities and would weaken the coherence of the overall environmental protections.

The Government’s goal all along has been to preserve sites that are of environmental importance. The arguments about Part 3 of the Bill have not entirely gone the way we had hoped, but they have gone a long way towards raising the importance of the environment as far as the planning system goes. We are keen to uphold the value of Ramsar sites, alongside other protected areas, and to dismiss the arguments made by those who, on one hand, say that we need more houses on these wetland sites, but, on the other hand, argue for other sites—perhaps in the green belt or designated sites—not to be built on. Let us be clear: the environment comes first, and protecting biodiversity and our precious environmental heritage is of key importance to us.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 208 and 231A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough. These may appear as technical provisions, with Clause 90 dealing with temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase and Schedule 6 making consequential changes to Part 3 of the Bill, but, as we have heard from the speakers so far, their combined efforts risk damaging the very housing and infrastructure goals that this legislation is seeking to advance.

The Bill, as currently drafted, extends the legal obligations of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites. In practice, this means further restrictions on housing development and a fresh layer of uncertainty for local planning authorities and developers alike. The result, as my noble friend Lord Roborough warned, is that a Bill meant to get Britain building risks doing totally the opposite by tying up housing delivery in yet more red tape and delay. This point cannot be overstated: the country faces a housing crisis—not a crisis of ambition, but a crisis of delivery. By removing Schedule 6, we would avoid further complexity in the already overburdened environmental assessment framework, a system that too often paralyses local authorities and developers in costly uncertainty rather than securing real gains for nature.

The Government’s own target of 1.5 million new homes will not be met if planning reforms continue to tangle it up with excessive regulation and unintended consequences. Of course, environmental protection must remain a central consideration in planning, but, as my noble friend rightly observed, the small nut being cracked by the sledgehammer of Part 3 has now been shown to be even smaller. The recent ruling to which he referred has already resolved many of the issues these provisions sought to address. What remains, therefore, is unnecessary bureaucracy and an additional drag on housing delivery.

However, I reiterate that the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment in the CG Fry case has now shifted the status quo. Following the judgment, Clause 90 and Schedule 6 will have the perverse effect of blocking development rather than facilitating it. This surely cannot be the Government’s intention; we are minded, therefore, to seek to test the opinion of the House when Amendment 208 is called if the Government have nothing further to say on this issue.

These amendments are not anti-environmental. They are proportionate, pro-clarity and, most importantly, pro-housing. They seek to ensure that this Bill does what it says on the tin: to plan and deliver the infrastructure and homes that this country so desperately needs. I urge the Minister to look again at Clause 90 and Schedule 6. Are they truly necessary to achieve the Bill’s goals or are they, as the evidence increasingly suggests, just obstacles in their delivery?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 208 and 231A, both tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seek to remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill. These relate to Ramsar sites, as we have heard, and noble Lords will be aware from the debate that these are wetlands of international importance that have been designated under the Ramsar Convention on wetlands. I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.

To date, in England, these sites have been given the protection of the habitats regulations assessment process through policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. To support the effective operation of the nature restoration fund, we propose placing protections for Ramsar sites on a legislative footing, with Part 1 of Schedule 6 amending the habitats regulations so that protections for Ramsar sites align with the protection of other internationally important sites. Placing protection of Ramsar sites on a statutory footing will ensure that the NRF can be used to address the negative effects of development on Ramsar sites, and this has been welcomed by environmental groups as a pragmatic step to align protections across sites of international importance.

The Government have, of course, carefully considered the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgments, which we have been debating, that distinguished in very specific circumstances between the legal protection provided to European sites under the habitats regulations and the policy protection afforded to Ramsar sites. This ruling has led to some commentary suggesting that placing Ramsar protections on a statutory footing will serve to prevent development from coming forward. This belief was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her speech just now; this, however, is mistaken.

Noble Lords who have followed the judgment will know that it found that habitats regulations protections for Ramsar sites should not have been applied, as a matter of policy rather than legal obligation, to developments that were already in possession of planning permission prior to the imposition of nutrient neutrality advice in 2020. While some—and the noble Lord, Lord Robrough, mentioned this in his introduction—have suggested that large numbers of homes will be unlocked if Clause 90 and Schedule 6 are removed from the Bill, this does not bear up to scrutiny. The reason is that no new planning applications have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality advice in 2020 that are affected by the Supreme Court’s judgment or by the protections for Ramsar sites proposed in the Bill. Furthermore, while this case has been progressing through the courts, the Government have provided significant investment to deliver local mitigation schemes, including in Somerset, which has ensured that mitigation is available to allow development to come forward.

I want to respond to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, who suggested that 18,000 homes in the Somerset catchments are delayed by nutrient neutrality. That is actually the number of homes in existing plans from 2020 to 2032, so we are talking about a 12-year period. It includes homes that already have mitigation and homes for which no application has yet been submitted. Therefore, this overstates the number of homes affected.

We also know that developers can access nutrient mitigation in Somerset. For the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2025, 5,747 dwellings have been permitted within the Somerset Levels and Moors catchment area, and phosphate credits are available to mitigate a further 2,900 dwellings. That demonstrates that mitigation is already available and that this is not blocking such development.

The NRF will now deliver on the Government’s manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports more efficient and streamlined development, but with better environmental outcomes. We want the NRF model to be available to support development that impacts Ramsar sites as well as SACs, SPAs and SSSIs, while also driving the recovery of, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, put it perfectly, these internationally important sites. The amendments would actually prevent the NRF being used to help development in circumstances such as those in Somerset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am broadly in favour of the amendments in this group. As a general principle, we are in favour of any amendments that are genuinely about devolution and not just decentralisation. As we are all aware, there is a significant difference. However, we are aware that this brings issues of governance and accountability that are new to much of the sector at this level, with the difference in governance arrangements and in geography.

We also support the Government’s ambition and political will to build new towns to meet our challenging housing need. But—and it is a big “but”—we nevertheless feel that something as significant, important and impactful as designating a large amount of land for a new town should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Everyone’s voices deserve to be heard—and I understand that there is a difference between being heard and being listened to. However challenging and difficult that might be, the process is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, outlined. Increased scrutiny and the opportunity for revision are essential. We have to get this right for the people and for Parliament. Thus, we too welcome a debate on the new towns agenda and on the sites already designated.

I turn to Amendment 238. It seems to us an inevitable consequence of the new development corporations’ ambitions, roles and responsibilities. If devolution is to really mean something, it must also mean fiscal devolution. It is very unlikely in the present economic climate that any new major developments are going to be totally government funded, so it makes sense to cast the financial net as wide as possible. But—and, again, it is a big “but”—given some local government history on these and related matters, we assume that the Treasury will be concerned about rising debt and potential poor financial controls. With the discredited PFI funding also in the background, it will be concerned also about potential poor value for money. We are concerned that there should be the necessary protections and processes for good government, transparency and accountability. I wonder whether the Government may envisage a more proactive role in this regard for the National Audit Office before investment decisions are made.

Finally, a key question, which my noble friend Lord Shipley raised in Committee, is who picks up the tab if there is a loss on a project, or on several projects, or if a mayoral development corporation is running generally at a loss. Is it the council tax payer or the Government? There was no answer in Committee. It would seem likely to be the Government but, if so, it would be reasonable for them to be involved at all stages of project delivery, which makes Amendment 238 insufficient without explaining what controls would be in place. However, we would still support Amendment 238, because it gives a sense of the direction that we should go in, even if the detail is not yet in place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, on Amendments 235 and 236, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, all I can say is that we support all the intentions of these amendments so ably introduced, as always, by my noble friend. I do not think there is anything more that I can add to what he has already said, apart from saying to the Minister that I think these important questions need answers tonight.

Alongside my noble friend Lord Jamieson, I have co-signed Amendment 238, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller. Ensuring that development corporations have access to sufficient finance will be critical, as we have heard, if we are truly to deliver the high-quality new towns and new developments that we would all like to see. Having access to a range of finance resources is a key component to this, empowering development corporations to seek finance from the widest possible range of sources. This amendment would allow them to do precisely that—to access funding not only from the Public Works Loan Board but from private capital, sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, and through value-in-kind contributions as part of joint ventures. Crucially, it would also give them the ability to issue bonds, either individually or collectively with other development corporations.

Why does this matter? I suggest three key reasons. First, it enables collaboration. Development corporations could work collectively across areas, pooling capacity and scale to unlock investment in major regeneration and infrastructure projects that would otherwise be out of their reach. Secondly, it opens the door for local pension funds, particularly the Local Government Pension Scheme, to invest directly in their communities. This builds on the Government’s own commitment to mobilise LGPS capital for local growth. It would mean that people’s savings are working to deliver tangible, long-term benefits in the very places where they live and work. Thirdly, it aligns with the Government’s broader ambitions on devolution and local growth. Page 29 of the English Devolution White Paper makes clear that strategic authorities will have a duty to deliver on economic development and regeneration. Local authorities will be required to produce local growth plans, and LGPS administrating authorities are expected to identify local investment opportunities and put them forward to their asset pools.

This amendment would therefore help the Government achieve precisely what they have set out to do: to channel more of the nation’s long-term capital into productive place-based investment. It would empower development corporations to be proactive, innovative and financially self-sustaining, drawing on both public and private sources of finance to deliver growth, regeneration and prosperity for local communities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but interesting debate. Amendments 235 and 236, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to change the parliamentary procedure for designating areas to be developed as a new town by new town development corporations from the affirmative procedure to the super-affirmative. They would also require that the Secretary of State reconsults if a proposal for an area to be developed by a new town development corporation is changed following an earlier consultation.

The Government agree that proposals to establish development corporations should be subject to consultation and proportionate parliamentary scrutiny, but this is already the case. The New Towns Act 1981 already requires that the Secretary of State consults with relevant local authorities prior to designating an area to be developed by a new town development corporation via regulations. Consultations and decisions to designate are also subject to public law principles. Further consultation would therefore already be considered should the proposal fundamentally change.

I will just comment to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, on his points about Adlington. He may have looked at the report of the New Towns Taskforce, which sets out very clearly the principles under which new towns must make provision for infrastructure, including energy, water and all the facilities that make communities work and be successful. As I have said, there is consultation set out in law for those decisions to designate. Designation by regulations is also already subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses. As these regulations neither amend nor repeal an Act of Parliament, which is the usual super-affirmative process, the Government do not believe that they require the high level of scrutiny of that super-affirmative procedure.

The noble Lord’s amendments would also have the unintended consequence of adding significant time to the process of designating areas as new towns. The super-affirmative procedure would add a minimum of two months and the duty to reconsult could add significantly longer, depending on the number of reconsultations required. I was grateful to the Built Environment Select Committee and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for the thorough way he looked at the subject of new towns. His work has been very helpful. I will give thought to the request for further discussions within your Lordships’ House on all the issues arising from this new generation of new towns. Both the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, have made this helpful suggestion. I will take that back to the team and look at parliamentary schedules to see when a further discussion on that might be possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, seems to be amazingly modest. If I had written it, it probably would have been far more complicated and have no chance of being passed by this House. But it really needs to be in the Bill.

New towns will be on the map and inhabited for hundreds of years—we hope, if we manage to solve climate change—so it is crucial that the elements that make them up are there at the beginning. Those need to be statutory, compulsory and mandatory because, as we all know, at various points in the evolution of these new towns, there will be financial issues and constraints. That would also allow us to consider not just biodiversity but human health in those new towns, which is absolutely key. I hope that the Government will take heed of this, and that those green and blue spaces will be additional to any biodiversity net gain.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, unlike the previous amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, her Amendment 237 omits the word “network”, and we believe that she was right to do so. Once we define these assets as a network, local authorities become responsible not only for safeguarding individual sites but managing and maintaining the functional and spatial connections between them.

I will not repeat at length the importance of green and blue spaces—that has been thoroughly debated and supported by this side in debates on previous groups of amendments—but I commend the noble Baroness for the clarity and practicality of her approach to them. If she is minded to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will be inclined to support her.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 237 would update the objectives of new town development corporations to include the provision of publicly accessible green and blue spaces for local communities.

Our position remains that national policy is the best mechanism. Development corporations are subject to the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets clear policies for green infrastructure. As noted in Committee, we have seen this work well in practice. The Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has provided almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year is aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.

To repeat what I have said many times in our debates on the Bill, the NPPF is not a statutory document in itself because it needs to be flexible. We brought in a new version of the NPPF last December and we will publish another one shortly, so it is very important we have flexibility within it. However, as I have said before, it sits within a statutory framework of planning, which means that it carries the weight of that statutory framework.

The Government expect development corporations to work within the framework of national policy taken as a whole. It would be inappropriate to single out blue and green infrastructure in primary legislation, and it is unmanageable to include all relevant national policies within the objectives of development corporations at this level of granularity.

I understand that a driving concern behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to ensure that the Government’s programme of new towns includes accessible green and blue spaces. However, her amendment would not guarantee this. New town development corporations are only one possible vehicle for delivering new towns; urban development corporations and mayoral development corporations are also under consideration, as well as public/private partnerships, where this is right for the place.

I would also say to the noble Baroness that we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in her role as Defra Minister, that a program is being drawn up on access to green and blue spaces as well, which is coming along very soon.

I fundamentally disagree with the contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that there is no vision for new towns from the Government. The independent New Towns Taskforce recommended, alongside its overview, that there were 10 key placemaking principles, including that new towns should have easily accessible green spaces. The initial government response set out that we support the placemaking approach recommended by the task force. The final selection of placemaking principles will be subject to environmental assessment and consultation, as many noble Lords have mentioned.

The Government are committed to ensuring that new towns are well designed and have the infrastructure communities need, including green spaces. Implementation will, of course, be key. The task force recommended that government provide guidance on the implementation of placemaking principles and establish an independent place review panel to help ensure that placemaking principles are translated into local policies, master plans and development proposals.

My officials are developing policy ahead of a full government response to the taskforce’s report next year. I would very much welcome further engagement with the noble Baroness on the issue of new towns to better inform our final position. That said, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will say just one sentence in support of Amendment 238A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It is a deeply humane, very minor amendment, and I hope that the Government will get behind it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 238ZA, 238ZB and 238ZC from my noble friend Lord Lucas seek to change the definition of a local newspaper for the purpose of compulsory purchase orders. I listened carefully to his argument for these changes, but we have some concerns that these amendments might be overly prescriptive and place unnecessary burdens on local authorities. That said, we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on improving the transparency of public notices relating to CPOs. Clearly, where CPO powers are exercised by Ministers or Natural England, the public should be made aware, so can the Minister set out the Government’s assessment of the current requirements and confirm whether Ministers have plans to strengthen them?

Amendments 242 and 243, in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, seek to return to the position whereby farmers are paid the market value of their land when it is subject to compulsory purchase. As we have heard, these amendments seek to reverse changes made under the previous Government, but under this Government the situation of farmers has changed significantly. The Government’s policies have put farmers in an impossible position. Noble Lords listening to this morning’s “Today” programme will have heard James Rebanks’s comments on the challenges faced by farming communities across this country.

We have spoken consistently of the need for food security, and Ministers need to deliver a fairer deal for farmers. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will consider giving farmers whose land is subject to compulsory purchase the fair market price for their land? While we may not get an agreement this evening, we hope that Ministers will take on board these concerns and seek properly to support farmers across this country.

Amendment 251, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, also speaks to fairness in the compulsory purchase system. The amendment calls for a report on the compatibility of compulsory purchase powers with the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes a specific right to property. Given the expansion in compulsory purchase powers in the Bill, we agree with my noble friend that the impact of these powers on landowners’ rights should be considered carefully and in full. We hope that the Government can give an undertaking that they will commence a report on that.

Finally, Amendment 250 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner. Listening to our proceedings, I am not quite sure whether the things I thought we would be debating have been debated. None the less, this amendment seeks to establish legal clarity. We have seen too many examples of development being blocked after permission has been granted, based on historic technicalities. There will be circumstances where historic constraints are appropriate and should be heeded, but there have also been some very high-profile examples of historic technicalities resulting in perverse outcomes in the planning process, inappropriately blocking the delivery of much-needed homes.

I will take this opportunity to describe my understanding of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked a lot about consultation, but it is my understanding that this amendment would not change in any way the requirement for consultation. Also, if there is a change of use for any piece of land, planning permission will still be needed, and the things we have discussed in this debate can be relooked at, discussed and consulted on, and decisions can then be made on the proposed changes.

I understand that the Government are looking seriously at that, which I welcome. These are complex and technical issues, but I hope that the idea that the decision will come in future legislation can be made much clearer. Perhaps the Minister could say that it could be brought back in the devolution Bill, which is in the other place and is likely to come here in the new year. That would be an ideal way forward in our opinion.

We need legal clarity. Given the hour that this amendment will come for a decision, we may not get a final answer tonight. However, I hope that Ministers will continue to talk to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments, take them away, look at them in detail and, very soon, in the next available Bill, establish a better way forward.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that very interesting debate on a wide-ranging set of issues in the Bill. There are a number of amendments in this group relating to compulsory purchase. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about that subject as well as the other issues raised in this group. I hope noble Lords will understand that, out of respect to you, these require a fuller response than I would otherwise have given at this late hour, because I think it important that I respond to the points that have been made.

Amendment 238A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, relates to compulsory purchase compensation rules and home loss payments. The amendment would ensure that homeowners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action required.

A home loss payment is a separate payment made to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO. It is an amount paid in addition to compensation for the market value of a property subject to a CPO. Under current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with notices or orders served on them to make improvements to their land or properties, their right to basic and occupiers loss payments is already excluded.

As mentioned in the previous debates on this issue, there are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments, which is an inconsistency. Clause 105 of the Bill amends the Land Compensation Act 1973 to apply this exclusion to home loss payments. Where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be paid compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation and other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. Clause 105 does not prevent these other heads of compensation or costs being claimed. It will be for local authorities to decide whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order, taking into account the circumstances of the property owner.

Furthermore, individuals are able to challenge improvement notices or orders served on them by local authorities, and Clause 105 does nothing to interfere with this right. The provision introduced by Clause 105 will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring substandard properties back into use as housing where there is a compelling case in the public interest, and this will enable more empty properties to be used as family homes and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.

Amendments 238ZA to 238ZC tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper which notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain criteria. As mentioned in previous debates, the legislation already requires authorities to publish notices in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. As introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, CPO notices are also published on the acquiring authorities’ websites. The purpose of this change was to modernise the CPO process to ensure that local people are fully informed. I agree with the comments made by Peers in the debate on these amendments that there are significant costs associated with publishing newspaper notices, and we therefore have to be mindful of adding new burdens to already hard-pressed local authorities.

That is why the Government have introduced Clause 107 in the Bill. The purpose of Clause 107 is to simplify the information required to be published in CPO newspaper notices, to reduce administrative costs and to improve the content of such notices. The amendments would also increase the complexity of the CPO process. Amending the existing requirement by stipulating in primary legislation a certain type of local newspaper would create unnecessary confusion and uncertainty, make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process and increase the potential risk of legal challenges, resulting in additional costs, and in delay in decision-making and in the delivery of benefits in the public interest.

I reassure the noble Lord that DCMS has committed to a review of statutory notices as part of the local media strategy. I, for one, really welcome that; it is very much time we did it. It is important that a coherent and co-ordinated approach be taken to this issue, rather than picking it up piecemeal. For these reasons, while we agree with the intention behind the amendments, I hope noble Lords will not press them.

Amendments 242 and 243, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, relate to compulsory purchase compensation. The amendments would repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value, where justified in the public interest, for certain types of schemes. They also seek to omit Clause 107 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

239: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection of villages(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages from over-development and change of character.(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—(a) preventing villages from merging into one another, and(b) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages, under the National Planning Policy Framework.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we debated this issue on a previous day on Report. On this side of the House, we have grave concerns over the importance of the protection of our much-cherished villages across this country. Pressures will come from new town developments, changes to the green belt and a lack of support for neighbourhood plans. This simple amendment seeks to provide existing villages with the protection equivalent to that which we already provide for our towns under the National Planning Policy Framework. We do not understand this and are going to stand up for our rural communities and villages. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

244: After Clause 108, insert the following new Clause—
“Report: local government reorganisation and devolutionWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out—(a) how this Act is intended to operate following local government reorganisation,(b) the arrangements that will apply in respect of this Act in the interim period while devolution settlements are being negotiated, and(c) what provisions must be in place to ensure the effective operation of this Act during the interim period.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is straightforward: it would require the Secretary of State to set out how the Bill is intended to operate following any local government reorganisation.

As many in this House will be aware, the landscape of local government is shifting. Across England, there are ongoing discussions about devolution, new combined authorities and the potential reorganisation of existing councils. Each of these changes will have significant implications for how local responsibilities are defined, how accountability is maintained and, ultimately, how this legislation will function in practice.

This amendment seeks clarity, not complication. If local government structures change, communities, councils and partners need certainty about how their duties, powers and relationships under the Bill will continue. Without such clarity, we risk creating confusion at precisely the moment when consistency and coherence are most needed.

We now await the forthcoming devolution Bill and the conclusions of ongoing negotiations around local government reorganisation. These will no doubt shape the future architecture of local governance, but in the meantime it is vital that we ensure a clear line of sight between this legislation and whatever follows. Amendment 244 is a small but important step towards that assurance. If not, a lack of clarity will affect delivery, as we are already seeing in local planning authorities across the country. I therefore hope the Minister will consider how the Government intend to provide this clarity and ensure that, as local government evolves, the operation of this legislation remains transparent, accountable and effective.

As this is the last time I will speak at this Dispatch Box on Report of this Bill, I will take the opportunity to make a broader point on commencement. Throughout the course of this Bill, we on these Benches have offered the Government a clear, credible plan to build more homes and to get Britain building again—and what have Ministers done with that advice? They have just ignored it. We have sought to address the genuine blockages in our planning system: the practical and legal barriers that stand in the way of new housing, such as the Hillside judgment, the lack of proportionality, the restrictions around the Ramsar sites and the complexities of nutrient neutrality rules. These are not abstract legalities; they are the very issues holding back delivery on the ground.

Our amendments would have tackled those problems directly. They would have released land, unlocked permissions and allowed homes to be built where they are most needed. Let us be clear: we are not speaking about a few thousand homes here or there. We are speaking about hundreds of thousands of homes that our plans would and could have unlocked. The uncomfortable truth is this: it is not local authorities, the courts or even the developers who are blockers in our housing system. It is the Government themselves.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I am sorry to have to point out to her, not for the first time from the Dispatch Box, that her Government had 14 years to get the housebuilding that we so desperately need. They had ample opportunity to take all the action that we are taking now, but they did not do so, so it is left to us to sort out the inevitable housing crisis that we face in this country.

Amendment 244 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three months of enactment, on the operation of the Act in the context of local government reorganisation, and during the interim period while devolution settlements are being negotiated. This amendment creates an unnecessary and potentially burdensome precedent. Councils undergoing reorganisation are subject to a comprehensive suite of secondary legislation providing for the transfer of all statutory functions, including those created in new legislation—from predecessor councils to new councils. We will of course work in partnership with the sector to ensure that areas receive support to enable successful take-up of the Act, as well as transition to new unitary structures. This legislation refers to existing planning legislation—for example, Part 5 of the Local Government (Structural Changes) (Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2008. We will review and, as necessary, amend these and other provisions in the light of this Bill, and the timetable for any such updates will be determined by the reorganisation process.

Turning to devolution, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act already requires the Government to lay an annual devolution report before Parliament. The report provides an annual summary of devolution for all areas in England. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill amends current requirements so that this report reflects the introduction of strategic authorities and the new framework-based approach to devolution in England. It will include information on functions conferred on strategic authorities and any parts of the country where proposals have been received by the Secretary of State for the establishment of a strategic authority, and negotiations have taken place but agreement has not yet been reached. This allows for public transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of the devolution agenda. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, that was not what I expected. There are local planning authorities across this country that do not know what to do—they do not know whether or not to start a local plan. If they start a local plan, what will happen when they then become reorganised? It is a waste of time and money for a local government family that do not have the money to do it, or the resource. It would be such a simple thing to explain to local government what they should do in this interim period. However, I have said it all before and we have asked for something back from the Government, just to help the structures work better. It lands on fallow ground. I have tried, but I am going to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 244 withdrawn.

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

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.