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

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in this first group of amendments, I am delighted that the Government have acceded to the amendment about accessible electric vehicle charging points that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, just spoke to. That is really good news.

Of the other three amendments that we are thinking about, two concern reservoirs—building them and what their impact will be. The first, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about ensuring that the statutory requirements to protect our heritage are considered in full in the planning application for a new reservoir. The other, from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned about whole villages being drowned. Then we have the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is anxious that we build more reservoirs, so we have a bit of a dilemma here.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. All through the debate on this Bill, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been wholeheartedly in support of shoring up the statutory requirements to protect our national heritage. It is unfortunate that the Minister has been unable to accede to the amendment that was passed on Report to provide even greater support for those heritage sites and buildings that may be destroyed to create a reservoir—especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has pointed out, since third parties, even companies based abroad, may now be able to build reservoirs. They may not have such a great concern for our heritage as those of us who live in this country. That is a great shame, and if the noble Lord wanted to move his amendment to a further vote, we on these Benches would support him.

I will wait to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says about her Motion C1 and whether she wishes again to test the opinion of the House on that one.

On the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I thought the Minister gave quite a lot of assurance that the Government are considering making changes to regulations regarding the building of low-hazard reservoirs, which is what the amendment is about. That seemed perfectly acceptable, given that a great deal of thought has to be given to creating reservoirs. As we discovered in Derbyshire when the Toddbrook one failed, volumes of water can be devastating if dams and reservoirs are breached. With those remarks, I look forward to the comments from the Conservative Front Bench.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, before turning to the specifics of the amendments before us, I will restate what has guided our approach throughout the passage of the Bill. We recognise the legislation’s importance to the Government and their desire to see it completed in time for the Budget. From the outset, we on these Benches have worked diligently and constructively, through the usual channels and beyond, to help ensure timely progress. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for acknowledging these efforts, particularly in the light of unhelpful and misleading briefings to the contrary, most recently in the Observer yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

We will listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has to say and see whether any of these issues will be put to a further vote.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Motion F to agree with Lords Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. This was a really important amendment, and I am very glad that it has been dealt with in this way, as has Motion G and Amendment 37 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey on the important issue of assets of community value. I look forward to seeing them put in place in future.

We have felt compelled to bring Motion J1 back to the attention of your Lordships’ House. Although we will not press the matter further, it is important that the concerns are placed clearly on record. We do so because the Government’s previous response did not engage with the substance of the issues at stake.

First, the Government have sidestepped the statutory issue entirely. This amendment would place a clear, unambiguous duty on spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield development and urban densification. That duty matters. Yet the Minister’s response relied almost exclusively on guidance, prospective consultations and future proposals. None of that explains why this responsibility should not sit in primary legislation. As we all know, the system is failing precisely because guidance can be overlooked and too often is. Brownfield opportunities are not ignored because they do not exist; they are ignored because the framework does not require public bodies or developers to pursue them.

Secondly, the Government’s response failed to address the sustainability dimension. This amendment is not simply about land categories. It is about shaping the behaviour of the built environment, supporting mixed, walkable communities, reducing travel distances and aligning development patterns with our environmental and economic goals. None of this featured in the Government’s reply, which focused solely on whether brownfield land is being sufficiently identified rather than on how our planning system directs the form, character and quality of the development. Without statutory underpinning, these wider sustainability objectives will continue to be treated as optional—desirable, certainly, but dispensable when inconvenient.

Let me finally address the Minister’s suggestion that our amendment would heighten the risk of legal challenge and that clarity in the NPPF makes such a duty unnecessary. In effect, the Minister defended the status quo, but legal challenge is a feature of any meaningful statutory change—indeed, of any planning decision. The possibility of challenge is not an argument for inaction; it is inherent in the evolution of any policy. A clearer statutory duty would, over time, reduce conflict by giving decision-makers firmer parameters and greater certainty.

I acknowledge that the Minister wrote over the weekend outlining the Government’s intention. Her letter stated that,

“the revised NPPF will provide even clearer policies to drive decision-making, including on brownfield land”.

We accept the Government saying again today that national policy is the most appropriate route for setting planning decisions, that the proposed changes will mark a step change and that they expect these reforms to meet the objectives of the “brownfield first” principle.

However, if Ministers truly believe that these revisions will drive brownfield development, then they must be willing and able to show evidence of success. The proportion of brownfield used must rise meaningfully as a direct result of these changes. Warm words about future consultations are not enough; they must turn into action. This House must be able to see the data and interrogate it, track progress and hold the Government firmly to account. If Ministers are confident in their claims, they should have no hesitation in committing to return to the House with clear, measurable evidence that these reforms are genuinely delivering a brownfield first approach in practice, not just in rhetoric. Until that proof is forthcoming, our concerns remain.

We live on a small island. Food security is critical in the world we live in. This Bill has taken our agricultural land for energy use and housing. Greenfields produce food for our nation; wheat and potatoes cannot be produced on urban brownfield sites.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate; I will address the points that have been raised during our discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Banner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their endorsement of our position on Motion F. I always hope that when a good idea comes forward, we will not hesitate to accept it; that was a good idea, and we will be moving forward with it.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I very much look forward to the debates we will have on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It is a different approach to assets of community value. It expands the definitions of assets of community value, including sporting and recreational assets, it gives longer for communities to do the work needed to enact this right, and it gives a right to buy approach, which I hope we will have good debates on.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, made a very important point about avoiding the proliferation of thresholds, and I will take that back. I hope he will continue to work with us on that, as he does on other issues.

In relation to the NPPF consultation, I appreciate that delay causes uncertainty. We are hoping to do it by the end of the year. Planning is a dynamic process. When we were having debates with the Housing Minister and some developers, he said that they cannot always be waiting for the next thing to come along. This is the planning Bill at the moment. The NPPF is the NPPF. We want people to get on and build the infrastructure and housing we need. There may be changes in the future, but planning is always going to be dynamic and will have to change as other things change. However, it is important we make sure the NPPF is fit for purpose, and we get this planning Bill through so we can get on and deliver what we need to.

I hope I picked up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on assets of community value in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

On the important point about brownfield sites and contaminated sites made by the noble Baroness, the viability PPG already factors in potential brownfield challenges. The guidance on defining costs notes that brownfield sites may have abnormal costs associated with them. We are continuing to look at this as we go through because there are some sites with high levels of contamination. The noble Baroness may be aware that I visited Stoke-on-Trent recently, which has some sites on former mining areas. They are an issue, and we continue to keep it under review, as she would expect.

Her points about the Minister’s announcement on railways stations make the point that we have been arguing around brownfield sites. For the most part, the land around railway stations can be considered brownfield sites. We want to make sure that we make the most of those sites, which have good transport links and are often essential to the economy of an area. This is why the Minister felt that it was appropriate, in that case, to make that a consideration—that is, where it looked like applications there might be refused, they could be called in. Of course, communities still get the opportunity to have their say in that process.

Election Law

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are looking very hard at expanding the identification forms that we can use to make sure that nobody who is entitled to vote is excluded, including bank cards and so on, so that we make sure to give the widest possible spectrum of ID that people can use to exercise their vote.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have claimed that the local council elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. However, when pressed, they admit that local elections may be cancelled next year due to unitary restructuring. This is creating uncertainty for councils, political parties and, most importantly, local people. Will the Government come clean and publish an open and transparent statement on its intentions for the 2026 local elections? What is going ahead and what will be cancelled? Also, do the Government agree with the Electoral Commission that elections should not be delayed by more than one year?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I have made the Government’s position on the 2026 elections very clear from the Dispatch Box. It is our intention that all elections during 2026 will go ahead.

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

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.