Fair Funding Review
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(4 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the pressures on local authorities to deliver additional housing and employment growth are factored into the Fair Funding Review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
We have already taken important steps to ensure that local government is able to support our Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, to tackle the housing crisis and to kick-start economic growth. The Fair Funding Review 2.0 reforms further incentivise these ambitions through an inbuilt reward in the council-tax calculation and the business rates retention scheme. We understand that local government is at the heart of delivering our growth and housing missions. More details will be published at the provisional settlement later this year.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Additional housing and commercial property come at a cost to councils in both capital and revenue terms, and more than that raised by the additional council tax. Can the Minister explain why this Government are removing the incentive of retained business rates, which will force many councils—which have done the right thing and supported growth—to raise council tax to the maximum and cut their services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is very important, particularly now, that we support local government, after 14 years of successive funding cuts and the battering it came under from the last Government. Through our funding reforms local authorities will be empowered, as key partners, to meet the housing need and help deliver growth across the country. We will reward local authorities for housebuilding, as they will benefit from additional council tax rates for each new house built in their area over the course of the multi-year period. On business rates, we will keep long-standing incentives so that local authorities continue to be rewarded for growth. Through their fair funding review, the previous Government recognised the need for reform, but they did not deliver. We are making good on this commitment and introducing improvements for the first time since 2013.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has just explained that council tax projections for new homes will not now be included in the financial assessment for council income. However, those councils with high deprivation and low economic growth are likely to have below average rates of housebuilding too. Can the Minister explain why the Government are willing to penalise those areas once again?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not agree with the presumption in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. For too long, an outdated council funding system, based on decades-old data, has entrenched the inequality of which she speaks—we all know that—with those least able to raise council tax and business rates given less favourable funding settlements. This has left some councils on a cliff edge and communities in deprived areas facing service cuts and rising bills, as well as being unable to deliver the economic growth and housing that we know those communities need. Some councils in less deprived areas have benefited disproportionately, building up their reserves. Our reforms will reverse this injustice and make sure that councils will be funded fairly, enabling them to deliver for their communities on services and on the growth that we all want to see.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
In the part of Devon where I live, there are half a dozen separate building projects. As far as I can see, almost none of them is doing much in the way of affordable housing. What are the Government doing to encourage affordable housing in all such projects?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, may be aware that the Government have allocated an unprecedented £39 billion of funding for a new social and affordable homes programme. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over the programme’s lifetime, with a target to deliver at least 60% of the homes under the programme as social rent. This is really important in both urban and rural communities to make sure that we are able to allocate social and affordable housing in those areas. We will be enabling councils to use their right-to-buy receipts to pair up with the funding from the social and affordable homes programme.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that government funding and support should be based on need and should take into account the ability of the local authority to raise its own resources locally? During the last 13 years, this was moved away from. Are we going back to a similar system to that which operated for many years?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that we need to make sure we realign funding with need and deprivation so that local authorities can deliver for their communities—as I said, the services that are needed and the economic growth that they need. The vast majority of councils with social care responsibilities will see their core spending power increase in real terms over the multi-year settlement. We will publish our response to the fair funding review and the policy statement and set out our plans for the first multi-year local government finance settlement. That is really important because it gives councils the certainty they need to plan over the medium to long term.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, while councils will benefit from increased council tax from new homes being built, the cost of providing services to those new homes will not be included in the baseline funding level unless and until there is a reset. Can the Minister tell the House how frequently the Government will undertake that reset so that the cost of providing services to homes is built into the baseline funding level?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Lord the exact answer to his question now. We have said that creating this multi-year funding settlement will help local authorities to plan for the future. We will keep in constant contact with our local government community to make sure that the changes we are making are made on up to date data—we have looked at a completely new dataset for the indices of multiple deprivation—because the data that was being used was not up to date. The Government will be working closely with local authorities as we move this forward to ensure that it is delivering the change we all want to see.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, local authorities remain the biggest funders of arts and cultural services. These are important for growth and employment growth, yet since 2010, spending on these areas, alongside heritage, tourism and libraries, has decreased by more than 50%. While recognising that there are many important pressures on local authorities, will the fair funding review allow for proper reinvestment in this significant area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I very much agree. I have seen on the front line how cuts to local government funding have affected so much the provision of social activities, culture and leisure in our communities. It is very important that local government has the ability to make provision for local communities in those areas. What happened was that the harder it was for a local council to raise funds, the more they seemed to be penalised through the system. The more deprived a community was, the less likely they were to have the headroom to deliver the kinds of services the noble Earl speaks about. We need to change that, and we are working on reversing that.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the reasons so many local authorities are failing to meet their housing delivery targets? What steps are being taken to support them in doing so?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The first thing we did was restore the mandatory housing targets because, first, it did not make any sense to us. We wanted to deliver an overall target across the country but we were not saying what part in that each local authority played. Secondly, we know there are a lot of pressures facing local planning authorities. We have invested £46 million in this year’s funding to strengthen the capacity and capability to deliver planning reform to enable local authorities to meet their housing targets. We have made a commitment to recruit 300 additional planners, alongside wider planning policy changes—we will be discussing these later this afternoon—and legislative changes. That will help us deliver the housing and economic growth our country desperately needs.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my experience as a councillor was that builders and developers would often promise a percentage of social or affordable housing within their building projects and then somehow fail to do that. Are there enough penalties for builders who do that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We continue to explore this. It is very important that local authorities are able to set in their local plans the targets that they think are appropriate for their local areas. We will continue to explore with local authorities, particularly as we roll out the funding for social and affordable housing, whether there is any more we need to do to make sure that housing is delivered to the targets that each local authority has set itself.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsMonday 24th November 2025
(4 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 147-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (21 Nov 2025)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D, E and E1, which are grouped together. It is a great pleasure to bring the Planning and Infrastructure Bill back to the House of Lords to consider amendments and reasons from the other place.
A number of further commitments were made last week, which, where relevant, I will repeat today. I will first discuss amendments that relate to the provision of infrastructure in this country. Before doing so, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussions between Report and today’s ping-pong.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has tabled an amendment that would reinstate the requirement for the Government to respond to any resolutions of Parliament, or Select Committee recommendations, when making certain material changes to a national policy statement. This amendment risks undermining a core aim of the Bill: to keep national policy statements up to date swiftly and effectively. The reflective amendment procedure is not a shortcut to avoid scrutiny; it is a practical tool, accompanied by commitments to work with Select Committees, to ensure that NPSs can be updated without undue delay to reflect published government policy, legislative updates, a court decision or a change to a published document referred to in the statement.
National policy statements are the backbone of the NSIP regime. They unlock billions in private investment, create jobs and drive sustainable growth. If they fall out of date, projects can stall, costs can rise and confidence in the system is eroded.
As noble Lords know, Clause 1 already guarantees robust oversight by requiring all NPSs to be reviewed at least every five years, with the oldest NPSs required to be updated within two years of the clause coming into effect. We expect that updates to the five NPSs in this transitional category will undergo full parliamentary scrutiny, and Select Committees will play a central role. But where changes relate to specific types of updates, such as reflecting government policy and aligning with legislation or court rulings, the reflective amendment route ensures that the process is proportionate while maintaining accountability.
To address concerns raised in both Houses, the Government have made clear commitments. We will notify the relevant Select Committee at the start of any consultation. We will lay a Statement in Parliament explaining how the changes meet the statutory definition. Ministers will make themselves available to give evidence during that period. If a Select Committee publishes a report during the consultation period, the Government will take its recommendations into account. These safeguards ensure transparency and respect for Parliament. The chair of the Commons Liaison Committee has already said she is reassured that the Select Committee corridor will be treated with the respect it deserves.
Let me emphasise that this procedure will only apply to changes that reflect published policy, legislative amendments or court decisions. Even then, Parliament retains the ultimate safeguard. The draft NPS must be laid for 21 sitting days before it can take effect. This is a balanced, proportionate approach. It keeps the NPSs current, supports infrastructure delivery and preserves Parliament’s ultimate authority, ensuring that oversight remains robust and meaningful.
Amendments 2A and 3 seek to insert additional requirements relating to heritage consents and community engagement for reservoir NSIP applications. I greatly respect the concerns about the impact of reservoir NSIPs on communities and heritage, so ably explained in the course of our debates by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, recalling villages in Northumbria, the Lake District and Wales that were submerged for projects such as Rutland Water and Kielder Water. While these reservoirs provide vital water and local pride, they came at great cost. Securing safeguards for heritage and for communities is essential when considering major infrastructure projects. Heritage underpins our tourism and economy and is irreplaceable. It must be managed effectively through our planning system.
The historic cases I mentioned arose before today’s planning framework. We now have the Planning Act 2008 and a suite of supporting secondary legislation and guidance which ensures the thorough evaluation of nationally significant infrastructure projects and their impacts.
Section 33 of the Planning Act removes the need for separate consents to be obtained for works affecting listed buildings or monuments, instead creating a unified consent in the development consent order if granted. A number of protections, including in legislation, are embedded in that consenting process. These ensure that the NSIP process does not represent a dilution of heritage protections, while ensuring the regime is a one-stop shop for consent.
First and foremost, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving heritage assets when deciding applications. The Secretary of State must comply with the obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations. Decisions must also be made in accordance with the national policy statements, subject to limited exceptions. The water resources NPS applies to dams and reservoirs and contains dedicated policy on the historic environment, requiring weight to be given to conservation and recognising that heritage assets cannot be replaced.
This NPS defines heritage assets and explains that some have a level of significance that justifies official designation. This explicitly includes world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, and conservation areas.
Applicants are also required, where applicable, to include information about heritage impacts when they submit their applications for development consent. Where an environmental impact assessment is required, they must assess impacts as part of this. But it is not solely applicants and the Secretary of State who are responsible for consideration of heritage. Historic England is a statutory body required to be notified by the applicant of a decision to accept an application for examination. Statutory bodies are given the opportunity to make a relevant representation. If they do so, they are classified as “interested parties” and would be engaged, with opportunities to provide views to the examining authority, during the NSIP examination process.
I am confident that the NSIP system provides numerous sufficient protections for the heritage assets of this country. However, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House today, and as such, I am happy to commit to review the “historic environment” section of the water NPS to consider both the advice provided to the applicant and required considerations of the Secretary of State. Given the numerous additional protections and commitments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is sufficiently reassured and that he will not insist on his Amendment 2.
On the impact of reservoirs on communities, before we get to the substance of the amendment, I want to briefly note that it is legally flawed. The amendment misconstrues the process for a dam or reservoir project entering the NSIP regime; most of the time such projects automatically enter the NSIP regime as a Section 14(1)(m) project when the criteria set out in Section 27 of the Planning Act are met.
I none the less want to emphasise that the voices and contributions of people living in affected areas are vital to the effective delivery of projects and the legitimacy of the NSIP system. Following changes proposed to pre-application consultation through the Bill, the Government will publish new guidance setting clear expectations on engagement with those affected in the NSIP application process.
Let me be clear: at the forefront of this guidance will be an expectation that engagement is undertaken early, when voices can and do make a real difference to projects. This should be offered in a variety of ways, including in person, to be accessible and allow affected persons to share their views about the development and the impact it will have.
NSIP applicants have a responsibility towards those affected by their proposals and should be present and visible to local communities to ensure accountability to them during the development and examination of applications. The requirement for an applicant to publicise a proposed application is preserved in the Planning Act 2008. The Act continues to ensure that people are notified during pre-application. Those affected persons will be notified if an application is accepted for examination.
Opportunities to be heard do not stop there. Statutory provisions guarantee participation throughout the process. Local authorities are invited to produce local impact reports, bringing forward local knowledge and setting out impacts of the development, which the Secretary of State must have regard to in deciding the application. The system also provides opportunities for individuals to participate, both through making a relevant and/or written representation and making oral representations at hearings. Those whose land is being acquired have an automatic right to request a hearing and have their voice heard.
While these amendments raise important points, the existing framework already provides strong protections. Nevertheless, to provide further assurances, and in recognition of the importance of the issues raised, the Government will commit to bring forward the next water NPS update to consider community engagement for reservoir and dam projects.
The Secretary of State will consider how best to reflect expectations around early and effective engagement with impacted residents, particularly where projects may involve significant demolition or disruption, to ensure that local communities and impacted individuals’ voices are heard. This will include consultation with stakeholders on whether greater policy guidance is required to ensure that our planning system remains rigorous, responsive and inclusive. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and that she will agree to no longer insist on her amendment.
Amendments 31A and 31B relate to accessible charging and seek to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points. I say a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his constructive engagement, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their contributions on this matter. The Government tabled an amendment in lieu which includes some changes that go slightly further than the original amendment. Reflecting the feedback from industry and other stakeholders, the Government’s amendment ensures that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points. They also ensure that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering accessible charge points. The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 already gives the Government powers to require the sharing of accessibility data, so we have not included this.
This amendment applies to Great Britain. The Northern Irish Ministers did not wish for this amendment, which relates to a transferred matter, to extend to them. They are able to bring forward their own legislation. The UK Government will work with Northern Ireland and wishes to minimise divergence of standards across the United Kingdom. I appreciated the very interesting debate that we had in this House, led by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and hope that this meets all the noble Lord’s concerns on this issue.
Turning finally to Amendment 32, the Government recognise the impact that water stress has on communities, including farmers and sports clubs, as well as the role that low-hazard reservoirs can play in mitigating such issues. I recognise the wider point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that urgent action is required. The Government will respond to the Cunliffe recommendations in full via a White Paper that will be published later this year. It will outline the Government’s vision for the future of the water sector, marking the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Defra Science Search website. Updated data will be published following consultation and decisions on the details of proposed reforms.
I am happy to confirm that the Housing Minister committed in the other place to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Minister went further, committing to provide clarity to farmers about when the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs can be used. This would be achieved by updating the relevant planning practice guidance. Providing further information and clarity about precisely when this permitted development right can be relied on, and what conditions and limitations apply, will support the amendment’s aim of enabling farmers to construct these reservoirs.
We support the objective of this amendment. Of the two actions proposed, the first action has already been completed. The Government have committed to deliver the second within the timeframe set out in the original amendment. We have also gone further and committed to clarifying guidance on the permitted development right that supports the construction of on-farm reservoirs. I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, feels able not to insist on her amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am grateful for their engagement on the important matters that have been the subject of this group. I will address noble Lords’ points individually.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I refer to all the protections I set out earlier as part of the Government’s reassurance that we take very seriously the conservation of heritage buildings. He asked me about timeframes. It was the intention that the water NPS would not be done until 2030 but I am prepared to commit to him that we will bring it forward to 2026 so that we can make sure that this is addressed quickly to give clarity to all those concerned. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord, and that that protection, and the bringing forward of the review to next year, will enable him not to press his amendment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, I very much appreciate the long-standing expertise and commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to addressing some of the pressing water management issues that have been around for decades. I understand her impatience about the time it has taken to deal with some of them. On the urgency, I draw her attention to the fact that the Cunliffe review was completed this year, and the Government have already undertaken to produce a water White Paper by the end of the year, so we are not hanging around in dealing with this. Once the appropriate consultation on the White Paper has been done, we will bring forward legislation in a water Bill to deal with it. I hope that that lets the noble Baroness know that the Government do not want these issues to continue to hang around for decades. We want to deal with this issue; we take it seriously. I know that my colleagues in Defra deal with it daily.
The NPS for water resources infrastructure, designated in September 2023 and amended in 2025, sets out the need for and the Government’s policies for all nationally significant water resources infrastructure projects—that is, large reservoirs and transfer schemes. It explains that the need for the infrastructure is set out in water company statutory water resources management plans and explains the assessment principles that any DCO application for qualifying water resources projects must satisfy. For projects that fall under the NSIP regime, automatically or by direction, and within the NPS’s scope, the Secretary of State must determine the application in accordance with the NPS. It is important that NPSs are in place as quickly as possible so that we can determine applications in accordance with them, unless there are prescribed compelling reasons not to do so. The policy therefore ensures that long-term water supply resilience and national infrastructure are embedded in the consenting framework.
On the reservoirs the noble Baroness was referring to, we will get that into the planning practice guidance as soon as is practicable. I am happy to work with her on that as we move forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised the issue of local impact statements. He is quite right to say that, as part of the Planning Act 2008, relevant local authorities will be invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of proposed developments on the authority’s area. The Government are considering responses to our recent consultation on guidance on and engagement with NSIPs. This includes guidance to local authorities on local impact reports. We will carefully consider what the guidance can say to address concerns about the heritage impact issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Water White Paper will be this calendar year—I hope before Parliament breaks for recess, but I do not want to commit my Defra colleagues further than they have given me licence to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised issues concerning reservoirs. The national policy statement would protect those reservoirs and make sure that we have an obligation to do so. As I have explained many times, although the national policy statements are not in themselves the matter of primary legislation, because they have to change and be adaptable to circumstances, they do carry the full weight of the planning system in legal terms. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that that protection is in place.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. She is completely right: we need to get this Bill through so that we can start on the infrastructure projects and the housebuilding that we need. As the Minister responsible for these issues in this House, the human reality she talks about and the disruption faced by communities is absolutely not lost on me. As we go through the process of strengthening the guidance and bringing forward an early review of the NPS on water, we will take full account of the need to ensure that communities are protected in the way she so admirably championed throughout consideration of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will consider not pressing their amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B in lieu.
“Accessibility of public charging or refuelling points
In section 10 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection) at the end insert—
“(5) Regulations may impose requirements in connection with the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points in England, Wales and Scotland, such as requirements relating to—
(a) the design of the point,
(b) the location, placement or surroundings of the point, and
(c) the provision of assistance in using the point.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may prescribe requirements by reference to technical standards or specifications published by a person specified in the regulations (including standards or specifications as amended from time to time).
(7) Regulations under subsection (5) may impose requirements on any person, including—
(a) persons making, supplying, importing, operating or installing public charging or refuelling points;
(b) the owners or occupiers of land on which public charging or refuelling points are situated.
(8) Regulations under subsection (5) may not impose requirements on owners or occupiers of domestic premises.””
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 32, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 32A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can reassure the noble Baroness that we propose to introduce a new hazard classification system with four hazard classes. The assessment of hazard class would take into account dam height, reservoir volume and likely numbers of people downstream. Safety management practices would be tailored to each hazard class so that the lowest hazard class would have minimum requirements—less than the current ones, which I hope is reassuring to her—and the highest hazard class would have more than the current requirements. I hope it is reassuring that we want to make this easier for farmers, not harder.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
When is that classification coming in?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, as well as moving Motion F, I will also speak to Motions G, J and J1, with the permission of the House.
I will begin with Amendment 33, which was from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which sought to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on this very important issue. Having reflected on our useful discussions in previous debates and subsequent correspondence and having heard the strength of feeling in the House on this point, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that the Government agree with the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will therefore use the next opportunity in the other place to bring forward an amendment which will seek to give effect to the intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation are subject to the affirmative procedure. This, alongside the further safeguard built into the legislation which places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before they come into effect, should ensure an appropriate amount of scrutiny and engagement ahead of the implementation of the national scheme of delegation. I very much saw the noble Lord’s point about the first set of regulations coming forward, and I hope he is reassured on that point.
Amendment 37, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, exempted assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her very constructive engagement on this issue. We agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them though the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently under consideration by this House—we have not had its First Reading yet, but it will be imminent. If we agree where someone wants to demolish an asset of community value, it is only right they should have to submit a planning application so that the full planning merits can be considered. That is why the Government committed in the other place to consult on this proposal at the earliest opportunity. As mentioned in the debate in the other place, Parliament has granted the Secretary of State powers to make permitted development rights through secondary legislation. As such, the Government feel we should follow the proper route to amending these through important consultation. We hope these commitments reassure the noble Baroness, and we look forward to a consultation on the matter shortly. I hope the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to look at the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. There are significantly greater powers over community assets in that Bill than currently exist, and I hope that will reassure her of our intent in this matter.
Amendment 39 was on brownfield land and sustainable development. I completely agree with Peers on the need to prioritise and fully utilise brownfield land. I want to be explicit and assure Peers that the Government already have a brownfield-first approach to development—a principle that successive Governments have adhered to. That is why the Government updated the National Planning Policy Framework last year to further strengthen policy support for development on brownfield land. It currently states:
“Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.
We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include “large areas of hardstanding”, bringing more brownfield land into scope and limiting the need to look at other types of land. Of course, it is also the case that, as well as prioritising brownfield development, the existing NPPF already provides protections for non-brownfield land—such as protected landscapes, green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty—alongside guiding developments away from, for example, using the best and most versatile agricultural land where possible—I know that was a matter of great concern to noble Lords.
Last year, the Government published a Brownfield Passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. This included exploring the role of national policy in setting minimum density expectations for certain types of locations to support intensification in the right places. But we are committed to going even further to embed the brownfield-first policy into our planning system, which is why I can commit to consulting on a revised framework later this year that will set out a more rules-based approach to planning, including ensuring that brownfield land is the first port of call for development. In that consultation, we will put forward proposals that help prioritise brownfield land for development, set clear expectations for where development can take place and make best use of existing infrastructure to grow and densify our towns and cities and to support sustainable development. Our proposals will explicitly encourage mayors and local authorities to accommodate more development on brownfield land and specifically relate this to spatial development strategies.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned that policy changes alone are not strong enough. I make it clear that the NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework—and all the points I have made previously on the priority use of brownfield land—is a material consideration in planning decisions. All strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, this is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.
Our newly revised NPPF, which we will consult on before the end of the year, will provide even clearer policies to drive more certain decision-making, including on brownfield development. Our changes will signal a step change and make clear our ambitions to drive forward brownfield development. We expect changes to meet the objectives of the brownfield-first principle. Our proposals will provide a crucial opportunity to test our approach and consider evidence from the sector to ensure that policies are robust and impactful.
We also know that policies can take time to feed through the planning system, and we will continue to keep policy and associated guidance under review. As such, legislative changes are not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that may not support effective delivery, or that sometimes may not allow for local circumstances to be taken into account.
I fear that the amendment would have become a charter for those who may seek to thwart development and the preparation of SDSs. First, the amendment would bite into SDSs. These are higher-level frameworks with the key aim of planning for medium-term to long-term housing and other development needs, aligning infrastructure provision to support that development. SDSs should of course take a brownfield-first approach, which, as I have mentioned, is already enshrined in a national policy framework that will go even further to prioritise brownfield land.
The other aspects of this amendment would create a legislative requirement for increasing densities and reducing travel distances. These are problematic in not allowing for the consideration of local issues—for example, the character of an area, the settlement patterns or the presence of important heritage assets. Consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at local level. As noble Lords know, brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable for development. A policy approach allows us to trust local planning authorities to arrive at appropriate judgments on the suitability of brownfield sites, having weighed up a balance of considerations. I am afraid that having such legislation, alongside creating overly rigid requirements, would serve only to open up SDSs to the increased risk of legal challenges on potentially very local issues that are not the aim or purpose of strategic development strategies. This may slow them down in providing the homes and infrastructure that our communities need.
Therefore, with the strong assurances I have made and the commitments to further strengthen the approach to brownfield land, I hope noble Lords will see the Government’s clear commitment on this and agree with the Motion not to insist. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, first, I remind noble Lords of my registered interest as chair of the development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank the Minister warmly for her engagement and that of her officials with Amendment 33 and for the Government’s support for it, giving this House the opportunity to examine on an affirmative procedure the first use of the national scheme of delegation. I shall not reiterate, as noble Lords have heard it in Committee and on Report, my view of the importance of the national scheme of delegation and, indeed, some issues about how it is to be used and structured. It is not simply a case of how important it is; there are still outstanding issues on the structure of the national scheme of delegation.
I am immensely grateful to the Minister that the Government are going to look that we insist on Amendment 33. I apologise for my poor drafting. Noble Lords know that I try hard on these matters, but I neglected to note that, if it became an affirmative resolution, the structure of the Town and Country Planning Act already provides that other regulations beyond the first use are automatically regarded as negative procedure. There will be further amendment to remedy that when the other place finishes its examination.
While I am standing up, I want to say that I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lady Scott about the scrutiny that we have afforded to this legislation. She and I—and, indeed, the Minister—went all the way through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. We spent 23 days in examination of that Bill, and we have spent only 16 days on this one, so to that extent we have rushed it through. I thoroughly support Motion F.
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.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A.
37A: Because the Commons consider that measures in respect of permitted development rights should be taken forward through secondary legislation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 38A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak also to Motions H1, K and K1. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for their amendments in lieu relating to chalk streams and environmental delivery plans.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for tabling Lords Amendment 38B. I also thank him for his letter, which I received today; I hope to respond to him in my remarks from the Dispatch Box. His amendment moves away from the wide-ranging amendment that he previously sought to add to the Bill, which was not workable. This amendment seeks to introduce guidance for how strategic planning authorities must take into account the need to define, protect and enhance chalk streams through spatial development strategies. I recognise and appreciate the positive intent of the amendment, and I emphasise once again that the Government are absolutely determined to restore and improve the nation’s chalk streams. I should highlight that any provisions in regulations made by statutory instrument are legislative requirements, rather than guidance; this amendment refers to both terms.
We set out in the other place that we do not believe that legislation requiring spatial development strategies is the best place to protect these vital ecosystems. Furthermore, new legislation on this specific matter would duplicate existing policy on the issue—policy that we have already committed to update with specific reference to chalk streams. Strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s-length bodies, such as the Environment Agency, that have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas; those are the two main issues that affect the viability of chalk streams. The spatial development strategies will be high-level frameworks for housing, growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites.
Importantly, spatial development strategies will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. As locally led spatial exercises, those local nature recovery strategies will—drawing on river basin management plans—be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them. Local nature recovery strategies, which include important chalk streams in Wiltshire, Berkshire and Norfolk, are already doing this. We want to build on these welcome efforts. I can, therefore, make it clear today that, in responding to this amendment in the other place, the Government committed to amend statutory guidance to encourage chalk streams to be featured prominently in local nature recovery strategies going forward.
On the planning system, which is obviously the focus of this Bill, it remains the Government’s view that the conservation of chalk streams is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy, which applies to all tiers of the planning system from strategic policies to individual planning applications. As per the commitment made by the Housing and Planning Minister in the other place on 13 November, which I referred to a moment ago, the Government will now include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision-making that we intend to consult on before the end of this year. This will ensure that chalk streams are explicitly recognised as features of high environmental value in national planning policy; and that clear expectations are set for plan-makers and decision-makers in respect of managing the impacts of development on these sensitive water bodies.
As noble Lords are well aware, among the most pressing of the multiple pressures facing chalk steams are systemic issues in the water system. The Government are absolutely determined to take bold action to address pollution and over-abstraction. Measures that will safeguard and restore chalk streams are already embedded into our ambitious programme of reforms to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
Although it does not directly relate to the planning system, in order to provide noble Lords with additional reassurance on the Government’s intentions in this area, I can commit today that the Government will embed actions to improve chalk streams into the water White Paper, which will be published before the end of the year. That White Paper will feed directly into the development of forthcoming legislation in this area.
I appreciate entirely the strength of feeling on this issue. The Housing and Planning Minister and I have very much appreciated the considered engagement that we have had on this matter, as well as the opportunity to discuss how we can best achieve what are, ultimately, shared priorities. I hope that, through the assurances the Government have now provided in respect of the water White Paper, the LNRS statutory guidance and forthcoming changes to national planning policy, noble Lords are reassured that these vital ecosystems will soon get the recognition and protection that they deserve.
I turn to Amendments 40B and 40C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. The other place has chosen to reinstate the original drafting of Clause 55—now Clause 63—so that EDPs are no longer limited to a closed list of environmental impacts. I am incredibly grateful for the continued engagement on this amendment from Peers, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis, Lady Young and Lady Grender, and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Roborough, who have given up their time to work with the Government to consider this issue. These discussions have made it clear that the aim of the original amendment was not to restrict the ability of EDPs to support environmental features where appropriate but to seek assurances in two key areas: how the Government will prioritise EDPs going forward; and how we will embed the lessons from early EDPs into the future pipeline of EDPs.
The proposed amendment in lieu seeks to develop this position, but I will make further commitments on these points today; I hope that they will provide noble Lords with the assurances they need to support the Government’s position. Before I set out these commitments, I again highlight that the nature restoration fund is a targeted tool designed to address the specific impact of development on a specific environmental feature. This targeted approach means two things: first, that an EDP would only ever be brought forward where there is a clear case that an environmental feature is affecting development consent, as it simply would not make sense to bring forward EDPs where there is no need to do so; and, secondly, that an EDP could only ever be put in place where conservation measures would materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature.
As was highlighted in the other place, it is right that we are guided by the science. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has particularly strong feelings about this, and she is quite right to have them. The legislation ensures that the design, making and delivery of EDPs are evidence-led. As we set out in the other place, we know that strategic approaches can work for both sites and species, as demonstrated through the district level licensing scheme for great crested newts and our experience of nutrient mitigation schemes to date.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill requires Natural England to notify the Secretary of State of its intention to develop an EDP, which ensures that the Secretary of State has direct oversight of the development of EDPs as well as their role in considering whether to formally approve an EDP. This clear mechanism ensures that there is clarity as to when a new EDP is being prepared. Of course, all EDPs will be subject to public consultation before they are sent to the Secretary of State to consider.
On learning from the early EDPs, the Bill provides a number of important safeguards. The first is the ongoing requirement for monitoring, which will ensure that conservation measures are performing as intended, with back-up measures being deployed if there is underperformance. This not only ensures that EDPs are subject to ongoing review but goes beyond the monitoring requirements under the existing system and means we will capture important data about the performance of conservation measures, which will inform future EDPs.
The second key limb in the legislation is the reporting requirements, which set minimum reporting periods for individual EDPs that reinforce the monitoring provisions by requiring a further assessment as to whether the EDP is on track to meet the overall improvement test.
There is also a wider annual reporting requirement across the entire nature restoration fund, which will set out all the EDPs that are in force as well as the pipeline of any EDPs being prepared. Taken together, we hope it is clear that the Bill provides assurances, both at the point of development of EDPs and through to implementation, that EDPs can be used only where they can be shown to work.
However, throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have sought to ensure that all parliamentarians and stakeholders can have confidence that the new regime would deliver the win-win for development and nature that we envisage. With this in mind, we want to provide additional assurance that EDPs will be appropriately sequenced.
As we have set out before, the nature restoration fund is self-limiting by design, in that an EDP can be put in place only where it can be shown to materially outweigh the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature using the best available scientific evidence.
However, as a first step in respect of sequencing, I commit that the first EDPs will address nutrient pollution only. This is an area where we have substantial first-hand evidence that a strategic approach works. It is also an area in which Natural England has already proved its expertise in supporting the delivery of mitigation across the country. Taking this approach will therefore provide us with a useful test case to demonstrate both the impact of EDPs and Natural England’s ability to deliver. We will then pay particular attention to the results of the regular monitoring and reporting of these early EDPs. These monitoring and reporting requirements ensure transparency and provide the opportunity for both government scrutiny and external scrutiny of the ongoing impact and delivery of EDPs.
From our engagement across the Bill, we know that independent and expert bodies, such as the Environmental Audit Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection, may wish to undertake scrutiny of this kind. This will support the assurance of the nature restoration fund’s delivery and evolution. The Government look forward to working closely with these bodies as we move forward with the nature restoration fund.
While the Bill provides for this transparent approach, I will also commit to the Government returning to the House once the first nutrient EDPs are made to issue a statement on the initial learnings from their development and implementation. It will only be after the House has seen this statement that a Secretary of State will make any further EDPs on other environmental issues. While Natural England may wish to undertake preparatory work in parallel on potential future EDPs, this approach will ensure that any learning from the first nutrients EDP is considered before any EDPs beyond nutrients are made and operational.
As we move forward with implementation, we are incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for their offer to continue to work with the Government as we progress with developing crystal clear guidance to ensure that developers, environmental groups and communities can navigate this new system effectively. This collaborative approach will ensure the targeted tools unlock the positive outcomes that I know we all want to see. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches and many other noble Lords have challenged the necessity for Part 3 throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. The Government have made a number of amendments, which have improved the Bill, to reintroduce nature protections and give more comfort on the Bill’s operation in relation to nature and the rural economy. We also welcome the Minister’s assurances and commitments around the use of compulsory purchase powers.
However, we supported the restriction of EDPs to nutrient neutrality, water and air quality in Committee and on Report, as well as protections for our chalk streams. The application of nutrient neutrality rules by Natural England is the major restriction on planning related to the natural environment. Before I go on, I again draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer, landowner, forester, and a developer of housing, commercial premises, and renewable energy.
I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Young of Old Scone, for pursuing these restrictions on EDPs, and all those who supported them. The Minister has been generous with her time and that of her officials throughout the passage of this Bill, and our discussions around these and other amendments have been thoughtful and constructive. I am grateful for the Government’s commitments and concessions laid out today. They may not go as far as we might have wished. However, these commitments will allow Parliament to scrutinise the progress of EDPs and hold the Government to account over their extension—although I doubt, as a hereditary Peer, that I will be here to be part of that.
I want to put two challenges related to nutrient neutrality to the Minister. The Government refused to accept my amendments that sought not to reimpose habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. My Division was narrowly disagreed with. I have made the Government aware that, since that debate, this issue is already restricting planning consent, with a further 550 homes likely to be blocked in Somerset, as the council anticipates the reintroduction of those regulations in this Bill. What consideration has the Minister given to preventing the Bill blocking new housebuilding in this way?
Natural England provided some interesting data in response to freedom of information requests. In 2023, it promised Ministers to unlock 40,000 homes from nutrient neutrality restrictions with £33.5 million of taxpayer funding. In responding to this freedom of information request, it disclosed that it has spent over £28 million, including over £4 million on administration, and generated enough units to unlock only 11,000 homes. The scrutiny of these EDPs will need to be forensic and rigorous before Natural England should be allowed and trusted to attempt them in far more complicated areas.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that the Government have made thoughtful concessions. We on these Benches are satisfied that this will provide a good opportunity for scrutiny.
Chalk streams face urgent and growing pressures, as others have laid out in this debate, yet the tools we rely on to protect them are still not fully in place. The Government have pointed to local nature recovery strategies as part of the solution, but without the long-promised regulations giving them real weight in the planning system, they simply do not have the bite required. Given the scale of the threat from development footprints, pollution and overabstraction, we cannot afford further delay, nor can we wait until 2030 for the abstraction licence reforms to take effect. We must ensure that spatial development strategies can direct development away from vulnerable chalk stream catchments. It is a practical and necessary step to prevent irreversible harm to these globally rare habitats. Although we support Amendment 38B’s intent, we would not be able to support it in a Division today, for the reasons laid out by my noble friend Lady Scott, but we will look to find other avenues to push forward this agenda.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, but I want also to give a general statement of thanks to everybody who has engaged with this Bill. We have discussed a huge variety of topics and gone through some very technical issues. I have been very grateful for noble Lords’ patience as I have sought to find answers to the questions that have arisen during our debates, but also for the willingness—which is the best aspect of this House—to move these debates forward constructively and helpfully. I have really appreciated that, and I am very grateful for the many meetings that we have had and the late nights that we have sat over the course of this Bill. I give you all my great thanks for that work.
I will respond now to some of the points raised in the debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich mentioned that local nature recovery strategies do not capture the catchment area of a river. He points to the exact reason why we think the water White Paper and the Bill that will follow it are vital for the proper protection of chalk streams that we are all seeking. We know the main issues facing chalk streams. I cannot remember who talked about it—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—but I too have stood in more than one chalk stream, because I live in Hertfordshire, where we have a lot of them, and I know that the issues of abstraction and pollution cannot be addressed in this way. They need to be addressed through the forthcoming water Bill, and my colleagues in Defra are keen to do that. The National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out planning policies and decisions, should protect chalk streams as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value, and local plans should identify, map and safeguard them as local wildlife-rich habitats.
I liked the phrase that the right reverend Prelate used, which was that housing and development should fly in formation with nature. I totally agree. I hope that, as we have gone through the process of the Bill, noble Lords will have noted that it is the Government’s intention, as we pursue the building of homes and infrastructure, to see a win-win for both nature and development in order to deliver what we need while protecting the important natural resources around us.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her remarks. I know that the concerns around EDPs are real. She spoke about our ambitious and bold new framework, but we have listened. In local government we have a test-and-learn approach, because we all learn from each other as well as from things we have done ourselves. I hope the noble Baroness and other Peers will agree that the commitments I have set out today enable us to do that with EDPs as well. I am grateful to her and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for all the work that they have done on this issue. Their flow chart was a great help. I was not trying to mark their homework, and I hope they will forgive me; we were just trying to expand the flow chart that they had made, to make it, I hope, more helpful. We will continue to work with them on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, asked about consultation. Natural England is required to consult the public and any public authority that it considers relevant on a draft EDP for a period of at least 28 working days. Natural England must seek the views of relevant local planning authorities as part of its consultation. I am afraid it is not possible to give a timeframe for when we will return to the House ahead of the first EDP being developed. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that each EDP will need to include monitoring requirements that will form part of the draft EDP when put out for consultation, so she will see the timeframe set out as we bring those EDPs forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said she did not like the Environmental Audit Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection, the organisations that I was looking to, to work with Natural England. Natural England will have the data, but those organisations will help provide the scrutiny for this. Without using those organisations, I do not know where we go with that, but I hope we will be able to convince her that they are organisations that can do this effectively. We are willing to listen to any suggestions that she may have.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her welcome for the EDPs issue. I understand that she may have ongoing concerns on chalk streams, although I hope I have reassured her on some of those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to the plethora we now have of habitat regs, EDPs and biodiversity net gain. We need to simplify the guidance on this, and I hope that he will continue to work with us on that mission.
My noble friend Lady Young spoke about clarity for developers. That is exactly what we are trying to deliver as part of the Bill, and I am grateful to all Peers who have helped us to do that.
I hope I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on the independence of scrutiny. We want to use organisations that are well respected to help with the scrutiny of the EDPs.
I will reply in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on the habitat regs on Ramsar sites in Somerset. On the issue of Natural England data and unlocking homes, these things have a cumulative effect, so I hope that the money that Natural England has spent will help it to have the structures and processes in place to continue to work with us to deliver the homes that we all want to see. I hope that that work is ongoing. I look forward to working with Natural England and others.
In the meantime, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords of our intention to protect our precious chalk streams. As noble Lords have heard me say many times, I live in Hertfordshire; it is definitely in my interests to protect those chalk streams. I believe that we now have the right processes in place, and I hope that the reassurances we have given over the sequencing of EDPs will help noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The Minister gave me encouraging reassurance about independence and referred to two bodies that would be doing the monitoring and evaluation. Could she repeat for me—I think I missed it—which bodies they are? Are they fully independent of Natural England and the Environment Agency?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have not made an approach to these organisations, so I do not want to commit them to doing this, but if the Environmental Audit Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection wanted to get involved in the scrutiny of EDPs, we would be very happy to facilitate that.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this debate and in particular the Minister, for her customary care in the answers she has given us.
What we agree on, across all sides of this House, is that chalk streams are precious, irreplaceable habitats that are gravely endangered. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for giving a sense that he would like to continue to press this in other ways. My view remains that we need clear legal protections for chalk streams and other irreplaceable habitats so that developers and planners know where they stand and the public can be reassured that protections will not easily be wiped out overnight. With this in mind, I seek to test the will of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 39A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 40A.
Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 18 November.
Water and Sewerage Companies: Statutory Consultees
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interest as an officer of the All-Party Water Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, water companies must by law provide new water and sewerage connections to housing through drainage and wastewater management plans. As relevant statutory undertakers in the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, they must be consulted on relevant applications for development consent. The Government’s forthcoming guidance will promote early engagement with them. The Government have paused creating new statutory consultees in the Town and Country Planning Act regime. As part of a wider review, a consultation on streamlining this system is under way, with decisions to follow.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. It begs the question how the Government plan to build major housing developments of 300,000 a year, many of them on flood plains with no sustainable drains, with the additional demands of the new data centres and mindful of the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources, giving the acute warning of a deficit of water of 5 billion litres by 2050. Do the Government agree that we need to end the automatic right to connect, so that where water companies say there is simply no capacity, the development will not go ahead?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her constant interest in this subject through many of the pieces of legislation that she and I have debated across the Chamber. There is no automatic right to connect to a sewerage system. Section 106 of the Water Industry Act allows a sewerage undertaker to refuse a proposed connection to its public sewer system, which is otherwise a statutory right. Refusal is possible—and would be subject to an appeal to Ofwat—only when the mode of construction or condition of the sewer does not satisfy the undertaker’s reasonable standards, or where the connection would otherwise prejudice the system. I appreciate her great interest in sustainable drainage systems. As she knows, we are pursuing that for new developments with our colleagues in Defra.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, we desperately need new housing, but avoiding flooding is also essential. Internal drainage board levies make up a significant proportion of the budgets of some local authorities, which often have to cut off other services to fund the IDB levy. The IDB’s work ensures that communities are safe, so that essential housebuilding can go ahead. Pumping stations are run on electricity, the cost of which has risen exponentially since the introduction of Ofgem’s targeted charging review. The Government announced £5 million for councils this year. That is short term, so what is the Government’s long-term solution to this pressing problem?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have been greatly involved in the issues around internal drainage boards and the constant tensions in their financing over the years. Internal drainage boards are not statutory consultees, but they work proactively with local authorities, which are represented on their management boards and can comment on proposals within the statutory consultation period. Where an internal drainage board raises issues that are material to the determination of an application in question, local authorities must take these into account. We are working at pace to deliver the renewable electricity and other energy we all need, to help reduce costs for householders and businesses alike.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, the Minister, in her reply to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned Ofwat. The Independent Water Commission, which reported in July, recommended the abolition of Ofwat and the institution of a new regulator. I realise that this falls under a different department, but would the Minister be prepared to accelerate the start of the new regulatory regime? It seems to be in everyone’s interest that this should happen sooner rather than later.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We were very grateful for the work of the Independent Water Commission. As the noble Duke says, it is not my department that is working through the procedures needed to reply to the recommendations. The Government are considering the recommendations on whether water companies should be statutory consultees or subject to a requirement to notify. A water White Paper will be published before the end of this year, and I am sure that it will contain many of the issues that were the subject of those recommendations. People will be able to comment on the water White Paper in due course.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of how many pumping stations are either completely inoperable or malfunctioning?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That too is probably a question for my Defra colleagues to answer, but I will come back to the noble Baroness with a written response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, we are seeing more erratic weather patterns and some increasingly severe floods. Is the plan for sustainable drainage systems speeding up? Will we see that in the water White Paper?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The recent issues in Monmouthshire—we are terribly sorry for the people there; they have had a dreadful time over the past few days—make us even more determined to support the delivery of high-quality sustainable drainage systems to help us manage flood risk and adapt to the effects of climate change. National planning policy therefore makes it very clear that developments of all sizes are expected to make use of sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts. I have seen some fantastic examples of that when visiting housing sites around the country. Not only can it be done, but in a way that enhances the environment for local residents. We are considering what further changes need to be made to planning policy.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, in looking at the system of regulation, can we consider that Ofwat’s failures are not in isolation? Many regulatory authorities in this country are showing similar failings, although sometimes in slightly different manifestations. Do we not need not only individual changes, but to look at the whole regulatory system—not just to change legislation but to change the whole culture of these bodies?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Of course our regulatory system is important in helping and supporting the management of the development of the number of new homes we want to deliver. But we have taken a step back to look at the statutory consultees within the planning system—the moratorium was announced by the Chancellor in January—so that we can take account of some of the feedback we have had that the statutory consultee system is not working as well as it should. The Statement confirmed to the House a number of steps that the Government have taken to improve those statutory consultee arrangements—and that includes some of the regulators—including limiting the scope of those consultees to apply only where advice is strictly necessary.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that water and sewerage companies and undertakings should fully engage with local plans and spatial development strategies as statutory consultees, so that these issues can be addressed up front at the strategic level rather than having to do it on a site-by-site basis? That would speed up the planning process and deliver better outcomes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that early engagement with the local planning authority, the Environment Agency and the relevant water and sewerage companies, as appropriate, can help establish whether there will be water and wastewater issues that need to be considered. We expect water and sewerage companies to take a strategic approach to planning their water services, accounting for growth and the needs of the environment. There must also be strong collaboration between local authorities and water companies, so that local plans, water resources management plans, and drainage and wastewater plans align.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
Is it correct that the Government’s housebuilding target can be reached only if flood plains are used for building—and is that not a practice to be deprecated?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The National Planning Policy Framework is very clear that housing and most other types of development should not be permitted in functional flood plains—that is, in flood zone 3b—where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is necessary in such areas, it should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, so there must be no displacement of the risk. In 2023-24, 96% of all planning decisions complied with the Environment Agency advice on flood risk. In the same year, 99% of residential development proposals also complied with that advice.
Election Law
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pack
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commence work on the consolidation of election law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise that electoral law is complex and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his persistence in pushing that point. However, consolidation would take longer than the time available in this Parliament. We have set out our strategy for elections, which represents a way to make real progress, setting out actions that we will take to simplify, protect and promote our democracy. As detailed in our manifesto, we already have an ambitious agenda to improve our elections, including expanding the franchise and strengthening the rules around donations. We are focusing on delivering that agenda.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the clarity of the Minister’s Answer and the clear commitment to the principle of consolidating election law. I take the point that it is a time-consuming measure, but is that not why it is all the more important that the Government make a start on it now, rather than putting it off?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do understand the impatience that the noble Lord pushes. We did a recent review of electoral registration conduct to improve resilience, reduce risk and support administrators and voters alike. We are now taking the key priorities from that review and enacting them to make sure that our election system is as good as it can be without creating a long delay before we do anything.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, over 6 million eligible UK citizens are not signed up to vote. What steps are the Government taking towards automatic voter registration?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. As we set out in July’s strategy, the Government have committed to introducing more automated approaches to electoral registration. We are actively exploring some very innovative approaches to registration, including leveraging some of the public sector data and digital services to boost registration rates and improve the accuracy of electoral registers. Any new registration processes we bring in will be tested properly to make sure that they work well before we roll them out.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to help those who do not have passports, driving licences or other easy identification for being able to vote?
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.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the Representation of the People Acts sought to create a level playing field for constituency campaigning, but they no longer do so as a result of the legislation of 2000, which brought in national party limits. These limits were suddenly increased by 80% just before the last general election. Will the forthcoming legislation address the problem that a party contesting every constituency could spend £35 million in 70 target seats—half a million pounds per constituency—thereby driving a coach of horses through the principles of the Representation of the People Acts?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord’s party, along with all other political parties, will be invited to comment on the elections Bill when it is in draft, and I am sure they will do so.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as an enthusiastic volunteer on the Learn with the Lords programme, I strongly applaud the Government’s plans to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16. In preparation for that, what can the Government do to help teachers in schools prepare young people and be able to teach about politics in a way that does not get them in trouble for perhaps being seen to be partisan?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
This is a really important point around the expanding of the franchise. As the grandmother of a grandson who will be 16 in February, I am very aware that we need to make sure that education and engagement are a vital part of implementing policy. We take empowering and equipping young people with the knowledge and skills that they will need very seriously. The independent Curriculum and Assessment Review’s report and the Government’s response have now been published. We really welcome the review’s recommendations in this respect and the Government are already taking steps to progress the review’s agenda.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I remember attending the Law Commission, some 10 years ago if not more, when it promised to bring forward a new electoral registration Act, together with a review of the whole of election law. I declare my interest as the solicitor of the Labour Party in relation to election law.
The case for consolidating and indeed modernising election law is very strong, because the current system is fragmented, outdated, confusing and increasingly unworkable. Consolidation and modernisation itself would bring a single coherent legislative framework; modernising the rules would make election law fit for digital campaigning, which is the world we live in now, whereas election law currently is very much paper-based; consistency across elections would mean that we would all know, whichever election we were standing in, that the rules were more or less the same; and it would lower the administrative burden and make clearer offences and enforcement.
What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Law Commission brings forward a review, certainly within the next couple of years?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said, I understand the frustration about this, but the core scope of the review was to make sure that we pick up the main risks and issues related to electoral registration and the conduct of elections. A complete review of the electoral system would be a very complex and long-standing procedure and we wanted to do this on a risk-based approach, dealing with the challenges faced by the electoral sector rather than undertaking a wholescale consolidation. We have some pragmatic solutions to address the key issues and we are taking those forward.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I echo the request for consolidation of election law made by the noble Lords, Lord Shamash and Lord Pack: it is a complete mess at the moment. I will pick up on the answer that the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, where she said that it was the intention that all local government elections will go ahead. Is she actually saying that the relevant authorities will have elections, or that it is their intention at the moment but we will be told in X number of weeks or months’ time?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It sounds to me as if the noble Lord is dancing on the head of a pin here. The Government’s intention is that all elections that are due to take place in May 2026 will take place.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, a major problem is that people are disillusioned with the political system. Political parties are busy selling themselves to the highest bidder. Nearly half of 18 to 24 year-olds are not registered to vote and turnout at elections is low. Even if people vote, political parties appease their paymasters first. So what proposals do the Government have to cleanse the political system?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Actually, there are a very significant number of young people who have expressed their wish to take part in the political system. From my point of view, engaging more people in our system with the education steps that I spoke about earlier, to make sure that we introduce civic education and education around the political process, will help improve trust and confidence in the system.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lady Brown’s question about automatic registration, and following on from questions about young people, can my noble friend give me the assurance that at least young people voting for the first time aged 16-plus could be automatically registered? We know that voting is habit-forming and that we need participation in our democracy in order to give it strength.
Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 15 October.
The Government have identified data centres as essential infrastructure, necessary to support, grow and develop the UK’s economy. Data infrastructure now underpins almost all economic activity and innovation, including the development of AI and other technology, and it is increasingly critical for public service delivery and for how citizens interact with each other and the state. That is why data centres are crucial to delivering on the UK’s industrial strategy, and why the Government designated data centres as critical national infrastructure in September 2024, putting their loss or compromise on the same footing with essential services such as energy, water, transport and other critical national infrastructure sectors.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including digital infrastructure such as data centres. Following the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning system reforms consultation last year, the Government announced plans alongside the publication of the revised NPPF in December of that year to enable certain projects within high technology and data-driven industries to be capable, on request of the developer of a project, of being directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects process.
These regulations deliver on that announcement by effectively adding data centres to the existing nine prescribed projects—such as manufacturing, distribution, sport and tourism—that are set out in the Schedule to the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013. This would mean that certain proposed data centre projects could be capable, on request, of being directed by the Secretary of State to proceed through the NSIP consenting process under Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008, rather than having to proceed through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 route.
It is important to stress that the regulations do not require any or every proposed data centre project to proceed through the NSIP route—far from it. The regulations just provide an opportunity for developers of certain proposed data centre projects to choose, should they so wish, to request to opt in to the NSIP consenting process, rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act route.
I also wish to make it clear that, having received a qualifying request from a developer under Section 35ZA, the Secretary of State could decide to direct a data centre into the NSIP regime only if they considered that the project or proposed project was of national significance and met the other requirements in Section 35. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is drafting a national policy statement for data centres, which will set out both the national policy and the policy framework for decision-making for data centres. It will also set out the parameters, thresholds or other relevant factors that may indicate whether a particular data centre development proposal could be regarded as being of national significance and, therefore, capable of meeting the requirements of Section 35. DSIT aims to publish the draft national policy statement for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny shortly after these regulations come into force.
To summarise, what we are discussing today is the mechanism by which certain data centre proposals—those deemed to be of national significance—may choose, subject to the Secretary of State’s decision on whether to give a direction, to opt in to a different planning route, the NSIP consenting process route, rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act planning process. The SI before us enables developers to request that their proposals be considered under the NSIP regime, subject to the Secretary of State giving a direction to that effect.
I hope that the Committee agrees that these changes are sensible steps in ensuring that the planning system is flexible enough to adapt to emerging priorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which, as she said, enables the development of data centres using the NSIP regime. As Liberal Democrats, we understand and support this in principle. However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report raises important concerns. These are that
“the ability of affected local communities to make representations”
with regard to a data centre application via the NSIP process seems to be curtailed by using the NSIP regime.
As the Minister will know, I have raised this issue many times throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is, I believe, a serious concern—one that I share with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report. The reason is that there will no longer be a statutory requirement for a pre-application consultation with the affected community. Consequently, communities may not be aware of an application and may not be able to register in time to voice their concerns at a hearing.
As well as the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I have the following questions for the Minister. First, this statutory instrument would have made more sense if the promised national policy statement had been introduced, even in draft form. It is much more difficult to scrutinise this SI without the policy statement. That was also raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, so when is that likely to be published?
Secondly, can the Minister confirm that national planning policy, such as green belt policy, will be fully observed in relation to the siting of data centres?
Thirdly, do the Government intend to develop a spatial energy strategy to create a framework within which data centres can be developed? On the face of it, that seems adjacent to the purpose of this SI, but data centres consume a considerable amount of energy and, unless there is a spatial energy strategy, having too many data centres in one place could put pressure on the national energy system. For example, the existing data centres currently need 1.4 gigawatts of energy. As a country, I think we produce about 30 gigawatts a day, so data centres will use a big chunk of that energy.
Fourthly, given the energy that data centres use, they will produce a lot of heat. Either they will have to negate this in some way, or, as I would prefer, local heat networks will have to be set up in conjunction with data centres so that domestic users nearby can use free energy, because they would be doing a good deed for the data centres by using this waste heat. A great number of homes could benefit—up to a million, it is estimated—by using this energy that is currently being produced.
The fifth and final question—I apologise that I have so many questions—concerns the water usage of data centres. There is anxiety that the huge use of water by data centres, especially if they are developed in water-stressed areas, will result in even greater pressure on water supplies for domestic and other commercial uses. Can the Minister confirm that any new data centres will be required to have what is called a closed loop system of water use? I think that is self-explanatory.
What investigation has been undertaken into the use of what is described as grey water? For instance, because of sustainable urban drainage, many sites now have to put in attenuation tanks in order to take the run-off and hold it back before distributing it to the natural networks. It would be innovative if attenuation tank water could be part of the closed loop system, using grey water to cool down data centres, with the heat exported to households; it would be a win-win-win.
I know that the Minister will be very grateful for all the questions I have asked. If I have asked for answers that she does not quite have at her fingertips today, I would be grateful if she could drop me a note with the answers. With that, we Liberal Democrats support this SI in principle.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, there is a certain amount of logic in adding data centres to the list of projects that may be taken through the nationally significant infrastructure regime. We agree with the Minister that having sufficient data centre capacity will be absolutely crucial to this nation going forward. We also recognise that, when this legislation, with its list of nationally significant infrastructure projects, was originally written in 2008, data centres were a dream on the horizon. However, allowing decisions on large data centres to be taken by the Secretary of State rather than through the local planning system is a significant change; I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, around local democracy and accountability.
These issues were also raised, as was said earlier, by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which drew attention to two key concerns. The first is that the Government have not yet published their draft national policy statement for data centres alongside this measure, which means that we cannot analyse it in the round. Without that framework, neither Parliament nor the public can properly understand how such applications will be assessed under the national regime.
For a bit of fun, I looked on the web for the definition of a data centre. It is defined as a “facility containing computer servers, data storage systems, high-capacity networking and associated plant”. To me, that is an incredibly broad definition, so we need a great deal of clarity about what exactly it is; otherwise, there is the potential to include pretty much anything that has a computer as a data centre.
The second concern is the Government’s intention, subject to future legislation, to remove statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage and instead rely on non-statutory engagement. Ministers say that they still expect high-quality consultation, but the committee urged the House to seek firm assurances that local people will still have a meaningful opportunity to make their views known. We share that concern.
Some data centres have already proved highly contentious because of where they are proposed, particularly where they involve development on the green belt. The Government are moving steadily to loosen green belt protections. We have warned against this consistently, which is why, during the passage of the planning Bill, we tabled and won an amendment to ensure that brownfield land is prioritised for development. That principle attracted support from all sides of the House then, and I have no doubt that it still commands broad agreement.
Against that background, the Government should have set out a clear policy statement now, not at some vague point in the future. Only with such clarity can Parliament and the public understand how decisions will be taken. We all remember that, shortly after the election, the Secretary of State intervened to approve two large data centres on green-belt land that had been rejected by their local authorities. That episode shows exactly what is at stake. If the Government wish to avoid further controversy, they must be open and honest about how they intend to weigh local impact against the national need.
That is why proper consultation is indispensable; it is not a procedural formality but a foundation of legitimate planning. Local voices must remain at the heart of the process and not be pushed to the margins. Yet, as was said earlier, the Government are removing long-standing statutory duties to consult with the community. Ministers say that they expect high-quality engagement, but expectation alone does not deliver. Only enforceable routes for community involvement can do that.
We have always stood firmly for the principle of local content—that is something that I share with the noble Baroness; we have a bit of an alliance on this—and will do so again, when your Lordships’ House examines the forthcoming devolution legislation. Communities deserve a real say in decisions that shape the places that they call home. It is our duty to make sure that they are not denied it.
How will the Government ensure that energy and resource pressures, particularly on water, as has been mentioned, do not undermine development of data centres that are now deemed nationally significant? We are already seeing huge pressures on local electricity and water grids that are already hampering development, both housing and commercial. How will Ministers ensure that future data centres are located and designed responsibly and that the policies of the Secretary of State for Energy Security do not put those investments at risk?
If we are to develop the data centres that this country needs, it is not just a case of streamlining the planning system. No amount of power grab of planning powers by the Secretary of State will address the fundamental issue of the cost of electricity in the UK. It is this that is undermining our industry and undermining the economics of data centres in the UK. When will this Government change policy and seek to address this fundamental issue of electricity and energy costs in the UK?
I would be grateful if the Minister could address three short questions. First, to repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, when will a draft national policy statement for data centres be published for consultation? Secondly, what guarantees will the Government give that local communities will have real and effective opportunities to make representations once statutory consultation is removed? Thirdly, what will this Government do to ensure sufficient electrical and water capacity in order to ensure that future data centre development does not place unsustainable pressure on local energy and water infrastructure? These are important questions, and the Government need to answer them clearly and with a commitment for action, not warm words and obfuscation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their contributions to this debate on the SI. I shall try to address all their questions; if I miss any, I am sure that they will let me know, and I shall respond in writing to them.
First, to pick up on the issue of the publication of the national policy statement, which I know is a concern that both noble Lords have expressed, we do not anticipate any significant gap between the SI coming into force and the publication of the draft national policy statement. If for some reason the gap is more pronounced, any projects subsequently directed into the NSIP regime will be considered in the same way as any other business or commercial project under Section 105 of the Planning Act 2008.
When the NPS arrives, it will set out which types of data centre infrastructure are considered of national significance—I think that is an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised. That includes details of any thresholds and parameters, such as size or other relevant factors, as well as relevant policy background—including the needs case for data centres. The national policy statement is currently under development and testing. Given the time it may take to comply with statutory requirements for the designation of a new national policy statement, it was considered appropriate to lay the statutory instrument in advance, because we know how quickly this industry is moving and we want to make it possible to deliver data centres as quickly as we can.
The proposed national policy statement for data centres will be the very first national policy statement to be prepared covering a prescribed type of business or commercial project. We are working on that at speed. If there is no national policy statement in place, the Planning Act 2008 will apply, as I said. I hope that that clarifies when we are expecting that to come forward.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also mentioned grid capacity. He knows that I have been working very closely with DESNZ colleagues—I do not have the net zero brief anymore, but I continue to take a great interest in this. My colleagues in DESNZ understand that grid capacity is not just an issue around data centres; it affects the whole construction industry. We need to move at pace to make sure that we have grid capacity to meet needs going forward. DESNZ is actively working on that, and I am sure it will make further announcements in future on that subject.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned some issues around the environmental sustainability of the impacts of data centres. They are important, and, of course, it is important that we make sure that the NSIP regime does not diminish them, as in comparison with the TCPA regime. Both planning regimes are governed by the same underlying principles to ensure that environmental effects from the proposals that come forward are identified and considered clearly as part of the application and decision-making process. The underlying legal and policy frameworks are different. For NSIPs, where a national policy statement has effect, the first port of call for decisions is in the context of the relevant national policy statement. Under the TCPA regime, local authorities decide planning applications in accordance with the local development plan, as we all know. That is the substantive difference between the two, but it should not undermine the environmental aspects being taken into consideration.
The extent to which a proposed data centre NSIP would have environmental impacts, both positive and negative—including water and energy consumption, noise pollution, waste generation, land use, visual impacts and location—would be part of the consideration of the NSIP during its examination and its determination by the Secretary of State. Prescribed statutory bodies, such as the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Forestry Commission and the Canal & River Trust, play an important role in that examination. They must be notified of accepted applications and invited to a preliminary meeting, and they are entitled to make oral representations at hearings.
Environmental impacts are considered as part of the development consent order process, and the 2017 environmental impact assessment regulations set out the procedures for determining whether a proposed development requires the applicant to undertake an environmental impact assessment. Many large business or commercial projects, which will now include data centres, can be caught by the EIA regulations. An EIA is a process where the likely significant environmental effects are assessed and taken into account, and, where applicable, an applicant must submit an environmental statement as part of their application to the Planning Inspectorate.
The emerging national policy statement on data centres, like any national policy statement that is being developed, will need to be supported by an appraisal of sustainability which takes account of the environmental, social and economic effects of designating an NPS and reasonable alternatives, sets out mitigation and enhancement measures and helps inform the preparation of the national policy statement to promote sustainable development. Habitats regulations also apply to an NPS on habitats sites.
I have gone into that in some detail because I want noble Lords to understand that there is significant environmental protection, regardless of which route through planning data centres take.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned heat. Data centres produce significant heat; the technology exists to capture that and use it in district heating networks or to meet significant demand. I hope that, increasingly, as this industry develops, there will be more creative and imaginative uses for that heat. There is potential for it to be captured and used for further benefit and there have been successful examples of using data centre heat for hospitals and homes. A current UK example, if she is interested, is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. That is very good news. The Greater London Authority is developing a pilot to test heating up to 10,000 homes and at least one hospital—Middlesex—from London-based data centres. We are engaging with developers and operators to determine whether further interventions are necessary and appropriate to encourage that sort of take-up of recycling the heat.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt. Capturing the so-called waste heat from data centres and using it for the benefit of businesses or households nearby is important, both environmentally and in helping local communities to find acceptance for a great big building in their midst.
I should like the Minister to say that there will be a requirement to use the technology to capture the heat that is wasted and to use it appropriately to provide for hospitals, or whatever, and households as well. That is what I should like to hear because there has to be a bit of payback for these great big data centres being built across the country, and that is one of them. I have not heard the word “requirement” yet and I should like to.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The emerging nature of some of the technology involved here will enable even greater sharing of the heat and energy that comes from data centres. As I said, we are engaging with operators and will consider what further interventions may be necessary in future. At the moment, we are trying to encourage developers and operators to go down this route. The noble Baroness knows, because I have had the conversation with her, that I agree with her about the benefits that this could give to offset some of the feelings that people have about not wanting data centres near them. It is a key issue and we are working on it. It is important to continue to work on that programme as much as we can.
In relation to the strain on water supplies, data centres do not necessarily require large amounts of water. We have talked about how data centres can use water in a cyclical way. They use a variety of different cooling systems. Only a small percentage use entirely water-based ones and the technology develops. The older ones were heavier on water usage. Now, it is more common for that water to be used in a cyclical way. The Government are monitoring the areas that are subject to the greatest demand.
With critical national infrastructure, we will have greater engagement with the industry, which will help us better understand the potential alternatives. There are ways in which to minimise the impact on supplies and output of wastewater, and that is important to do. We encourage data centre developers to work with their water and wastewater supplier early in the planning process because that is key to understanding and planning their water usage. It is an important point that to some extent—this is an adjacent issue—the computing power of data centres will enable even further consideration of the use of water and energy. In other words, we hope that to some extent they will be able to solve their own problems through the strength of their computing power.
Both noble Lords raised the very important issue of local accountability. The NSIP consenting process provides substantial opportunity for interested parties, including local communities and local authorities, to have their say on proposals that go through that process. Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities are invited to submit a local impact report giving the details of any likely impact of proposed development on their area, to which the Secretary of State must have regard to when deciding the application. The examination process, which all NSIP applications need to go through, provides opportunity for local communities, interested parties and statutory bodies to make representations and for those to be considered by the examining authority as it examines the application and the subsequent report. That report will then be made to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether to grant development consent.
I reassure the Committee that representations are thoroughly considered by the examining authority through that examination process, which can be up to six months in duration. It is then considered by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to grant consent in accordance with the legal and policy framework. Having seen these applications come through in the department, there is a great emphasis on comments and input provided by local authorities and local people.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned the issue of brownfield sites. The Government have been very clear that we have a brownfield sites first policy, and we are looking further at brownfield passporting, as he knows. However, as regards this critical national infrastructure, we cannot always avoid meeting the need for critical infrastructure where a brownfield site may not be available. So we want to make sure that we use the brownfield-first policy wherever possible, but where it is not possible, we still need the critical infrastructure.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also raised the issue of energy consumption. I have covered the grid issue, but the quantity of energy and water used by data centres depends on a number of variables around them. They are energy intensive, but data centre operators are taking a wide range of measures on sustainability. They are updating their hardware for more efficient systems and are working with their supply chains, and innovations such as taking the waste heat to use in local heat networks, which we have already been discussing, are becoming more common. So we encourage developers and operators to continue to improve that. Of course, there are very strong commercial incentives to do so, including the cost of energy and customer demand. As I said, I hope that with many of these issues around the use of energy and water we will be helped by the computing power of data centres themselves to resolve some of those issues. So I hope that will move us on a bit.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
The Minister may have been coming on to this, so I apologise if I have butted in too quickly. It was not just the quantum of energy; it was the cost of energy, and this is very much seen as an enabling bit of legislation to make it easier from a planning perspective to build data centres. Fundamentally, we have extremely high energy costs in the UK. They are 25% or 30% more than in Europe and more than double the price in the USA. If we want a competitive industry for data centres, we need to get the energy price down. Can the Minister comment on that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think colleagues in DESNZ are working tirelessly to make sure that we are looking not only at the cost of our energy in this country but at its security, because that is very important. That is why there has been this very strong push. We have removed the restrictions on land-based wind farms, and I know that DESNZ colleagues are working very hard to make sure that we both have energy security and are reducing the cost of energy, for businesses, which is really critical, but also for our householders, because I know that energy bills are a real pressure on family budgets.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am probably stretching my licence here, but the Minister talked about removing restrictions on wind power. Might her colleagues in DESNZ be looking at moving some of the restrictions on North Sea oil and gas, which would also have a big impact on our energy costs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have heard the noble Lord’s party speaking about that in the other place. At the moment, the emphasis is very much on making sure that we make the most we can out of renewable energy sources. It is a great resource that this country has and it has been very underused in recent decades. We can make far more of that, helping to establish our energy security and make that safer, as well as making sure that we are reducing the costs for householders.
In conclusion, I want to draw the Committee back to what these regulations seek to achieve. They are an enabler for developers of data centres, and I thank noble Lords for their support overall for that being a part of our critical national infrastructure. This will enable these projects to be directed into the NSIP consenting process through the Planning Act 2008 as opposed to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Applications for data centres directed into NSIP will undergo a thorough and robust process, including examination by an independent examining authority where local communities and other interested parties can participate and register their views before the Secretary of State decides whether to grant consent. I hope the Committee will agree that it has considered these amending regulations in full.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsMonday 10th November 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 143-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (7 Nov 2025)
“(8A) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out the appropriate prioritisation, by Natural England, of the different ways of addressing any negative effect of development on a protected species or on a protected feature of a protected site when—(a) preparing an EDP, or(b) considering requesting an amendment to an EDP.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out a prioritisation of the different ways in which the negative effect of development which may be subject to an EDP may be addressed. The regulations would apply to Natural England when preparing an EDP or considering an amendment to an EDP.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the nature restoration fund is a key part of the Government’s vision for a planning system that delivers for both nature and people. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have worked with Peers and wider stakeholders to ensure that everyone can be confident that, by taking a different approach, we can unlock better outcomes for nature. While the NRF proposes a different approach, this will be available only where there is clear evidence to show that this strategic approach will deliver better environmental outcomes.
In creating this new approach, we have developed the overall improvement test to ensure that EDPs deliver more than would be achieved under the current system, going further than offsetting impact and supporting the restoration of sites and species, in line with our wider ambitions. While it is right that we focus on outcomes, we have been clear that Natural England will of course carefully consider not only what is achieved but how it is achieved. That is why the Bill provides Natural England with the tools it needs to take action to avoid and reduce the impact of development, as well as deliver proactive conservation measures that will materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature.
While we are clear that the Bill will allow Natural England to take appropriate actions to deliver on the overall improvement test, in moving to a strategic approach there is a need to articulate how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Grender, for their continued work with the Government to ensure that there is clarity as to how Natural England will consider the different ways of addressing any negative effect of development, including how such actions should be prioritised when developing an EDP.
This will not affect the experience for developers, nor the speed with which EDPs can come forward, but will provide transparency as to how Natural England will undertake the preparation of an EDP and how it should prioritise the actions available to it to deliver the overall improvement test. This amendment will allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out the appropriate prioritisation of actions taken to address the negative effect of development through an EDP.
I also wish to bring to the attention of the House a minor and technical correction to Clause 120 to remove a previous government amendment that was accidentally agreed on Report. That consequential amendment made provision for the commencement day of a substantive government amendment that would change the Secretary of State’s powers to issue holding directions to local planning authorities, which your Lordships defeated on Report. We have therefore removed the consequential amendment from the Bill.
While on my feet, I want to address a couple of further points following our debates on Report, raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The first relates to the noble Lord’s request for an assurance that CPO powers under the Bill will not be misused and for clarification as to how these powers, and the purchase of land by public authorities more broadly, engage with the Crichel Down rules.
Where land acquired by or under a threat of compulsion by a non-departmental public body is surplus to requirements, there is an expectation that it will be offered back to the former owners or their successors. This expectation is established in case law and the procedure for offering land back is set out in the Crichel Down rules. This ensures that where the land is genuinely surplus following purchase by a public body, it will be made available to former owners. As we move forward with implementing the Bill, we would be happy to work with relevant stakeholders to consider how best to improve awareness and understanding of these rules.
Through the passage of the Bill, concerns have been raised on the behaviours surrounding the use of CPO powers. The Government have been clear that authorities using CPO powers should undertake engagement with all landowners to identify the impacts of their schemes, along with the mitigation measures that can be implemented. This advice was included in the latest update of the Government’s guidance on compulsory purchase, which was published in January this year.
The Government have listened carefully to the debates in the House and will continue to work with stakeholders to promote best practices to drive out bad behaviours and to ensure that the needs of landowners are fully considered. In addition, we will review the Government’s guidance and plain English booklets on compulsory purchase to ensure that they are as robust and clear as possible.
On compensation, the availability of advance payment of compensation is important to ensuring that landowners receive payment where they have been unable to reach agreement on the total amount of compensation due. Authorities are advised to ensure that prompt advance payments are made—otherwise, interest on the total compensation due will increase, resulting in the overall cost of development being higher.
The Government have been clear that the CPO reforms in the Bill do not target farmers or any other type of landowners. Nothing in the Bill changes the core principles of compulsory purchase. It must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have not succeeded and there is a compelling case in the public interest.
Finally, another area raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, was in respect of the role of the private sector and landowners delivering the nature restoration fund. As set out in the recent all-Peers letter, EDPs create new opportunities that will help to grow nature service markets and support revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses. As committed to in Committee, the Government will publish guidance for Natural England regarding the role of the private sector in EDPs. This guidance will be clear that open and competitive procurement of goods and services is typically the best way to secure value for money and innovation. We will expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary.
I hope that this provides reassurance that the NRF presents opportunities for landowners and private providers to work with Natural England to deliver high-quality nature services. I beg to move.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes an amendment to the commencement clause which was made in error at Report Stage as it related to an amendment inserting a new clause which was not agreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, to make a few brief comments to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we have discussed the implementation of the issues contained in the levelling-up Act before; however, it would probably help noble Lords if I write a letter setting out when those provisions come into place—I hope that will help all noble Lords. In terms of the noble Lord’s question about the hierarchy and how it would be employed, we wanted to be very clear that the mitigation hierarchy lives in this model but has to be expressed in a different way given this move to a strategic approach. We have debated that many times before. The different levels of the hierarchy do not neatly map on to the different types of conservation measures available under an EDP, so we will use regulations to set out how those principles are expressed through the NRF. If I can comment further on the issue raised by the noble Lord, I will write to him or arrange a meeting between us.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for all their engagement and contributions during the passage of this landmark piece of legislation, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is a complex piece of legislation. I have been very grateful for the expertise around the House, which, in the best tradition of this House, has helped to make the Bill better. We have debated the Bill at length and into the early hours on many occasions over the past six months, with many thoughtful and considered contributions. I say a special thank you to my noble friends Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lord Khan of Burnley, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield—he has arrived from his horrendous train journey just in time to hear me thank him—and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for their steadfast support in taking this Bill forward. I know they echo my thanks to Members across this House.
I also thank my honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Housing and Planning, who has taken a lot of time to talk to Peers about their concerns. I am grateful in particular to the Opposition Front Bench, namely the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for their robust and constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. In a similar vein, I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Parminter and Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their continued engagement and contributions during the debate.
Many noble Lords have generously lent their time and expertise, including many here around the Chamber, and I am very grateful to all of those who have contributed. While there may be disagreement on some of the issues we have debated, I know we all share the same aim of unlocking economic growth and getting this country building again. I believe that we are in broad agreement that this Bill represents a critical milestone in achieving this objective, alongside doing what we can to enhance our environment as we go on that journey.
Finally, I am very grateful to all the officials and members of the Bill team, who have worked tirelessly on this Bill behind the scenes: Holly Harper, Isabelle, Lucy, Tom, Daria, Fatima, Guy and Sam. I of course thank my brilliant private office, without whom I would not be doing anything. I also pay tribute to all the parliamentary staff, including the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard and the Public Bill Office, many of whom have stayed late—sometimes very late—as we debated this Bill into the early hours.
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 Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill is very much part of our plan to deliver. We inherited a sclerotic system and we will get Britain building again, fixing the foundations so that we can deliver both the housing and infrastructure that we need and protect our environment at the same time. We have already committed to funding the planning sector, supporting the skills agenda in the construction industry, sorting out the building safety regulator—great progress is being made there already—and providing a package of support for SME builders, who definitely deserve our confidence as they have found themselves neglected and left out in the cold for the past few years. We want to get Britain building again. We all need to work together on this mission—it is something for all of us to get involved in—and I look forward to working with noble Lords from across the House.
The noble Baroness mentioned there being 67 amendments. I hope she realises that there is an irony in first accusing the Government of not listening and then accusing us of putting forward too many amendments. We were listening. Many of those amendments were technical in nature, responding to some of the devolution aspects of the Bill, but those that responded to what noble Lords have said have, I hope, received the support of the House. That said, I thank all noble Lords for all their contributions and commend the Bill to the House.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsMonday 3rd November 2025
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-V Fifth marshalled list for Report - (30 Oct 2025)
“(a) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where it appears to Natural England that a notice of a proposal under section 28E(1)(a) of the WCA 1981 relates to an operation which is or forms part of a plan or project situated wholly in England which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site,it must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.(2B) In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, Natural England may give consent for the operation only after having ascertained that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is the first of a number of amendments to Schedule 6, the effect of which would be that the Habitats Regulations would give protection to Ramsar sites (wherever situated) where they are affected by any plans or projects in England (rather than protecting only Ramsar sites in England).
14 “(1) In regulation 75 (general development orders)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph (1);(b) at the end insert—“(2) It is a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order made by the Secretary of State on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force that development which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,must not be begun until the developer has received written notification of the approval of the local planning authority under regulation 77 (approval of local planning authority).”(2) In regulation 75(2) (as inserted by sub-paragraph (1)), after “force” insert “or a street vote development order”.14A In regulation 76 (general development orders: opinion of appropriate nature conservation body), in paragraph (7), for “75(a)” substitute “75(1)(a) or (2)(a)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
41A (1) The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 is amended as follows.(2) In section 125 (general duties of public authorities in relation to MCZs), after subsection (12) insert—“(12A) This section does not apply to the exercise by a public authority of functions under or by virtue of Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (development and nature recovery).”(3) In section 141 (exceptions to offences under section 139 or 140), in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) was done by a public authority exercising functions under or by virtue of Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (development and nature recovery);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the duties in s.125 of the MCAA 2009 where a public authority exercises functions under Part 3, such as drafting or approving an EDP. This is necessary to enable an EDP to include network conservation measures (see further the explanatory statement to my amendment to Schedule 4 (at page 171, line 28)). It also makes a consequential amendment to s.141.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s expertise on development corporations is, as ever, formidable, and the concerns he raises deserve full and careful consideration. This amendment speaks to the wider question surrounding the Government’s devolution agenda, particularly the potential to give metro mayors the tools they need to deliver housing projects, attract private investment and cut through the bureaucratic fragmentation that so often stifles local ambitions. In many ways, it would build upon the principles set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and the work that we have done collectively to champion place-based solutions to the challenges that this country faces. As my noble friend says: equality for mayors.
I am entirely sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment. It is clearly defined and purpose driven. However, to sensibly empower metro mayors or development corporations further, the Government must provide clarity on their plans for local government reorganisation. Without this clarity we risk legislating into a vacuum, creating overlapping authorities and confusion where coherence is needed. On these Benches, we strongly support greater local oversight and a faster route to regeneration, but the real obstacle remains the Government’s opaque approach to LGR. Until there is a clear framework for how local government structures will interact with devolved authorities and combined counties, progress will be piecemeal at best. The Government must work this out, and quickly. We are all waiting for clarity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 232, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I understand why the noble Lord has brought his amendment forward. The Government are bringing forward equivalent provisions via Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and I understand his view that inclusion of this amendment would expedite the legislative change. I welcome that enthusiasm: it is essential that all mayors have powers to establish and oversee mayoral development corporations, which are a key tool to drive large-scale development and regeneration in their regions.
None the less, the amendment would not save significant time. The Government are committed to ensuring that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill reaches Royal Assent in spring 2026, at which point there will be no delay. The relevant provisions will commence on the day that the Act is passed, providing relevant mayors with the powers to establish development corporations. The amendment would also have minimal impact because, except for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority—I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, might be particularly interested in that one—all mayoral strategic authorities currently have powers to establish and oversee MDCs. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, as well as any new mayoral strategic authorities, will automatically receive mayoral development corporation powers following Royal Assent of the English devolution Bill.
Finally, and I think this reflects the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, it is appropriate that Parliament scrutinises provisions providing mayors with mayoral development corporation powers, as part of the wider package of powers being granted to mayors through the devolution framework in the English devolution Bill. Therefore, while I understand the reason that the noble Lord has brought Amendment 232 forward, I hope that he will consider withdrawing it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to this short debate, and particularly grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. I heartily endorse what he said about the importance of trying to resolve the relationship between the processes of local government reorganisation and the rapid progress we want to achieve in implementing planning reform in order to get on with building the houses and developments we are looking for.
I should have previously referenced my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The Minister is absolutely right: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayor should have access to development corporation powers—even though the Government’s apparent intention, as I think was stated last week, was that the Cambridge Growth Company will be turned into a development corporation in the Cambridge area. We have yet to know in what designated area and with what powers, but that is for another day.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s assertion that the delay will be so limited. Let us hope that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill does not get at all bogged down in the new year, because we want to be sure that those powers are available to mayors where they come forward to take up the potential new town designation. I was wrong when I said “mayors of all established strategic authorities”; I know it is my amendment, but I have just checked, and it does not say that. It refers to all mayors of strategic authorities. Whether they should be established strategic authorities is a question we might have a look at when we get to the English devolution Bill. But for the present, while looking forward to returning to these interesting issues in the new year, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 232.
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.
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.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their really thoughtful contributions to this debate. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks, but I still have a very big problem here: every time, we come back to the NPPF, and every time there is recommendation and guidance. Unfortunately, when economic costs come in, particularly with developers, those recommendations and guidance disappear. We see it time and time again. At some point, we as a country have to be able to say, “These spaces are so important that they should be in the Bill”. They should be there, because without them, we will have no green spaces left in cities. So, while I appreciate this response, I wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
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.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for Amendment 240. This amendment seeks to ensure that, when approaching landowners to buy or lease their land, developers must declare their interest in purchasing or leasing adjoining land. We appreciate the noble Baroness’s continued interest in promoting transparency and discouraging speculative land banking. However, we maintain that this amendment is neither appropriate nor necessary within the framework of the Bill.
There is existing guidance on the procedures in the Planning Act 2008 for the compulsory acquisition of land in connection with NSIPs. This guidance supports applicants to seek to acquire land by private negotiation, where practicable, using compulsory acquisition only where attempts to acquire by agreement fail. The guidance also encourages early engagement with affected parties to help build up good working relationships, to treat landowner concerns with respect and to help reduce the mistrust or fear that can arise in such circumstances.
Land acquisition for NSIPs can be highly sensitive and often involves confidential negotiations. Mandating developers to disclose discussions with adjacent landowners could risk breaching confidentiality agreements and potentially hinder the progress of vital infrastructure projects. This is particularly important at the pre-application stage, where early engagement is critical to shaping proposals and identifying potential issues. Forcing disclosure at this stage could discourage that open dialogue between developers and landowners. However, the Government recognise the importance of transparency for landowners and ensuring that there is a fair process in place before consent is granted to authorise the acquisition of land.
For those reasons, when applications that seek to authorise compulsory acquisition are developed and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, applicants are required to submit the accompanying book of reference, to which the noble Baroness referred. This is a publicly available document. It outlines all land and interests in land affected by a proposed development, including those subject to compulsory acquisition, temporary possession or other impacts. This ensures transparency and public accountability. I think there is an obligation to make people aware of the presence of that document.
After an application has been accepted, and to proceed to examination, applicants are required to notify landowners under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. Landowners are also recognised as interested parties under Section 102 of that Act, which enables them opportunities for involvement during examination. This is not merely procedural; it grants landowners meaningful opportunities to engage in the examination process. These provisions are vital to ensure that the voices and interests of landowners are not only heard but properly considered throughout the process.
In light of the sensitivities involved, the existing government guidance and the transparency mechanisms already in place, we do not think this amendment is necessary. I thank the noble Baroness for her continued engagement on this issue and kindly ask her to withdraw Amendment 240.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for tabling Amendment 241 related to the buildout of development, an issue we discussed in Committee. The amendment seeks to address the concerns around land banking by requiring planning permissions to be refused if developers have not commenced another development nearby within a year.
I fully recognise the intention behind this amendment and share the noble Baroness’s commitment to improving the buildout rate of residential development. As I have previously set out, the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that planning permissions are translated into homes being built. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary to achieve that goal. We confirmed at the time of the response to the NPPF consultation that we will implement the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provisions following a technical consultation.
During our earlier debates, I highlighted the publication in May of the working paper that sets out a more effective and comprehensive strategy for speeding up buildout, including greater transparency on buildout rates, new powers for local authorities to decline to determine applications from developers that have built out more slowly and greater emphasis on mixed-use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty as a last resort.
The working paper also sets out our intention to make it easier for local authorities to confirm CPOs, helping to unlock stalled sites and making land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. We are analysing the responses to that working paper and will set out our next steps in due course. I remain confident that the measures set out will make a real and meaningful difference to the buildout of residential development that we all want to see. Given this and the broader strategy we are pursuing, I hope the noble Baroness will consider not moving her amendment.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response, although I am, of course, slightly disappointed by it.
I worry about when people are approached for land, either for leasing or buying, and not treated with honesty and transparency. I do not see how saying that developers should declare what the endgame is would impede an open dialogue. In fact, not telling people is not an open dialogue.
The Minister set out the process to be followed, but what happens when developers do not follow it? What comeback is there? It is all too late. I am disappointed about that, and I hope that there will be further consideration of it at some point.
I am glad to hear that there is a working paper and that there are plans to implement parts of the LURA. I will withdraw my amendment.
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.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, these amendments deal with an issue that goes to the very heart of the Bill’s purpose: how we ensure that our planning system promotes not only economic growth and infrastructure delivery but the health and well-being of our communities. This is not just about a healthy home but about a healthy community, which is so much more than just the bricks and mortar. As has been raised many times throughout the passage of the Bill, we all want to create great communities—a home and that sense of place. Great places are healthy places. That includes warm and comfortable homes, spaces that are safe for outdoor recreation, places to socialise and places where work, leisure facilities and open spaces are easily reachable.
Amendment 247 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to improve health and reduce health inequalities when discharging their planning functions. That is not a radical departure; indeed, it aligns precisely with the language used in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and reflects the Health and Social Care Act 2012 duty on the NHS to reduce health inequalities. It simply asks that the same commitment be applied to planning—one of the most powerful levers for shaping the health of our nation.
Amendment 247A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, would add a valuable and practical dimension for allowing Sport England to make representations to the Secretary of State on how this duty is being met. That is a sensible suggestion, recognising the importance of physical activity and access to sport in promoting both physical and mental health.
Amendment 248 would provide clear definitions, ensuring that “health inequalities” and “general health determinants” are well understood and that this duty is not left to vague interpretation. The drafting captures what we all know to be true: the state of health is shaped as much by housing, transport, safety, employment and access to services as by anything that happens in the health service itself.
A modern planning system must support not only economic growth but social resilience and public health. The pandemic reminded us just how closely our built environment is linked to physical and mental well-being. If we want truly sustainable communities, health must be a core planning outcome, not an afterthought. I therefore urge the Minister to look sympathetically at these amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and the decisions that stem from them should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. That would enable and support healthy lives by both promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where that would address identified local health and well-being needs and reduce health inequalities between the most and the least deprived communities.
Turning to Amendments 247 and 248, I recognise that improving the health of our communities is a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, cares deeply about; he has been a great advocate for many years on this topic. We agree with him that health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities is an important matter in which our planning system should play a vital role.
However, we do not believe that his amendments are necessary. Ministers and other public bodies are already subject to requirements under the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard, when carrying out their functions, to the need to advance the equality of opportunity, to eliminate discrimination and to foster good relations between people with protected characteristics. That will, where relevant, include taking into account potential differential impacts in terms of health and well-being. While the noble Lord’s amendment would extend even more widely in relation to Ministers’ planning functions, the importance of these matters is both recognised and addressed through the National Planning Policy Framework, which places a strong emphasis on health. Indeed, the importance of healthy communities is recognised in a dedicated chapter.
The framework sets out that planning policies and decisions should achieve those healthy, inclusive and safe places, which promote social interaction and enable healthy lives, promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where this would address those local health inequalities. The framework recognises the importance of open space and sport and recreation facilities in enabling physical activity and the health and well-being of local communities. It is clear that local planning should seek to meet the identified need for these spaces and facilities and seek opportunities for new provision. Further considerations on healthy and safe communities are set out in planning practice guidance, which supports the implementation of the NPPF in practice.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for the amendment. The Government understand the spirit of the amendment; however, we maintain that a statutory code of practice is unnecessary.
First, government guidance, which was updated earlier this year in collaboration with external stakeholders, such as the Countryside Land Association, contains strengthened advice, which acquiring authorities should follow. The updated guidance states that authorities should undertake early engagement with landowners to identify the impacts of their schemes and what measures local authorities can take to mitigate the impacts of their schemes. I say to the noble Lord that where this is not done, the Government are of the view that CPOs are at risk of failing. In addition, we intend to update CPO guidance early next year, and we would welcome the views of stakeholders, such as the Countryside Land Association, on where the advice could go further on promoting best practices for acquiring authorities to follow.
Secondly, when decisions are taken on CPOs, the decision-maker must be sure that the purposes for which the CPO is made justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. As I mentioned previously, particular consideration should be given to the provisions of Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the convention. In addition, acquiring authorities should consider the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 when making a CPO and have regard to the needs of meeting the aims of that Act.
Thirdly, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has published updated professional standards expected of its members involved in the valuation of compulsory purchase compensation. The purpose of the professional standards is to protect claimants and businesses, support high standards in valuation delivery, and future-proof practices in the public interest. The standards lay out the ethical conduct and competence expected for RICS members advising on compulsory purchase matters. The Compulsory Purchase Association has also published, in collaboration with leading CPO practitioners, a land compensation claims protocol.
This Government’s objectives are to make the process more efficient for all parties to a CPO without creating further duplication. The amendment would run counter to these objectives. Therefore, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her words, which I have to say were very disappointing. They obviously came from her department, written of course from the perspective of the Whitehall bubble, which in my view always remains somewhat distant from the reality of what is going on out there.
I cannot actually believe that the Minister personally believes that the sort of behaviour I have described should be at best tolerated, or at worst condoned by the Government—by any Government. Nevertheless, in spite of my disappointment and in light of the numbers in the House, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for those kind comments about my noble friend Lady Hayman. She was here earlier this evening, but it was not fair to keep her here when she is still recovering from quite a nasty bug.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her Amendments 253 and 253A, which seek to ensure that farm tenants receive compensation equivalent to their real loss where a farm business tenancy is terminated, in whole or in part, as a result of planning consent being granted to a landlord for a change of use. The stories she gave were indeed truly shocking. Existing legislation in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 sets out the compensation provisions for tenant farmers, but we genuinely recognise that it needs to be revised so that tenant farmers receive adequate compensation, reflecting real loss for land removed from their tenancy agreements for development.
The Law Commission announced its 14th programme earlier this year, which will consider whether existing agricultural law appropriately balances giving tenant farmers the security and opportunity to maintain viable businesses, while providing landlords with the confidence to let land and supporting opportunities for new entrants into farming. That is something I am sure the noble Baroness would want to see, as we all do.
The review is also likely to consider the scope and design of appropriate compensation provisions, drawing on the Law Commission’s specialist expertise in legal reform. This would typically include a detailed consultation and thorough examination of the law, resulting in the most comprehensive and balanced outcome. I suggest that the compensation provisions be considered within this wider review of agricultural tenancy law, not in isolation. As such, we recommend that the amendment be rejected pending the Law Commission’s 14th programme review into agricultural tenancies, which will commence when resources allow. Further steps and timings will be announced in due course.
Baroness Rock (Con)
These reviews take years and years, but this is a clear and present danger now. Therefore, before the Minister sits down, will she agree to meet with me and the Tenant Farmers Association to discuss what can be done in this Bill to protect tenant farmers immediately, rather than waiting for a review that could take years and years? Otherwise, I reserve the right to bring this back at Third Reading.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I genuinely do not believe that this Bill is the place to deal with this, but I am very happy to meet with the noble Baroness, and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hayman would be prepared to meet as well. Within Defra, there may be more scope for dealing with some of the issues the noble Baroness raised, so I am very happy to have that meeting. It may also be worth the noble Baroness speaking to the Law Commission about the urgency of this, because the commission will be dealing with it. Stressing the importance and urgency of this with the commission will be helpful. Meanwhile, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 253B seeks to allow tenants whose homes are subject to compulsory purchase to claim compensation for disturbance to their business where it is carried out from home. While I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, we do not believe it is necessary. As part of their entitlement to compensation, occupiers, including tenants, can already claim disturbance payments where they lose possession as a consequence of compulsory acquisition. These payments cover losses caused by losing possession of the land as a consequence of the compulsory purchase order, as well as other losses not directly based on the value of the land, which could include any associated with running a business from home. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Rock (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for her response. As I said, I am disappointed. This is absolutely the right place to address these issues around tenant farmers. I have given very clear examples of why these amendments sit firmly in government policy and are desperately required. I look forward to the meeting with the Minister and, as I said, I reserve the right to bring this back at Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(ca) section (Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause entitled “Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems” to extend to England and Wales and Scotland. However, it would have no application in Wales as there are no relevant seismic array systems situated there.
“(a) sections 1 and 2 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;(aa) section (Projects relating to water) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;(ab) sections 3 to 8 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Projects relating to water” would come into force on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a technical amendment linked to my amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 6. It means that a reference to street vote development orders is only inserted into the Habitats Regulations when the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act introducing SVDOs themselves come into force.
London Boroughs: Financial Support
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bailey of Paddington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to provide further financial support to London boroughs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we will deliver fairer funding for all local authorities, including in London. This financial year, we made available up to £13.35 billion of core spending power for London. The spending review provides over £5 billion of new grant funding over the next three years for local services that communities rely on. More details on the upcoming multiyear settlement and the Government’s response to the fair funding review will be published later this year.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Due to rising demand, London boroughs have overspent on children’s social care by £150 million annually for the past two years, yet the Government’s proposal for funding reforms assumes that London’s share has dropped by 40%. This could leave boroughs with a £1.5 billion cut, despite London being the region that uses emergency borrowing the most. Given that the fair funding review aims to match resource to need, will the Minister commit to correcting the children’s services formula or delaying its implementation until a proper review can be carried out?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important issue around social care. He will know that the Government are committed to delivering reform to children’s social care and breaking the cycle of late intervention so that every child is safe and can thrive. We have already invested £500 million from the transformation fund to bring total funding over the spending review to more than £2 billion, and we are updating the formula to assess the need for children’s social care. The new children and young people’s services formula is based on the latest available data, has been developed in partnership with academics and is supported by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I know that there are various factors driving the reductions in need share for some London boroughs. We will support local authorities by making sure that there are transitional protections in place if they see their funding fall as a result of the fair funding reform.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I call the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does Westminster City Council in particular need additional support when a band H house worth £60 million in the borough carries a council tax of £2,100 a year, while a similar band H house worth £300,000 in Cumbria, in my former constituency, carries a tax of £4,600 a year—double Westminster’s? Worse, how can a band C local authority house in Cumbria’s Keswick pay more in council tax than that same £60 million-worth house in Mayfair? The system is discredited. We need new higher tax bandings and a fairer distribution of the burden.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend has illustrated why we are setting about this fair funding review. It is for local authorities to decide at what rate they set their council tax. Of course, it has to reflect the service needs of each area, taking account of other sources of income and historic council tax decisions made over the decades. We want to make sure that we make this a fair funding review, which is why we have been consulting on it and looking at the formulas to make sure that they operate effectively. I am sure my noble friend would not expect me to comment on the new higher council tax bands in advance of the Chancellor’s next fiscal event—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That has to be done at the next fiscal event. The Government remain committed to keeping all taxes and elements of the local government finance system under review.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have relevant interests as a councillor. The recent statistics published by the Government have pinpointed the areas of the country that suffer from immense deprivation. The current funding formula does not properly recompense those councils with the highest levels of deprivation. Do the Government intend to redistribute in order to help the councils across the country, including in London, that have the highest levels of deprivation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope the work we have done so far will illustrate to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that we are committed to improving how we assess need to make sure that central government funding is distributed fairly to the places that need it the most. Our proposals use the best available evidence so that we can more effectively capture variations in demand for services. A particular bugbear for me over the years—I am sure the noble Baroness will have heard me say this—is that we need to identify in local authorities pockets of high deprivation within generally more affluent areas. We continue to explore and review the new data that comes forward on measures of deprivation, and a final decision on the inclusion of the 2025 index of multiple deprivation will be made in the autumn, when we set out our funding plans for local government.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. This Government have said that their priority is growth. The previous Conservative Government incentivised councils to grow their local economies through a share of business rates growth and the new homes bonus, which many councils use to support economic growth. The new homes bonus has already been removed, and now this Government are resetting business rates, causing a severe financial squeeze on high economic growth councils. Are this Government no longer interested in growth?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The exact opposite is true. We are supporting our councils, which is why we have increased the overall spend on local authority funding, providing over £5 billion of new grant funding over the next three years for local services, including economic development services. The other work we are doing alongside that, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which we will debate later today, lays the foundations so that local authorities have a clear run to improve the economies of their local areas.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, there is an unacceptable level of social deprivation in all parts of our country, and even more so in the north of England. The city of Liverpool has 12,764 households on its social housing waiting list. It has just five—yes, noble Lords heard correctly—so-called additional social rent dwellings, as local authorities have been starved of resources. Can the Minister explain what targets the Government have set for poverty reduction and for funding local authorities to increase the social housing stock?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope my noble friend has been in the Chamber when I have spoken before about the £39 billion investment that our Government have made into social and affordable housing. We look forward to working with our partners in local authorities to deliver that housing. I hope that that, along with other adjustments that we are making, including changes to right to buy, will help to improve the situation for those who are currently sitting on housing waiting registers.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think the general feeling in the House is that funding for local government is in urgent need of reform but any reform will take some time. I suggest to the Minister that an option that could be available in the shorter term is to use the fact that there are huge pension fund surpluses in local authority pension schemes as a reason to have an employer contribution holiday or significant reduction in the £10 billion put into these schemes every year, so that some of that money can be redistributed to the urgent needs of the local populations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There is much to be done in looking at local authority pension funds—I agree with the noble Baroness on that. We are working through that process. Of course, there is a balance to be struck between how you might use that for capital spending, which would be an investment that there may be a return on, and using it for some of the pressures that we are experiencing on revenue spending, which is the real pressure for local authorities at the moment. It would not be a long-term solution for that, but the noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are exploring what more can be done around the pension funds and using that money for local spend.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the reply given to my noble friend about transitional relief, if, as is widely forecast, there will be substantial losses in the London boroughs, can the Minister guarantee that in any one year no London borough will have to reduce its expenditure by more than 5% to safeguard essential services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord will have to wait for the announcement of the funding for local government, because that work is still under way. We have done extensive consultation and, as I said, we are keen to make sure that, where there is a need for transitional relief, it will be paid for by additional funding for those local authorities suffering from that.
Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. We on this side of the House believe in local democracy. It is why I proposed an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure local democracy where there are valid planning grounds, and why I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment on ensuring affirmative procedures for delegated planning powers was passed.
However, there is a need for balance. Today, we are seeing a government programme for the early release of prisoners. While this is, in large part, due to a failure to manage the prison population and deport foreign-born criminals, the lack of prison capacity is a factor. Importantly, the lack of prison space hampers prison rehabilitation—a matter that I know the Prisons Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is much vexed about. As my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist raised last night, the huge impact that the delays to and additional costs of the UK nuclear programme is having on the cost of energy is a major issue for struggling families and industry. It is therefore right to have a balanced approach.
Section 109 of the previous Conservative Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act added two new sections to the Town and Country Planning Act, creating new routes for Crown development. These provisions allow for an appropriate authority to apply to the Secretary of State for planning permissions, rather than the local planning authority. The intention behind this change was clear: to prevent delay or obstruction to vital national development, such as prisons.
As I have said, we are sympathetic to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but these powers are proportionate and balanced. It is our understanding that the Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 concerns development applications on Crown land that are deemed to be of national importance. The instrument sets out the procedure for such Crown development applications, including applications for planning permissions and approval for reserved matters. Crown development refers to applications made by the Crown bodies for development of national importance.
As so often in matters like these, the key issue is balance between local voice and national need, and between the principle of localism and the imperative to deliver key national infrastructure efficiently. We stand by the intentions of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which expands local voices in the round, taking them seriously by strengthening the role of local plans, creating new opportunities for communities to shape development in their areas and ensuring that decision-making is rooted closer to the people it affects. The Act sought to make planning more transparent, more accountable and more responsive to local priorities. It was never about sidelining local democracy but about creating a system capable of delivering both local consent and national progress.
The provisions on Crown development sit within that broader context. They are not a retreat from localism but a recognition that, on occasion, public interest requires a more streamlined route for developments of genuine national importance. As ever, the challenge is to strike the right balance, to protect local accountability while ensuring that the machinery of state can deliver where delay would carry a wider national cost. That principle underpins this instrument and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act itself. It is right that we reaffirm it today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps it is due to the many hours we have spent in the Chamber debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, just said.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing this debate, and I thank her and the noble Lord for their contributions. I must admit that I was a bit surprised to see the noble Baroness’s regret Motion on the agenda, as she herself had requested—through her Amendment 87E to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—a streamlined planning process for asylum processing sites. However, she has explained that her regret Motion was tabled before we started debating that Bill.
In May, we brought forward the regulations subject to this debate, along with a wider suite of regulations to bring both Crown development and urgent Crown development routes into force. These are the Crown development route for developments that are considered of national importance and the urgent Crown development route for a nationally important development that is needed as a matter of urgency. Some noble Lords in attendance today will remember when we debated these regulations earlier this year. As I said then, these routes are crucial to ensure that there is a more timely and proportionate planning process for nationally important public services and infrastructure that the state directly delivers; for instance, new defence facilities, prisons and border control—issues that we debated in this House a very short time ago and which are essential for the effective running of this country.
Recent experience, including the response to Covid, exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission for urgent Crown development, which was introduced in 2006, was not fit for purpose. In fact, it had never been used. Further, government departments have historically struggled to secure local planning permission for some nationally important public service infrastructure, such as prisons.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister very much for her full and detailed response to my concerns. Unfortunately, the fundamentals remain. The Minister is quite right to say that the local planning authority will be involved in all the notifications and that voices and comments and so on can be heard, but in the end, the decision is taken over there and not where it should be, in the locality. That has always been my concern, as the Minister will know.
The balance has tipped too far in favour of government planning applications on Crown land, rather than trying to speed up processes which still engage local people fully. Having said that—–
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has spent many hours in this Chamber debating what we are doing elsewhere in the planning system to speed up decision-making. While I understand her great championing of community engagement in planning, we are trying to get the balance right here.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I accept that wholly. The Minister has always responded positively to the queries I have raised; it is just that we disagree on the balance.
I shall continue challenging because I think that is always needed. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.