Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(2 days, 21 hours 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(2 days, 21 hours 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.
Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(4 days, 21 hours 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.
Election Law
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(4 days, 21 hours 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.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsMonday 10th November 2025
(1 week, 5 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
(2 weeks, 5 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(2 weeks, 5 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(3 weeks, 2 days 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.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsWednesday 29th October 2025
(3 weeks, 3 days 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 134-IV(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2025)
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, just in case there is a move to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. While we understand the intent behind the proposal, we on these Benches are not persuaded that removing the provision for mandatory payments to the nature restoration fund would be a step in the right direction. If developers choose to proceed through an EDP route, it is only right that they contribute to the environmental mitigation and restoration measures that make those plans effective. Allowing them to opt out of such payments risks undermining the consistency and fairness of the system and could weaken the overall purpose of the fund to ensure that development contributes positively to nature recovery. Therefore, we approach the amendment, and a possible vote on it, with considerable caution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to examine the circumstances in which an environmental delivery plan, and the associated levy payment, could be mandatory. Amendment 164, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would wholly remove the option for an EDP to be mandatory. Amendment 164A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Langsley, would significantly restrict the circumstances in which an EDP could be made mandatory. I assure noble Lords, as I previously stressed in Committee debates, that the scenario of mandatory EDPs and levy payments will arise only in limited, exceptional circumstances. I will explain that in a bit more detail—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested that I would say that again—to try to reassure noble Lords.
A key purpose of the NRF is to offer developers an alternative way to meet their environmental obligations, so it is not our intention to make EDPs the only route available. As I have set out, Natural England is able to recommend that an EDP be mandatory only where it believes this is necessary, and it would be required to set out its reasoning within that EDP. That would form part of the consultation on that EDP—allowing developers and others to support or oppose this approach —and the responses to that consultation would of course form part of the Secretary of State’s consideration before making that EDP.
We consider that these steps represent a significant consultative and democratic safeguard. However, we also recognise that there is interest in what circumstances the Government consider may be necessary for an EDP to be mandatory rather than optional. We consider that there are two broad possibilities, the first of which is in instances where the ability to make an EDP mandatory provides a crucial assurance to Natural England and the taxpayer. For example, were Natural England to work with the developer and invest significant resource into preparing a bespoke EDP to address the impacts of a single large development such as a piece of energy infrastructure, that EDP is not likely to be usable by anyone else. If the developer or promoter subsequently chose to discharge their environmental obligations via a different route, that cost of developing the EDP would be wasted. It is important, therefore, to have a mechanism to provide certainty that an EDP will be used in such a scenario.
Secondly, if an EDP could only secure the right conservation measures to pass the overall improvement test and if all developers in scope paid in, but consultation showed that a small minority of developers did not wish to do so, it may be reasonable for Natural England to recommend and for the Secretary of State to agree that the EDP should be mandatory. A consideration of the overall benefits to growth and development would be properly in the gift of the Secretary of State in this scenario.
It is also important to note that the Bill contains a duty on the Secretary of State in drafting the levy regulations to ensure that even where payment of the levy is mandatory, it does not make development economically unviable, as this would not deliver the win-win the NRF is seeking to achieve.
Noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. They are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, which will enable stakeholders to have the opportunity to comment on regulations before they are made. In developing the regulations, we will, of course, work closely with stakeholders to ensure the effective operation of the levy system. Given this reassurance as to the limited circumstances where the levy could be mandatory, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Amendment 158A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to limit circumstances where an EDP could be amended so as to make payment of the levy mandatory. I assure the noble Lord that while we do not envisage Natural England amending an EDP to make payment of the levy mandatory, the Bill already provides that an EDP could be amended in this way. Such a scenario would be very unlikely to materialise, because the Secretary of State would need to consider whether making an EDP mandatory meets the high legal bar of this being necessary. However, if it did, the Bill as drafted already allows for this to happen, crucially, following further public consultation and, of course, the consent of the Secretary of State. With this reassurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lords for their contributions to this debate; it is a really important one. What the Minister said certainly added something new in terms of the operation of the viability test as a way of mitigating the risk that the mandatory levy would put developers in a disadvantageous position. Otherwise, what she said was what I had previously understood.
Personally, I do not think that Amendment 164A significantly narrowed the scope; it simply expressed what I hoped was the intention. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister continued to consider—if not in the Bill itself, then certainly in the regulations and guidance—whether Natural England is deterred from constantly pressing the Secretary of State to think of making the levy mandatory, simply in order to justify the fact that it put all its effort and money into preparing EDPs in the first place, which is, I am afraid, part of the argument it will inevitably present. But, subject to that request, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 158A.
“(a) section 125 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (general duties of public authorities in relation to MCZs) insofar as it applies to any function of a public authority of determining an application (whenever made) relating to the development, and(b) section 126 of that Act”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the general duties on public authorities in s.125 of the MCAA 2009 when exercising decision-making functions that may affect marine conservation zones. Those duties require authorities to further the conservation objectives of each MCZ, so an EDP containing network conservation measures may cause a public authority to breach the duties.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of both amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. The arguments were made powerfully and comprehensively in Committee and well summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. Farmers, in particular, should be given adequate notice of entry in order to take necessary precautions to manage their liability towards those entering the farm and to manage the biosecurity risks that entrants to the farm pose to their animals. If my noble friend is dissatisfied with the Minister’s response, we would support him in testing the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the specific amendments, I apologise for any discourtesy to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I take responsibility for that myself. Although he was kind enough to say that it was not my fault, it is always down to the Minister to make sure that Peers are responded to. I apologise if he did not receive the response that he should have.
I thank the noble Earl for tabling Amendments 183A and 183B, which would extend the written notice period required before Natural England could demand admission to land. This is currently set at 21 days for statutory undertakers and at least 24 hours in other cases. While we agree that it is important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions in the Bill are consistent with powers of entry requirements in other legislation. Through aligning with other legislation, we have minimised the risk of confusion for landowners, while also recognising the justified difference in how we treat statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and may require additional preparation to protect public safety and prevent disruption. There are also additional safeguards in the Bill to ensure that these powers cannot be used to gain access to a private dwelling. These safeguards further ensure that these powers cannot be used in any manner other than for carrying out surveys or investigations as specified within this part of the Bill. I hope that, with this explanation and the assurance that the NRF is in line with standard practice, the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks and for taking responsibility for the inefficiency of her officials. The rest of her remarks do not please me so much; I am very disappointed. There is no different argument to what was used in Committee. I just want the Minister to reflect. Does she really want to treat farmers in the way that they are being treated at the moment? This is not emergency legislation. There are, rightly, cases in legislation where emergency access is required and less than 24 hours’ notice is needed. That is not the case here. I disagree with her entirely that it will be confusing for the landowner in this instance. This is just sheer discourtesy towards the hard-working farmers of this country. I think that she would resent it if she was a farmer and was treated like this. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I did ask the Minister whether she might reflect on the debate we had earlier, and I would be very interested to hear whether she has anything to add. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The noble Lord asked for further assurances in respect of how land acquired under CPO could be returned where the land is no longer required. The Crichel Down rules are existing non-statutory arrangements under which surplus land that was acquired by, or under threat of, compulsion should be offered back to former owners, their successors, or sitting tenants.
In reference to land acquired under CPO in respect of Part 3, as I explained, it is very unlikely that land acquired by compulsory purchase under an EDP would not be used. It is unlikely to be surplus. This is because, if an EDP were revoked, the land might still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Where land that has been compulsorily purchased is genuinely surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply, as they would for land purchased under any other CPO power.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that addition to the debate. On that basis, I reserve the right to come back at Third Reading on this matter, but I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling her amendments in this group. I know that the whole House respects her for her commitment to the issue of sustainable drainage, and I pay tribute to her for her persistence in raising this particular matter, because it is about time that we made some progress on it.
Our water system is put under pressure when developments are built out and connected up, and my noble friend is right to raise this. Can the Minister please take this opportunity to set out the Government’s ongoing work on delivering a sustainable future for our water systems? We would also be interested to hear what active steps the department is taking to engage with the development sector, including small and medium-sized developers, to ensure that existing non-statutory standards for sustainable drainage have been implemented.
My noble friends have mentioned 2010. I can beat that. I think it was in 1992 that, as Environment Minister, I was shown a revolutionary new system whereby the downpipes from our houses are connected to a soakaway and a system of seepage pipes about a foot underground, where the water then slowly leaked back into the soil. For big commercial car parks, the seepage pipes were put down a metre, so they were not crushed.
Those systems were in development then, and I said, “This is a jolly good idea, we should do it”, but the word was, “Oh no, Minister, it is not quite the right time to do it yet”. So I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say about that particular area. What development work is going on for seepage systems in ordinary domestic houses? We have millions of gallons of pure raindrops falling on our roofs, we put it into the sewerage system and then the water companies spend millions of pounds taking out the clean water again. Seepage systems must be the way to go in the near future.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for proposing these amendments, and for her persistence in these matters. I remember having long discussions with her on the same subject over the course of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
Proper implementation, adoption and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems can significantly reduce the pressure on sewer networks from new developments by as much as 87%. This creates capacity for further development in areas where conventional drainage alone would be insufficient. There is growing need for SUDS in more developments, with designs that can withstand changing climate conditions, support broader water infrastructure goals and contribute to addressing the water pollution challenges.
Progress has already been made through the planning system to improve SUDS delivery. I am afraid that I do not accept the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that MHCLG has been holding this up. The updated National Planning Policy Framework, published on 12 December, now requires SUDS for all developments that have drainage implications.
Sewerage companies have the authority to reject connection requests if they believe that the mode of construction or condition of the drain or sewer will prejudice their network or fail to meet reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to the sewer system.
The Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, has reviewed the regulatory framework for the water sector in England and Wales. Both the UK and Welsh Governments are assessing the findings, including any potential impact on the right to connect. Any legislative changes to Section 106 should take into account the findings of the Independent Water Commission’s report before moving forward. The Government remain strongly committed to requiring standardised SUDS in new developments and increasing rainwater management strategies to mitigate flood risks and to adapt to climate change.
In June 2025, the Government released updated non-statutory national standards for SUDS, which have been positively received by stakeholders as a very constructive development. Later this year, the Government plan to consult on national planning policies, including those related to flood risk and SUDS. Additionally, a consultation will be launched on ending freehold estates which will explore ways to reduce the reliance on private management arrangements for community assets, such as SUDS. When we bring those national planning policies forward, I hope that the noble Baroness will take part in the discussions. As she has such a detailed knowledge of the subject, I am sure that she would be very helpful in the preparation of those national planning policies.
For all these reasons, the Government cannot accept Amendments 197 and 198. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment 197.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in favour of the amendments—and to those who did not. I will take my colleague aside and teach him the error of his ways, perhaps acquainting him with Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
As a newly elected MP, I was surprised at two things: first, that we do not make new laws but amend existing ones; and, secondly, that, having passed a law, we do not implement it. I listened very carefully to the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. She has made the points for me: these are guidelines in the non-statutory National Planning Policy Framework and in the national standards for SUDS.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have explained many times during the course of the debate on the Bill that, although the planning policy statements and the NPPF are not statutory in themselves, they are part of a statutory planning framework and they must be taken into account as local plans are developed. They cannot be statutory documents because they have to be amended frequently, but they sit within that statutory planning framework, and that is what makes them powerful.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. It is not me that she has to convince, but the insurance companies out there, and the likes of CIWEM, who have to pick up the pieces when there is a combined sewage overflow. We have not plugged the gap of the highways runoff, either. I would like to reserve judgment about bringing back the amendment at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 207, 220 and 230, which are all linked. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for supporting them. I am also grateful for all the constructive engagement I have had with the Minister and her teams between Committee and Report. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, cannot be here this evening and wish her a speedy recovery.
I reflected on the Committee debate which highlighted the contentious nature of these amendments. Of course, noble Lords are concerned about rolling back protections for nature for infrastructure build, and the delays we have seen to large infrastructure in the UK are a multifaceted problem, but we cannot get away or escape from the fact that poor interpretation of environmental regulations is causing excessive cost and multiyear delays to many of our large infrastructure projects. The evidence here is clear—I will not go through the examples again that I cited in Committee.
The root cause of the delays to many of our offshore wind and nuclear programmes, and the other examples that I cited, and their excessive costs, comes down to an overzealous interpretation of the habitats regulations. Ironically, those regulations are causing long delays to much of our net-zero infrastructure and much else besides. They are impacting our national security, because energy security is national security.
My amendments offer a way through that, while maintaining protections for nature, by attempting to take the regulations back to their original intent by reversing case law and clarifying interpretation of existing law. These changes would move the dial significantly by ensuring that regulators are guided towards a more sensible and proportionate interpretation of the regulations and compensation, streamlining the programme for getting infrastructure through the system.
Finally, these points relate to a substantive proposal that the Minister has offered related to these amendments, so I look forward to hearing her proposal in detail when she sums up.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I should be clear at the outset that the amendments in this group seek to amend substantively the habitats regulations beyond the context of EDPs and the nature restoration fund, and beyond the current focus of the Bill. I am aware that these amendments, and the desire to make changes to the wider system of the habitats regulations, stem in part from a concern that the NRF will not deliver for infrastructure projects. I want to be very clear that this is not the case. We are all well aware of cases where vital infrastructure has been held up by specific environmental issues. We are currently identifying opportunities where EDPs and the NRF can have the greatest impact on infrastructure delivery, particularly addressing common challenges that are currently difficult for developers to resolve alone.
I stress that the Government are already taking action. We believe that the habitats regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately, with decisions based on the best available scientific evidence. The Government are working closely with stakeholders to improve the functioning of the habitats regulations, including by acting on the recommendations of the Corry review and the post-implementation review of the habitats regulations.
We know that there are particular issues with the delivery of suitable environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind projects. The consultation, which closed in September, covered proposed reforms to deliver a more flexible approach to this. We will make it clear in guidance that only relevant information needs to be considered in reaching conclusions on the risks to a protected site. The updated guidance will also make it clear that small effects that do not have any prospect of risking harm to a protected site can and should be screened out.
Finally, we will take the opportunity to set out more clearly where there is already flexibility in law in considering appropriate compensatory measures under Regulation 68 of the habitats regulations. Should guidance not be sufficient to make clear how the regulations should be applied, we may consider whether legislative change is needed, in careful consultation with developers, planners, ecologists and other relevant stakeholders. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I very much welcome her commitment to address the points raised in the amendment through guidance and her recognition that legislation will be required. I look forward to working with the Minister and her team on that. Nevertheless, I stress the urgency of bringing forward guidance quickly in this area, due to the delays we are seeing. Can she offer any more information on the timescales for the issuing and release of that guidance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the point the noble Lord is making. I will take the subject back and discuss it with the teams in Defra and my own department, and then write to him, if that would be helpful. I am loath to make a time commitment from the Dispatch Box without doing that first.
Turning to Amendment 202, as previously noted I share the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to support new nuclear development, which will be critical for economic growth and achieving our clean energy mission. However, providing the Secretary of State the ability to completely exempt nuclear power stations producing more than 500 megawatts from requirements in respect to the habitats regulations, environmental impact assessments and any future environmental delivery plans would create uncertainty for developers and erode public support for such projects. These are important tools for making sure that the environmental impacts of projects are considered. The environmental protections they contain relate not only to nature but to the broader community impacts. This blunt approach to disregarding these obligations would put decision-makers at a disadvantage and prevent developers taking important steps to address the environmental impact of the development.
I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness; we need to do more to reform the planning system to accelerate nuclear development in this country. We are in the final stages of designating a new national policy statement for nuclear energy generation, EN-7. That will provide a robust and flexible framework for new nuclear developers seeking development consent and, alongside the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), will provide the Secretary of State with some discretion when considering habitats regulations and the environmental impact assessment during decision-making by defining low-carbon energy infrastructure, including nuclear, as a critical national priority. We are also awaiting the final recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce.
I hope, following my explanation, that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, will feel able to withdraw Amendment 202.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. Although I do not entirely agree with her arguments, I have made my case as well as I can and I do not propose to detain the House any longer, given the lateness of the hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsWednesday 29th October 2025
(3 weeks, 3 days 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 134-IV(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond on this group of amendments, I convey my get-well wishes to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, who, as noble Lords will realise, very much hoped to be here with us today, but unfortunately is unwell. I know that she wanted to take part in today’s discussions. We all send her our very best wishes for a speedy recovery.
I am grateful to hear the passion around the Chamber on both climate change and biodiversity, and the healthy tension that seems to have arisen between the two in this morning’s discussion. The key issue is that they are, of course, interdependent, and we have to consider both.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his Amendment 114, which seeks to require the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities to have special regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation in national planning policy, local plans and planning decisions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject and other matters concerning the Bill.
We support the principle that both central and local government should be held to a high standard of accountability in considering climate change throughout the planning system. Of course, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that local government has a vital role in all this. However, as made clear in previous debates, planning policy and existing statutory requirements already cover much of the content of this amendment. For example, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires local planning authorities to include in their local plans policies that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. There is also a requirement in the Environment Act 2021 that environmental factors are considered in the planning system. It also includes the environmental principles duty, which applies to Ministers when making policy.
Furthermore, the Environment Agency produces the flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy, in line with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which all risk management authorities, such as district councils, lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards, are required to act in accordance with.
The National Planning Policy Framework incorporates the principles of sustainable development, including climate change mitigation and adaptation. We have committed to consulting this year on a clearer set of national policies to support decision-making. This will fully recognise the importance of the issue, set out more explicit principles to be followed in the planning system and include further consideration of how the planning system can best address and respond to climate change adaptation and mitigation. I encourage the noble Lord to engage with this consultation when it is launched. The exact wording of these policies and how they interact with other policies in the NPPF will need to be subject to careful consideration, so it would not be appropriate to commit to a specific wording in advance of this or prior to the public consultation that needs to take place.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about overheating. As he will know, we always keep building regulations under review, but I will take his comments back to the team about what more we need to do to promote the issues around overheating and how we deal with it.
It is crucial that we address climate change in an effective way that avoids being unnecessarily disruptive or giving rise to excess litigation. A legal obligation to give special regard to climate change across the planning system risks opening many decisions to potential legal challenges, especially given how broad climate change is as a concept. I understand the noble Lord’s good intentions, but there is a very real risk that the potential for legal challenge opened by this amendment could impede the production of the policies and decision-making needed to tackle this important issue.
I should stress that, although planning policies do not at present carry specific legal weight in decision-making, this should not obscure the significant influence they carry in the operation of the planning system as important material considerations that must be taken into account where they are relevant. I have written to all noble Lords on this matter.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions related to the NPPF, and I am happy to continue meeting him about that. Although we agree that climate change is an extremely serious matter in the context of planning, I hope your Lordships will agree that the approach I have set out is the more appropriate route to ensuring that this happens. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 121F, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 when preparing national planning policy. It also seeks to require relevant planning authorities to have special regard to the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan for 2030. I welcome the principle of the amendment, as it seeks to embed the environment in planning policy. However, it is unnecessary because it duplicates existing legislation. When setting policy, Ministers must have due regard to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement. This applies to all new policy, including planning policy. It sets out a robust framework on how to embed environmental decision-making into policy-making.
Current national planning policy is clear that local development plans and individual planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment, including by protecting sites of biodiversity value. Individual planning applications are assessed against national policies to ensure that decisions are made considering the natural environment. For example, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused.
Where relevant, legislation such as the environmental impact assessment regulations and habitats regulations also applies, which ensures that the environmental impacts of individual planning applications are considered thoroughly before relevant planning authorities decide whether to grant consent. Local development plans themselves are subject to strategic environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, which require the likely significant effects of a plan or programme to be reported and include reference to biodiversity.
As the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 says, we have created
“powerful new tools such as Biodiversity Net Gain in England, a mandatory approach to development which makes sure that habitats for wildlife are left in a measurably better state than they were before the development”.
I therefore trust that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, agrees that existing legislation and policy is in place and this amendment is not needed. I ask him to consider not pressing his amendment.
Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require those performing functions under Part 3 to have regard to the Climate Change Act 2008. I recognise that the noble Earl is seeking to deepen engagement with the Climate Change Act but suggest that the existing approach in the Bill is sufficient to ensure that such matters are properly considered where appropriate.
Clause 88(3) already requires Natural England or the Secretary of State to have regard to relevant strategies and plans, which would include the Climate Change Act where it was relevant to an EDP. This ensures that the Climate Change Act is factored in where appropriate but avoids adding undue burden to the preparation of EDPs where it is not relevant. The noble Earl will be aware of the wider consideration of the Climate Change Act throughout the planning process, so I hope he understands why including explicit consideration in the EDP process in this way is not necessary. On that basis, I hope he feels able not to press his amendment.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, provided an excellent sum-up about climate change not being the only game in town. That is an important consideration, which is why I attempted in my Amendment 114 to join things up and include the Environment Act alongside climate change considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also made an important point about systems join-up and said that we need to consider adaptation very strongly as well in how we take all this forward.
I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. She listed a number of other areas of legislation and guidance in which this issue is mentioned. But, of course, that is partly the point of this amendment—that it would provide a link-up between all the scattered mentions of climate and environment throughout the existing legislation and guidance.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the “special regard” wording has been well tested in respect of heritage buildings. I recognise that it is already reflected but I am trying to drive at the fact that it needs weight within the planning system.
I am encouraged by what the Minister had to say about the NPPF and the opportunity to engage with that process. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I would like to convey from this side of the House our hopes for the swift recovery of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
As I raised in Committee, spatial development strategies and local plans should be the strategic documents that map out development in an area. This could be the stage where all the complex issues and trade-offs can be addressed to deliver the housing, commercial infrastructure and community facilities that we need, while also addressing the environmental impact and other issues. As such, there is a strong argument that these should include the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation and strategic impact assessments, as well as many other regulations that must often now be carried out on a site-by-site basis.
It would also be an alternative, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned, to the Government’s proposed EDPs. This, if done correctly with the appropriate legislation, regulation and powers given to those local plans and local authorities, could deliver both better outcomes for the environment and a faster, simpler planning system, particularly had some of our previous amendments been included—for instance, my noble friend Lord Banner’s amendment on proportionality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, pointed out, this could facilitate at an earlier stage a focus on areas and sites more appropriate for development. For landowners and developers, it could reduce the cost and speed up the process.
We support the intentions of these amendments, however—unfortunately, there is a however—the amendment as laid out does not address the key second part: ensuring that developments in line with an approved spatial development strategy or local plan satisfy the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, with no further need for environmental impact assessments on a site-by-site basis. To address this latter part would require substantial additions to the Bill, which are not being proposed. As such, these amendments risk adding stages and processes while still needing to substantially repeat these subsequently on a site-by-site basis, with that additional burden adding delays to the planning process and further costs for no particular benefit. For those reasons, while we support the intentions, we cannot support these amendments.
I should also like to take this opportunity, as we are discussing habitats regulations, to ask whether the Government still intend to block the development of tens of thousands of much needed homes by giving force to the habitats regulation in Clause 90 to Ramsar sites.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, seeks to ensure that local plans comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and that an authority which prepares a local plan carries out a full environmental impact assessment for all sites designated as suitable for development in that plan.
I hope I can deal with these matters quickly and reassure the noble Baroness that local planning authorities are already required to undertake habitats regulations assessments where there is the potential for impact on a site or species protected under the regulations. Additionally, local plans need to undertake strategic environmental assessment, which will form part of the local plan that is consulted on and then considered for adoption. The noble Baroness’s amendment would go further and would require not only a strategic environmental assessment of the plan, but project-level environmental impact assessments of sites designated as suitable for development under the plan.
As I mentioned in Committee, this would require a depth of information about a specific development proposal that simply would not be available at the plan-making stage, and it is adequately captured by any development that comes forward, which meets the threshold for requiring this further assessment. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance, and I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to Amendment 116, the noble Baroness has rightly highlighted an important matter regarding the application of habitats regulations to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, I reassure her that the amendment she proposes is unnecessary. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Bill already ensures that the requirements of the habitats regulations are applied to spatial development strategies. This provision obliges strategic planning authorities to undertake habitats regulations assessments where appropriate.
The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to mandate habitats regulations assessments for specific site allocations within spatial development strategies, but the Bill explicitly prohibits such allocations. As a result, strategic planning authorities will not be in a position to carry out site-specific habitats regulations assessments during the preparation of SDSs. Such assessments, if required, would need to be conducted at a later stage in the planning process, even if this amendment was accepted by the House.
I shall answer a couple of the questions asked. My noble friend Lady Young asked about the land use framework. This is being actively worked on by Defra and is due for publication next year. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about Ramsar. We shall have a debate about that later in the course of the Bill, so I am sure he will have his questions answered at that point. Given those clarifications, I hope the noble Baroness will consider not pressing her amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will put the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, out of his misery. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his Amendment 117. He raises a very important issue, and I will explain how we intend to address it. I assure him that the Government intend to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when parliamentary time allows; I will elaborate on that in a moment. He will have noted that we reiterated this commitment in our Pride in Place Strategy, published since we last discussed this issue. I imagine that is what prompted the comments from my honourable friend in the other place, which the noble Lord referred to.
There is no doubt in my mind about the potential harms that can come from gambling, particularly in relation to cumulative impacts. I heard the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about what was said in the Select Committee, but I think there is consensus across this House that harms undoubtedly come from gambling. Cumulative impact assessments will strengthen local authorities’ tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets. We intend cumulative impact assessments to be used to assess gambling premises’ licence applications, rather than applications for planning permission or change of use, as in this amendment.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill concerns the planning system rather than the licensing system— I will come to further points on the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in a moment—and it is unfortunately not the appropriate vehicle for the introduction of cumulative impact assessments for gambling premises licensing. Under the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the cumulative impact assessment would be published by the licensing authority but be used during the planning process by the planning authority. I am concerned that his amendment would risk creating inconsistencies between the approaches of the local authority’s planning policies and the licensing authority’s statement of licensing principles. The Government’s view is that it is essential for the licensing authority to consider the cumulative impact assessment in the exercise of its licensing functions when considering whether to grant a premises licence, rather than at the planning stage. This is a planning Bill, not a licensing Bill—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Can I just finish what I am saying? It might help. The issue is out of scope, but we have Bills coming forward where licensing will almost certainly be in scope. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are actively working to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when we have a suitable vehicle. However, for the reasons I have set out, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Just before the Minister sits down, she has said that it would cause confusion between licensing and planning. However, the amendment that is now before the House took account of all the concerns that she raised when we debated it earlier. It has now changed in such a way that it would absolutely replicate what is already in statute in relation to alcohol licensing. That has not caused a problem, and I do not begin to understand the difference she is now saying there is between my amendment and what already exists in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. It would be helpful if she could explain.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As drafted, the amendment would require planning authorities to make decisions based on assessments published by the licensing authority, effectively placing planning and licensing authorities into potential conflict with one another. It would also not provide for the licensing authority to assess licensing applications with respect to its own cumulative impact assessments. I hope that that is helpful. Turning to Amendment 121G—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Just before the Minister moves on, I am puzzling over the use of the word “scope” here. We seem to have two different understandings of scope. This is within scope of the Bill; that has been agreed by our experts in the Legislation Office. Yet the Minister is saying that, in the Government’s view, it is somehow not in scope. Can she say what the difference is between scope as defined legally and scope as the Government are defining it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am loath to explain the Legislation Office’s rationale. I am surprised that the amendment was allowed for the planning Bill, but we are where we are. I am trying to respond as straightforwardly as I can: we want to put this cumulative impact assessment in as quickly as we can, but we do not believe that this Bill is the right place for it. We want to put it in a Bill where it is in scope and will do that as quickly as possible.
Lord Deben (Con)
Can I help the Minister on this? Why does she not just say that she will accept this in the same terms as the regulations on alcohol? Then she would not be promising anything that is not there. Frankly, it is very worrying for us that she cannot accept, having listened to the debate, that the Government have got the measurement of scope wrong and have said something about gambling which, if it were true, would mean that the present law on alcohol is wrong. I am sure that she does not mean to say that to the House. Therefore, is not this the moment for her to say to the House: “I will take this away and come back having looked at it”? In that case, we would not need to have a vote on it, which would be much more sensible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
This is Report, and I believe that the Government’s position that this should be related to licensing and not planning is right, so I will hold my line on it. I know that that will be disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but it is very important that we take the issue of cumulative impact assessments as part of the licensing regime. We will endeavour to bring that forward in an appropriate way when the relevant legislation comes forward.
I turn to Amendment 121G, which seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this Bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her strong championing, as ever, of this sector. I share her passion for ensuring that we do all we can to support it. I also commend the work of my noble friend Lord Snape on the APPG for SME House Builders; he continues to keep me informed on the concerns and challenges within the sector. I welcome the recent launch of its report setting out all the issues that they are facing and what the Government can do.
The Government are committed to increasing support across the housebuilding sector, especially for SMEs. SMEs have seen their market share shrink since the 1980s and this long-term decline raises concerns about the sustainability of the construction sector and the loss of weaker firms weakening market diversity and resilience. I gently point out to the noble Baroness that there was a period of 14 years when her party was in government and might have looked to support the sector a bit better during those years.