Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

I shall be interested to hear how the Minister will persuade the House that the Government are carrying out the policies to which they have signed up instead of, dare I say it, noble Lords having to put them into primary legislation to make the Government do their job.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords—

[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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Debate on Amendment 122 resumed.

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

My Lords, we return to the substantive consideration of Part 3 of the Bill and the nature restoration fund, with this first grouping considering amendments that relate to the underlying requirements of an environmental delivery plan.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the purpose of Part 3, we know that the status quo is not working. Environmental assessments and case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the condition of our most important habitats and species has declined over a sustained period. By taking a more strategic approach to the restoration of protected sites and species, we can deliver improved environmental outcomes while reducing planning delays for the housing and infrastructure that our communities need.

The noble Lord asked me a question about the number of houses subject to nutrient neutrality that will be unlocked at Royal Assent. We are very clear that such environmental obligations can be discharged only where a robust and scrutinised EDP is in place. This is the right approach to ensure there is a credible plan that will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we need.

Amendment 130, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has captured the sympathy of some in this House who support the strategic approach of the NRF but are concerned about this approach being used where it is not appropriate. However, we have always been clear—and the legislation is explicit—that the Secretary of State can approve an EDP only where it is shown to materially outweigh the negative effect of development. This is not a throwaway judgment of a Secretary of State but must be a judgment based on an ecologically sound and robustly scrutinised EDP, with Natural England providing a statement as to whether they believe the EDP can meet this high bar. As the noble Baroness will know, the scientific basis of the evidence provided to the Secretary of State was clarified in a government amendment. A Secretary of State simply could not sign off an EDP that did not stack up—and if they ever did, then the Bill provides that such a decision could be challenged via a judicial review.

In capturing a range of environmental features that could be addressed through an EDP, the Government are not seeking to suggest that EDPs will come forward covering each of these features but simply that we should be able to bring forward EDPs where science supports the case and the evidence would allow the Secretary of State to approve the EDP in line with the overall improvement test. Where the science does not support it, an EDP could not be made, but to limit EDPs in the way the amendment suggests would be to close off the potential that EDPs offer to deliver more than the current system and help support the recovery of protected sites and species, rather than merely offsetting the impact of development.

I want also to respond to some of the noble Baroness’ questions. First, on the mitigation hierarchy, Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops EDPs. It is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. However, it is not always the case. The flexibility provided by the Bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England’s expert judgment, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to suboptimal outcomes, and only then, and where money could be spent far more effectively to achieve better outcomes for nature.

Secondly, the noble Baroness asked me about process. EDPs will not require additional assessment. Natural England will carry out assessments and surveys, and developers will no longer have to do that for the features in the EDP.

My noble friend Lady Young asked about the European conventions. The Bill does not repeal any existing legislation and will not weaken the UK’s continued support for and implementation of any of our international commitments. We are committed to the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and its provisions which ensure that mutual high standards are protected. EDPs will ensure better environmental outcomes that go further than current legislation, which simply offsets harm. Money from the NRF is ring-fenced for nature under clauses in the Bill.

I am conscious that the NRF has not had the easiest genesis, but the Government have shown that they are listening, and the legislation demonstrates a real commitment to breaking from a status quo that has, at best, overseen the managed decline of our most valued protected sites and species. With this explanation, I hope the noble Baroness feels able not to move her amendment.

Amendment 201, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with broad powers to manage the effects of nutrients in water. This draws on the amendments tabled by the previous Government during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which were rightly defeated by this House.

While we share the noble Lord’s desire to address nutrient neutrality, we cannot simply rely on broad powers and the promise of action. The nature restoration fund creates a clear path to addressing this issue based on credible evidence, a robust and tested EDP and the legal guarantee that funding will be secured to ensure that conservation measures deliver environmental improvement. Granting the Secretary of State such a broad Henry VIII power would raise not only questions but serious risks as to how such a power could be used.

Amendment 122, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP and require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with such guidance. I recognise the importance of the matters the noble Lord raises, including in respect of agricultural businesses, food security and land that communities really value. The Secretary of State is already able to make guidance on any matter relevant to the making of an EDP, which would naturally include the important matters raised in the amendment.

On the issue of compulsory purchase raised by the amendment, as it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to make an EDP and to authorise Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way the EDP has been drafted, they may simply choose not to make the EDP. Similarly, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way Natural England is proposing to exercise its compulsory purchase powers, they may simply choose not to authorise the exercise of the powers.

Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require EDPs to identify all environmental impacts from the development to which the EDP relates, on the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. As we have said throughout these sessions, EDPs are targeted plans to address specific impacts from development on identified environmental features. These are not a replacement for wider assessment or intervention but a way to allow specific impacts to be addressed through a more strategic approach. While Natural England will of course be alive to other impacts, the focus of the EDP must be on the specific impact, as it is only that impact and the associated environmental obligation that are being discharged through the EDP. We have been clear throughout that anything not covered by an EDP will be considered and addressed through the existing system. For that reason, it would simply add burden to an EDP to require Natural England to identify all impacts where the EDP itself is tasked with addressing only specific impacts.

Amendment 128, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require an EDP to identify all environmental impacts that may be expected as a result of the development to which an EDP relates. As I mentioned in Committee and have just repeated, EDPs are targeted plans, and the Government are clear that an EDP will modify existing obligations only for identified impacts and where the EDP itself can demonstrate how the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the specific environmental feature. Any impacts not addressed—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am afraid that the Minister has failed to understand that the amendments I have proposed, following the debate in Committee, are directed towards only the environmental feature, and the negative effects associated with that environmental feature, which is the subject of the EDP. She is suggesting that I am widening it out to other features. I am not; the amendments address only that feature.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry if I misunderstood, but that may be due to confusion around the wording. It seemed that the amendment was trying to widen that out. As I said, any impact not addressed through the EDP is subject to a separate assessment. Therefore, it would not need to form part of the EDP itself.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I have left Clause 55(1)(a) where the Government left it, which means that we are concerned only with the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. Her entire argument against my amendments is around the proposition that I am trying to widen it out to other things; I am not. I am simply saying that, if there is a negative effect associated with the environmental feature derived from that development, it should be identified in the EDP.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The very nature of the EDP would do that anyway, because the action taken by the EDP must materially outweigh the impact of the development. If that is what the noble Lord is trying to say, I can confirm that that is the purpose of the EDP in the first place. I will continue now.

As set out in the Member’s explanatory statement, Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham,

“seeks to encourage debate on the proportionality of conservation measures included in an EDP”.

In doing so, the amendment proposes that EDPs should consider the monetary value of the plants or animals the conservation measures would support, to ensure that conservation measures are proportionate. As the noble Lord will be aware from the debates to date, EDPs will be required to materially outweigh the negative effects that development would have on a relevant environmental feature, be it a feature of a protected site or a protected species. That may include multiple plant species of varying abundance. Similarly for protected species, an EDP would address these impacts at an appropriate population scale.

The scale of conservation measures required will be determined by the scale of impact from the development, with the levy rate being set to ensure that sufficient measures are delivered to meet the overall improvement test. In setting the regulations that will govern the nature restoration levy, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the levy does not render development economically unviable, but the levy must be sufficient to deliver the necessary conservation measures in line with the overall improvement test. That will ensure that the levy is set at a rate that delivers for both nature and development, with developers in all but exceptional circumstances being able to choose whether to use an EDP or whether to address these impacts and secure the necessary measures themselves under the existing system. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Finally, Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require the preparation of a report by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the consolidation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as they relate to planning. I appreciate that the dual systems of the habitats regulations, which cover habitat sites and include the HRA process, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which covers SSSIs, can appear complex. However, in practice, there are integrated processes which address and manage this complexity. These processes are well understood by practitioners, and while the Government will always look for opportunities to improve processes, the amendment risks creating uncertainty that may delay development and presupposes that consolidation is necessary and desirable. At this time, we do not consider that such a report is necessary, but even if it were, it would be a legal rather than ecological exercise, which would fall outside the JNCC’s area of expertise. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for the introduction of her Amendment 130 and to those who spoke so convincingly in her support. I also thank the Minister for her response to these amendments, particularly the clarifications around the issues addressed by Amendment 122.

As I feared, the Government remain intransigent on the big issues and so our mind remains resolved. Should the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, choose to move Amendment 130 to a vote, our Benches will be in support. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 122.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 131, but before I do, I would like to address comments to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, because I am persuaded by the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lansley. We are not the elected House, the Government are entitled to bring their legislation through and I am persuaded that to have removed Part 3 entirely from the Bill would have emasculated it to the extent that it would have become mute.

I do think, however—and I only wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had acknowledged this—that the thumping majority given to Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has meant that we have got the best of a bad job. Therefore, to suggest that the Conservatives and other Members of this House have somehow sat on their hands or perjured themselves or somehow maligned themselves is just not the way.

Turning to the substance of Amendment 130, of course we believe in the essential of having the best advice. I will not repeat the speech I gave in Committee, but noble Lords will remember that I was very exercised by the misleading way in which Natural England had wilfully misrepresented the science that it said supported its position but did not. Noble Lords will recall that it sent me a pamphlet with all sorts of scientific references at the bottom, which I read, and those scientific references totally refuted Natural England’s position.

All I will say on Amendment 131 is that getting the scientific evidence is one thing, but we have got to get the advice right as well. I feel there is a problem with this Bill, because it does not address the conflict of interest that Natural England is simultaneously the adviser, the regulator, the operator and the price setter. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said on the earlier group. If the Secretary of State is not persuaded, he is going to rely on advice given by Natural England, which in my view has not demonstrated that it meets the standard that you would expect.

I think the key thing is that we are about to place into statute an obvious conflict of interest between a regulator and an adviser. We should eliminate that by insisting on a separation of powers. We have a duty to avoid obvious conflicts of interest, but we are about to embed one in statute. I invite the Minister to reflect for a moment on whether it is right that Natural England is to be the judge, jury and executioner in its own court, and whether there might be some sort of device whereby the Secretary of State can take other advice into account rather than that of Natural England, because it is so conflicted and its track record is not good.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 131, 137, 151, 152, 156, 157 and 174, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, would add additional requirements to the preparation and reporting of EDPs. While the Government share the noble Lords’ desire to ensure that the EDP process is robust, I assure noble Lords that these matters are already captured through the drafting and are amplified by the Government’s amendments to Part 3. We have included an explicit provision requiring Natural England and the Secretary of State to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP.

I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about evidence over time and some of the issues that occur—perhaps even conflicting evidence —but I hope that the best available scientific evidence, which is the phrase that is used here, will give the Secretary of State and Natural England the support they need to ensure that this is proportionate. It needs to be considered as the best available scientific evidence.

Regarding reporting, as well as the mid-point and end-point reports on each EDP, Natural England will publish annual reports across the NRF with a summary of its accounts, including setting out the total amount received in levy payments and the amount spent on conservation measures. This is on top of the individual monitoring that Natural England will put in place to monitor the delivery and impact of conservation measures. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on his points about Natural England.

In addition, these amendments would require Natural England to report on the impact of conservation measures on the local economy and the community. The Bill already requires public consultation that will provide the opportunity for people to raise such matters, which will be considered by the Secretary of State when making an EDP. While we share the noble Lord’s desire to support local communities, it would not be appropriate and would add a significant burden to require Natural England to report on how each conservation measure is affecting the local economy. The final limb of these amendments would make it mandatory for the levy regulations to cover various matters currently specified as those that the Secretary of State may cover. I assure noble Lords that this is unnecessary because, while we would not propose to mandate for them, we fully expect the Secretary of State to make provision in these areas. I hope that, with these explanations and assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to my amendments in this group. I must say I am not entirely happy, and I look forward to returning to this subject in later groups, particularly on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I understand entirely her sentiments and frustration, and I am most grateful that she signed my amendments. We on these Benches are committed to being a constructive Opposition and to working with the House in the most effective way possible to improve Part 3. Many of us object to this part of the Bill fervently in its current form, and we are looking for the best outcome for the country as a whole to release houses for building but at the same time to protect and enhance nature. The noble Baroness remains my friend, and I hope she will eventually forgive me. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

133: Clause 55, page 92, line 9, after “site” insert “that is wholly in England”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent Natural England from including in an EDP network conservation measures where the affected site was not in England (or in English territorial waters or the English offshore region: see my amendment at page 92, line 31); in such a case, any conservation measures would have to benefit the affected site itself (but the conservation measures would have to be taken in England).

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

My Lords, we turn to a series of government amendments that ensure that the NRF properly manages any potential cross-border effects and operates as intended in relation to Ramsar sites, as well as in the marine context.

On our cross-border related amendments, I assure noble Lords that, while numerous, these are technical amendments that reflect our discussions with the devolved Administrations to address circumstances where an environmental feature of an EDP may relate to a protected site that is in Scotland or Wales.

I shall draw out the key amendments. Government Amendment 133 ensures that, where an EDP relates to a protected site that is not wholly in England, an EDP may not use network measures to address these impacts.

Government Amendment 136 simply defines “England” for the purpose of this clause as including its marine context. This is in line with the devolution settlements, as it would not be appropriate for a plan developed to address the impact of development in England to allow for potential impact on a site in Scotland or Wales, even where that would lead to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature.

In line with that close working and co-ordination, government Amendment 145 will require Natural England to seek the advice of the Natural Resource Body for Wales, whose operating name is Natural Resources Wales, and Scottish Natural Heritage, whose operating name is NatureScot, as well as the relevant devolved Ministers where the environmental feature in a draft EDP relates to a protected site in Wales or Scotland respectively. Government Amendment 149 specifies that for these purposes “Wales and Scotland” encompasses the territorial waters adjacent to Wales and Scotland, as is the case in respect of England in Part 3.

Ramsar sites are internationally significant wetlands that play a vital role in promoting biodiversity and climate resilience. Through the Bill, we are putting Ramsar protections on a legislative footing to ensure that the nature restoration fund can be used to address the negative effects of development on Ramsar sites. This will allow development to come forward more quickly, while securing better outcomes for nature, making building quicker and simpler. To date, these sites have been subject to the HRA process in the same way as habitat sites as a matter of policy, so in the vast majority of cases there will be very little change to how the HRA process is applied to these sites. However, these changes will place the existing policy protections for Ramsar sites on a statutory footing, providing clarity for developers where Ramsar and habitat sites overlap and where assessment requirements may otherwise diverge, as well as ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations under the Ramsar Convention. These government amendments ensure that the nature restoration fund can operate as intended for Ramsar sites.

Previously, the Bill referred to Ramsar sites in England, which would have meant that, when assessing a plan or project in England, a competent authority would not have been subject to a statutory requirement to consider possible impacts on Ramsar sites in Wales and Scotland. That would have placed new obligations on competent authorities in Wales, which was not our policy intention. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a helpful step forward in firming up the protections for our most precious wetlands.

Government Amendment 231 is technical in nature and has been drafted to ensure that the Bill is fully operable within the marine context. With marine conservation zones now treated as protected sites for the purposes of Part 3, it is necessary to make limited exceptions to certain provisions in the Marine and Coastal Access Act that are intended to restrict activities impacting these areas. This will, for example, ensure that Natural England can carry out conservation measures benefiting these important marine sites without risk of breaching existing legislative requirements. This will apply only to Natural England and other public authorities carrying out functions relating to the nature restoration fund in the marine context.

Finally, government Amendment 255 is a minor drafting correction to ensure the extent provisions reflect amendments made to Clause 46 in Committee. This amendment removes a stray reference to provisions of that clause which were left out in Committee. I therefore hope the House agrees to accept these amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

First, I would like to associate these Benches with the best wishes sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I hope she is better soon. One or two of us spotted her attempting to struggle in this morning. The Minister here has had to take up a whole raft of amendments on which she was not expecting to lead at the start of today. We thank her for picking this up.

This is a comprehensive suite of technical amendments, and we are wrapping our heads around it. As firm federalists, we obviously welcome the consultation across borders, particularly in Amendments 145 and 133, mandating specific consultation requirements on Natural England. Proper cross-border consultations are the baseline requirement for sensible environmental policy. We will watch with some care with regard to marine and coastal access. The required removal of existing environmental checks suggests to us that the EDP framework risks some kind of weakening of protection.

We welcome the suite of amendments to Schedule 6 to explicitly amend the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to treat Ramsar sites more like European sites, requiring an appropriate assessment for plans or projects situated wholly in England that are likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site. Extending statutory protections to these internationally important wetlands is a move towards a more robust nature safeguard. On the whole, we welcome this suite of amendments, but there are one or two that we will watch.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, one of the amendments—which I now cannot find the number of—substitutes all Ramsar sites with “certain Ramsar sites”. Can the Minister clarify why certain Ramsar sites are being excluded whereas before all Ramsar sites were within the scope of the Bill?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope I can respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.

The Government’s approach to placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing has been welcomed by environmental groups as a pragmatic step to align protections across sites of international importance. Noble Lords will be aware of a recent Supreme Court judgment and some may wish to oppose this and continue with the existing approach of protecting Ramsar sites through policy. I know there has been an attempt by some to cast the Government as blocking development, but the reality is that no new planning applications will be affected by placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing. Any outline or full planning permissions that have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality in 2020 will have had to consider the impact of Ramsar sites from the outset, so for most developers this will actually be an advantage.

It also means that they can use an EDP to discharge obligations relating to Ramsar sites, which they could not without putting them on a statutory footing. We continue to support development that faces challenges in meeting the obligations. I highlight that the Government have invested £110 million to support local authorities to deliver local nutrient mitigation schemes, to allow housing to come forward in areas affected by nutrient neutrality. The NRF is an evolution of this support and will deliver on the Government’s manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports development, while driving the recovery of these internationally important wetland sites.

I am sorry, I have realised I have not answered the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I will reply to her in writing on that, if that is okay.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful. Just for clarification, I now have the amendment in front of me. It is actually Amendment 210, which says

“leave out ‘Ramsar sites in England’ and insert ‘certain Ramsar sites’”.

What is worrying is that it goes on to say that to better understand the amendment we should look at the explanatory statement of the Government’s amendment to page 180—of the Bill? There is no page 180 of the amendments, so it is difficult to know which page 180 it refers to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for moving his amendment in this group.

These amendments would make technical changes to how EDPs work practically. My Amendments 166 and 167 would ensure that only impacts addressed by the EDP may be disregarded for the purposes of the habitats regulations. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Lansley and am very grateful for his comments. We think that this is in line with the Government’s plans and seek to be constructive with these amendments. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not willing to accept these constructive and specific amendments?

Amendment 134 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller also seeks to strengthen the Government’s measures. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply.

Finally, my Amendment 135 is another that seeks clarity in the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government have not seen the merit of our case and would have preferred to see this clearly set out in law. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller on his questions and comments about the timing of EDPs and how they can be effective within the specified 10-year period. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 134 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which would require conservation measures delivered by a landholding to be secured solely through Section 106 agreements.

The noble Lord’s stated intention is to ensure that conservation measures are secured through a sufficiently enforceable mechanism. While we fully agree with the noble Lord that we need sufficient certainty to ensure that conservation measures are delivered, I hope to reassure him that his amendment is not necessary.

The NRF represents a shift towards a more strategic approach to dealing with the environmental impacts of development. Once an EDP is made, it will be for Natural England to secure the necessary conservation measures and ensure that they are in place, monitored and effective.

Some conservation measures may require Natural England to acquire land, but, where it does so, requiring it unilaterally to enter a Section 106 planning obligation would be inappropriate. Foremost, this would be an odd use of Section 106. Many conservation measures, such as in relation to wetlands, will not require planning permission. It is therefore unlikely that a Section 106 agreement between Natural England and the local planning authority would be needed.

What this amendment suggests is required is more likely to be a species of unilateral undertaking by Natural England—one that would unnecessarily restrict its latitude to deliver conservation measures flexibly. It would reduce the scope for Natural England to modify its approach where doing so would be within what the EDP approved and deliver more effectively for the environmental feature. Similarly, it could stop land being used for overlapping purposes.

Ultimately, it will be important that Natural England can implement whichever conservation measures it considers most effective while still being bound by the need for the measures to be sufficient to meet the overall improvement test—which this approach puts the focus on. In recognising the shift in approach under this model, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 135, which was previously tabled in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, relates to the use of planning conditions as conservation measures. In previous debates, I have been clear on the importance of planning conditions to ensure that developers take appropriate action to avoid impact in advance of other conservation measures being delivered. These conditions will form part of the draft EDP and be consulted on, which will ensure that developers are fully aware of any conditions that may be imposed if they choose to utilise an EDP.

I also re-emphasise that the Bill will allow Natural England to request that a condition be imposed only on a development coming under an EDP. The Bill simply will not allow Natural England to request planning conditions to be imposed on any development other than where that development wishes to rely on an EDP.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 166 and 167, also tabled by the Lord, Lord Roborough. These amendments were also considered in Committee, but I am very happy to further clarify our position. The amendments would amend Schedule 4, which sets out the effects that an EDP has on underlying environmental obligations, establishing that, where a developer has committed to pay the levy, the relevant obligation is suitably discharged.

“Environmental impact” is defined within the Bill as

“one or more ways in which

the negative effect

“is likely to be caused by the development”.

Therefore, the effect of Schedule 4 is already limited to those impacts. If a development has multiple environmental impacts but only one is covered by the EDP, those other impacts are not affected by Schedule 4 and must still be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and features sufficiently protected, while allowing a more strategic approach where it is appropriate. I trust that this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance, and that they will not press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

If “environmental impact” in Clause 55 embraces all the ways in which a development might impact negatively on an environmental feature, why does the clause go on to say:

“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”?


By definition, that means that there may be environmental impacts that are not identified in the EDP but which, under Schedule 4, may come to be disregarded for habitats purposes.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry, I thought that I had clarified that matter. If only one impact is covered by an EDP, the others are not affected by Schedule 4 and have to be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and that features are sufficiently protected while allowing the EDP to cover a more strategic approach.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise; I shall not intervene again. Schedule 4 says that the environmental impacts can be disregarded, but the Minister is telling us that the environmental impacts identified in the EDP can be disregarded. We agree, and that is what my noble friend is seeking to introduce into the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

136: Clause 55, page 92, line 31, after “section” insert “—
“England” includes—(a) the waters adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea, and(b) the English offshore region;“English offshore region” has the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 322(1) of that Act);”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 92, line 9.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for tabling Amendment 138. I will be extremely brief and I will explain why in a second. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. We all need to be extremely mindful of invasive non-native species and the pressures they put on our beautiful, natural countryside.

Moving on swiftly—no joke intended—we support Amendment 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Amendments on swift bricks are a bit like buses: you wait ages and then two come along. We have another amendment in the next group. I am almost excited now in anticipation of the critique of Amendment 140 from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.

We will develop our arguments on swift bricks, plus other measures, in the next set of amendments. As a slight precursor to that, I will say that we believe that the right way of doing things is to have a level playing field with developers and ensuring that everyone is asked to put in swift bricks. They cost 30 quid per brick, as I understand it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has already said, this is not going to break the bank of any developers, especially with their net profits. We will support this amendment if it moves to a vote, but we are also very keen to get to the next group. I apologise to the House that we did not manage to get these two sets of amendments in the same group, which would have been much more sensible.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for Amendment 138, which seeks to protect the environmental features of environmental delivery plans that are identified as being at risk from invasive non-native species. As he said, we have had some very interesting discussions in meetings outside the Chamber about the various non-native species that plague our lives.

As we outlined in Committee, the Government recognise the negative impacts of invasive non-native species on our native species and ecosystems, and we are committed to taking action. We are already delivering the GB invasive non-native species strategy and have established the GB Non-native Species Inspectorate, as well as recently consulting on five pathway action plans that would target action at key pathways through which invasive non-native species can be introduced and spread.

While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intentions in tabling this amendment, we do not believe that it is necessary or feasible. The NRF already allows invasive non-native species control as a conservation measure, where it would be relevant to the environmental feature concerned and would support the delivery of the overall improvement necessary under the EDP. However, control may not always be the best option: other conservation measures may represent better value for money, have greater environmental impact and be more appropriate, in line with the need to secure the overall improvement by the EDP end date.

The amendment would introduce a free-standing requirement to take action to eradicate invasive non-native species from a development site, even where this is not linked to the impact from development covered by the EDP. This would require developers to pay to address an issue unrelated to their development. Mandating action in this way could delay an EDP’s preparation and delivery, increase costs and inadvertently limit the ability to secure the best environmental outcomes. On that basis, it is more appropriate that control remains a potential conservation measure under EDPs, to be used at Natural England’s discretion where it represents the best option. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

On Amendment 245, the Government are committed to driving nature’s recovery while delivering the homes and infrastructure we desperately need. We recognise the dramatic decline of the much-loved swift and of other nesting birds, and I have had many discussions on this subject with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. We are committed to supporting the rollout of swift bricks alongside new development. The only distinction between our position and the amendment before us is in the mechanism by which we seek to increase the use of this wildlife-friendly feature.

Incidentally, I had a meeting this week with Adam Jogee MP, who has a huge brick manufacturing plant in his constituency. I asked him whether he would speak to the people in that company to persuade them to produce swift bricks as well—so I am still on the case.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his contribution on this topic and for setting out why he considers that swift bricks are an exceptional measure. We know that mandating swift bricks through building regulations is an issue of long-standing interest. I have debated it many times in this House. As we have laid out before, building regulations in the UK are designed to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings. They were not designed to apply to the protection of wildlife, and expanding their scope to include interventions such as swift bricks would mark a significant shift in regulatory intent. This risks a number of unintended consequences, including diluting the purpose of the current regime, establishing overlapping policies and adding administrative pressure to a system that is already undergoing significant reform.

Furthermore, the process of updating building regulations is highly technical and complex. Introducing requirements that fall outside the current remit could slow down essential updates, divert resources, place additional burdens on registered building control approvers, complicate existing inspection, sanction and enforcement procedures, and fundamentally undermine the credibility of the system. We strongly believe that planning policy is the best way forward. The Government remain committed to consulting on a new requirement for swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings as part of our consultation on national planning policy, which we intend to launch this year.

I am very grateful for the fascinating intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, because he helped emphasise that there are wider issues to be considered here. I hope that, by consulting on this national planning policy, we will be able to get the best outcome for nature as part of the planning policy that we set out.

In June, we published updated planning practice guidance, which set out expectations for the use of these features and signposted to further resources, including the relevant British industry standard. These measures are further to the new policy we introduced last December, which explicitly stated that development proposals should enhance the natural environment

“by incorporating features which support priority or threatened species such as swifts”.

We expect these policies to be adhered to and enforced, with the rest of planning policy that we have addressed previously, as a material consideration in planning decisions. Local planning authorities possess a range of powers to ensure that the terms of planning permissions are complied with, and they are able to take enforcement action where the requirements of a planning permission are being breached.

To bolster planning departments, last autumn, we announced a £46 million package, which included funding for the recruitment and training of 300 planners. Through the Bill, we are enabling authorities to increase planning fees and strengthen service delivery. We have put some resources in to help with the enforcement as well.

As we have set out previously, progress is already under way. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has noted that we have not stood still since our earlier discussions on this topic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I have a very brief question for the Minister. Am I not right in thinking that the building regulations have been used as a vehicle in relation to the Climate Change Act as well as in relation to the Environment Act, and therefore they go beyond the remit of simply safeguarding the well-being and health of individual occupants?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Those are complex, technical regulations around the construction of buildings which do not relate to the protection of species. As the noble Lord is aware, there are many species lobbying groups which might want to use building regulations for that purpose. The other thing is that building regulations cover a huge variety of different buildings—probably including the 58-foot tower that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to. If you imagine the number of species compared with the number of different sizes and shapes of buildings, we would end up with a very complex picture with building regulations if we were to go down this route.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response to this small group of amendments. Starting just briefly with the invasive non-native species, I think it was very encouraging to hear the Government’s commitment to controlling them and to hear the role that EDPs will take in managing them.

I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith for introducing his amendment, and I pay tribute to all the work he has done for the environment and nature restoration, not least as my previous neighbour in Devon with the remarkable planting schemes he did there. As regards his amendment, given that we are returning to this subject in the next group, we can address that then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. On this side, we share the passion that has been expressed across the House for a biodiverse and environmentally rich country. The proposals brought forward here are all rightly focused on boosting habitats for species and promoting nature. We agree wholeheartedly with that objective, which is shared among noble Lords on all Benches. The Government will resist these amendments at this stage, but we hope that these constructive proposals will be considered carefully by Ministers and their officials ahead of the planned nature Bill, which we are told to expect later in the Parliament.

I will make a few short personal comments which are relevant to the Bill. In our little, deliberately overgrown garden up north, we have five hedgehogs—because we have five hedgehog houses. I spend a fortune on five-litre drums of mealworms. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, if he was in his place, “Provide the habitat and the food and you will get nature back”.

As far as bird strikes are concerned, on Amendment 246, some of the proposals there might seem expensive. However, I found that spending £5 on some stickers to put on the window glass stopped overnight 100% of bird strikes where birds were flying into the glass because of the reflection from the trees in the garden.

My final observation is that I despair every week, going back up north and finding yet another little garden being dug up and paved over. That removes the chance for the hedgehogs to get their slugs from the flowerbed and there is no grass for the blackbirds to dig up the worms from. These are personal observations, but they are relevant to the important amendments before us today.

I mentioned the nature Bill. Can the Minister give a timetable for the Government’s plans to introduce a nature Bill? When can we expect it to be introduced? Will there be an opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny on the planned Bill? I hope that the Minister can give us a little clarity on that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we recognise that many of our most precious species are in decline, and we are clear that we need to restore the health of our ecosystems.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her amendment, which seeks to enhance biodiversity in new development. However, as I set out previously, this is not about what we are doing but about the mechanism for doing it. That is where we have an issue. We do not believe that the use of building regulations is the best way of achieving our shared ambition, given that they are used primarily for human health and safety. As I have explained, expanding their scope to deliver unrelated environmental objectives risks weakening their clarity and efficacy and introducing delay and further complexity.

The planning system already sets out to support biodiversity and achieve nature recovery alongside the delivery of homes and infrastructure. Since 2024, subject to certain exceptions, biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in biodiversity value. This is a significant step towards achieving our biodiversity targets set through the Environment Act. As we have set out previously, planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve biodiversity in development should be integrated as part of the design, including wildlife-friendly features. We will be consulting on a new requirement for integral nest boxes which can support a range of cavity-nesting birds, including swifts, starlings and house sparrows. Additionally, planning guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England’s green infrastructure framework supports decision-makers to select design elements which suit individual proposals, including green roofs and walls, hedgehog highways—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman—bird bricks and bird and bat boxes. These can be used by local councils as a toolkit to set local design expectations. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, can withdraw her amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendment 203A. However, as mentioned in the previous debate on a similar amendment, the Government cannot support the introduction of a new permitted development right for ponds as an amendment to this Bill. We continue to recognise that ponds can deliver important biodiversity benefits, and we do want to encourage them in the right location. We also note the benefits of ponds for farmers in providing valuable sources of irrigation during dry periods. However, it remains the case that changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the general permitted development order. Such changes generally follow public consultation to ensure that the views of the public, including those who would benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. Consultation also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and consideration of how these might be mitigated.

There are also existing permitted development rights which do enable the creation of ponds where appropriate. For example, under an agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on-farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions to manage and control their impacts. Home owners can also create new ponds in their gardens under householder permitted development rights, again subject to certain limitations and conditions. This amendment seeks to provide a national grant of planning permission for ponds across the whole of England, regardless of whether one would be appropriate in a particular location, such as on land used for public recreation or in an area where it could increase flood risks. To ensure that ponds are appropriately located, there are circumstances where a planning application is appropriate. We therefore cannot support the amendment. However, as always, we continue to keep permitted development rights under review. For these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

Turning to Amendment 246, I recognise the desire to reduce bird fatalities that result from collisions with buildings, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for meeting with me ahead of this debate to discuss her interest in ensuring that new buildings are designed to reduce bird fatalities. Amendment 246 seeks to ensure that buildings incorporate features to reduce bird fatalities, particularly through design and the use of bird-safe glass, by embedding bird safety within the National Planning Policy Framework. The NPPF is already clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, and that opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around development should be integrated as part of the design.

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the principle that, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from the development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. Supporting guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework demonstrate how well-designed places can foster rich and varied biodiversity by facilitating habitats and movement corridors for wildlife. Local design codes allow local authorities to set their own rules for high-quality places. I am very happy to consider what more can be done to promote the kinds of features that can help species safety that the noble Baroness has outlined. However, amending the NPPF to state that all new and refurbished developments should incorporate measures to prevent bird fatalities, such as bird-safe glass, would extend the reach of planning considerably beyond the extent of current controls and would likely increase construction costs and design complexity, ultimately constraining the delivery of the housing and infrastructure we so desperately need.

In addition, while some types of development, such as large-scale commercial schemes, may warrant targeted intervention, a blanket requirement would not adequately reflect the risks to species across diverse building types and locations. Bird fatalities due to collisions with buildings are a genuine concern, but a measure such as this has the potential to drive up costs and building delays without delivering proportionate benefits for nature. In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will agree not to press her amendment.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who asked me a specific question about the nature Bill, he will know that that is the province of Defra, so I do not have an answer for him immediately. If it is future legislation that is not already planned for this Session, I doubt whether we will be able to answer his question as specifically as he wants, but I will endeavour to seek advice from Defra about when and if they intend to bring a Bill forward.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to this amendment. She says the policy is clear, and that may be the case, but the compulsion is not. Those developers who can get away with not doing this, as we all know, will attempt to do that. The swift brick will be back—I believe as early as Monday—but in the meantime, we will keep on working on this. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

145: Clause 58, page 94, line 25, at end insert—
“(ja) if an environmental feature identified in the draft EDP is a protected feature of a protected site that is wholly or partly in Wales, the Natural Resources Body for Wales and the Welsh Ministers,(jb) if an environmental feature identified in the draft EDP is a protected feature of a protected site that is wholly or partly in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Ministers,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult its counterpart in Wales or Scotland and either the Welsh or Scottish Ministers where a draft EDP covers development (in England) which is likely to have an impact on a protected site in Wales or Scotland or in the waters adjacent to those countries (see also my amendment at page 95, line 11).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 148. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has said, it is a modest but sensible little amendment with broad support, as we have seen tonight from all sides of the House. It deals with many of the concerns raised by Members from all Benches, including covering a number of amendments that we on these Benches have tabled.

I see no need to speak at length. I know there is some suggestion that this could be an adequate solution to the ills of Part 3. I am afraid it does not go far enough in that regard, but it could be part of the solution. That is why I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that if she intends to move it to a vote, the Official Opposition will support her. If she does not wish to vote on it tonight, we will need to return to this at Third Reading and discuss it further.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 148, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations dealing with various matters within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I am incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness for her continued engagement with Part 3 and welcome the opportunity to revisit the important matters raised by her amendment.

As set out in the recent all-Peers letter on the NRF, the Government are confident that each of the matters raised in this amendment is appropriately addressed in the legislation and that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficiently robust to guard against the misuse of this new approach. However, we recognise the particular desire for the Government to set out in greater detail how the mitigation hierarchy will inform the preparation of EDPs. I am happy to commit to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to determine the best way for the mitigation hierarchy to be considered in the preparation of an EDP. To be clear: this includes my undertaking, if necessary, to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading.

I have already spoken about the mitigation hierarchy at some length in previous debates, so I will not repeat all those points, but I again draw Peers’ attention to the recent all-Peers letter, which sets out how the elements of the mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the legislation. The hierarchy starts by saying that development should avoid or reduce impacts wherever possible. Natural England is already able to achieve this by requiring that conditions are imposed on any development that relies on an EDP. These standard conditions will be a form of conservation measure under Clause 55.

At the other end of the hierarchy, harm should be compensated for only as a last resort. This too is incorporated into Part 3. Network conservation measures are a form of compensation measure, in old money. The Bill makes it clear that these can be used only where Natural England considers that they would make greater environmental improvement than measures delivered at the site being impacted. It is inherent in this that Natural England must prefer conservation measures, which would previously have been called mitigation measures, to compensation measures. Both these structures are reinforced by the existing legal obligation, under the Environment Act 2021, for the Secretary of State to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy, which will also apply when making an EDP. This will itself encourage compliance with the mitigation hierarchy through the prevention and “rectification at source” principles.

As I have said, I welcome the opportunity to work with the noble Baroness to ensure that there is clarity as to how this framework will be deployed in practice. In respect of the other limbs of her amendment, the Government’s amendments clarify that Natural England and the Secretary of State will need to have regard to the best available scientific evidence. This approach to evidence feeds into the consideration of any baselining that Natural England will have to do to appropriately model the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature.

The noble Baroness’s amendment also speaks to the position in respect of irreplaceable habitats. This returns us to the overall improvement test, which simply would not allow an EDP to be made if it would lead to irreversible or irreparable harm, as this would fail to secure the overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature required under the test. Where an environmental feature is irreplaceable, an EDP could not allow for this feature to be lost, as that would fail to materially outweigh the impact of the development.

I am therefore confident that putting a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations on these matters is unnecessary, but I recognise that the Government will want to carefully consider areas where it would be useful to provide further guidance to Natural England as part of the implementation of the NRF. I therefore hope the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, feels able to withdraw her amendment. I will not speak to Amendment 236A, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, suggested.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate to show that there is consensus on the importance of this issue and the need for the Bill, as it stands, to be amended to address what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, regarded as a teeny-tiny issue but which could have really significant impacts, both for the environment and in certainty for the business community. We on these Benches always seek to be constructive, and I thank the Minister most heartily for her offer to have further discussions between now and Third Reading to progress matters. I hope very much that we can make progress on this before Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

149: Clause 58, page 95, line 11, at end insert—
“(8) In this section, the references to Wales and Scotland include the waters adjacent to them up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 94, line 25.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin with Amendment 191. This seeks to remove Clause 83, which provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land to carry out functions under Part 3.

To secure a win-win for nature and the economy, Natural England needs to have the necessary powers to bring forward the conservation measures needed to secure environmental protection while enabling Britain to get building. I know that the availability of compulsory purchase powers is a concern for some in this House, which is why the Government have taken a suitably cautious approach to the provision of such powers under Part 3. But we are clear that CPOs should be available to Natural England, subject to approval from the Secretary of State, where they are needed to secure land that is necessary to deliver conservation measures required under an EDP.

This is not, as some would portray it, a power grab for Natural England, but part of a package of measures in the Bill that will ensure that the necessary conservation measures will be delivered. While the Secretary of State would approve the use of such powers only where they were truly necessary, we believe that they need to be available to ensure that important conservation measures are not prevented from coming forward. On this environmental basis, I hope the noble Lord can see why such powers are necessary and will agree not to press his amendment.

Amendments 153 and 160 from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order under two situations. The first situation would require land to be returned where Natural England has used CPO to purchase land that is then not required as the Secretary of State has subsequently chosen not to make an EDP. I assure the noble Lord that this situation will never arise, as Natural England is unable to use these powers before an EDP has been made by the Secretary of State.

The second situation seeks for land to be returned in the event that an EDP is revoked. It is important to recognise that, in the unlikely event that an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State is required to take proportionate action to ensure that the impact of development that has come forward under the EDP is materially outweighed, in line with the overall improvement test.

It is not the case that, where an EDP is revoked, conservation measures can then be discontinued. Where an EDP is revoked, it will be because the Secretary of State no longer considers that it would meet the overall improvement test. It would therefore be environmentally reckless to require the land to be returned in this scenario, given the ongoing need to outweigh the impact of development. To do so would risk removing vital conservation measures and increasing the need for remedial action that would need to be funded by the taxpayer.

Amendment 190 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers for land that is part of a private dwelling. I assure noble Lords that the powers being granted to Natural England are not a licence to turn private gardens into nature reserves. As I have set out previously, these powers are there to provide certainty that, where necessary, Natural England can purchase land in this way.

However, we recognise that CPO is a significant tool. That is why it is ultimately a decision for the Secretary of State whether the public benefits of the CPO outweigh the interference with individual property rights and whether there is a compelling public interest in making the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight. Noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act.

Amendment 252, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. To secure the successful delivery of the new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to deliver the necessary conservation measures.

We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight—including authorisation by the Secretary of State—and the landowner will receive compensation, in line with the existing approach.

The price paid to the landowner if the land is compulsorily acquired is not linked to the value of any contract proposed by Natural England prior to a CPO being taken forward, but will reflect the fair market value of the land. This approach to valuation is common across different CPO powers and is not specific to EDPs. When land is acquired by this route, Natural England will use the land to deliver conservation measures required under the EDP. The cost of these measures may vary for a number of reasons, and it is conceivable that Natural England may be able to use the land to deliver a range of conservation measures linked to different EDPs. As well as undermining the ability of EDPs to meet the overall improvement test, requiring land to be returned in this situation would expose taxpayers and developers to increased costs and would require Natural England to monitor the value of contracts associated with the land for potentially up to 100 years, with land being returned, potentially at increased value, at any point over that period.

I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the heart of many noble Lords. However, I trust that noble Lords can recognise the need for these targeted powers and can appreciate the safeguards established through the Bill.

Finally, Amendment 189A would require the Secretary of State to permit a landowner to make written representations before any decision on whether to approve a compulsory purchase is made. As part of this amendment, Natural England would be required to inform landowners that this option is available and provide all parties with the necessary information.

I can reassure the noble Lord that the important protections in his amendment already apply in the Bill. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 specifies that the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 apply to compulsory purchases made by Natural England under Clause 83. Sections 12 and 13A of that Act include provision for the notification of affected landowners as well as the ability of objectors to submit representations to the confirming authority, in this case the Secretary of State, either in writing or via a hearing.

With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply to my amendments. I did not detect much movement, although I thought it was very helpful to have the answer on Amendment 189A, which is a significant protection to a landowner who has been CPO-ed. I did not detect much of an answer on the Crichel Down rules as such, and whether it was possible to improve on those as they relate to a CPO for an EDP. Perhaps the Minister can reflect on that over the next few groups and offer something before we get to Amendment 191. I am still minded to test the opinion of the House on that, but any clarification could be helpful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

168: Schedule 4, page 171, line 28, leave out “section 126 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009” and insert “—
“(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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 90, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, speaks to the theme that has run through many of our recent discussions in your Lordships’ House: the importance of how we plan and distribute development for employment, industrial, logistics and commercial purposes, along with housing.

We agree that this is instrumental in determining the appropriate land use and, in turn, the housing requirements across an area. It is vital that the Government set out clearly how they intend to ensure proper alignment between infrastructure provision, job creation, housing developments and the facilities that those residents will need. Without that alignment, we risk producing plans that are unbalanced: areas with homes but no employment, and economic zones with no housing or supporting transport that would make them viable.

I am therefore thankful that this sentiment was shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, when she spoke to her own Amendment 92. She said that a spatial development strategy should have a clear vision for an area and rightly highlighted the importance of design, both at the more strategic level and—as my noble friend Lady Hodgson said earlier—of the individual properties and the area within which they occur. It sounds like we are very much in agreement.

We talk about housing and infrastructure on the face of the Bill. The Minister may say, “Oh, don’t worry, this is all in planning guidance”, but if the Bill is good enough to mention housing and infrastructure then why not also that key component of distribution, industry and commercial space that goes hand in hand with the need for housing?

As I have made clear, we cannot look at housing and infrastructure in isolation. It would be absurd not to look at the distribution of industrial, logistics, commercial, leisure and retail facilities. I ask the Minister for an assurance that these will be included in the spatial development strategies.

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

My Lords, before I address the amendments, I should say that I circulated a diagram of the respective responsibilities of, and links between, spatial development strategies, local plans and neighbourhood plans that I hope was helpful to noble Lords in our consideration of the Bill.

Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, proposes to expressly allow a spatial development strategy to set out an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistics or commercial purposes. I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment, but it is not necessary. That is because new Section 12D(1) already requires spatial development strategies to include a statement of the strategic planning authority’s policies, however expressed, on land use and development that are of strategic importance to the strategy area. In fulfilling this requirement, I would expect strategic planning authorities to address employment, industrial, logistics and commercial development needs. That has been demonstrated in, for example, the London Plan, which operates under comparable legislative provisions.

To respond to the noble Lord, I add that our intention is for the National Planning Policy Framework, which we will consult on this year, to set out explicit policies for how employment, industrial, logistics, commercial and other issues are intended to be addressed, including through spatial development strategies. I hope that is helpful.

Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes that spatial development strategies include a design vision for the strategy area developed in collaboration with both the local community and other stakeholders. I have outlined previously in our debates the importance that the Government place on good design of new homes. We would expect any detailed design requirements to be set by local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning groups through their local and neighbourhood plans, as these will allocate specific sites. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise: I should when I first rose, as it was the first time I spoke on Report today, have drawn attention to my registered interests relating to the chairmanship of development forums in both Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank noble Lords for their support for the amendment. I am very grateful for the additional points that were made.

I am grateful for what the Minister said. I do not doubt that it is possible to put the necessary guidance into the National Planning Policy Framework. Indeed, I hope that when we see the revision of the NPPF before the end of the year we will see something akin to the guidance relating to plan-making but related to the making of spatial development strategies. I humbly say to the Minister what I said previously, along with my noble friend Lord Jamieson, about the importance of relating the question of the amount and distribution of housing to the spatial strategy in relation to employment, industry, logistics and the opportunities for inward investment, frankly. I cannot see any reason why that should not be quite explicit in the NPPF and therefore carried forward into requirements on SDS authorities. It is absolutely in the Government’s interest to do that. If growth is their number one priority, and planning reform is essential to that, then getting spatial development strategies up and running in ways that focus on this would be absolutely at the heart of it.

With those further requests to the Minister for future action, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I am grateful for their excellent, informative introductions. We on these Benches tabled similar amendments in Committee. The amendments share a vital purpose: to ensure that our planning system gives proper recognition and protection to chalk streams, one of our most distinct and rarest natural habitats. These streams help define our landscapes, support unique biodiversity and supply water to many communities. The amendments would require spatial development strategies to identify and protect chalk streams, setting out the responsibilities for planning authorities in their stewardship.

These are sensible, constructive proposals and I am grateful to those who have tabled and supported them. We will support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich if he divides on his amendment this evening. Will the Minister say whether she considers chalk streams to be irreplaceable habitats, like ancient woodlands, and therefore deserving of similar policy protection? The case for stronger recognition of chalk streams within our planning system is compelling. They are an irreplaceable part of our natural heritage and a globally important asset, and the way we plan for growth must reflect that.

I hope the Minister has heard the House and will be able to accept these amendments, and explain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and my noble friend Lord Caithness have asked, why our chalk stream restoration strategy is on hold.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for Amendments 93 and 94, which propose additional statutory obligations for strategic planning authorities in relation to the identification and safeguarding of chalk streams. With 85% of the world’s chalk streams found in England, these unique water bodies are not just vital ecosystems but are indeed a symbol of our national heritage. The Government are committed to restoring them, which is why we are taking a strategic approach to restoring chalk streams. Working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, the Government will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system so that it is fit for purpose for decades to come. This is essential to restoring chalk streams to better ecological health and addressing the multiple pressures facing these habitats.

Alongside the programme of ambitious reforms, the Government are continuing to deliver vital improvements and investment for chalk streams, including £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and water environment improvement fund for locally led chalk stream projects. Over the next five years, water companies will spend over £2 billion on chalk stream restoration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—for their support, and to the Minister for her response. I completely understand that the Minister does not want to close down the possibility of alterations to spatial development strategies, which this might do. I hope that we might look at the transitional provisions, and I hold in my head the thought that if we can see those—in relation to the making of spatial development strategies and the impact of local government reorganisation—and if we have a problem, even if we do not deal with it in this Bill, it would be within the scope of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to be able to deal with it at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 97A.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, of the value and importance of neighbourhood plans. They are not blockers to development; they allow local communities to determine their priorities. In many cases, as we have seen since their introduction under the Localism Act 2011, we have seen more rather than less housing, which suggests that, when working with communities, we can deliver better outcomes.

My noble friend Lord Lansley is, once again, right to highlight the value of local councils’ provisions within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. They were designed not only to deliver more homes but to empower local people. I am still none the wiser as to which parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act the Government are in favour of and which they are not. I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten this House.

On Amendment 127, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we have already spoken of the value of local and neighbourhood plans. The sentiment she raised is, once again, of real value to this debate. We on these Benches consider this an important topic. I am conscious of the limited time available on Report to scrutinise these matters further, but I hope that the Minister will set out the Government’s broader views on them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 99 and 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, return to measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. As your Lordships will recall, in Committee, I advised the House that the Government consider that the best time to commence the provisions of Sections 98 and 100 of that Act is alongside our wider reforms to the local plan-making system, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned.

Amendment 108 would advance the date of commencement ahead of those connected reforms, bringing them into force on the day on which the Bill is finally enacted. However, we continue to believe that a co-ordinated approach to commencement will be most helpful to planning authorities and we do not consider there is a case for advancing these provisions ahead of our wider timetable.

Amendment 99 deals with neighbourhood priorities statements. This is another measure provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, so this amendment is not required if we want to bring them into force. However, at this stage, we want to ensure our new local plan-making system is working as it should before considering adding the introduction of neighbourhood priorities statements.

Neighbourhood planning groups are welcome and are encouraged to contribute their views during the preparation of local plans. The expertise developed through the preparation of neighbourhood plans already allows them to make thoughtful and constructive contributions that local authorities should consider carefully. In common with the noble Lord, the Government continue to believe that neighbourhood planning groups can make a valuable contribution across the planning system. However, we are not yet convinced that a statutory approach is required to enable that contribution. As such, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 127, which seeks to introduce a requirement into the development consent order process for the Secretary of State to consider neighbourhood plans when determining nationally significant infrastructure projects, and to empower her to limit variations to those plans. Neighbourhood plans are indeed a vital part of the planning system, giving communities a voice in shaping development in their areas. I fully recognise that the spirit of this amendment is rooted in a desire to strengthen that voice, particularly in the context of large-scale infrastructure projects that, as we all know, can have significant local consequences. It reflects a genuine concern that local priorities should not be overlooked in the pursuit of national objectives. However, as I sought to set out during earlier debates, the Government maintain their position that this amendment is unnecessary. The DCO process has been carefully designed to ensure that decisions on NSIPs can balance national priorities with local impacts and be made in a timely manner.

Neighbourhood plans form part of the development plan, which is the starting point in making decisions on planning applications in the Town and Country Planning Act regime. This is well established and, although there are occasions where departures from neighbourhood plans are warranted, it is part of the planning balance with which local planning authorities and planning inspectors are familiar. We recognise that, where a departure from a neighbourhood plan occurs, it can be frustrating for the community. I understand that, but this is part of the planning system working as it should.

For NSIPs, the primary policy framework remains the national policy statements, which set out the need for such projects and provide guidance for both promoters and decision-makers. As noble Lords know, national policy statements are subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. I am very confident that the Planning Act 2008 already embeds a sufficient number of safeguards to ensure that local views are considered.

Local communities and authorities can participate in the examination process, submit representations as part of this and provide local impact reports. These processes ensure that information about local concerns, including impacts of the proposed NSIP, is available to the examining authority and the Secretary of State. Local impact reports, along with any other matters deemed important and relevant, including neighbourhood plans, must be taken into account by the Secretary of State as part of decision-making.

Where a relevant NPS is in effect, the Secretary of State is legally required to determine applications in accordance with it, unless specific statutory exceptions apply. Introducing an additional requirement, as proposed in this amendment, risks undermining the clear operation of the decision-making obligation on the Secretary of State and could prevent the Government’s objective of building more infrastructure that the country desperately needs.

This amendment also proposes that the Secretary of State be able to make variations to neighbourhood plans. Under the existing process, the Secretary of State does not play any role in approving neighbourhood plans; they are a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of local authorities. This fundamentally underpins local democracy in the planning system. It would therefore not be appropriate to confer powers on the Secretary of State to vary them, as this rightly remains a matter for local communities.

The Government’s position on this matter remains unchanged from Committee. The existing statutory framework already provides the necessary mechanisms to ensure that neighbourhood plans are considered where appropriate. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this short debate. The effect of Amendment 108 on neighbourhood development plans would be to commence them when this Act is passed. I suspect that means it would be commenced in November. I hope the Minister is saying that the Government intend that these provisions commence alongside the new revision of the National Planning Policy Framework that we normally receive as a Christmas present, just before Christmas. There might only be a matter of weeks between those two dates, so I will not stress about that at this stage.

As far as Amendment 99 is concerned, there is still a role for neighbourhood priority statements, but this is absolutely something we can come back to under the English devolution Bill. When we see what effective neighbourhood governance is, that will include an ability to make these statements in relation to development and planning in the area of a given neighbourhood. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful to all those who have spoken, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Grender. I thank my noble friend Lady Scott for her support. I have some reassurance from what the Minister said, but I think she will accept my concern that a sequential test is not carried out in every case. That is why I would prefer a statutory footing, but I heard what she said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, put her finger on it when she said that surface water is the most common source of flooding, yet it is underestimated. There is one question still on the table that I shall keep under review. If there is another water Bill coming down the road, we can return to this to make sure that local authorities have access to the best possible data— I think the Minister in her reply said they do—right down to street level. I welcomed the Flood Forecasting Centre; that has made a huge difference, and I hope that that the quarterly and annual reporting will make a difference. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, again, we appear to have quite a lot of consensus across the House on these issues of culture and heritage. There is a theme running through these proposals: how our planning system recognises and safeguards that which makes our places special and gives them their identity—our cultural life, our heritage and our historic environment. These are not peripheral concerns; they are central to the quality and distinctiveness of the communities we build.

On Amendment 102 from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, we understand and share the impulse to protect cultural venues and creative spaces, which so often lie at the heart of local cultural economies. These places are cherished by local people, local families and local businesses. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered reviewing the existing scheme under the Localism Act to examine how cultural uses can be better supported within it?

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on the commencement of heritage provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and on the role of historic environment records, are sensible and timely. The heritage clauses of the Act were hard won, and it is only right that they should now be brought into effect without delay. Will the Minister assure the House that this will be the case?

We also agree that there must be proper parliamentary scrutiny of listed building consent orders. We again support the view that existing legislation should be progressed, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

Our planning system must enable growth, investment and the delivery of infrastructure, but it must also safeguard that which makes places worth living in.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to mention any international superstar bands this evening for fear of getting myself into any more hot water with the Guardian. However, though it is probably a bit late at night to score political points, I gently remind the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that her party was in government after 2010 when those funding cuts were made. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, of the same issue. Our Government are committed—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I remind the Minister of the state that her party left the economy in.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Does my noble friend recollect that we left an economy growing by 2%; they crashed it with their ludicrous austerity drive in 2010?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It was the austerity programme that kicked the stuffing out of local government’s ability to support the cultural life of our country. I was there, so I remember that happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Carlile, I will start by clarifying that this is not about the facts of Hillside. That case is dead; fought and lost. This is about the principle.

I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate the point that it is the common aim of the Government and those of us on this side of the House to resolve Hillside. However, in light of that common aim, I find it baffling that the Government do not take what, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile indicated, is on the silver tray: the enabling power to deal with this.

Dealing with the two-step approach, Section 73B is extremely limited. It is not going to resolve anything like the lion’s share of cases that have Hillside issues. In relation to the suggestion that future statutory provision may be brought forward to deal with Hillside, well, by which Bill? There are all sorts of briefings and counter-rumours and rumours about the planning Act. One even suggested that I was going to write it. If I were, Hillside would be in it, but I have not been commissioned to write it. Clearly, in the absence of any certainty on the timescale, once again we are kicking the can down the road. The kinds of detailed legal points, such as whether NSIPs should apply, are precisely the kind of things that could be resolved between now and Third Reading. The Prime Minister said that the Government’s aim was to back the builders and not the blockers. I would like to see which Members of this House back the builders and which back the blockers, so I would like to test the opinion of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I support this very sensible amendment. We need to ensure that every local authority has the support of a professional, well-qualified head of planning—a chief planner. If we are going to have sensible planning, we need this. I recall a comment earlier—but I do not remember who said it—about the hydra of planning; it becomes more and more complex, and this Bill, frankly, is not helping particularly. Having a qualified head of planning, a chief planner, is critical if we are going to maintain and develop planning, as other noble Lords have said. I do not think I need to say any more—I am just puzzled why the Government are not accepting this.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks—as we have heard—to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities, either separately or jointly, to appoint a suitably qualified chief planning officer. I have also discussed this issue further with the noble Lord, and while I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, and I agree it is important for planners to be represented in the leadership of local authorities, I do not consider it to be a matter which we should legislate for at this time.

There are currently more than 300 local planning authorities in England, which vary considerably in the scale and scope of their planning functions. We think it is important for local authorities to be able to determine how best to organise their planning functions, and in practice the role of a chief planner or equivalent already exists. The role of a chief planner is very different within a large unitary authority, such as Cornwall —a county authority which focuses principally on mineral and waste planning matters—and a small district authority.

However, as I said in Committee, I will keep this issue under review as we progress with further reforms to the planning system, and it is something I can discuss with local authorities. With this reassurance, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister, not least for her time in discussing these matters. I do not think we have moved forward, but we continue to be in a position where she has very kindly offered to continue to reflect on this and, indeed, to consult. Maybe, the route forward is for there to be, if not formal, certainly some informal discussion with local authorities about this.

It seems to me—it is getting to be a bit of a theme of mine this evening—that as we enter into the planning reforms, and indeed the local government reorganisation, it will change the nature of the responsibilities of local planning authorities. Increasingly, given the position where the planning function occupies a leading role in relation to a range of issues, including infrastructure strategies and economic development activities, it would continue to be a desirable step forward for there to be, as part of the suite of chief officers of any local planning authority, a planner at the heart of their functions.

That said, if the Minister is willing to continue to reflect, and we have the standby option that we can revisit this in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it seems to me that we can, because it will be within the scope of the reorganisation of local government to think about who the statutory officers of those authorities should be—I will take the opportunity this evening, it being a late hour, not to press this at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 106.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will not make extensive comments on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87, as we will return to EDPs in future groups on Report. However, this amendment does have merit in that EDPs should be a relevant matter for making planning decisions.

My noble friend Lord Banner has expertly introduced Amendments 163A and 163B, and I have nothing to add except my support. I very much look forward to the response from the Minister.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87, which would require decision-makers to take account of the environmental delivery plans when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. I agree, of course, that it is crucial that EDPs are integrated into the planning system. I hope I can provide the noble Baroness with the necessary assurance that her amendment is not necessary.

At its heart, an EDP enables a developer to discharge a relevant environmental obligation by making a commitment to pay the appropriate nature restoration levy. Once this commitment is made, the legislation removes the requirement to consider that specific environmental impact as part of any wider assessment, as the impact will be materially outweighed by the actions taken under the EDP. Therefore, while the planning decision-maker will need to consider a wide variety of matters when making individual planning decisions, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to consider the EDP itself. I therefore hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

I turn now to Amendments 163A and 163B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which would help ensure that the nature restoration fund works effectively for large-scale development. It has always been our intention that Part 3 of the Bill should support development as much as possible. As we have repeatedly said, the nature restoration fund will benefit both development and nature. Therefore, we want to maximise its scope and consequently the benefits it will deliver. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling his amendments and I have looked at them very closely. As has been pointed out, the restriction in Clause 66 may in fact preclude a proportion of development from being able to come within scope of an EDP at all. Where, as is often the case, a large development needs to vary planning permission, for example, or apply for retrospective planning permission following changes outside of the developer’s control, we need to ensure the NRF can support such development, as failing to do so could significantly reduce the ability of the NRF to deliver the win-win that we all want to see for nature and for development.

While, of course, there will be complexities in how to manage large and complex development, this can be addressed through the design of EDPs and supported with government guidance. As with any development, it will be for Natural England to consider requests, having regard to that guidance. I hope I can reassure the noble Earl that this is not a way of skirting around the planning procedures in any way whatsoever; this is about access to the nature restoration fund, so all of the normal things that apply to planning permission would still apply—this is just about providing that access to the NRF once the development has started. With that explanation, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling the amendments, for all the work he has done on this and for the meetings I had with him on it. I hope the House will join the Government in supporting his amendments.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 87B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. My noble friend is calling for better recording and storage of biodiversity information, which is a noble aim. We agree with him that increasing our understanding of biodiversity in the UK is a good thing. We would support measures from government to support this, so can the Minister please outline some of the steps Ministers are taking to record biodiversity?

Amendments 87FB, 87FC, 203B and 203C in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising combine to form a constructive proposal for ensuring that bats are appropriately and pragmatically protected, while removing the time and cost burden on everyone in society from the unnecessarily prescriptive and arduous regulations that we currently suffer. Bat protections are a significant hindrance to everything, from loft conversions and roof repairs through to the largest developments.

My noble friend is not suggesting that protection for those species of bats that are endangered or rare in the UK should be weakened, simply that protections should focus on those. We need to accept that our activities are going to have some impact on nature and ensure that our response to that is proportionate. Bats in buildings are an unusual issue in that they do little or no harm to the buildings or inhabitants and are creating their own dependence on our activities. The fact that we provide this habitat should not be a cause for inappropriate encumbrance on the property owner for doing so. We are creating a perverse incentive to remove that habitat for bats wherever possible in order to ensure that we have reasonable freedom to enjoy our property. Surely that is not the outcome we want or desire for bats themselves. I hope the Minister is grateful for my noble friend’s constructive amendments, and I look forward to her reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for moving Amendment 87B, which would require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted free of charge to local environmental record centres. I was very pleased to be able to provide the noble Lord with further information on this matter during Recess.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for Amendment 87BA, which clarifies this amendment to require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted to the National Biodiversity Network and the Biological Records Centre, in addition to local environmental record centres. The Government fully recognise the importance of robust biodiversity data in planning applications, although the idea of having a new slogan, “Data, baby, data”, would mean I might have to get a new hat with that on it, which may not be such a good idea.

Although we share the intention of improving access to biodiversity data, we do not believe the amendment is necessary. The statutory framework under the Environment Act 2021 already requires developers to provide a baseline assessment of biodiversity value using the statutory metric published by the Secretary of State. This ensures consistency and transparency without prescribing how data should be shared or stored. When discharging the biodiversity gain condition, applicants can choose to share their data with local environmental record centres, and many are already choosing to do so—I will come to the noble Lord’s point about how many in a moment.

Introducing a legal requirement to submit data would add administrative burdens and technical requirements without improving biodiversity outcomes. However, I will take back to officials the noble Lord’s point that this is not happening as intended to consider what further encouragement we might give to help speed that data on its way. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lords will not press their amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for Amendments 87FB and 87FC, and for his concern in supporting the Government in what we are trying to do; I am grateful for that. Those amendments concern bat inspections during planning applications and the quality of those inspections. I also thank him for Amendments 203B and 203C, which concern legal protections for bats in planning decisions. The Government are committed to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment, including bats. However, we recognise that people can experience the kinds of costs and delays that the noble Lord has outlined associated with the existing system of bat protections, such as survey requirements.

The Government recognise that measures to protect bats should be efficient and proportionate. That is why we have already begun work to improve the bat surveying processes. Natural England’s earned recognition scheme for bat licences provides a streamlined route to securing a licence. Under this scheme, appropriately qualified bat ecologists with membership of an approved professional body can act more independently of Natural England. Through earned recognition, permissions are secured on average three to four times more quickly, and it also aims to improve survey quality to deliver better outcomes for bats. We are expanding this scheme.

In line with recommendations from the Corry review, Natural England has already updated its standing advice for local planning authorities on bats to remove complexity and duplication. In November, Natural England will publish a bat regulation reform road map, which will set out further plans to work more closely with planning authorities and to streamline licensing—for instance, expanding its pre-application advice offer, which can expedite planning applications and avoid unexpected surveys, as well as developing pilots to test quicker and cheaper survey options.

The Government are already acting on this issue. The additional reviews and regulations that the noble Lord’s Amendments 87FB and 87FC would require are therefore unnecessary and would create significant new bureaucracy. Furthermore, Amendments 203B and 203C would result in likely non-compliance with international law, including the Bern convention. Given the explanations I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Amendment 87BA (to Amendment 87B) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken and in particular for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I omitted to declare my interests: I am co-chair of the Water APPG and an officer of the Flooding and Flooded Communities APPG.

I am a little disheartened by the Minister’s response because it sounds like a retrograde step, and one that is not in keeping either with the conclusions set out in the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee’s report or with the Cunliffe report. The Water APPG met Sir Jon Cunliffe last week, and he is under the clear understanding that a water Bill—not a water bill as in water rates but another piece of legislation—will be coming down the track to implement many of his recommendations. I will watch this very carefully and consider how to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 87FD, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to prevent larger developers applying for or undertaking major developments until the Secretary of State has revised the responsible actors scheme to ensure that all unsafe blocks of flats are remediated. We urgently need the remediation of unsafe blocks of flats. We recently debated this in Grand Committee, and we sought and received assurances from the Minister that remediation work will be completed as per the Government’s deadlines of 2029 and 2031. We on this side of the House are committed to holding the Government to account on delivering this remediation, but with a housing crisis and over 350,000 people living in temporary accommodation, we also need to build the safe homes we desperately need.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these important issues with their Amendment 87FD on the remediation of buildings by developers and I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their tireless support for residents since the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I understand that the amendment is intended to protect residents and leaseholders. Unfortunately, its effect would be to slow remediation and risk stopping essential housebuilding.

I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there has been no relaxing of the Government’s determination to deal with the significant remediation actions outstanding from Grenfell. I spoke to my honourable friend Minister Dixon just last week. She has now picked up the urgent action needed to accelerate remediation. She has already visited the Grenfell site, and I am pleased to hear that she has met Mrs Walker and other members of the Grenfell community. I know she takes her responsibility extremely seriously and she will continue the work of Minister Norris in dealing with this as quickly as possible. There will be a further opportunity in the very near future for this House to debate the issues of building safety and remediation, including their interaction with this Government’s bold ambitions on housing supply.

Amendment 87FD is intended to prevent members of the responsible actors scheme receiving new planning permissions or building new housing developments until the Government make fundamental changes to the scheme to require developers to remediate additional types of defect and apply a different approach to the remediation of external walls. In practice, this would mean that over 40 of the largest housebuilders in England would have to stop building new homes until the Government made changes to an essential remediation scheme that we assess would delay and undermine progress.

This landmark Bill is intended to get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve the ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament. It is simply not compatible with the aims of the Bill to include a measure which would stop the largest housebuilders in this country building new homes. It would lead to major market uncertainty and disruption. Nor would the proposed changes to the responsible actors scheme serve the interests of residents and leaseholders, as they would delay remediation of their buildings for years.

Over 50 major developers have signed developer remediation contracts with the Government and committed to fix life-critical fire safety defects in over 2,370 buildings, at a cost of approximately £4.7 billion. This is supported by the statutory responsible actors scheme, which enables the Secretary of State to impose severe commercial consequences on any eligible developer who fails to follow through on their remediation obligations. Since signing the contracts, developers have assessed over 90% of relevant buildings and have started or completed works on 44% of buildings known to require works. This amendment would require fundamental changes in the responsible actors scheme by requiring developers to identify a different set of defects and require remediation to a different standard. Attempting to make those changes to the statutory scheme would undermine the remediation contracts that developers have signed with government. The result would be disastrous for residents and leaseholders, leading to long delays, operational and legal confusion, and uncertainty. Essential works to protect people could be set back by years.

The current approach to remediation under the developer remediation contract is proportionate and appropriate and uses PAS 9980, the same standard for external wall remediation as the Government’s wider remediation programme. The PAS 9980 standard is used for external wall system remediation because we are focused on mitigating risks to life safety, taking an evidence-based and proportionate approach. External wall remediation is assessed based on a fire risk appraisal of external walls which suggests remedial work or mitigation to improve a building’s risk rating through a holistic and fact-based assessment of its construction. Removal of combustible materials is often recommended but is not always necessary, including when other mitigating measures are taken. This proportionate approach to cladding remediation aims to manage fire risks and make sure that residents are safe, while preventing the kind of unnecessary works that can also be incredibly disruptive for residents.

To pick up the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about insurance, we are clear that more needs to be done to protect leaseholders from very high insurance premiums. The fire safety reinsurance facility led by the Association of British Insurers and reinsurance broker McGill and Partners launched in April 2024. The facility aims to increase capacity in the market and may reduce high premiums for some of the most affected multi-occupancy buildings with fire safety issues. The facility has been renewed for a second year and is a viable option for building owners trying to find the best deal for their residents. In the first 12 months, over 760 buildings have been supported by the facility and now more buildings may benefit from the cover available, as the claims limit has increased to £75 million. In the remediation acceleration plan announced, we would work with the insurance industry to consider options for possible government support. We are currently engaging with industry and will provide an update on all this in due course.

This amendment has raised important technical issues about the remediation process. We cannot do full justice to them tonight, but there will be further opportunities for this House to debate the remediation of buildings at much greater length during the passage of the upcoming remediation Bill. I look forward to that opportunity. What is already clear, however, is that the amendment we are looking at tonight would undermine the core purpose of the Bill by greatly delaying work to remediate buildings, as well as putting at serious risk critical work to build new homes. Given these very serious concerns, I urge noble Lords to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the Conservative Front Bench for taking part in this debate, but I am thoroughly disappointed by the remarks of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. It is not an either/or. How can it be an either/or? According to the Minister’s response, either we enable housebuilders to build more homes or we accelerate even further the remediation of flats that are in a dangerous condition. It should not be either/or; it should be both/and. There is capacity within the housebuilding industry to do that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I made it clear that the danger in the amendment is in doing just what the noble Baroness has spoken against. We want to move the remediation acceleration forward as quickly as possible, at the same time as building new homes. The danger with this amendment is that it slows the whole thing down and means that neither the remediation nor the building of new homes gets done quickly.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Unfortunately, I do not accept the Minister’s argument because, under the Government’s own remediation acceleration scheme, it will take another six or seven years for people to have their homes made safe. How is that right? We heard the compelling arguments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the 1.7 million leaseholders who will be required to pay many thousands of pounds to make their own homes safe when it is not their fault. It is not acceptable that we are still here, all these years after that awful fire at Grenfell Tower, trying to debate yet again what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 87G. In doing so, I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests, in particular as a landowner in the Dartmoor National Park.

My noble friend is right to say that national park authorities should be considered fully in the planning process to underpin the importance of protecting national parks. I would be most grateful if the Minister could be very clear on the current role of national parks in the planning process, and I hope she can reassure my noble friends that will continue to be the case in spatial development strategies. I look forward to hearing her reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 87G tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can establish strategic planning boards in areas that include a national park. As I explained in Committee, an SDS area is defined in new Section 12A which the Bill will insert into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as the area of the strategic planning authority preparing the spatial development strategy. The strategy area encompasses all local authorities, including local planning authorities, such as national park authorities. Therefore, the Secretary of State could already use the power in new Section 12B to establish a strategic planning board covering an area with a national park or part of a national park.

In response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the role of the national park authorities, I say that while national park authorities will not sit on boards, they will have a very important role to play in the preparation of spatial development strategies. We will expect boards and other authorities with national parks in their areas to engage closely with national park authorities to ensure these valued areas remain protected. National park authorities will continue to prepare local plans for their areas which will set out policies on the use and development of land. There is no change to the role of the national park authorities in preparing those local plans for their areas.

The strategic planning boards will be established through statutory instruments after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The constituent authorities will be formally consulted on the draft statutory instruments ahead of them coming into force, as is required by new Section 12B(4).

With these explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I see I have not won the argument, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I absolutely understand those points; as a localism person, obviously I agree with that. However, the key issue is that planning officers are playing “safety first”. Their immediate response is, “No”, for the reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, set out earlier. Is there any way we can strengthen the guidance to refer to “stepping stone” accommodation as something that the Government might look favourably on or permit? The current experience is that planning officers are hitting a brick wall each time. I totally understand why it cannot be in the Bill, but I do not see why we cannot put something into guidance that strengthens their arm when they sit down at the first meeting to discuss the matter.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for making those points. The best thing might be to have another meeting outside the Chamber to discuss what we might do. I understand the point she is making; perhaps planning officers are being overly cautious because they do not recognise that they already have such a power. I am happy to meet her outside the Chamber to discuss how we might move forward on that issue. I am very keen that this does not go into the Bill, because if it did, it would risk undermining the work that has been done over many years to improve the space standards that we already have for our homes. They were hard fought for and hard won, so I do not want this proposed provision to undermine them.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support, including from the Minister, both for the extension of M4(2) standards to all homes and for a handful of them to be for full-wheelchair use, such as the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke of.

I say to the noble Lord, however, that we are not talking about ripping out kitchens or showers but about putting in showers or other amenities that work for everybody. This is about having accessible standards for new builds only; this is not about retrofitting existing properties. Just a minority will comply with the M4(3)—full wheelchair—standards, but all homes would be built at least to M4(2). I have been responsible for building a large number of these homes and the use of these standards has not broken the bank, so I know that it is possible. I am grateful for the support for this happening.

The Minister said that the national housing strategy may say something about both accessible housing and housing for older people. I look forward to seeing that and hope that it is entirely positive. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, that shows the ingenuity that doubtless may have been attempted. I am considering when that could be used, before the Bill becomes law, to assist the noble Lord in accessing a certain match that he is keen to watch.

There are other points that need considering by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the Committee. First, facial recognition is coming in. Serie A already has facial recognition; it is not in widespread use, but the technology is required in Italy. There are certainly two Premier League clubs that are bringing in facial recognition for part of their stadium at the moment. I do not say that the interesting question of facial recognition “coincides”, but it sits alongside this.

Secondly, there is the issue of political agitators, whose aim is to get on the pitch—they have attempted to do so—and the question of players’ safety in relation to that is a factor. I think the last recorded case was an environmental protester of some kind getting on a pitch, but that is a serious issue in relation to player safety, which has rightly been taken as more important in recent times. That would actually back up the crusade of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, to have this legislation come into place.

Thirdly, on policing issues, the last time this was a major problem in English football was not the Euro final. It was on 30 November 2023 at Villa Park, the home of Aston Villa. In a UEFA fixture, a club called Legia Warsaw from Poland were playing. The police and the safety advisory group of Birmingham City Council had not banned Legia Warsaw fans; in fact, 1,002 tickets had been sold to them, and they came to the fixture. Their numbers had been restricted, but another 1,000 came and attempted to force entry into the stadium, causing huge safety issues and immediate action by the matchday commander from the police and Aston Villa Football Club, who then closed the turnstiles and created other disorder outside as fans, both with and without tickets, could not get entry. That issue was identifiable; Legia Warsaw has had 35 fines from UEFA for fan behaviour.

For anyone who wants to know about hooliganism in football, hooligans put their stuff online. There are now websites and social media that are openly available for everyone to see. If anyone wants to know who causes the most problems, who are the worst, the nature of those problems and when they are most likely to occur, there is publicly available information. Legia Warsaw is known for being in the highest category of ultra-fans, given the problems they cause. They are a significant group of hooligans, as that term is used. This Bill will complement that. There was no collusion with staff there. It was an attempt at a forced break-in at a stadium.

I note that there is inaccurate discussion in the media at the moment of that incident and about policing. I have a report in front of me, an official police report, which I would like to quote from a little, because it is about another set of football supporters who are characterised in it as fanatical. The report says:

“This is expressed, among other things, in the lighting of flares”,

but,

“according to UEFA … and our police, there is no animosity between”

them and the supporters of the team they were playing, and this was not a high-risk match. This was Maccabi Tel Aviv playing Ajax in Amsterdam in November last year.

The report goes on to say that there was

“a special context, because of the war in the Middle East”.

The fixture also coincided with the national Kristallnacht commemoration in Amsterdam. There was “a daily pro-Palestine demonstration” at the railway station. This is from the official report, and there were supporters from a third club present in the city at the time: Fenerbahçe supporters, from Alkmaar in the Netherlands.

I want to quote regarding a couple of incidents, because this has been put in the media wrongly, not factually. This is the official statement of facts—the feitenrelaas—from the Dutch chief crown prosecutor, or whatever the equivalent title is, and the chief of police for Amsterdam. It is something that could be considered in this Bill. Should there be a statement of facts every time there is an incident? It is a requirement in the Netherlands to have a statement of facts. The night before the fixture, on a street called the Rokin, the report says that

“Around midnight … 50 Maccabi supporters pull on a Palestine flag hanging on a facade”.

That flag was removed and the video footage of it is on hooligan websites. It was put on by a Maccabi ultra-fan, one of those 50. A taxi was attacked at the same time on the same street, and other taxis were damaged. The hooliganism then was an issue and a problem.

The following day, the football match took place. During the day—the match was on an evening—there was one arrest by the police for a disturbance of the public order. There were no clashes between the fans or with local people. The football match took place, though there had been a problem because pro-Palestine demonstrators had attempted to go to a square in Amsterdam called Anton de Komplein. The report says:

“Upon arrival, this group splits up into small groups in search of the confrontation at the Arena”.


That is the Amsterdam arena: the football stadium of Ajax. Those are the specifics and the police deployment was there.

Additionally, it says in the next paragraph that there were

“social media messages confirming that there are groups … looking for a confrontation with Maccabi supporters”.

The police handled that throughout the day without such confrontations. However, the report goes on:

“After midnight, the problems arise due to small groups of rioters spread through the city centre and adjacent neighbourhoods. These groups commit violent hit and run actions, targeting Israeli supporters and people going out. These incidents take place in various places in the city centre”,


and it lists the 14 streets where that happened. It says:

“The police follow up on all reports”,


and the police patrol intervenes,

“where threats are visible and manage to keep rioters at a distance from Israelis. The police can prevent many incidents in this way. Nevertheless, rioters manage to commit serious assaults, resulting in injuries among Maccabi supporters. It appears to be particularly difficult for the police to take action against such flashpoints. Rioters move in small groups, on foot, by scooter or car, briefly attack Maccabi supporters and then disappear again … Loose groups of Maccabi supporters are gathered”,

and the police basically say that this quickly dissipates over time as the number of rioters disappears.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

May I remind the noble Lord of the advisory speaking time in this debate, please?

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

I shall be brief, because this is the last point I want to make from the report. It says:

“Several people were injured, five of whom were treated in hospital”.


Those five, I can confirm, were Israelis. It continues:

“Twenty to thirty Israeli supporters with minor injuries were taken in by the Jewish community”.


Now that is from the report of the chief of police. It goes on to detail the people who were arrested and where they were from. There were 49 Dutch arrested and 10 Israelis during that period. There were more Dutch arrested in the consequential days. That is a statement of fact from René de Beukelaer, the chief prosecutor, and the police chief, Peter Holla.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I remind the noble Lord that he is now well over his time. Can he please bring his remarks to a close?

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

The relevance of this is that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure safety at football matches. The interaction between the Bill and the need for guidance and guidelines, including for the police, on how it would be best used is fundamental to its success. Otherwise, what happens is that people will put things on social media suggesting that they are the facts of what happened, but those facts are fundamentally inaccurate. Having the Dutch system of a statement of facts as a potential amendment to this Bill would make a big difference.

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.

The Bill is most welcome, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for bringing it forward. It makes the necessary provisions to ensure that, where divergence has arisen across the whole of Great Britain, shared democratic values are brought into closer practical alignment. In doing so, it strengthens the unity of our democratic system while respecting the distinct identities of the devolved nations. We on these Benches have always sought to bridge the gaps between the constituent communities that make our country so unique and vibrant.

It is right to acknowledge that the Bill builds on the work of the previous Government, including the Elections Act 2022, which took important steps to reinforce the security and transparency of our democratic processes. That Act introduced measures such as digital imprints on online campaign materials and enhanced security for political funding—reforms that were both timely and necessary. It is therefore regrettable that legislative consent was not granted for those measures at the time. This Bill now goes some way to mitigate the effect of those divisions.

I also reiterate what my noble friend Lady Scott said at Second Reading: I urge the Government to reconsider any proposals to dilute voter ID requirements. Today we are legislating to make voting easier while maintaining appropriate safeguards. We must not, at the same time, take steps to weaken the security of our elections.

Finally, accessibility is vital, but so too is security. Protecting the integrity of our elections by guarding against fraud or interference is a core duty of any responsible Government. In the other place, my honourable friend Paul Holmes rightly called for Ministers to

“take decisive and proactive steps…to prevent malign influence, whether domestic or foreign”—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/25; col. 594.]

as we modernise and reform our systems. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could use this opportunity to set out what specific steps the Government are taking to uphold that commitment.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to and support for the Bill, and particularly my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen for his stewardship of the Bill through this House.

Our democracy remains at the heart of our Government’s purpose and mission. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, the Government will bring forward a number of changes in the forthcoming elections Bill, which will come before this House in due course; we will have the opportunity to discuss these matters further at that point.

I thank my noble friend Lord Murphy for his excellent contribution to our democratic process.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I note that I agree with some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, if not all of them. He makes some good points about the different gaps in and problems within our election laws. In our Second Reading and Committee debates, many of us across the House spoke about the need to consolidate properly all election laws.

We recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has done extremely well in bringing this Bill forward— I shall call it a small, tidying-up measure. It is still a very important principle that people in Scotland and Wales can apply online to vote as absent voters; that should probably have been done in 2022, without needing a Private Member’s Bill. We frequently have debates in which the expertise in this House highlights the need, as the law commissions keep emphasising, for proper consolidation of election laws, bringing together the legislation of 2000 and the old legislation of the Representation of the People Act. Can the Minister say a bit more about the Government’s intention regarding consolidating election law in general?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard; he is right to flag up that more work is to be done on elections. That is why, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I referred to the forthcoming elections Bill. I am sure that noble Lords in this House, where there is indeed a great deal of expertise in election matters, will want to contribute to that Bill as it comes forward.

I hope we will be able to incorporate many of the matters we have discussed over the years that have been missed out of the elections process or need further tightening because of current circumstances— I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was referring to that too. We have seen a significant change in the way things operate, so we need to make sure that election law keeps up with that. That is our aim as we bring forward the elections Bill, and I look forward to the contributions of all Members of the House when we do so.

Chinese Embassy

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the recent collapse of the case involving allegations of spying will be taken into account in the planning decision for the Chinese Embassy at the old Royal Mint.

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

My Lords, I understand the noble Lord connecting the two things, but Ministers will take all material planning considerations into account when the final decision is made. Planning Ministers must take decisions following the quasi-judicial process that applies to planning, meaning that they must take decisions fairly based on evidence and planning rules. The Government are committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels to ensure robust and evidence-based decision-making, and this is a decision for the MHCLG Planning Minister, independent of the rest of government.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, this issue will go on and on; indeed, there was a UQ down in the other place this morning. I am not asking about the incompetent wannabe spies; I am asking about the Government’s motivation. The Prime Minister called in this application, as we know, following a discussion with Xi Jinping. A Chinese official asked the UK Government

“to fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments”.

It appears that the Government are quite literally kowtowing to the Chinese. Will the Minister assure the House that the warnings given by the security services and others will ensure that this embassy application is refused?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not going to give the noble Lord that assurance from the Dispatch Box. The matter is, as I said, being considered properly on planning grounds. We do not recognise the statement that he made as coming from Chinese officials. The first duty of government is to ensure our safety and security, of course, but all relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making a decision on this case. The decision being taken by MHCLG is in line with all statutory provisions that apply to planning decisions. The inspector’s report was received by the department on 10 June. That will form part of the final decision and will be released alongside it, as will any other documents and representations that were made during the course of the consideration of the planning application.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister mentions that all relevant planning considerations will be taken into account. Is it a relevant planning consideration that this country needs a new embassy in Beijing?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am going to have to keep repeating the same thing, I am afraid. The material that is relevant, the material considerations that come forward under the planning decision, will be released at the time of the planning decision. It is very important that we keep openness and transparency at the heart of any planning decision we take. Those documents will be released alongside the decision of the Minister by 10 December.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government take into account that the proximity of the new Chinese embassy to the Tower of London would facilitate sending any spies there that anybody seems able to dream up?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I really am going to sound like a stuck record this morning, I am afraid. I am very aware of the proximity of the Tower of London to the proposed site for the Chinese Embassy. The documents that were considered in the original planning application by Tower Hamlets Council are all on the Tower Hamlets website. New material that has been submitted since the public inquiry in February will be made available at the time that the decision is released in December.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is doing well to stick in the groove of her stuck record and play this as a straight planning issue, but we all know that it is much more than that. Sir Keir has said that the Government seek a long-term and strategic relationship with China. We all know that, for a relationship to succeed, there must be gives and there must be takes, and it is quite clear that China really wants this embassy. If the Government accede to this request, what are they expecting to get in return?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am going to repeat what I said.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry, but this is the case with planning. Anyone who has any experience with planning, as I am sure the noble Lord does, will know that that is the case. Planning has to be considered according to the material considerations of a planning application. There were a number of material considerations in the original application considered by Tower Hamlets, and there was a public inquiry in February on this, where the planning inspector took a number of other considerations into account. Since that time, information has been requested of the applicant, and that information and the answers to it will be released at the time of the planning decision. I do not think it is helpful to comment any further on that. We know that the first duty of government is to ensure our safety and security, so I am sure that when we hear about the decision, we can consider whether we think that has been done adequately in this case.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, it was my experience when serving as a law officer that the Director of Public Prosecutions—in my time, Keir Starmer—would come and see the law officers every three or four weeks to discuss criminal cases of particular sensitivity and significance. It was also highly likely—and it was certainly my experience—that the Planning Minister would come and discuss matters of political and planning significance. Common sense and experience tell me that that will have happened between the DPP and the Attorney, and between the Planning Minister and the law officers’ departments in the recent past. Could the Government please get off the hook of using expressions such as “We do not recognise”, and other weaselly forms of excuse, cut to the quick and start telling the truth about what is going on?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think there are quite a lot of weaselly words going around in here today anyway. Whether the Attorney-General has been advising the Planning Minister or not is a matter for internal consideration. We do not normally release information relating to internal advice that has been provided to Ministers, as the noble and learned Lord will be perfectly well aware. That has happened under all Governments, so I am sure he knows that. The documents relating to this case will be released with the planning decision in December.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not wish to put my noble friend in the position of having to repeat the mantra that she has had to issue several times already, but could she tell us whether, in any planning application which goes to Ministers for consideration, it would indeed be normal practice for the applicant to have made clear the use of all of the spaces in the application concerned?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On 6 August, a reference back letter was sent to parties seeking further information to assist Planning Ministers in reaching a decision on this case. This related to a representation from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office relating to the consolidation of existing diplomatic premises and site security and redacted drawings originally submitted by the applicant. Referring back to parties is routine when further information is required. That information has been forthcoming and is now being considered.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by something that the Minister said earlier and wonder whether she could clarify—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. Is the Minister saying that, if the Cabinet takes the view that national security is being compromised, the Prime Minister is unable to overrule a decision by the Planning Minister?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The planning decision will be taken on material planning grounds by the Planning Minister, having had all the material information that is required to take that decision submitted to them. That decision will be announced together with the documents and the information that was used to make it on 10 December.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I too will provide the Minister with an opportunity, so to speak, to get out of the groove. Ministers have delayed the decision on the proposed Chinese embassy. Can the Minister confirm whether our security services have had sufficient opportunity to feed into the planning decisions on the project? Will the Government consider amending the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to strengthen the provisions about planning applications with major security implications?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Regarding the delay, given the detailed nature of the representations that have been provided there was a need to give parties sufficient opportunity to respond. That is why there has been a delay in the planning decision. MHCLG considered that there was more time needed for full consideration of the applications but, as the noble Lord will know, having great experience in planning, a variation to the timetable is routine when additional time is needed for that determination or to consider new information.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her commitment to this flooding issue, which impacts far too many households in this country and which, as our climate changes, is likely to impact far more.

New housing built on flood plains since 2009 is not able to be reinsured under Flood Re, supposedly because that housing does not need it. However, as my noble friend points out, that is not the case. Her Amendment 70 requires greater flood resilience measures if we are not to rule out building on flood plains entirely. It seems eminently sensible to help protect homeowners and ensure that insurance is available at an affordable price, and so we support this amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, makes strong points in Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Clean drinking water in our country is a finite resource, and measures to improve efficiency, analyse demand and increase reuse are sensible. I will welcome any comments from the Minister that show what the Government are already doing and plan to do to address these matters. However, we would not be in support of adding this to our already overburdened planning process.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

I will first address Amendments 70 and 81, concerning flood risk and resilience within the planning system. They draw attention to the important matter of how we prepare for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in light of the growing challenges posed by climate change. The Government treat these concerns with the utmost seriousness. We are aware of the distress, disruption and financial cost that flooding brings—so ably illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender; of the heightened risks associated with a changing climate; and of the necessity to maintain a robust but proportionate framework for managing these risks.

Amendment 70 seeks to require property flood resilience measures in new homes located in areas of high flood risk. As has been made clear in previous debates, enhancing the resilience of properties exposed to flood risk is indeed an important objective, which I know we all share across the House. In support of this, building regulations already promote flood-resilient construction in flood-prone areas through approved document C, while ensuring that where properties do not require additional measures, they are not subject to undue burdens.

Amendment 81 seeks to impose a statutory ban on residential development in flood zone 3. While we agree with the principle of steering development away from areas at highest flood risk, this amendment would prohibit development even in major urban areas such as Hull and central London, which, although within flood zone 3, are protected by robust engineered flood defences. Such a blanket ban would prevent development coming forward that could otherwise be made safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Instead, the National Planning Policy Framework already provides strong safeguards, directing development away from the most flood-prone areas, including flood plains, and makes it clear that inappropriate development in these areas should be avoided.

Our policy also ensures that new housing and most other development types are not permitted in functional flood plains—flood zone 3b—where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is allowed, it must be proven safe for its lifetime, with full consideration of the vulnerability of its users. The effectiveness of our current policy position is clear: in 2024-25, 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk, and these figures have remained stable over time.

Finally, I highlight that we are making a record £10.5 billion investment in flood and coastal erosion defences, the largest programme in history, including £300 million for natural flood management over a 10-year period and unlocking further investment from public, private and charitable sources.

Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I am sorry that she is not in her place because it would have been my first opportunity to welcome her back to the Chamber. The amendments, ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, concern sustainable water management and draw attention to the important need to reduce demand on water resources. The Government fully acknowledge the critical nature of sustainable water management and water efficiency.

To address that issue, in September the Government launched a consultation to review the water efficiency standards within the Building Regulations 2010. This will ensure increased water efficiency for new housing and tighter standards for water-stressed areas. The consultation includes a call for evidence on water reuse systems in new developments to enable even greater water efficiency. We are investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely. Reuse of grey water or rainwater should be subject to careful policy consideration, as any accidental, inadvertent or incompetent contamination of potable water could lead to a public health incident. In support of this, we are also examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and construction sectors, ensuring that they can safely install such systems. Additionally, in December 2024, we updated our National Planning Policy Framework to expand the requirement for sustainable drainage systems to all developments that have drainage implications. These systems can incorporate rainwater harvesting, which not only aids water storage but helps regulate flow rates from sites.

In the light of this, I am concerned that the additional measures proposed through Amendment 86 would be duplicative and would remove the appropriateness of efficiency measures to be determined on a case-by-case basis. We must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements, as a one-size-fits-all mandate may not be suitable in all local contexts. This can instead risk unintended consequences, such as increased expenses for developers and home owners, and may slow down the housing delivery that we so desperately need.

On Amendment 120, planning authorities already consider water efficiency targets in applications and can set tighter optional water efficiency standards through the planning process. Water efficiency standards and guidance are determined through building regulations. Duplicating this, adding further monitoring and evaluation requirements, could impose administrative and financial burdens on local authorities.

On Amendment 121A, planning authorities must already consider water supply and quality through strategic environmental assessment, also informed by strategic flood risk assessments, while water efficiency standards are set and enforced through the building control process. We should not duplicate existing planning guidance and building control processes.

Regarding Amendment 121B, the Government support sustainable water management and water efficiency and are already giving consideration to how water reuse can reduce water scarcity and drainage and wastewater pressures on growth where they are needed—for example, through the current consultation on Building Regulations and the associated call for evidence on water reuse systems in new development. In addition to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for all new development with drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, planning policy also requires that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for water supply and wastewater.

The existing statutory requirement that local planning authorities engage with specific consultees such as the Environment Agency and sewerage and water undertakers when developing local plans is supported by our planning guidance, which encourages early engagement between strategic policy-making authorities and water and sewerage companies. Strategic and local planning authorities will need to consider these requirements when preparing their spatial development strategies and local plans. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who spoke in favour of my amendment, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Deben. I am deeply disappointed by the Minister’s response because, actually, she made the case for precisely why these amendments are needed. I hope that, at the behest of my noble friend Lord Deben, the Minister might agree to come back with amendments in her own name at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am going to try to be brief, but I am afraid I am going to be beaten by the Liberal Democrats—just occasionally one has to accept this. I offer our support for Amendments 71 and 82, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, it is a principle of fairness. If you are the one bringing change, you should be responsible for managing its impact. Yet, time and again, we have seen valued businesses, particularly in the live music, hospitality and cultural sectors, threatened or closed down due to new developments that arrive without sufficient mitigation and proper regard to the context within which they are being introduced. If you build a house on the edge of a cricket pitch, do not be surprised to see the occasional cricket ball flying into your garden.

The reality is that guidance, however well intentioned, is inconsistently applied. Local authorities are left without a clear statutory duty to uphold the agent of change principle. Amendment 82 extends this principle to a licensing regime we would also support. We see this as a constructive and proportionate improvement to the Bill that balances the need for new development with the equally important need to protect existing cultural, social and economic structures. We on these Benches are pleased to support this principle and hope that the Government will recognise the value of giving it a clear statutory footing. I ask the Minister for an assurance that existing businesses and community facilities will not be put at risk from subsequent developments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a very interesting debate on this topic. Next July, I will have the benefit of five days of Oasis concerts in the fantastic venue of Knebworth House, which is just about a mile away from my house, and this summer we enjoyed Old Town Live, a day-long festival for local bands including, I hope, some of the successors to Oasis—we never know. I can hear and enjoy both of these from my house, and they represent the important cultural role of music venues and their place in the ladder of musical talent that not only contributes so much to our culture in this country but makes an enormous contribution to our economy as well. I say that to show that I understand the issue here and the Government share the desire to ensure that new homes do not undermine the operation of long-established businesses in their local area, be they music or other cultural venues.

The agent of change principle is embedded into the planning system. Where the operation of an existing premises could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity, the responsibility lies with the applicant or agent of change to put suitable mitigation in place, whether that is engineering solutions, layout, planning conditions or mitigating the impact through noise insulation. This policy forms part of the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning authorities must already have regard to it where it is relevant to a planning decision.

We are exploring how we can make the agent of change policy in planning as clear as possible through our new national policies for decision-making, which we will consult on this year. We have recently launched a call for evidence, which seeks views on how we can better apply the principle in licensing. This will reduce inconsistent decisions, while ensuring that we have the flexibility for local authorities to balance the needs of businesses with housing growth. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

Why will the Government not make it statutory? This is a very simple question.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I have explained several times during the course of the Bill that I do not think it is correct to say that the National Planning Policy Framework is a statutory framework in itself: it is not. It sits within the statutory framework of planning. We need it to be more flexible than a statutory framework, so it can change as times change. When we bring in these policies, they will not be coming through as pieces of law. They will be planning policies, so that they can be flexible and adapt to the situation as it changes. That is a very important part of planning. The National Planning Policy Framework must maintain that degree of flexibility: otherwise, every time we want to change it, we will have to come back through Parliament. That would not be agile enough to deal with the changing situation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It is very seldom I am lost for words, but I am hugely disappointed by that response to this short debate. I am grateful to all those who spoke in support of my amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, expressed the considerable cost that is incurred by those who have to take mitigation measures; the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, set out why it is currently not working. To repeat what he said, it cannot override the noise abatement laws. That is why I think that we are failing both developers and residents at this time. I do not believe we are giving the clarity to licensing practitioners that they request. That is precisely what Sarah Clover, who was the expert specialist adviser to the committee looking at the Licensing Act 2003, has pointed out on successive occasions. So, while I will not press to a vote and test the opinion of the House at this stage, I reserve the right to bring the amendment back at Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we support the intentions behind Amendments 72 and 85 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pinnock, and others for bringing them forward.

There is no doubt that we need more affordable housing and more social rent homes. We also recognise that planning permissions must be followed through and that, too often, affordable housing secured at the outset does not fully materialise. Amendment 72 puts forward a clear principle that, if affordable housing is agreed to as part of a planning consent, it must be delivered, and that social rent should form a meaningful part of that. This is right and we are entirely supportive of that aim. There are, of course, practical and legal complications around how these obligations are enforced, and we would want to ensure that any new duty works effectively within existing planning and viability frameworks.

However, councils also need to have a degree of flexibility to meet local needs, which is why I have a concern about putting a specific figure in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, is well aware, I am particularly interested in housing for older people and specialist accommodation for those with disabilities. This is often more costly to build than standard housing. By taking a flexible approach at the local level on affordable percentages or mix, specialist but more expensive housing that meets local needs can be delivered. Imposing a national requirement may undermine that flexibility to deliver for local needs. That is how I, as leader of Central Bedfordshire, was able to deliver specialist accommodation for older people—freeing up family homes as a consequence—and for those with significant disabilities, as well as short-term accommodation. I would not want the opportunity for this lost because of an imposed national target in legislation. That said, let us make this absolutely clear: we are very strongly in support of the need for clarity and accountability for developers. They should and must deliver what they agree to when they get a planning permission.

Amendment 85 rightly highlights the needs of children and families facing homelessness or in temporary accommodation, a group whose experiences are often invisible in planning policy. Ensuring that local planning authorities take account of these needs is a modest but important step and we support it, but I refer to my earlier comments on the need for flexibility. Again, I am going to refer to my own experience, and to one of the proudest things I did when I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council. We had about 125 households in bread and breakfast; 10 years later, that was effectively zero. That was 125 households who had the opportunity to live in a proper home. There were two key reasons for it. One was that we built specialist temporary accommodation and converted some buildings for that; but the second is that we built homes they could move into. So, we also need to consider that we must build the quantum of homes that is needed if we are truly to address the issue of homelessness.

Both amendments speak to the same wider truth: housing policy must be about delivery, not just ambition. We hope the Government will take these proposals seriously and come back with measures that match the urgency of the housing crisis we face.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 72. I have to say that the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, when we are trying to sort out a housing crisis that his party created, are a bit rich. But I will park that for the moment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am pleased that the last Government delivered 1 million homes over the last five years. I will be delighted if this Government deliver 1.5 million, but at the moment, they are on track to deliver considerably fewer, increasing that crisis.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s Government left 130,000 children in temporary accommodation.

As noble Lords will know, the Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent, but we take a different view from the noble Lord on how to achieve this. The revised NPPF provides local authorities greater flexibility to deliver the right tenure mix to suit local housing needs, and planning practice guidance that supports the NPPF sets out that plan-makers should collaborate with the local community, developers and other stakeholders to create realistic, deliverable policies.

I understand the frustrations around the issue of viability, so the Government are also reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure that the system works to optimise developer contributions, and that negotiation or renegotiation of Section 106 agreements takes place only when genuinely necessary. Once planning obligations are entered into under Section 106, they run with the land and are legally binding on all parties to the agreement, so they can be enforced by the local planning authority. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing.

Turning to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, while we agree that we need to tackle homelessness, especially where children and families are involved, I will explain why we cannot support this approach. The planning system is already complex, and adding duties to have regard to particular matters, no matter how laudable, are not required in statute, given that national planning policy is a strong material consideration in planning decisions. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. Councils must, by law, make sure that any temporary accommodation placements are suitable to the needs of the people placed there. On World Homelessness Day this month, we announced £10.9 million to increase access to support and services for families in temporary accommodation. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to noble Lords for their support for Amendment 72. I thank my noble friend Lord Carlile for his eloquent words, and I offer the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, sincere thanks for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is unfortunately unable to support this amendment, which, without his help and that of his colleagues, I fear would not achieve the majority it needs.

I do not accept the noble Lord’s point that having a 20% baseline below which we would not go in terms of affordable housing, and social rented housing in particular, is necessarily a blockage to flexibility. The baseline of 20% at social rents—the typical housing association and council rents—would not put a great burden on the housebuilders negotiating with the planning authority that also wanted to produce housing for older people. I do not think it would entail an additional burden.

Sometimes the older people’s housing of the kind that the noble Lord has produced in his own borough—and I strongly congratulate him, as council leader, on achieving a disproportionate amount of housing for older people; he has done a great job—will be social housing and would count towards the affordable housing quota that I am talking about; sometimes it will be housing for outright sale, which would not be part of this equation so we would not worry about it. Having a baseline of 20% social housing as an absolute minimum is not going to impede—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on these amendments. The Government may say that if you stop these conversions of hotels, where will we put the people? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked the same question. That is a fair question. The answer is to use all spare military accommodation, recently used by servicemen and women. From what I read, the Government want to do that, and they must have the guts to stick to it, because they will have public support, even though left-wing immigration lawyers will mount judicial reviews against it.

So, His Majesty’s Government, do not be terrified into closing RAF Wethersfield, but increase numbers there to the maximum possible and reopen Napier barracks. I stayed there 50 years ago, and it is 100 times better now than it was then. Many noble Lords will have experience of military accommodation in the past, including officer accommodation, and it was not up to the standards now available for illegal migrants.

It was deplorable that some lawyers and immigration groups took action to close Napier, which was used only for single men. How did these single men get here? They walked hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles through Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, Romania and other European countries, and lived in appalling conditions near the beach at Calais, before crowding into a little boat. Others have come from Eritrea, Somalia and up through Egypt, Libya, Italy and on to Calais. I am sure they had premium accommodation en route.

How dare anyone suggest that the accommodation in any of our former military bases is not good enough for single men of fighting age, when it was good enough for British men and women of fighting age? If they had to stay in Barry Buddon, stuck out in the coast in Fife next to Carnoustie, where 30 of us were in a nissen hut with one big cast iron potbelly stove, they might have something to complain about, but not in the current accommodation. So, His Majesty’s Government, please do not back down on the use of former military accommodation, or any other spare government accommodation, and that can take the pressure off unsuitable hotels.

On Amendment 87E, I do not trust any Government to use this power anywhere in the country, and put up temporary accommodation all around the land, but if some of the military bases are not big enough, or are regarded as not having quality accommodation, then move in temporary accommodation—caravans, chalets, portable homes, portakabins—and put them on these bases or other military land. That is a better solution and answers some of the question, “If you close these hotels, where will you put them?”. I have suggested it in my comments tonight.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I first turn to Amendments 73 to 75, 263 and 264 brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I thank the noble Baroness for once again raising an important issue but I point out that it relates to ongoing legal proceedings, which I am sure that she appreciates I cannot comment on.

The asylum accommodation system is under significant pressure. While the priority is to end the use of asylum hotels as soon as possible, the Government need to be able to control the number of such hotels and retain the ability to open new asylum hotels—only if and when it is necessary—to manage fluctuations in demand. The amendments would remove the ability to do so.

The Home Office is under a legal obligation to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers while their application for asylum is being considered. We know that this has led to concerns among some people about the use of hotels for this purpose. We are conscious that the use of hotels for the purpose of housing asylum seekers has caused understandable concern. That is why we have an ambition to resolve it in a controlled and orderly way.

Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I was frankly astonished to hear her words about giving local people a voice. Under her Government, as a council leader I pressed over and over again for our hotels in Stevenage not to be used for this purpose by agents of the Home Office, not least because international businesses in my town needed them. Her Government did not listen to our community, its elected representatives or our businesses; they overruled us and ploughed ahead regardless.

This Government have made clear our intention to stop the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. This is borne out by the fact that the number of hotels so used has almost halved since its peak under the previous Government. More broadly, the Home Office is working on a future strategy for asylum accommodation. The department is working in collaboration with local authorities to develop several potential accommodation models that could test a more sustainable, flexible and collaborative outcome. The department is also working at pace to deliver a range of alternative sites, including—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—military sites, that would contribute to a more flexible estate.

Restricting the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum accommodation would have the perverse effect of making it even more difficult to end the use of asylum hotels. While we understand why these amendments have been brought forward—I will not comment on why, but we understand it—they would nevertheless result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation, and prevent us proceeding in the controlled and orderly way that we want to.

Amendment 87E, brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to deal with applications for planning permission where temporary asylum application processing facilities were proposed. The amendment is unnecessary, as these powers would be duplicative of existing powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In particular, Section 59 allows the Secretary of State to make a development order that can either itself grant planning permission or make for the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State. That includes timescales, publicity and consultation. Section 70 allows local planning authorities to grant planning permission for development, including conditional planning permission, and Section 77 makes provision in relation to the Secretary of State being able to call in applications for planning permission to determine them himself.

In addition, it would also not be appropriate to take such powers for a specific type of development in primary legislation. We are committed to progressing asylum cases in an efficient and cost-effective way. The Home Office’s programme of transformation and business improvement is speeding up decision-making, reducing the time people spend in the system and reducing the numbers who are awaiting an interview or decision and remain in hotels.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot resist a brief anecdote. When the inner ring road was being built around Birmingham’s city centre in the 1960s, the highways department at Birmingham City Council approached the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham and said that, unfortunately, both the Pugin-designed Catholic cathedral and the Pugin-designed archbishop’s House next door to it would have to go to make way for the road. When the archbishop entered a modest word of protest against this loss, querying whether it was entirely necessary, the result was that the courteous gentlemen of the highways department went away and rethought the plans somewhat and the archbishop was given a choice: he could lose either the Pugin-designed cathedral or the Pugin-designed house. That explains why, to this day, the cathedral still stands but the house has long since gone. Happily, that approach to heritage is not something that we would see today.

At this point, I wish merely to congratulate those Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken so clearly and valiantly against the original proposal in the Bill. I also thank the Government for listening, because what was originally proposed really was unsustainable; what we have now is a great deal more acceptable.

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

My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 48 and 50, I shall later move government Amendments 49, 51, 66, 258 and 260. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, as well as the other noble Lords who have raised this issue during the Bill’s passage. I also thank Peers for their time during the recess, when we discussed this matter at length.

As I have noted previously, the Government have no interest in loosening heritage protections; indeed, we see this country’s heritage assets as a vital part of our built environment. We are clear that these assets should be conserved and enhanced for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.

Amendments we have laid to the Bill on heritage and the Transport and Works Act order process will ensure that there is no loss of heritage protection while achieving the Government’s goal of streamlining the process to get on with delivering the infrastructure that this country needs.

Through these amendments, we have introduced a new power for the Secretary of State in England to direct that listed building consent is deemed to be granted in relation to Transport and Works Act order projects. This new power follows the same model as the existing long-established power for them to direct that planning permission is deemed to be granted for these projects. This means that, in practice, applicants for a Transport and Works Act order can apply for deemed listed building consent at the same time, rather than having to apply separately to the local planning authority. This will streamline the process.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

49: Leave out Clause 41 and insert the following new Clause—
“Deemed grant of listed building consent etc(1) In the Transport and Works Act 1992, for section 17 (listed buildings and conservation areas) substitute—“17 Listed buildings: England(1) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled listed building works in England, the Secretary of State may direct that listed building consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(2) Section 16(2) of the Listed Buildings Act (duty of special regard to listed buildings) applies to the making of a direction under this section as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to the building concerned.(3) Section 72(1) of the Listed Buildings Act (duty of special attention to conservation areas) applies to the making of a direction under this section in relation to a building in a conservation area as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to that building.(4) The provisions of the Listed Buildings Act apply in relation to any listed building consent deemed to be granted by virtue of a direction of the Secretary of State under this section as if the consent had been granted by the Secretary of State on an application referred under section 12 of that Act.(5) But that does not bring the decision to make the direction within section 62(2)(a) of that Act (decisions of Secretary of State that may only be challenged by way of statutory review).(6) In this section—“conservation area” has the same meaning as in the Listed Buildings Act (see section 91(1) of that Act);“controlled listed building works in England” means works to which section 7(1) of the Listed Buildings Act (demolition or alteration in character of a listed building in England) applies;“listed building consent” means consent under section 8 of the Listed Buildings Act (listed building consent in England);“the Listed Buildings Act” means the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.17A Listed buildings and conservation areas: Wales(1) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled listed building works in Wales, the Welsh Ministers may direct that listed building consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(2) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled conservation area works in Wales, the Welsh Ministers may direct that conservation area consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(3) Section 96(2) of HEWA 2023 (duty of special regard to listed buildings) applies to the making of a direction under subsection (1) as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to the building concerned.(4) Section 160(1) of HEWA 2023 (duty of special regard to conservation areas) applies—(a) to the making of a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a building in a conservation area, as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to that building, and(b) to the making of a direction under subsection (2), as it would apply to the grant of conservation area consent in relation to the building concerned.(5) The provisions of HEWA 2023 apply in relation to any consent deemed to be granted by virtue of a direction of the Welsh Ministers under this section as if the consent had been granted by the Welsh Ministers on an application referred under section 94 of that Act.(6) But that does not bring the decision to make the direction within section 182(2)(b) of that Act (decisions of Welsh Ministers that may only be challenged by way of statutory review).(7) In this section—“conservation area” has the same meaning as in HEWA 2023 (see section 210 of that Act);“conservation area consent” means consent under section 162 of HEWA 2023 (conservation area consent in Wales); “controlled conservation area works in Wales” means works to which section 161 of HEWA 2023 (demolition of building in conservation area in Wales) applies;“controlled listed building works in Wales” means works to which section 88 of HEWA 2023 (demolition or alteration in character of a listed building in Wales) applies;“HEWA 2023” means the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023;“listed building consent” means consent under section 89 of HEWA 2023 (listed building consent in Wales).”(2) In section 22 of that Act (validity of orders)—(a) in the heading, for “under section 1 or 3” substitute “and directions”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) This section applies to a direction under—(a) section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (deemed planning permission),(b) section 17 or 17A of this Act (deemed listed building or conservation area consent), or(c) section 12(2A) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (deemed hazardous substances consent),as it applies to an order under section 1 or 3.”(3) In section 12 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (reference of applications for listed building consent to Secretary of State), omit subsection (3A).(4) In section 94(4) of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 (reference to Welsh Ministers of application for listed building consent associated with Transport and Works Act application), after “application” in the second place it occurs insert “to the Secretary of State”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace the proposed power to remove the need for various heritage-related consents for a Transport and Works Act project with a power to put in place deemed listed building consent or (in Wales) conservation area consent for such a project.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

51: Leave out Schedule 2
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment replacing Clause 41.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am looking forward to the White Paper. I hope, even if it does not come up in the White Paper, that there will be a water Bill coming at some point in the next year or so. If I have not persuaded the Government today, I hope that we will return to this in due course. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions regarding planning fees. I turn first to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which we had the pleasure of touching on briefly at our meeting last week. I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the type and size of the planning application. However, I respectfully suggest that this amendment is unnecessary and will explain my reasons.

The principle of proportionality already exists in the planning fees regime; in view of the noble Baroness’s comments, I give an example of why I say this. Planning application fees for fewer than 10 new houses are currently £588 per dwelling; for between 10 and 50 dwellings, fees are £635 per dwelling; and, for more than 50 houses, there is a set fee of £31,385, plus £189 for each additional house, up to a maximum fee of £411,885. The fee increases with the number of houses to be built, reflecting the cost to the local planning authority of processing the planning application. This Bill already provides a clear and strong framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate to the type and size of development.

As mentioned in previous debates, the Government plan to introduce a local variation model—I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was not confident of this, but talking to the sector about how we do this will be important—under which a nationally set default fee developed through benchmarking and public consultation will serve as a baseline. As is currently the case with planning fees, this will account for variations in the size and nature of sites.

To ensure that any locally set fees remain proportionate and reflective of local circumstances, the Bill requires that they must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service and that local communities must be consulted on those proposed changes. Significantly, the Secretary of State will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate; this is an important safeguard to uphold consistency and fairness across the system.

I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is concerned about SMEs. As I have said previously in the Chamber, I had a meeting last week with the APPG for SME House Builders, which raised a number of issues with me. We are all concerned about ensuring that we make things as efficient as possible for SMEs—as well as for those in the charity sector, such as Centrepoint, which the noble Baroness kindly brought to a meeting with me last week—in terms of providing much-needed homes. I assure the noble Baroness that we recognise that SME housebuilders are an indispensable part of the sector. That is why the Government have brought forward a package of financial support for SMEs, including: an extension of £700 million to the home building fund to provide loans and financial support to deliver 12,000 more homes; £2 billion of ENABLE Build guarantees; and a commitment to £100 million of funding for SME accelerator loans. In view of these measures, I am certain that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 60. Well-resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need. They also safeguard communities from unauthorised or harmful development by ensuring compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action where that is necessary. We understand the intention behind this amendment—supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity—but, because planning enforcement serves a much wider public interest, we consider that it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support these services, rather than for individuals to bear the responsibility.

Additionally, we consider that allowing local planning authorities to set planning fees that included enforcement costs could result in disproportionately high fees for applicants; indeed, it may have an impact on the very SME builders whom the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, discussed. We are concerned that this may discourage development at a time when we are very committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building. More widely, the Government have committed to a £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will not press her amendment.

Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would remove our ability to introduce a straightforward planning fee surcharge, instead requiring that only the costs incurred in relation to the specific planning application could be recovered. It might be helpful if I elaborated a little more to answer his questions.

We propose to calculate the surcharge on the basis of the planning fee that a developer must pay when submitting an application. We recognise that some applications will require detailed input from half a dozen consultees, while others will require little or no input. As we are not calculating the fee on the basis of application-specific costs, developers may sometimes pay more and sometimes less than the costs incurred by the relevant statutory consultees with regards to that specific application. However, we will be required to set the surcharge so that it does not exceed the relevant costs of the statutory consultees in aggregate. If it costs a certain amount to operate the statutory service, the surcharge must be set so that its income does not exceed that amount. I hope that is helpful.

We fully recognise that direct cost recovery works well for some regimes, such as for NSIPs, where there are relatively few projects. Engagement occurs over a longer period and predominantly takes place prior to the application for development consent being submitted. It also works well for voluntary pre-application engagement. It is important to note that statutory consultation under the Town and Country Planning Act regime is different: it occurs only once the planning application has been submitted. The planning authority must identify which organisations are required to be consulted, and these organisations must respond within statutory timeframes, generally of 21 days.

It is also an issue of high volume. The six largest statutory consultees receive around 50,000 consultations a year, with tens of thousands of unnecessary referrals on top of this. Instituting direct cost recovery by statutory consultees would require a billing mechanism capable of dealing with up to hundreds of thousands of planning application referrals each year, with money and information passing between 300-plus local planning authorities, up to 29 statutory consultees and individual developers. It would significantly increase the complexity of the planning system, increase the administrative infrastructure required and place a substantial pressure on the ability of statutory consultees to deliver within statutory timeframes. Our concern is that instituting this approach would be costly and bureaucratic, create uncertainty for developers over costs and create delays. Just as importantly, it would also remove any incentive for statutory consultees to deliver efficiencies.

The alternative that we are putting forward in the Bill is for a simple, straightforward percentage surcharge on top of the planning fee. This means that, in some cases, as I have said, a developer will pay more through the surcharge than it would cost the statutory consultee, and in some cases the developer will pay less. However, developers will know how much they need to pay upfront, and there will be no unexpected costs. That way we will not be creating more hoops for developers to jump through to get their application considered; they will pay a fee when they submit their application and that is it. Before regulations are introduced, we will consult on proposals to establish the level at which the surcharge will be set and the types of planning application it should apply to.

Lastly, we recognise the risk that charges could be set at inappropriately high levels and that is why our proposed powers make it clear that the surcharge cannot be set at a level which exceeds the relevant cost of the persons, such as the statutory consultees, that the surcharge is intended to cover. That ensures that we limit ourselves to cost recovery in aggregate, even if it does not apply on the basis of individual planning applications. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for this amendment but, given the reasons and explanations I have set out, I hope he feels able not to move it.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, it is of absolutely no surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spotted my drafting omission, which is why we always take his amendments seriously. I hope that the Minister will take on board his comments, which I thought were quite pertinent.

I was seeking to make proportionality a clear legal duty rather than a well-intentioned aspiration. So, put very simply, I guess it is about the proof of the pudding and “watch this space”. I hope that we will keep an eye on this, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which was moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Although I understand the good intentions behind this amendment, there needs to be a recognition that the planning process is a quasi-judicial process. We also support mandatory training for councillors; we would have supported training for officials and, potentially, for Government Ministers, had my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment arisen, but I will let that pass for now.

Such training must focus on the statutory duties of members, ensuring that those who sit on planning committees are fully aware of their roles; of the legal and regulatory environment; and of the procedures on which they need to make judgment. They need to make decisions based on the legal and regulatory aspects that pertain to the proposals brought to the committee. Climate change, biodiversity, ecology and so on are already embedded in national planning policy. There is guidance on them; that guidance will, and should, be part of the training process.

By expanding the scope of the training beyond the statutory duties—as well as ensuring that consideration of the relevant legislation, planning guidance and local policies occurs in determining an application—the proposals risk adding confusion to the training process and, potentially, undermining the quasi-judicial role of a planning committee. I would have been more sympathetic to proposals around ensuring both that the training is effective and that it covers all aspects of the guidance, policies and legislation—including those highlighted today. However, as I said, having training that is more generic risks confusion. Therefore, I cannot support these proposals.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I express my gratitude to noble Lords for providing broad support for the concept of mandatory training for members of local planning authorities.

I turn to Amendment 62, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. As I have set out previously, I am very sympathetic to the issues that were raised by noble Lords in Committee. I reiterate what I said at the time: it would be unthinkable that prescribed training would not include, for example, content on biodiversity net gain. The Government maintain, however, that such specific reference to the content of training should be reserved for secondary legislation. On that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for once; that is not always the case.

Let me respond to the point about the status quo continuing. This Bill brings mandatory training into force for the first time, so it does move us on from the status quo. Including specific details in the Bill would require the inclusion of an exhaustive list—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, gave some examples of what may or may not be in there—which would have to be kept up to date as we move forward, thus requiring valuable time in Parliament.

I will respond briefly to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on what is being done. The Government are working to bring forward the training package; we consulted on our general approach earlier this year. We will ensure that the training is comprehensive and based on both best practice and ongoing engagement with both industry and local government.

For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw this amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I have learned a lot during the past 15 minutes, some of which I have immediately forgotten. I particularly enjoyed the exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—his stream-of-consciousness, mushroom, anti-Australian cuisine comment —which will live with me for a long time.

I know that my noble friend Lady Boycott did not want to press this amendment. I am optimistic, thanks to what the Minister said about mandatory training being comprehensively in the guidance, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.