Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his clarification. As I said, I was only guessing that the figure was in the hundreds of thousands; I am glad to have the clarity that is 1.1 million. There we have it: there is the potential for the growth that we are looking for and for the supply of housing within a local plan, yet we seem to keep hearing calls for new land and new development. The answer, however, is in our lap. It would be nice for this to be rather more transparent, so that we could consider it more closely.

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

My Lords, that was an interesting debate on these amendments. Believing in local people also means building the homes that they need and the infrastructure to support those homes. This problem with buildout did not commence in July 2024; it has been there for a long time, and this Bill is trying to do something about it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 62A, which would require applications for development not included in the local plan, or for a housing density lower than that specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment; however, it is common for applications to be submitted for development that do not accord with the local plan. That does not mean that all those applications are controversial or that they require committee scrutiny. To bring all such applications to committee would undermine the whole point of Clause 51. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 63 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to make initial regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. As I mentioned in Committee, it is common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report on the Bill and has not raised any concerns about either this power or the proposed procedure.

I recognise that the noble Lord has altered his amendment so that it applies only to the first set of regulations, but I still do not believe that the revised amendment is necessary. We already consulted on our proposed approach in May this year. The Secretary of State, under the Bill’s provisions, will be required to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations and the subsequent changes to them. That means that the Government will conduct another consultation on these very regulations before they are brought into force. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals set out in the regulations to ensure that they will work effectively in practice. They are the practitioners, after all, so I look forward to hearing their comments.

Amendment 76 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seeks to give the chair of a planning committee and the head of planning the discretion to allow any planning application to be determined by committee where there are objections on valid planning grounds. Noble Lords will recall that we debated an identical amendment in Committee, and I can confirm that the Government have not changed their position on this issue. The intention of the amendment undermines the introduction of a national scheme of delegation. Valid planning objections are a frequent occurrence on planning applications—anyone who has ever been on a council will know that only too well. This amendment would therefore mean that almost any application would be capable of being referred to committee. That is clearly something we would not want to support. However, I repeat that the intention behind the national scheme of delegation is not to undermine local democracy. It is simply to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87F relating to the buildout of development, which is a key issue. The amendment seeks to improve the transparency of buildout data by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information on a quarterly basis about the number of planning consents granted where building has not started or completed in each local planning authority. I start by reaffirming to the noble Baroness, as I did in Committee, that I fully support the aim of improving buildout and the rate of residential development. The Government remain committed to making sure that all planning permissions are translated into homes. That said, I remain of the view, as I have previously set out, that we do not need this amendment to achieve that.

When we debated buildout in Committee, I highlighted our publication in May of an important working paper, which sets out a more effective and comprehensive approach to speeding up buildout. It includes greater transparency of buildout rates, new powers for local planning authorities to decline to determine applications from developers that have built out more slowly and greater emphasis on mixed-use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty as a last resort. The working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. We have also set up our new homes accelerator, which will help to unblock some of those stalled sites and find out what is causing the problem that is slowing down buildout. We are now analysing the responses to that working paper, and we will set out our next steps in due course. I reiterate that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the buildout of residential development that we all want to see. Therefore, given our strategy to support faster buildout, I hope the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Can I ask for clarification? I asked a specific question regarding the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and its sections saying that a planning authority does not need to determine an application where the applicant has not built out elsewhere. I think the Minister was hinting that this is what the Government are doing, but will they implement that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We did consult on that very issue. We are still analysing the responses to the working paper. As soon as we have done that, I will inform the House of the outcome.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Are the Government not prepared to implement the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act sections as they stand now, despite having the power to do so?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can only repeat that, on the powers on which we consulted in the working paper, we want to look at the responses and then implement them.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed on this group. It has been a useful discussion.

I say candidly to the Minister that these are the powers of transparency that, if I had served as a Minister in her department, I would have wanted to know of, so that I could go after those developers, hold their feet to the fire and enact what my noble friend has just said from LURA 2023. However, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

64: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in EnglandIn section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (directions etc as to method of dealing with applications), in subsection (1)(a), after “grant” insert “or, in the case of an authority in England, the refusal,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission or permission in principle by a local planning authority in England.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 64 and 259 are in my name. They seek to amend the Town and Country Planning Act to address an anomaly in the Secretary of State’s existing powers, allowing him to issue holding directions to local planning authorities.

Currently, powers under the Act allow the Secretary of State to make a provision in the development order that allows him to issue a holding direction to a local planning authority, restricting it from granting planning permission. Such holding directions are used to allow the Secretary of State to consider whether to use his powers to call in the application for his own consideration under powers in Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

This amendment addresses an anomaly. It will enable the Secretary of State to issue a holding direction to prevent local planning authorities refusing an application for planning permission. I should make it clear that this does not significantly change the way in which call-in currently operates. The Secretary of State can already call in any application, provided the local planning authority has not issued a formal decision notice. It merely prevents the local planning authority issuing a refusal and allows the Secretary of State to consider whether to determine the application himself.

It is a well-established part of the planning system that the Secretary of State can intervene in planning decisions. This has been in statute since the inception of the modern planning system. The Written Ministerial Statement of October 2012 set out the Government’s existing policy on call-in. Under this policy, in general, the Secretary of State considers the use of his call-in powers only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Even when an application is called in, it does not mean that planning permission will be granted. The Secretary of State is bound by the same duties as local planning authorities.

To conclude, government Amendments 64 and 259 are minor, but they are no less important in enabling the more effective use of the Secretary of State’s call- in powers. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Government Amendment 64 in this group. As we have heard, this amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission in principle by a local planning authority in England. Under Section 77(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by calling in an application for their own determination. Therefore, I ask the Minister, what has changed? Will the existing guardrails and provisions governing the call-in process remain intact? Will the mechanisms by which call-in operates continue as they do now? How will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision-making?

The Government should explain precisely what this amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law. If it represents a fundamental change to the call-in power, the Government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, we will be inclined to test the opinion of the House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power, the Government’s real focus should have been elsewhere: on proportionality and addressing the implications of the Hillside judgment. Energy should be directed towards tackling the real blockages in the planning system.

I turn to Amendment 65—which I hope will not be required—tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. This amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt up-to-date local plans and, in doing so, regain control over the granting of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. This raises an important point: the absence of up-to-date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration with the planning system. The Government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due regard and set out in clear detail how they intend to address the concerns it raises.

Finally, I am not quite sure why my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87D is in this group, but we have heard the feeling of the House on this. I know it is an issue my noble friend is rightly passionate about, and it is important. On the one hand, the Government have given communities their assets or enabled them to take them over; on the other, they are not protected from being lost. This is an important issue for the Minister, and I look forward to a very positive response to this especially important amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hear the strength of feeling in the House on this amendment. It might be helpful if I set out in a bit more detail the way the Section 31 direction works. It is important to note that a Section 31 direction allows time for the Secretary of State to consider whether to exercise call-in powers. It is exactly what it says on the tin: a holding direction to enable that process to go through.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the use of holding directions helps to prevent exactly the circumstances he described by restricting the issuing of a decision on a planning application—whether it be to grant or to refuse—to allow time for full consideration of whether it raises issues of more than local importance, such that it merits calling in, and to help prevent the rushed consideration of such matters. I have dealt with a number of these call-ins of applications since becoming a Minister. Every time we look at a called-in application, we have to consider the criteria against which the Secretary of State will consider the call-in of a local application. I hope it will be helpful if I very quickly go through those.

Compliance with the local development plan is not the question here; it is whether the Secretary of State will use the call-in powers, and they will use them only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, may conflict with national policies.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am confused. The Minister referred to Section 31 directions, but surely, we are talking about Section 74 directions. Section 31 is to do with grants for local authorities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My apologies: I got my numbers mixed up there. I am talking about the call-in power.

Such cases could include, for example, those which may conflict with national policies on important matters, may have a significant long-term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a single local authority, could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, could give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy, raise significant architectural and urban design issues, or may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments. However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I appreciate that this amendment would not change the procedures, but the question I was seeking the Government’s clarification on is: will the Government commit to not diluting the policy commitment that the right to be heard in a call-in process is exercised through the rigorous public inquiry process, which allows for public participation, rather than the lesser process of a hearing? Will the Government commit not to diluting that policy requirement for an inquiry?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Of course we keep the procedures under review in order to ensure they are fit for purpose. It is very important that we would inform the House in the proper way if we were to make any procedural changes in regard to the issues he raises.

Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as an amendment to government Amendment 64, seeks to incentivise local planning authorities getting up-to-date local plans in place and to allow them to determine applications subject to a holding direction where an up-to-date plan is in place and the proposal accords with this plan. I assure the noble Lord that we appreciate the sentiment behind his amendment. As I have often said, we too want to ensure that local planning authorities make positive decisions and grant planning permission for development which is in accordance with up-to-date local plans. However, we are not convinced that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary. Under our amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to restrict refusal of planning permission or permission in principle. Where the Secretary of State has not also restricted the local planning authority from approving the application, they will be free to reconsider the application and grant it if they wish. We believe that this addresses the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment 87A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would amend secondary legislation to enact government Amendment 64. I assure the noble Baroness that this amendment is not needed, as we will bring forward the necessary changes to secondary legislation shortly following Royal Assent of the Bill.

Amendment 87D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to remove assets of community value from the permitted development right which grants planning permission for the demolition of certain buildings. I am not responsible for the grouping of amendments, so I understand her issue about where this has been grouped, but we will debate it as it is in the group before us. I very much appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, and I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that local communities do not lose the community assets which are so important to them. We do not have many old houses in our town, because it is a new town, by its very nature. However, I have relayed before my story of a beautiful old farmhouse in my own ward of Symonds Green. An application came in for that property, and we tried very hard to get it listed before the application was considered. Unfortunately, the inside of the property had been amended; so much work had been done to it internally that we could not get a listing for it and, unfortunately, it was, sadly, demolished. The reason I am saying that is because there are a number of routes that local communities can take to protect properties, which I will come on to in a minute.

It is already the case that the demolition permitted development right excludes many types of buildings which are particularly valued by local communities. We know how important these buildings are, and Members across the House have stated this both this afternoon and in previous debates. These include pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and many other buildings of local value.

Local planning authorities, as I have stated before and as I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, can use Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights in their area, where it is appropriate to do so. While I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about Article 4 and the possible complexities of dealing with that, it is possible for local authorities to apply for these in advance.

There is also another route that local authorities can go down, which is to set up a register of buildings of local community interest, which, while it does not carry the weight of statutory protection that Article 4 does, provides a checklist for communities and planners for buildings that cannot be listed, against which they can be checked, should proposed development come forward.

We believe that the current approach is the right one. However, I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep permitted development under review, and this and other matters related to that are always under review. With these assurances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I think we are debating Amendment 65, which I moved.

The debate has illustrated that, in effect, this is the debate we ought to have had in Committee. There is one set of people—I count myself among them—who cannot understand what the Government are trying to achieve, and why the amendment is necessary, and another set who are saying that it gives the Government powers to do things that might be objectionable.

Actually, of course, the Government have all those powers. If they wanted, for example, to grant planning permission to all data centres, they could issue guidance for that purpose. They could issue national development management policies, for which they have powers. The question I keep coming back to, which is where I started, is: what is this trying to achieve? Calling it an “anomaly” seems to be completely misleading. If you put it alongside a holding direction to stop the granting of planning permission, that stops a local authority giving planning permission because, once it is given, you cannot take it away. Having a holding direction to stop the refusal of planning permission simply stops the local authority saying no, and then the applicant has the opportunity for appeal or a further application, and many other routes—and the Secretary of State has many routes to deal with it. I am afraid that I cannot see the benefit.

The Minister was kind enough to say that my amendment was not necessary, as she wants to do the things that my amendment calls for, so that is fine. So I do not need to proceed with my amendment and will beg leave to withdraw it, in expectation that we will focus on Amendment 64 itself.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

66: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets(1) In section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (directions deeming planning permission to be granted for certain development with government authorisation), after subsection (2A) insert—“(2B) Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (special regard to listed buildings) applies to a government department or the Secretary of State in considering whether to make a direction under this section as it applies to the Secretary of State in considering whether to grant planning permission.”(2) In section 90(2B) of that Act (inserted by subsection (1))—(a) for “applies”, in the first place it appears, substitute “and section 58B of this Act (special regard to other heritage assets) apply”;(b) for “it applies” substitute “they apply”.” Member’s explanatory statement
There is currently a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings and their features of special architectural or historic interest when deciding whether to grant planning permission. This new Clause would apply that duty to certain powers to put in place deemed planning permission (including in relation to a Transport and Works Act project).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

67: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 91 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), for subsections (3A) and (3B) substitute—“(3A) In subsections (3B) to (3BB)—“implementation period” means the period before the end of which a development to which a planning permission relates must be begun (see subsections (1) and (3));“relevant proceedings” means proceedings to challenge the validity, in respect of the development of land in England, of a grant of planning permission or of a deemed grant of planning permission.(3B) If a person is given permission by a court to bring relevant proceedings, the implementation period is extended by one year.(3BA) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by one year.(3BB) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by two years.(3BC) Any extension of a period under subsection (3B), (3BA) or (3BB) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(3BD) Any extension of a period under subsection (3BA) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (3B) (if they would otherwise overlap).(3BE) Any extension of a period under subsection (3BB) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (3B) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (3BA) (if they would otherwise overlap).(3BF) The references in subsections (3BA) and (3BB) to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).”(3) After section 92 insert—“92A Extension of outline planning permission etc in event of legal challenge(1) This section applies where a person is given permission by a court to bring proceedings challenging the validity, in respect of the development of land in England, of—(a) a grant (or deemed grant) of outline planning permission, or(b) the approval of reserved matters under such a permission. (2) Any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running when the court gives permission to bring the proceedings is extended by one year.(3) If a party to the proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running at that time is extended by one year.(4) If a party to the proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running at that time is extended by two years.(5) Any extension of a period under subsection (2), (3) or (4) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(6) Any extension of a period under subsection (3) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2) (if they would otherwise overlap).(7) Any extension of a period under subsection (4) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (3) (if they would otherwise overlap).(8) For the purposes of subsections (2) to (4), an implementation period that is determined by reference to an approval of a reserved matter starts to run when the reserved matters application is made (and the reserved matters application period ceases to run at that point).(9) Subsection (10) applies if a reserved matters application is made without taking advantage of an extension under this section.(10) Any implementation period determined by reference to the approval sought by the reserved matters application is extended by the number of days by which the reserved matter application period is extended under this section.(11) Subsection (12) applies if a reserved matters application period is extended (or further extended) under this section and the reserved matter application is made taking advantage of the extension but before the end of the period as extended.(12) Any implementation period determined by reference to the approval sought by the reserved matters application is extended by the number of whole days remaining in the reserved matters application period (as extended) when the reserved matters application is made.(13) In this section—“implementation period” , in relation to a grant of outline planning permission, means the period before the end of which development to which the permission relates must be begun (see section 92(2)(b), (4) and (5));“outline planning permission” has the same meaning as in section 92;“reserved matters application” means an application for the approval of a reserved matter in pursuance of section 92;“reserved matters application period” , in relation to a grant of outline planning permission, means the period before the end of which a reserved matters application relating to the permission is required to be made (see section 92(2)(a), (4) and (5)).(14) In this section, references to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).” (4) In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in section 18 (limit of duration of listed buildings consent), for subsections (2A) and (2B) substitute—“(2A) In subsections (2A) to (2BB)—“implementation period” means the period before the end of which works to which a listed building consent relates are required to be begun in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2);“relevant proceedings” means proceedings to challenge the validity of a grant of listed building consent or of a deemed grant of listed building consent.(2B) If a person is given permission by a court to bring relevant proceedings, the implementation period is extended by one year.(2BA) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by one year.(2BB) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by two years.(2BC) Any extension of a period under subsection (2B), (2BA) or (2BB) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(2BD) Any extension of a period under subsection (2BA) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2B) (if they would otherwise overlap).(2BE) Any extension of a period under subsection (2BB) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2B) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (2BA) (if they would otherwise overlap).(2BF) The references in subsections (2BA) and (2BB) to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).”(5) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not operate to extend any implementation period that has already expired.(6) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (2) comes into force (“the commencement date”)—(a) any extension of time under section 91(3B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that had already arisen before the commencement date as a result of those proceedings is unaffected;(b) subsections (3B) to (3BB) of section 91 of that Act (as inserted by subsection (2)) apply so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under those subsections occurs on or after the commencement date, but not otherwise.(7) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (3) comes into force, section 92A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by subsection (3)) applies so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under that section occurs on or after that day, but not otherwise.(8) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (4) comes into force (“the commencement date”)—(a) any extension of time under section 18(2B) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that had already arisen before the commencement date as a result of those proceedings is unaffected; (b) subsections (2B) to (2BB) of section 18 of that Act (as inserted by subsection (4)) apply so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under those subsections occurs on or after the commencement date, but not otherwise.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the time for implementing a planning permission or listed building consent where the permission or consent is challenged in legal proceedings. There would be an extension of one year in all cases, with a further year where the case goes to the Court of Appeal and a further two years where the case goes to the Supreme Court.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 67 and 261.

The Government listened carefully to the persuasive arguments made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, about the unfairness that occurs when planning permissions lapse simply because they are caught up in lengthy judicial or statutory review proceedings. We agree that the current provisions are too limited and do not reflect the realities of modern litigation.

At present, Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides only a single one-year extension when proceedings are begun to challenge a grant of permission or consent. This is narrow in scope; it does not apply to outline permissions or reserved matters approvals, and it does not cater for cases that progress through the appellate courts. In practice, this means that permissions can expire during prolonged legal challenges, forcing applicants to reapply and causing unnecessary cost and delay.

Our amendment introduces a more comprehensive and predictable approach. Where a court grants permission to bring judicial review or statutory challenge proceedings, the commencement period will be extended by one year. If the case proceeds to the Court of Appeal, there will be a further one-year extension, and if it reaches the Supreme Court, an additional two years will be added. These provisions will apply to all types of planning permissions and listed building consents, including outline permissions and reserved matters approvals. They will also apply to existing permissions subject to legal proceedings.

This approach provides clarity and certainty for applicants and developers. It avoids permissions expiring due to delays entirely outside their control, reducing the need for costly and time-consuming repeat applications. It also ensures that the planning system remains fair and proportionate, supporting investment and the delivery of development while respecting the judicial process.

We considered the “stop the clock” proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. While we agreed with the principle, that approach would have required complex calculations based on the start and end dates of proceedings, creating irregular and unpredictable timeframes. Our tiered system offers a simpler, more transparent solution that achieves the same objective without introducing administrative complexity. The amendment strengthens the Bill’s overall purpose: to streamline planning processes and to remove unnecessary barriers to development. It balances the right to challenge decisions with the imperative to deliver homes and infrastructure efficiently. For those reasons, I hope that the House will support the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for all the meetings we have had to discuss this and for his constructive approach to this matter.

I will come to the other amendments in this group when they have been spoken to. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 77 to 79 propose to limit applications for judicial reviews that are without merit. It is proposed that they may be blocked by a judgment of the High Court. The amendments were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and me. In the likely absence of the noble Lord, I have undertaken to speak in support of them.

On Monday, the first day on Report, I spoke to Amendment 83, which describes a means of circumventing lengthy and costly judicial reviews that can affect infrastructure projects of national significance by giving the associated development consent orders—DCOs—the status of Acts of Parliament, which would be legally incontestable. There was no intention in that amendment to curtail meaningful processes of scrutiny and consultation. The purpose was to protect projects from costly and dilatory legal reviews initiated by tendentious factions that are liable to promote their own interests at the expense of those of the wider community or the national interest.

In recent years, the planning system has become increasingly sclerotic. The average time it takes to obtain planning permission for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. A judicial review with a minor or frivolous justification may occasion a resubmission of an application for a development order. The revised application might become subject, in turn, to a further judicial review. Despite the eventual dismissal of these appeals, the legal processes can be so costly and cause such delays that the infrastructure project goes into abeyance. Then the contestants have effectively won their case, despite its lack of legal merit.

I should say that I am not averse in principle to judicial reviews. Many of them do have merit. However, a very large and increasing number of requests for judicial reviews are rising nowadays, and hearings are granted in 75% of the cases. They form a lengthy queue and pre-empt the legal resources.

The fashion for judicial views may have been greatly stimulated by the experience of the Archway Road protests, which took place over a period of 20 years from the early 1970s to the 1990s. These protests were prompted by a proposal to develop a motorway dual carriageway in Archway, where the A1 trunk road effectively begins. It was said the purpose of the scheme was to expedite the escape from the centre of London of politicians, senior civil servants and a body of secretaries in the case of the threat of a nuclear missile strike. They were to be conveyed to a secret nuclear bunker in Kelvedon Hatch in Essex, where they might continue to govern the country, while the rest of us perished. It was said that they might have the task of regenerating the population that had been obliterated.

The road scheme would have destroyed 170 houses, for the loss of which the residents would have been given very meagre compensation. It was said that they would have been given no more compensation than would have enabled them to purchase a one-bedroom flat in Tottenham Marshes. A question has to be asked about whether compensation tends nowadays to be more generous. Does its inadequacy continue to provide an incentive to resist infrastructure developments and to resort to judicial procedures to block them? This unpopular scheme has had a long legacy. It established a precedent for judicial reviews that has been followed ever since, for good and for bad reasons.

Amendment 83 did not receive favour from the Government, and in withdrawing it I was clear that I was somewhat disappointed by their response, because we are facing a crisis caused by the wilful delay and obstruction of virtually every important infrastructure project. There is nothing in the Bill or forthcoming from the Government that will address the crisis adequately. We are left with nothing more than the present group of amendments which propose that, in various circumstances pertaining to the Town and Country Planning Act, the listed buildings and conservation Act and the hazardous substances Act, the High Court may deem an appeal to be unworthy of further consideration. I believe that the Court of Appeal already has this prerogative, so there may be very little substance in these amendments, but nevertheless they serve to highlight the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, and to government Amendment 261. We are grateful for the Government’s engagement with my noble friend on this issue.

These amendments would prevent planning permission from timing out as a result of protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews, as we have heard, often outlast the three-year planning deadline, leaving permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications and discouraging serious investment. Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste and deter vexatious claims. It carries no real downside for the Government.

The Government say that they agree with the policy intention. We welcome the Government’s move to address the concerns held on these Benches and their work with my noble friend Lord Banner on these issues. This is a question of proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted permissions should not be undone by process; it should be done by merit. Far from slowing down planning, this change would help to speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving confidence to investors and allowing us to get on with building in the right places.

Finally, I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts processed behind these amendments are good ones, built on a sound principle. However, we do not believe that these amendments are practical. The proposed process would involve going straight to a hearing. In our view, the court would simply not have the necessary bandwidth. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose of his amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from across the House for the Government’s amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has had to rush off to the Supreme Court, apparently, but I am grateful for his support for our amendment.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this amendment has been developed in response to a discussion that we had in Committee and with extensive engagement with fellow Peers to improve the process of judicial review, which has been an ongoing issue. I hope that this reassures her.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I withdraw my criticisms.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is not here, I shall put on the record that there is work ongoing on the Hillside issue, as he is very aware. We continue to engage with him on that issue.

I cannot answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, off the top of my head, but I will provide a written answer. I appreciate that two years is quite a long time. If surveys have been done, they may need to be done again. I will come back to her on that issue.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendments 77, 78 and 79, introduced by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. These seek to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed as totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effect of these amendments largely reflects the intention of Clause 12, which makes provisions specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008. The measures being taken forward in Clause 12 follow a robust independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a subsequent government call for evidence, which made clear the case for change in relation to major infrastructure projects. We do not currently have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. Therefore, we will need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of changes made in Clause 12 would be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.

Amendment 77 seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court. As mentioned in Committee, this is not necessary as it is already clearly set out in the existing relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. In light of these points, while I agree with the intent behind the amendments, I kindly ask that my noble friend does not move them.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I am happy not to move the amendments. However, I observe that the government amendments are occasioned by the very problems that I have been describing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This amendment seeks to introduce statutory guidance on mediation and dispute resolution into the planning system.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for his continued engagement with us on this matter since Committee. I have had a meeting with him this week on this subject. He is a passionate advocate for mediation and I appreciate the insights he has shared on this issue. I think we both want the same thing: fewer disputes on matters of planning. There are certainly areas where mediation and alternative dispute resolution can play a valuable role in the planning system—for example, on the compulsory purchase and Section 106 agreements, where negotiating and reaching consensus is required.

However, we feel that third-party mediation would not be appropriate or necessary for all planning activities. For example, it would not be applicable to planning decisions, as planning law requires the decision-maker to consider all relevant planning matters set out in the local development plan and weigh them with other material planning considerations. Furthermore, a statutory approach to mediation may add a further layer to an already complex planning framework.

Much of what we are both seeking to achieve can be done through national planning policy and guidance. Our National Planning Policy Framework actively encourages proactive and positive engagement between applicants and local planning authorities, including pre-application consultation. This is a well-established part of the system and only 4% of all planning decisions lead to an appeal. On larger-scale schemes, planning performance agreements have also played an increasingly valuable role, and we actively encourage them as a tool to assist co-operation between all parties.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted the example of the way that Scotland deals with mediation. Section 286A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 enables Scottish Ministers to publish guidance promoting the use of mediation. Planning Circular 2/2021 sets out this guidance. Importantly, this guidance promotes the use of mediation rather than requiring its use. It clearly states that the use of mediation is not a requirement on local planning authorities. We do not need legislation to encourage the use of mediation, especially for all planning activities. As I said, there are examples of where we have used guidance to encourage the use of mediation, particularly on compulsory purchase orders.

Amendment 103 from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the courts confidence that less can be more in the planning system. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this matter. He will know that we are taking forward regulatory reforms to this regime, removing the need for mandatory pre-application consultation and overhauling the permission stage for judicial review, which we discussed earlier.

Elsewhere, we are introducing the new nature restoration fund, reviewing the role of statutory consultees, removing the statutory consultation requirements relating to preliminary environmental information within the environmental impact assessment regulations for infra- structure planning and examining regulatory and policy requirements for small and medium-sized sites.

I again reassure the noble Lord that we agree with the sentiment of this amendment to remove unnecessary layers of duplication, and our actions show this. However, as I said in Committee, we still do not think that this amendment, though well intentioned, would provide the remedy for the lack of proportionality in our planning system. It would create a new legal test for decision-makers that risks more opportunities for legal challenge and more grounds for disagreements. It is better to promote proportionality through regulatory and policy reforms, which I know the noble Lord is aware we are committed to. It will be a key principle driving our new National Planning Policy Framework, which we are committed to publishing for consultation later this year.

Amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under the Bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I am sure she will know that we appreciate the intention of the amendment and recognise the crucial role that small and medium-sized businesses play in driving up housebuilding rates, particularly by supporting a diverse housing market, responding to local housing needs and supporting faster build-out rates.

We also recognise that this part of the sector has faced incredibly significant challenges in recent years and that the planning system has become disproportionate, contributing to delays, costs and uncertainty. However, this amendment is unnecessary and duplicates the emerging reforms to the planning system.

The amendment would create a statutory obligation for public bodies to have regard to SME-specific issues. This approach is neither necessary nor proportionate. It would impose a legal duty on authorities to demonstrate how they have considered SME concerns and barriers when exercising their planning and development functions. This would create a new burden for local planning authorities and other public bodies. It would also further complicate our complex planning system and create a new avenue by which legal challenges to decisions could be brought.

That said, I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to improving the experience of SMEs in the planning system. In May this year, we published a site thresholds working paper, seeking views on how we might better support small-site development and enable SME housebuilders to grow. This paper proposed introducing a medium-site definition, alongside a range of proposals to support a more simplified and streamlined planning process.

For applications within this new medium threshold, we are considering simplifying BNG requirements, exploring exempting these sites from the proposed building safety levy; exempting them from build-out transparency proposals; maintaining a 13-week statutory time period for determination; including the delegation of some of these developments to officers as part of the national scheme of delegation; ensuring that referrals to statutory consultees are proportionate and rely on general guidance that is readily available online where possible; uplifting the permission-in-principle threshold; and minimising validation and statutory information requirements. We are currently analysing all the comments received on this working paper, which will inform a consultation on more detailed proposals ahead of finalising our policy approach.

An amendment seeking to define SMEs in an alternative way and adding further steps to the process risks adding further complexity to the planning system and undermining the efforts to support proportionality. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. This has been an interesting and, dare I say, different group of amendments. It is always important to look at principles, particularly first principles, that underline and guide what we do and why we do it. I welcome the Minister’s comments. I take her points about mediation and that we all want fewer disputes. We share all those things in common. I will go away and think about what more could be done with guidance. We want the Government to go a little bit further and support trials and rollouts to see what more can be done to better incorporate this as a tool within our planning system.

On Amendment 119, it is important that we raise these issues. The need to do more for small and medium-sized developers is widely felt among all parties across the House. I recognise what the Government have done on the site threshold paper, and it is welcome that they are looking at the results that have come back from that. I think the House as a whole would welcome further developments from that.

On Amendment 103, obviously the principle of proportionality is important. Less can indeed be more. We wonder what more can be done in this space on regulatory and policy reforms going forward.

With that, I reserve the right of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to bring back his amendment, should he wish to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

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.

New Homes Target

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards their target of building 1.5 million new homes.

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

My Lords, our Government remain committed to delivering 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. Through major planning reform and investment, we are breaking through the barriers to development and will build the homes this country needs. Our bold planning reforms alone will drive housebuilding in the UK to its highest rate in 40 years. The spending review confirmed the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation, alongside significant investment through the national housing bank, reforms to the building safety regulator, a new mortgage guarantee scheme, a support package for SME builders and work on a comprehensive construction skills package. We are laying the strong foundations for a generational rocket boost to housebuilding.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, 1.5 million is exactly what the country needs, but few outside government believe that this target is achievable. One in four of those homes would have to be built in London. London’s target for this year is 88,000 homes; by June, 4,000 had been completed. One reason that developers give for this slow progress is the target for affordable homes of up to 35%. Sites that were viable until recently are no longer. Can the Minister confirm that discussions are now taking place in Birmingham and London with a view to watering down the Government’s affordable homes programme in order to drive up completions? As one developer said, 35% of nothing is not a sensible policy.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know the paper to which the noble Lord refers. With his ministerial experience, he will know that I cannot comment on leaked documents. However, let us make no mistake that London and the mayor are extremely ambitious about delivering the housing that London needs. The Government recognise its unique challenges, including higher build and labour costs, which have contributed to falls in starts and completions in the capital. We are working in partnership with the mayor and the GLA to accelerate housing delivery and are supporting the development of an ambitious next London Plan. We are already taking action to accelerate housebuilding through planning reform and unlocking large-scale developments such as at Euston. We are also supporting stalled sites in the capital via the new homes accelerator. London will be allocated up to 30% of the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, granting approximately £11.7 billion to the GLA to support housing delivery in London.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Just after the war, a large number of prefab houses were built, with great success, and they lasted very well. Is there any good reason why one could not put up a lot of prefabricated houses, which would go a long way towards this number the Government want?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I remember those days and know how fond some of the inhabitants of those prefabricated homes were. Things are moving on; we are now looking at modern methods of construction homes, which could make an important contribution. They deliver high-quality, energy-efficient homes more quickly while creating new and diverse jobs in the sector. We have undertaken bold action to support housebuilders, including in the modern methods of construction sector, reforming the planning system, unblocking sites and increasing supply. We have developed a publicly available specification for MMC homes, which will bring greater clarity to the insurance and warranties market and support the delivery of the quality homes we all want.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, we clearly have grey-belt/green-belt confusion when planning inspectors are approving more than 70% of major residential grey-belt appeals. These appeals are expensive, time-consuming and quite obviously delay housing delivery. Given this clear disconnect between local interpretation and national policy success at appeal, will the Government please issue some clear, unambiguous guidance regarding grey-belt criteria, as in paragraph 155, to clarify the current confusion which clearly exists and helps no one?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to take back whether we need some more communication on this. We have been very clear that we take a brownfield-first approach, but we know that brownfield alone will not be enough to deliver the country’s needs. That is why we have asked all local authorities that cannot meet their needs to review green belt and to identify opportunities. We expect them to prioritise the development of brownfield and the low-quality grey-belt land that the noble Baroness referred to. High-performing green-belt land and land safeguarded for environmental reasons will still be protected. The green-belt reforms support a more strategic and targeted approach to green belt. However, as I said, we are looking at brownfield first. Then, we expect local authorities to look at grey belt. I will take back to the department whether we need to communicate any further on that issue.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, before I ask the question, I wish all noble Lords a happy Diwali.

What role do local authorities play in achieving the 1.5 million homes target, and how are they supported?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly for his Diwali wishes. Unfortunately, I had to miss the Diwali celebration at home yesterday due to being here on the planning Bill, but it seems very appropriate that we have a festival of light at this time. I think we all need some light, so happy Diwali to all those celebrating.

Of course, local authorities are key partners in the delivery of 1.5 million homes—in the delivery of the social and affordable homes that we know we need, in tackling homelessness across our country and in developing some of the very important regeneration schemes which I have seen some fantastic examples of as I have gone round the country. Our job is to make sure that the planning system works effectively for them. Local authorities are uniquely able to look at local housing needs in their area and make provision for those. They are key partners in delivery, and we work with them constantly to see whether there is more we can do to help them do just that.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

The Minister in her reply to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mentioned energy efficiency. What requirements are His Majesty’s Government making that all new homes should have either photovoltaic or solar panels on them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have made it clear that we expect new homes to be built with PV panels wherever possible, although it is not possible in every instance. Later this year, we will bring out our future homes standard, which will set clear expectations around the energy efficiency of homes. It is important not only for all householders that their homes are efficient for the purposes of lower bills but for the planet that we are doing the best we can with the energy we have.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, to return to local authorities, have the Government assessed the impact on their 1.5 million homes target of local government reorganisation? I sat last year on the Devon Housing Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and it found that one of the biggest challenges for development in the county was local authority and planning departments. I know for a fact that, over the next two or three years, every planning department in Devon will be challenged by the considerable reorganisation due to take place.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is an appropriate question for today because I met the leader of Plymouth City Council just this morning, and we talked about some of the issues facing Devon. We understand that the reorganisation of local government adds to the considerable pressures that local authorities already face. However, it is essential to ensure that local authorities are as efficient and sustainable as possible. We are working closely with our local authorities on that project. We have helped our local planning authorities with resourcing through an increase in planning fees for householders and other applications, as well as through measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to enable local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to cover costs. We have also provided a £46 million package of support to help train and build capacity in local planning authorities.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in an Oral Question in September, my noble friend Lord Jamieson raised a concern with the Minister about the proposed removal of the lower rate of landfill tax for inert construction waste, a change that could reportedly add up to £25,000 to the cost of building a single new home. At the time, the Minister did not directly respond to the question; she promised a written response that has not been received. Given the Government’s ambition for 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, can the Minister now clarify their position on this proposal and explain how such measures would support, rather than hinder, their wider housing delivery ambition?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The treatment of landfill is important for the environment, so it is key that we deal with that efficiently. I attended an SME round table as part of the APPG for SME House Builders last week; they raised the issue with me, and I will take it back to the department. I thought that I had replied to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, but I will go through and make sure that we did so. This is a particular issue for SME builders, so we are thinking that through and will issue a response shortly.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendment, which raises the important question of fire safety and long-duration energy storage. It is right that there should be a role for local fire authorities in looking at planning applications involving potentially highly combustible materials. It is clear that energy storage based on lithium batteries or other highly reactive materials, if not suitably engineered, could pose a fire risk.

This is still a relatively new large-storage technology, where councils and fire authorities are building their levels of expertise. In this context, having clear national guidance on safe installation and construction akin to building control, taking account of HSE, fire, industry and other experts would facilitate the assessment of these schemes. Do the Government plan to provide such clear guidance that councils, industry and others can rely on in assessing applications for LDES that would also streamline consultation and hence facilitate local engagement with fire authorities?

[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, Lord Fuller, for his amendment. I start by apologising to him for the meeting date, which I understand is 30 October. He will know from comments made earlier that I have had a great number of meetings before Report, so I can only assume that it was a misunderstanding and apologise to him that it was not held before we got to Report.

The noble Lord said that over on this side we would not be shedding any tears about the price of Lamborghinis going up, but he obviously does not understand my guilty pleasure of fast cars—but then I come from the same town as Lewis Hamilton, so I have an excuse.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to require long-duration electricity storage—LDES—operators to consult the local fire authorities to assess the project’s fire risk before installation. In Committee, the noble Lord commented on the frequency and danger of lithium battery fires. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the distinction that he made between individual battery fires and these large-scale ones. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take issues relating to fire safety extremely seriously—I know that my noble friend Lord Khan gave the same reassurance—but we still do not feel that this amendment is proportionate or necessary, and indeed it could create unintended risks for fire services.

I understand that these concerns are largely in relation to lithium-ion batteries. Analysis from DESNZ suggests that fires at battery energy storage sites are rare. The latest available five-year annual average fire incidence rate for GB batteries is 0.7%, which is lower than that for wider non-domestic building fires in England, which is around 0.8%. We expect all LDES developers to ensure that their sites are safe, regardless of the technology employed. It is still, of course, vital that any risks are appropriately and proportionately managed to ensure that we maintain public safety and trust. We have spoken previously of the role that the Health and Safety Executive plays in regulating storage assets. Developers and operators of these sites have a legal duty to manage risks, and government expects them to engage with local fire services when drawing up emergency response plans.

Defra will conclude its industry consultation shortly on the modernisation of environmental permitting for industry, which includes proposals to bring BESS within scope of the 2016 permitting regulations. If introduced, EPR would require developers and operators to demonstrate to the Environment Agency how specific risks are being managed, while providing for the ongoing regulation of battery storage sites. While it is already the Government’s expectation that developers engage with fire services during the planning process, this amendment risks imposing additional administrative burdens on fire services which are not proportionate to the risks associated with this technology.

DESNZ is actively engaging fire authorities and the battery storage industry on the whole issue of battery fire safety. In fact, Minister Shanks hosted a round table today on battery safety, which included representatives from the National Fire Chiefs Council and battery developers, so I can reassure the House that Minister Shanks is taking this issue extremely seriously. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is satisfied with the reassurances and will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I came to this debate keen to divide the House on this important matter. However, during the debate a number of issues have come to light, not least the meeting held today by Minister Shanks and the acceptance that we are still owed a meeting where we can discuss this. Rather than detain the House at this point with a Division, I wonder whether the Minister and I might have an understanding that we will keep the date in the diary and, if I am not satisfied, then the opportunity will come to bring this back at Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

26: Clause 26, page 36, line 8, leave out from “regulations” to end of line 13 and insert “under this section”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes all regulations implementing the consumer benefit scheme subject to the affirmative procedure.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in my name seek to ensure that all regulations relating to the bill discount scheme set out in Clause 26 are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.

The Government welcome the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, through these amendments, we accept its suggestion. We understand and recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and agree that the regulations discussed in Clause 26 are matters of substance. These amendments will help ensure that the regulations implementing the bill discount scheme are appropriately reviewed by Parliament, aiding their workability and ensuring a smooth implementation of the scheme. I cannot guarantee to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there will be a Halifax clause, but I hope that the House will support the amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I cannot react to the Halifax clause, since I do not live in Halifax.

I welcome the move to the affirmative procedure but remind the Minister that there are already 22,000 high-voltage carrying pylons in this country, over 250 of which are in Doncaster and over 700 of which are in North Yorkshire, including in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

That leads me to the argument I made in Committee: if the Government are minded to provide compensation for those residents and customers who live adjacent to new plants, either transmitting or creating electrical energy, then, as the Minister confirmed in Committee and in a conversation we had during recess, that payment—that compensation—will be a burden added to every electricity customer. That does not seem right to me. If those folk who are going to have a new imposition of electrical infrastructure are to have compensation, surely it should be funded by that electricity region and not by those that have, for instance, had pylons for many decades because regions knew it was in the national interest to do so.

I am pleased that we are going to the affirmative measure in consideration of compensation, because it will enable me to make arguments in favour of not the Halifax amendment but the Huddersfield amendment—let us call it that, as it is a bit nearer home. It is important, because to me this is about fairness. Those of us in the north—the very far north—and the Midlands should have fair treatment compared to those who have the infrastructure now. I am sure that the Minister will enjoy having that debate with me when we get around to doing the SIs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, group 14 concerns a matter of principle that cuts across the Bill: the appropriate level of parliamentary oversight for far-reaching executive powers. New Section 38A introduces a consumer benefit scheme to provide financial compensation to those living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The principle behind this is entirely sound. It is right that communities that host nationally significant infrastructure should share in its benefits.

We support Amendments 26 and 27 in the name of the Minister. Amendment 26 would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, not just those relating to offences or enforcement. These regulations will define who qualifies for support, how benefits are delivered and the responsibilities of electricity suppliers. These are substantive decisions that should not be made without oversight of Parliament.

Amendment 27 is a necessary consequential amendment to reflect this change. Given the wide scope of delegated powers in the new section inserted by the clause, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament has a say in how much a significant scheme is developed and applied. The affirmative procedure does not prevent progress. It simply ensures that when Ministers exercise broad powers, they do so transparently and with accountability.

We believe these amendments strike the right balance between enabling the Government to deliver the scheme and ensuring that Parliament plays its proper role. We are pleased to support them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for speaking, and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for getting Halifax and Huddersfield mixed up. But neither Halifax nor Huddersfield will be getting their own clause in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment 26 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

27: Clause 26, page 38, line 36, leave out “in relation to which section 38A(6) applies” and insert “under section 38A”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at page 36, line 8.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

28: Clause 28, page 39, line 11, leave out “appropriate forestry authority” and insert “Commissioners”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment standing in my name seeks to create powers to ensure that seismic array systems are protected in areas where windfarms are proposed to be built. Sorry, I am on the wrong group. I have got ahead of myself—who thought I would do that at 9.30 pm? My apologies; I turned over too many pages.

I am in fact speaking to an amendment to Clause 28, which amends the Forestry Act 1967 to enable the development of renewable electricity projects in the public forest estate. The clause as currently drafted applies to both England and Wales. The Government have tabled these amendments to remove references to the

“Natural Resources Body for Wales”

and “Welsh Ministers” from the clause. At the start of today’s proceedings, I referred to some amendments which are there to respond to the devolved Administrations. Although Clause 28 represents an important and shared objective, the Welsh Government have indicated that they wish to pursue existing, non-legislative processes to develop renewable energy on the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. Following extensive negotiation, this amendment alters the provisions in Clause 28 so that they apply only to the Forestry Commission.

I turn to government Amendments 36, 37 and 40. The provisions restrict the exercise of the powers of the Forestry Commission by giving the Defra Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the commission first to obtain her consent. The purpose of the Secretary of State’s power is to ensure that Ministers are sighted on projects above a certain size and can assess the use of the land appropriately. In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised concerns that the regulation-making power was broader than the stated policy intent. The Government therefore propose Amendments 36, 37 and 40, which will amend the clause to clarify that consent may be required only for projects exceeding specific capacity thresholds.

The thresholds are set at 5 megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for other sources and are now laid out explicitly in new Section 3B. New Section 3B also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the relevant wattage of the capacity thresholds, allowing flexibility to reflect future advancements in renewable energy technology. This change provides greater legal certainty while maintaining the original policy intent, and I therefore commend these amendments to the House.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. It would place statutory duties on the Forestry Commission, in the context of any planning, development or infrastructure function it might have, to take all reasonable steps to contribute to biodiversity targets set under the Environment Act 2021 and targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act. It would also add a requirement for the Forestry Commission to balance the development of energy infrastructure with the maintenance of ecosystem services, alongside a requirement to avoid any direct or indirect adverse effects on designated sites and irreplaceable habitats.

The driving force behind Clause 28 is the need to increase the amount of renewable electricity that can be generated in the UK. This will enable the Forestry Commission to increase its contributions to government targets set under the Climate Change Act. The Forestry Commission already has legal duties on afforestation and conservation, and by its very nature is already providing significant benefits to help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. It is therefore my view that the amendment is unnecessary.

Of course, the Forestry Commission will have regard to the Government’s biodiversity targets while exercising these new powers. It has clear responsibilities to consider and act to improve the environment via its biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as strengthened by the Environment Act. This legislation requires public authorities, including the Forestry Commission, to consider and take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. In doing so, it must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy as well as any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.

Furthermore, I can assure the House that the Forestry Commission will consider the importance of the climate in its use of these new powers. It has existing ambitious net-zero targets which it is working to meet via several significant projects for woodland creation and peatland restoration currently under way across the public forest estate. In the context of climate adaptation planning under the Climate Change Act, the Forestry Commission already provides reports on how it is adapting to or proposes to adapt to climate change, and it will continue to do so.

However, in recognition of the Forestry Commission’s importance to the achievement of our statutory targets concerning climate and nature, the Government may consider changes to the Forestry Act 1967 should a suitable legislative vehicle become available. It is my belief that these wider considerations of the Forestry Commission’s duties would be best considered in the round rather than in relation to this specific measure, which limits the application of the duties to the development context. Given these commitments, alongside existing provisions, I hope the noble Earl is reassured and will not press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The Forestry Commission already takes its environmental and climate responsibilities seriously, as the Minister has highlighted, and these are intrinsic to its existing functions. However, if there is to be a review, we would welcome consideration of the potential for conflicts within the Forestry Commission’s existing structure, in particular regarding its role as a competitor to private forests, as the regulator and as the grant awarder. That role occasionally brings the potential for conflicts and would be worth some further attention. I look forward to working with the noble Earl and all noble Lords who have signed this amendment in order to seek consensus on how the proposal to review the 1967 Act should go forward.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly respond to questions I have been asked during the debate. I agree with what has been said about the Forestry Act 1967. It was a long time ago now, but I firmly believe that the Act needs reviewing in the round, not in bits and pieces; otherwise, we will just exacerbate the current problem.

On the thresholds, the thresholds of five megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for other sources were based on current data to illustrate the typical scale, visual footprint and land use of renewable energy projects at those capacities. If the amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State for Defra will be able to amend the capacity thresholds in future through secondary legislation. All renewable electricity projects that export electricity to the grid on the public forest estate will be reported to Defra each quarter.

The Secretary of State, as the landowner, and other Defra Ministers have decided that they would like early visibility of proposed developments above the relevant thresholds. The Forestry Commission will be required to submit an application for ministerial consent before entering into any significant legal or commercial agreements. This early-stage safeguard ensures appropriate oversight of land use decisions. Ministers decided that they want to assess at the pre-planning stage all projects above an agreed size on the public forest estate; that means all significant projects. As previously stated, the thresholds have been set at five megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for all other technology types.

I hope that has helped to clarify the role of the Secretary of State and of the Forestry Act 1967. With that, I beg to move the government amendments.

Amendment 28 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

29: Clause 28, page 39, line 13, at beginning insert “English”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

41: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations about planning permissions or consents relating to wind generating stations that may affect the functioning of a relevant seismic array system.(2) A “relevant seismic array system” is a spatially distributed system of linked seismometers, arranged so as to enhance the detection and characterisation of seismic signals, that—(a) is used for defence purposes, and(b) is in use on the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The regulations may provide for—(a) an exclusion zone, and(b) a restricted zone,around a relevant seismic array system.(4) The regulations may—(a) require a planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, a planning application relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in an exclusion zone;(b) provide that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant planning permission for development relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in an exclusion zone;(c) allow the Secretary of State to direct that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant such planning permission.(5) The regulations may, in relation to a planning application relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in a restricted zone—(a) require the applicant to provide specified information about the seismic impact of the proposals (“seismic impact information”) to which their application relates;(b) require the planning decision-maker to use the seismic impact information in a specified way when determining the application (including when determining conditions relating to a permission or consent);(c) require the planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, the application in specified circumstances;(d) require the planning decision-maker to provide the Secretary of State with the seismic impact information, and to seek the Secretary of State’s views on the seismic impact of the proposals;(e) require the planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, the application if the Secretary of State objects to it on grounds relating to the seismic impact of the proposals.(6) The regulations may—(a) require a person proposing to make a relevant development order or MCA scheme to consult the Secretary of State if the order or scheme would grant planning permission for development relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in a restricted zone;(b) allow the Secretary of State to direct that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant such planning permission. (7) The regulations may include provision about the procedure for planning applications to which they relate, such as—(a) provision enabling or requiring a planning decision-maker to decline to determine or accept an application;(b) provision modifying the process for determining an application;(c) provision allowing the Secretary of State to give a direction to the planning-decision maker about the procedure for an application;(d) provision modifying or disapplying a right of appeal or review;(e) provision disapplying a duty imposed on a planning decision-maker when determining an application.(8) The regulations may require a planning decision-maker to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.(9) Regulations under this section may—(a) amend or repeal provision contained in an Act of Parliament or an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(b) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(c) make provision binding the Crown;(d) make transitional, transitory or saving provision;(e) make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision.(10) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section which amend or repeal provision contained in an Act of Parliament or an Act of the Scottish Parliament may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(12) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(13) If a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.(14) In this section—“MCA scheme” means a masterplan consent area scheme made under Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;“planning application” means—(a) an application for planning permission under Part 3 or Part 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) an application for planning permission under Part 3 or Part 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997,(c) an application for an order granting development consent under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008, or(d) an application under section 36 or 36C of the Electricity Act 1989 (consent for construction etc of generating station);“planning decision-maker” means a person who determines a planning application;“relevant development order” means—(a) a local development order made under section 61A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; (b) a Mayoral development order made under section 61DA of that Act;(c) a neighbourhood development order made under section 61E of that Act;(d) a development order made under section 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;“wind generating station” means a generating station that generates electricity from wind.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to planning permissions for wind generating stations that may affect the operation of seismic array systems used for defence purposes that are in use at the time that the Act is passed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment standing in my name seeks to create powers to ensure that seismic array systems are protected in areas where wind farms are proposed to be built, thus enabling the development of onshore wind where it will not have an adverse effect on seismic array systems. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who has a very deep knowledge of this subject and who kindly agreed to have a meeting with me even this morning on the topic, so I am grateful to him.

This amendment will enable regulations to be brought forward for the safeguarding of current Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty essential seismic arrays, notably the Eskdalemuir seismic array in southern Scotland. As a component of the international monitoring system for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, signed by the United Kingdom in 1996, the array is critical for maintaining effective defence monitoring capabilities.

The amendment allows for regulations, subject to forthcoming consultation, to underpin more accurate measuring of the seismic impact of wind turbines, create clear zones within which seismic impacts must be taken into account, and set out how the Ministry of Defence would make these assessments. This would create certainty for planning authorities, the Ministry of Defence and developers, enabling appropriate proposals for wind farm development to be brought forward.

Enabling the development of onshore wind in the Eskdalemuir area will be a positive step towards the Clean Power 2030 mission and net-zero targets, with up to 3 gigawatts of onshore wind that could deliver by 2030. This 3 gigawatts could bring with it up to £2 billion of investment into UK-based onshore wind services. It could deliver up to £15 million per year to communities in the Eskdalemuir area through community benefit funds.

The amendment has been introduced at a late stage to allow for ongoing development of technical and policy work to identify a solution that effectively safeguards the array and enables onshore wind within the Eskdalemuir Working Group, a collaborative forum that has historically been led by the Scottish Government, to whom we are indebted, and has input from the UK Government, including the MoD.

The Bill represents the last available opportunity to secure the 3 gigawatt onshore wind capacity in time for 2030, and the economic benefits that it would bring. Not proceeding at this time and delaying further would impact deployment, reduce critical investor/developer confidence, and halt the momentum to resolve this issue. That being the case, I hope that the House will support this amendment.

Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to specify the maximum extent of zones within which onshore wind development may be totally restricted, and within which relevant regulations will apply. Such specificity at this stage risks pre-empting the government decision-making prior to the launch of a public consultation, which the Government committed to in the onshore wind taskforce strategy in July 2025. To do so could result in the most appropriate options for safeguarding seismic arrays and enabling onshore wind being discarded without proper consideration, as they would not be possible under the primary powers as amended. Safeguarding zones around MoD assets are constructed from specific criteria appropriate to individual assets.

The Government are seeking legislation to enable regulations that both protect seismic arrays and create certainty for onshore wind developers and planning authorities. If these zones are created through regulations, it will not be with the aim of blocking all onshore wind development, as is the case currently, but with the intention to safeguard seismic arrays and allow appropriate onshore wind development.

I hope that clarifies the approach we have taken, and that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment. I beg to move the government amendment.

Amendment 42 (to Amendment 41)

Tabled by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I speak slightly in awe. I am not the world expert on seismic arrays, so I will keep my comments brief. This is the practical bit. We recognise that the Government are trying to create a balancing act between the safe and critical operation of seismic arrays and the opportunity of wind farms. From this side of the House, without the technical knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, can we receive an assurance from the Government that they have that balance right and that we will not compromise those seismic arrays and the potential national security and treaty obligations?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with our colleagues in the MoD on this issue and will endeavour to make sure that the balance is right in both cases.

Amendment 41 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for Amendment 43 and to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for his loyal and able introduction of Amendment 45 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I declare my interest as a farmer, although not of as much best and most versatile land as I would like. To illustrate the point made by my noble friend Lord Fuller, I point out that solar currently offers risk-free returns roughly five times as great as farming land. From a farmer’s point of view, the incentives for doing this are very strong and it is up to the Government to regulate and protect the best and most versatile land.

I will not repeat the arguments that we have heard. They have been very well made and were made at earlier stages of this Bill, as well as on previous Bills, debates and Questions. I will briefly outline our position on these amendments.

We on these Benches are steadfast: food security is national security. Protecting our best and most versatile agricultural land is essential, and we will not apologise for standing up for our farmers and consumers. When the most productive agricultural land is lost to solar developments, our food supply is less secure when it need not be. Where solar developments are pursued, they should be developed on weaker land, not on our most productive farmland. My noble friend Lord Fuller indicated that 42% of UK agricultural land is best and most versatile, but there is also a great deal of unclassified land. So if it is far less than 42% of our landmass, why are we building these large-scale solar farms on it?

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that there was not a problem here, but since the last election we have seen a number of NSIPs brought forward that include a significant amount of best and most versatile land. It is not necessary to use this best and most versatile land; plenty of land is available that is weaker and could support the incomes of the farming community while providing the energy that we are looking for. Should my noble friend Lord Fuller wish to test the opinion of the House, we will support him. I look to noble Lords on the Benches to my left to join us in standing up for farmers and underpinning our commitment to food security. It will be very disappointing if they are unwilling to support this important amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I respond, I send our best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for a very speedy recovery. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, his amazing contributions to our debates, particularly on human rights issues, are greatly missed and I hope he will be back with us as soon as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson—whom the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, ably stood in for—have tabled amendments relating to solar generation on agricultural land. This was debated at great length in Committee. While I appreciate the very strong feelings on this issue, the Government’s approach to these propositions has not changed.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it is important that every project is submitted to the planning process which befits its impact, scale and complexity. The Government believe that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher-quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the NSIP regime. The NSIP regime is rigorous. Local engagement remains at the heart of the process. Developers taking projects through the NSIP regime must undertake meaningful community engagement before any decision is taken. The level and quality of community engagement, among other factors, will be taken into account by decision-makers.

In Committee, the noble Lord appeared to suggest that the involvement of Ministers in the NSIP regime undermines public confidence in its ability to assess the costs and benefits of solar projects. I reassure him and your Lordships’ House that all ministerial planning decisions must be taken in strict accordance with planning policy and the Ministerial Code. This is in line with the policy governing decision-making by local planning authorities. As a result, as I explained on the last occasion when we debated this, we would not expect the planning outcomes to change.

As I argued previously, the Government are fully aware of the benefits of returning control, where suitable, to local authorities. At the end of the year, we shall double the NSIP threshold for solar, enabling projects of up to 100 megawatts to be decided locally. There is only one solar farm above 100 megawatts at the moment, and that was decided through an NSIP process.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

By the previous Government.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes. Any marginal gain in public confidence from returning control to local authorities must be weighed against the likely costs of this proposal. First, giving responsibility for the complex and lengthy examination of NSIP-scale projects to local planning departments will increase the burden on resources that are already under pressure. Secondly, for proposals that are of strategic importance to the country, central government is the most appropriate decision-maker. Changing policy to give these decisions to local authorities may increase investor uncertainty at a pivotal moment. Lastly, accepting this amendment would imply that the NSIP regime is either not competent or not qualified to adjudicate on some issues. It may reduce confidence in NSIP decisions that have already been taken and in those that will be taken in the future.

On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the Government sympathise with her objective to protect fertile farmland from overdevelopment. In Committee, she mentioned how the war in Ukraine has brought into sharp relief the need to protect food security. This gets to the heart of the matter, for another lesson of the war in Ukraine is the strategic vulnerability of relying on volatile imported fossil fuels for our energy supply. We must find the right balance between food security and energy security. That is why food security and energy security are currently balanced in the planning system, which considers both these factors.

This amendment tilts the balance too far in one direction, so we must oppose it. It would prevent a significant portion of the solar development required to deliver energy security. Many fields contain land that varies in quality. It would not be proportionate to reject an otherwise beneficial project because a small portion of its total area was classified as “best and most versatile land”. This blunt instrument would jeopardise the Government’s plan to achieve clean power by 2030 and, in turn, our work to deliver lower bills in the long term, high-skilled jobs, and, yes, energy security.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned the monitoring of solar farms. The Renewable Energy Planning Database lists all projects larger than 150 kilowatts, such as solar farms, including their precise locations. It covers projects at all stages of the planning process, from application to operation.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to the land use framework and whether it is a material consideration in terms of the planning process. By law, planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise; what constitutes a material consideration is for the local planning authority to determine, based on the circumstances of a particular case. The evidence base that underpinned the land use consultation and feedback on it will inform the Government’s wider strategic planning agenda.

I would like to make a few brief comments on what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said about China—

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

The Minister talked about the monitoring procedures. Her remarks indicated they were going to be only when the projects were in their early stages. The worry is what happens maybe three, four or five years later, when the people who start owning it pass it on to someone who may be less attractive to the future of this country. Will the monitoring be a continuous process throughout the life of each project?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I believe I said—I hope I did—that all stages would be monitored, from application to operation. I hope that is reassuring to the noble Lord.

In relation to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on China—it is important to pick them up—the Government are committed to tackling the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains, including the mining of polysilicon used in the manufacture of solar panels. We expect UK businesses and solar developers to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains. The Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February, enables public sector contracting authorities to reject bids from and terminate contracts with suppliers that are known to use forced labour themselves or anywhere in their supply chain.

The Government are considering how to strengthen Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which places a requirement on businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more to publish an annual modern slavery statement, including possible penalties for non-compliance, as well as working with a wide range of stakeholders to update the Section 54 statutory guidance. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance that we are taking this very seriously indeed.

From my time as the Minister in MHCLG with responsibility for net zero, I know that we have looked extensively at the UK supply chains and what might be done to further promote and help them to grow their businesses. All this being said, I agree with the sentiments of the noble Baroness that more should be done to install solar on rooftops. We are pursuing various measures in connection to this, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from solar on schools and hospitals and our new building standards to tax breaks and our new £13.2 billion warm homes plan. We have recently conducted a call for evidence about solar car parks, which the noble Baroness praised in Committee.

It is important that we do not overstate the amount of agricultural land that might be occupied by solar infrastructure. I know the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, questioned the Government’s figures on land use. Without being drawn into that discussion, it is clear that a relatively small amount of land, 0.4% in the most ambitious scenarios, is due to have solar installed by 2030. This does not constitute a threat to food security or to British farming, which the Government will always champion. Rather, the primary threat to British agriculture comes from the damaging effects of climate change, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, already mentioned the impact on harvests this year. We have to take that into account as well. I, for one, think that Britain should do its part in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Building low-carbon power plants is an essential aspect of this.

I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will note the steps the Government have taken to return the decision-making of more solar projects to local authorities and the existing robust provisions for planning authorities to consider impacts on food production, and that the noble Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her winding. I do not intend to relitigate the debate we have just had; it is very late. It is almost as if the Government timetabled this debate after hours so the viewers at home could not see it. That is a shame, because the viewers would have seen for the first time the Lib Dems’ touching concern for the chilling effect on the investment prospects of the international investors for whom they wear their hearts on their sleeves.

We have reached a turning point in our nation’s story. We have a choice: will we stand up for those who put food in our bellies or is the Minister stuck in the middle of a fight between the Prime Minister on one hand, who says he believes in food security being national security, and an Energy Minister on the other who is impoverishing our nation, sacrificing thousands of British jobs on the altar of net zero while importing the jobs we used to make, but this time for more polluting factories overseas, which achieves nothing but to make us poorer?

We have a choice before us. It is not a binary choice of one or the other, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In our proposal, 58% of the national land would continue to be available. That is not binary; that is proportionate. Here is an opportunity for us all to get the balance right between energy security and food security by agreeing to my amendment. The counterfactual is that we condemn our countryside to an uncontrolled future, where our landscapes are impoverished and collateralised, passed around the global financial system like chips on a poker table.

To govern is to choose. Will this Government continue their war on the countryside or will they, even at this late hour, support our landscapes, the food producers and the rural economy? We should know. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 July be approved.

Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 October.

Motion agreed.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward this purpose clause. It serves as a timely reminder of what the Bill is meant to achieve: the delivery of 1.5 million new homes and important infrastructure projects. It is increasingly hard to escape the conclusion that this goal is slipping further and further from reach. The problem is not simply one of ambition but of process and principle. The Government have tabled no fewer than 67 new amendments to the Bill, in almost 30 pages of legislative text, and have done so at a very late stage.

The media were briefed in advance, I note, yet this House received no explanation from Ministers when those amendments were laid until last Tuesday. Under normal circumstances, such sweeping provisions would warrant detailed scrutiny in Committee, not introduction on Report. To describe them as minor or technical, as Ministers have attempted to do, simply does not match the scale and significance of what has been briefed to the press. The Financial Times and others have reported that the Government’s own description of these measures is that they represent substantial reforms to the planning system, so which is it? Are these minor adjustments or a fundamental rewrite of national planning policy? It appears that we are witnessing a major talk-up—an oversell of provisions designed to mask the Government’s ongoing failure to deliver the homes. It is a conjuring trick, saying one thing to the press and quite another in this Chamber.

According to reports, the Prime Minister himself ordered a last-minute rewrite of the Bill, with Ministers working throughout the weekend to agree a package intended to speed up major housing and infrastructure schemes. That was on Friday 10 October. Earlier that same week, the Financial Times revealed that that rewrite forms part of a broader effort to boost growth and patch up public finances ahead of the November Budget—a Budget date already circled in the calendar of many families in this country and of businesses and pensioners, though not with much enthusiasm.

Monthly construction output fell by an estimated 0.3% in August 2025, after showing no growth at all in July. I therefore ask the Minister how the Bill will change that. Should not the Government instead focus on things such as modular construction, utilising 3D modelling and reviewing outdated regulations? No Act of Parliament can succeed if the construction industry itself is faltering under the environment the Government have created.

It is therefore fair to ask whether these amendments reflect deliberate legislative design or the political and fiscal pressures of the moment. By mid-October, the Treasury would already have seen the OBR’s preliminary focus and, I rather suspect, blanched at what it showed. It may be that in the face of deteriorating growth and revenue projections, someone in Whitehall decided that a hasty burst of planning reform might steady the nerves ahead of the Budget, but legislation made in haste rarely makes good law. The planning system must balance the urgent need for homes and infrastructure, with, as we have heard, the rights of local communities and the principles of democratic scrutiny. Bypassing consultation, local accountability and indeed proper deliberation in your Lordships’ House, the Government risk undermining the very trust and co-operation they will need to deliver their own housing ambitions.

The Government have clearly not learned. They crudely cut £5 billion from welfare in haste in the spring in pursuit of a green tick on the OBR’s scorecard. I fear that they are now making the same mistake again, rushing to legislate for the sake of appearance rather than outcomes for this country. That is why this purpose clause is so valuable. It brings us back to the first principles. What is the purpose of the Bill? Is it truly to build homes or to centralise power? We do not even know who is in charge of this legislation. Is it No. 10, No. 11 or MHCLG? The Minister knows that throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to offer the Government constructive support, but it becomes ever harder to do so when their approach borders on chaos: saying one thing and doing another; briefing the press with grand claims while sidelining Parliament and scrutiny. I hope the Minister recognises the depth of disappointment felt across this House.

In conclusion, whatever the Government’s intention, the manner in which these amendments have been introduced must not diminish the scrutiny they receive. The House has a duty to examine legislation carefully, especially when it touches on this delicate balance between local democracy and national authority. We will approach these amendments in that spirit—with diligence, patience and respect for due process—and we will not be rushed or intimidated into setting aside our responsibilities in the name of political convenience. The scale and consequence of these proposals demands nothing less than the full and thoughtful consideration of your Lordships’ House.

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

Well, well, my Lords, that was a wide-ranging debate for an opening debate on a purpose clause. Nevertheless, I thank those who contributed to the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank her for her extensive engagement between Committee and Report.

This is indeed an ambitious piece of legislation. It is our next step to fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. The Bill will support delivery of the Government’s hugely ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that his Government had 14 years to fix the sclerotic planning system that has hobbled growth in this country for over a decade, yet they failed to do so. Our Government are working across departments—yes, and I welcome that—to deliver what the last Government failed to do, which is to build the homes we need and the infrastructure that will support those homes, and to get our economy moving again.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I am afraid she cannot have it both ways on the amendments that the Government have tabled. She has accused me in this Chamber of not listening. Well, we did listen in Committee and some of the amendments are in response to issues that were raised then. A number of those amendments relate to the devolved Administrations and we rightfully had consultations with those Administrations between Committee and Report. There are some truly pro-growth measures that we feel are rightly pressing and need to be done to improve the delivery of infrastructure, and there are a number of technical, minor amendments.

The Bill is not the only step towards improving the economy and delivering against our plan for change. The noble Baroness will know that we have reissued the National Planning Policy Framework; we have provided funding and training for planners; and we have provided a huge packet of support for SMEs. I met the APPG for SME House Builders the other day and it was pleased with the package that is being delivered. There is more to be done in working with the APPG, and I will be happy to do that. We have also carried out a fundamental review of the building safety regulator. All these things will contribute to the growth we all want to see.

I outlined the core objectives of the Bill at Second Reading, and we also discussed these at length in Committee. I do not suggest that I do so a third time. I recognise that planning law can be a complex part of the statute book to negotiate and interpret, whether you are a developer, a local authority, the courts or even a member of the public. I also appreciate that where a Bill has one sole objective, a purpose clause could clearly articulate this, assist people with understanding the Bill and affect the interpretation of its provisions. This Bill has a number of different objectives, with much of it amending existing law. A purpose clause is not helpful in these circumstances and could create unintended consequences. It is simply not possible or prudent for all these objectives to apply equally to each provision.

I believe we are all united by a shared objective today. On whichever side of the House we sit, we all agree that this House plays an important role in scrutinising legislation to ensure it achieves the intended objectives and to maximise the Bill’s benefit. I firmly believe that the intention behind this amendment is noble. I understand that it is tabled to aid interpretation of the Bill. My issues with purpose clauses, and the reasons I cannot accept this amendment, boil down to two things: their necessity and the potential for unintended consequences. Well-written legislation provides a clear articulation of what changes are proposed by the Government to deliver their objectives. It is for the Government to set out in debate why they are bringing forward a Bill during parliamentary passage. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the intended changes to the law should speak for themselves.

The Government’s objectives are clear. They are also woven into this legislation through reference to a number of different targeted documents that set out the Government’s strategic intent in specific areas of policy. It is right that these objectives vary according to the topic—some of these objectives will be more important for one issue than another. If this was not the case, the Bill would lose its strategic vision.

The Government strongly support a strategic approach to planning. The word “strategic” is mentioned 196 times in the Bill, as amended in Committee. The Bill inserts a part specifically called “Strategic plan-making”, intended to ensure that planning decisions are undertaken at a more strategic level. Large parts of the Bill are drafted to take a more strategic, targeted approach to achieving the Government’s objectives. For example, this legislation gives regard to other strategic documents, such as the clean power action plan. This is all done with the intention of making clear how this legislation seeks to deliver the Government’s objectives.

Adding a purpose clause to the Bill is not the answer to addressing the complexity of the statute book, or even this legislation. In practice, it would do the opposite; it would add additional room for interpretation to a Bill intending to accelerate delivery and simplify a system. It risks creating additional complexity in interpretation, gumming up the planning system further. It risks reinserting the gold-plating behaviour we are seeking to remove. Developers and local authorities, for example, would feel obligated to show how they have considered priorities that are much more relevant to other parts of the Bill for fear of legal action. A purpose clause would provide a hook for those looking to judicially review or appeal decisions in order to slow them down.

The measures in the Bill should be allowed to speak for themselves. They have been carefully drafted to be interpreted without a purpose clause. The courts should be left to interpret the law without having to navigate their way through a maze of different purposes sitting on top of strategic objectives. A purpose clause would create ambiguity rather than clarity.

It does not appear to me, from the debate I have heard, that the House is confused by why the Government are seeking to bring this Bill forward. I think we all know that we seek to achieve the growth and the homes that this country deserves. We should therefore move forward to further debate how best to achieve them. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone involved in this short but important debate and those who have supported, in word at least, the objective of Amendment 1, which is to set out strategic purposes for the Bill. From time to time, parliamentary procedures have been considered and purpose clauses proposed, so I think the debate will continue on whether it is right and helpful to have purpose clauses at the outset of a Bill, as they do set out strategy. I understand what the Minister is saying about the strategy being throughout the Bill, but if you have it right at the outset it provides clarity on what the Bill is supposed to be trying to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her Amendment 2. It would require the Secretary of State to assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—on both the environment and the communities in which such projects are being developed, when reviewing a national policy statement.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue. I wholeheartedly agree that cumulative impacts—particularly those affecting the environment and local communities—must be given due consideration in the NSIP consenting process. I am therefore pleased to reassure her that the existing regime already provides for such considerations. It is already a statutory requirement for the Government to undertake an assessment of sustainability when designating or updating a national policy statement. These appraisals of sustainability—which include the strategic environmental assessment process—play a vital role in shaping national policy statements by evaluating their potential environmental, social and economic effects and any reasonable alternatives that could be used.

The strategic environmental assessment regulations require that the effects assessment includes an assessment of cumulative impacts. Non-spatial national policy statements that do not identify the likely locations of NSIPs are strategic-level documents, which means that it is not possible to identify cumulative impacts in detail. However, cumulative impacts are addressed, so far as possible at this level, to meet the requirements of the strategic environmental assessment regulations at this stage.

It is important that detailed consideration of cumulative effects takes place at the project level. By virtue of factors such as their nature, scale and location, NSIPs are likely to have significant effects on the environment around them. Under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, an environmental impact assessment process must be undertaken, and the Secretary of State is prohibited from granting consent until an EIA has been carried out. The environmental statement must identify and assess the direct and indirect significant effects on specified factors, including environmental factors, population and human health. Cumulative effects are one of the required types of effects that must be identified and assessed.

In short, while the concern raised by the noble Baroness is entirely valid, the existing framework already requires the consideration of cumulative impacts, both in the preparation and review of national policy statements and in the assessment and consideration of individual development consent order applications.

The noble Baroness asked me about the local plan process. The whole process of local plans focuses on cumulative impacts. One of its purposes is to start off with individual policies and work through a process towards cumulative impacts. This will be enhanced by the addition of strategic level plans, giving a direct link from neighbourhood planning to local plans and then to strategic plans, allowing the cumulative impact across the whole picture to be assessed. In light of this, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful for that response. I most humbly apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not thanking her for cosigning the amendment in the first place, for which I am very grateful. I am grateful for her supportive comments, and for those from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock; they clearly set out why this is so important. I took comfort from the support from my noble friend Lord Jamieson on my own Front Bench, and from the Minister. I hope we can explore this further in the context of spatial planning.

I was a little bit concerned when the Minister used the expression, “This is addressed so far as possible”. She helps to make the case for me, but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

In Committee, I described this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, as vital because it preserves parliamentary accountability, ensuring that government must respond to resolutions and recommendations from Select Committees. The safeguard strengthens transparency, clarifies policy direction at an early stage, and reduces uncertainty for those affected by these statements. Robust scrutiny helps to catch potential issues before they escalate later. I appreciate that the Minister has sought to reassure us with a new, streamlined process for updating national policy statements, and of course efficiency is welcome, but scrutiny must not become the casualty of speed. This amendment strikes the right balance. It enables timely updates while ensuring that Parliament remains meaningfully engaged.

Clause 2 concerns the parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. While I accept that certain elements of the process could be accelerated, key aspects of the clause diminish accountability to Parliament in favour of the Executive. I struggle to understand why, given the enormous impact of national policy statements, the Government are proposing to remove such an important element of parliamentary oversight. We continue to support parliamentary scrutiny and as such, we will support this amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment.

Clause 2 introduces a new, additional streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements. National policy statements are the cornerstone of the planning system for our most significant national infrastructure. In the past, national policy statements have been too slow to reflect government priorities, planning policy or legislative changes, with some NPSs not updated for over a decade. As the National Infrastructure Commission has recognised, a lack of updates has created uncertainty for applicants, statutory consultees and the examining authority. It has also increased the risk of legal challenge and driven the gold-plating in the system that we are all trying to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

4: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Projects relating to water(1) Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008 (nationally significant infrastructure projects) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).(2) In section 27 (dams and reservoirs)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) in subsection (2)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In this section, references to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker include a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(3) In section 28 (transfer of water resources)—(a) in subsection (1)(a), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) In this section, the reference to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker includes a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(4) In section 28A (desalination plants)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) in subsection (2)(b), after “by” insert , or by a person appointed by,”;(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In this section, references to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker include a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(5) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a project where, before the day on which this section comes into force—(a) consent for the project was required, or otherwise provided for, by or under an enactment other than section 31 of the Planning Act 2008 (requirement for development consent in relation to development that is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project), and(b) any steps provided for by or under the enactment in question, to obtain that consent, had been taken.(6) In subsection (5), “consent” means any consent, approval, permission, authorisation, confirmation, direction or decision (however described, given or made).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties appointed by water undertakers to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project by virtue of section 14(1)(m), (n) or (na) of the Planning Act 2008, provided the other conditions in sections 27, 28 and 28A of the 2008 Act are met.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 4, I will speak also to Amendment 256. This proposal responds to concerns raised by Peers about the need to address water scarcity, particularly through easing restrictions on reservoir construction to encourage more reservoir development. Growing demand and climate variability have placed increasing strain on existing water resources, reinforcing the need for additional storage capacity. Without new reservoir capacity, we risk being unable to meet that future demand. Reservoirs are fundamental to maintaining secure public water supplies and supporting economic growth, yet delivery, particularly of major schemes, has been too slow under current processes.

This amendment removes a procedural hurdle, thereby streamlining the consenting process and enabling faster delivery of major water projects, after more than 30 years without new major reservoirs in England. Crucially, it enables third-party providers appointed by water undertakers to apply to deliver major water infrastructure, including reservoirs, transfer schemes and desalination plants, through the streamlined development consent order route. That will accelerate delivery of essential water infrastructure, help secure future water supplies, and unlock housing and economic growth, including delivery of new towns and our ambition for building 1.5 million homes this Parliament. Importantly, this change does not reduce environmental or public scrutiny: projects will continue to be subject to the full planning process, including statutory consultation and environmental assessment.

This amendment is an important step in responding to concerns about water scarcity and supporting the pro-growth measures contained in the Bill. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter to ensure that it is quicker and easier to consent and build the reservoirs we need so desperately, now and into the future.

The Government are content to accept Amendments 5 to 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I am mindful that water infrastructure, particularly reservoirs, has had a difficult history in parts of the United Kingdom. Communities still remember the loss and upheaval caused by past projects, such as at Capel Celyn. It is therefore right that, as we modernise and expand the routes by which these essential schemes can be delivered, we also strengthen the mechanisms that guarantee their safety, integrity and public accountability.

These amendments make a helpful clarification to government Amendment 4. They will ensure that where a third-party provider is appointed to deliver a large-scale water infrastructure project under the specified infrastructure projects regulations, that provider must be formally designated as an infrastructure provider under Regulation 8. This means that they will be fully subject to the statutory safeguards provided by those regulations. Those safeguards are vital. They ensure that any company delivering major water infrastructure is formally designated and operates within a framework of strict oversight and accountability. Ofwat’s supervision, the requirement for licensing and consultation, and the ability to challenge decisions through the Competition and Markets Authority, together provide a robust system to protect the public and the environment.

I also clarify that these amendments do not alter the position for projects delivered through direct procurement for customers, known as DPC, the other competitive procurement route for third-party delivery of NSIPs. Under that model, water companies competitively appoint third-party providers to finance and deliver major infrastructure. This mechanism also has a strong regulatory framework, with Ofwat oversight, competitive tendering, and measures to protect customers from cost and delivery risks. DPC is a useful option for less complex NSIP-scale projects, providing an alternative route for competitive delivery. Under both schemes, projects benefit from strong regulatory protections for customers and the public, with clear oversight, risk management and accountability built in.

By accepting these amendments, we will bring greater clarity and reassurance that the statutory protections apply fully to third-party providers under the SIPR framework. This means that these important projects can be taken forward with confidence—safely, transparently and in the public interest. Faster, flexible delivery of major water infrastructure is essential to secure resilient water supplies, support housebuilding and unlock local economic growth, while always ensuring that safety, environmental and consumer standards are maintained. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for tabling these amendments and for his engagement on this important matter.

I welcome Amendment 7A, which seeks to require that applicants for dam and reservoir schemes seek separate consent for the heritage impacts of their project outside the NSIP regime. While I recognise that there may be concerns about the future impact of these desperately needed water projects on heritage assets, the Government believe that the thorough process set out in the Planning Act already provides adequate protections. Applicants for all projects, including dam and reservoir schemes, are already required to include information relating to heritage impacts from their projects, including an assessment of any effects on such sites, when they submit their application.

Further, where the development is subject to environmental impact assessment regulations because of the likely significant effects on the environment by virtue of its nature, size or location, the applicant is required to undertake an assessment of any likely heritage impacts, including cumulative impacts, as part of the environmental statement. This is also set out in the water resources national policy statement updated in July this year. Moreover, concerns may be raised by communities or statutory bodies through relevant representations where the examining authority considers that more information is required before reporting to the Secretary of State, and it can require it from applicants and schedule hearings.

In determining applications, the Secretary of State will identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development, including affecting the setting of a heritage asset, taking account of the evidence. The Secretary of State must also comply with the specific decision-making obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments placed on the Secretary of State set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010. When making the decision, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historical interest that it possesses.

Requiring applicants to undergo a separate process to secure these consents would delay delivery of these critical infrastructure projects, adding additional process, complexity and costs. This goes against the intention of the Planning Act 2008 regime, which was introduced to provide a one-stop shop approach for obtaining consents for large-scale, nationally significant infrastructure. Moreover, it would also hinder this Government’s ambitions to speed up and streamline the planning process for major infrastructure projects.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling Amendment 7B. It seeks to provide that in cases where a dam or reservoir is already defined as a nationally significant infrastructure project and will result in the demolition of 20 or more homes, those whose homes would be impacted are notified and may make representations to the Secretary of State before the scheme enters the NSIP planning route, with a view to perhaps preventing the project being determined through the NSIP regime. I acknowledge the significant impact that NSIP projects have, and that dam and reservoir schemes, in particular, can have when numerous homes near each other are demolished. It is clear, and we all agree, that a thorough process must be followed that allows all these issues to be understood before a decision is reached. That is why the Planning Act is so important. We believe that there are already sufficient legal requirements that provide adequate opportunity for impacted persons to be heard.

I am afraid that the amendment seeks to insert discretion for the Secretary of State in a part of the process that does not exist. Dams and reservoirs that meet the threshold set out in Section 27 of the Planning Act 2008 are not directed by the relevant Secretary of State. They are automatically treated as NSIPs once they meet the threshold in Section 27. There is no other route to consent than via the Planning Act 2008. I understand that the amendment is driven by a desire to ensure that the voice of impacted individuals is heard throughout the process and before the Secretary of State makes a final decision whether to grant or refuse development consent. I say emphatically that this is already provided for by the Planning Act 2008.

All individuals who are impacted or whose land is proposed to be compulsorily acquired are both recognised as affected persons and notified of an accepted application under Section 56. This notification means these persons are treated as interested parties under Section 102 without having to complete a registration form. This allows them to play an active role in the examination by submitting written and oral representations to the examining authority, so that their views and specific circumstances can be heard by that examining authority.

These affected persons are able to submit notice to the Secretary of State requesting a compulsory acquisition hearing, which the examining authority must hold if a request is made by at least one affected person within the deadline set by the examining authority. Individuals who are not directly impacted or whose land is not being compulsorily acquired can also submit a relevant representation and complete a registration form to be considered as an interested party. This provides an opportunity for those living nearby to engage and share their concerns with the examination.

Finally, local authorities are invited by the Secretary of State to submit a local impact report, which gives details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority’s area. This may include the impact on individuals within that area. I do not agree that, in cases where there are significant local impacts, it should automatically be the case that local decision-making should be followed. This would remove the ability of the Government to make decisions in the national interest and ensure sufficient infrastructure is built which meets a strategic rather than a local need.

There is no easy answer to the impact of projects on individuals and communities. However, the Planning Act 2008 provides a means through which to balance the interests the nation has in building the infrastructure it needs, particularly water infrastructure, with the interests of those acutely impacted. Applicants will be expected to argue why alternative sites are not appropriate and how impacts, where possible, may be mitigated. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will not press her amendment.

On Amendment 56, the Government already take steps to facilitate the building of both small and large reservoirs, and £104 billion of private sector investment has been secured through Ofwat’s price review. We continue to support farmers to develop local resource options to secure water supplies. Reservoir safety legislation does not prevent new reservoirs being constructed but ensures that structures are well built and maintained. Reservoirs which store water above ground level pose a potential risk to life, property, business and the environment, and would cause economic disruption to local communities if the dam structure were to fail. These risks are managed through reservoir safety regulation. Reservoirs which store water below ground do not pose the same risks and so are out of scope of reservoir safety regulation. The Government’s advice to farmers and landowners is to consider options for non-raised water storage first.

The Government are intending to consult soon on proposals to improve reservoir safety regulation, including making the requirements more tailored to the level of hazard posed and bringing some smaller raised reservoirs into scope. These proposals do not alter the need for more reservoirs, nor do they prevent new ones being built, but are to ensure that reservoir dams are structurally sound and that flood risks for communities downstream are effectively managed. There is already a permitted development right which enables the creation of on-farm reservoirs where they are reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes. Under this agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on-farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions, to manage and control impacts of development. We have not got the exact numbers but I believe there are around 3,000, so people are already taking advantage of that.

Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation, as amendments to the general permitted development order, often following consultation. Carrying out a public consultation ensures the views of the public, including those who will benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. It also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and how these might be mitigated.

The Government will continue to keep permitted development rights under review. It is important that new reservoirs are built in locations where they do not pose a flood risk for local communities, and that existing reservoir dams are structurally safe. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment and ask that she does not press it, based on the actions already being taken forward to review safety regulations impacting small, low-hazard reservoirs, and the subsequent secondary route to make any necessary changes to encourage their creation. I beg to move.

Amendment 5 (to Amendment 4)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 4—the new clause to be inserted after Clause 2—relates to projects concerning water. As I understand it, this amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties, appointed by water undertakers, to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project under Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008, provided that the other conditions set out in Sections 27, 28 and 28A of that Act are met.

While I appreciate the intention to streamline delivery and facilitate investment in critical water infrastructure, I must raise a number of concerns and questions to the Minister. First, what safeguards will ensure that the thresholds for NSIP designation—particularly those relating to scale and national importance—are still meaningfully applied? It is essential that this designation remains reserved for truly nationally significant projects, not simply those that happen to be large or, indeed, convenient.

Secondly, can the Minister clarify why the existing provisions—which limit NSIP status to projects undertaken directly by water undertakers—are now deemed insufficient? What problem, precisely, is this amendment intended to solve?

Additionally, are the Government considering similar extensions of NSIP eligibility in other sections of infrastructure? If so, it would be helpful for your Lordships’ House to understand whether this represents a broader shift in planning policy or an exceptional measure just limited to water infrastructure.

Finally, will the Government commit to a review of the amendment’s impact after, say, three or five years, to ensure that it has not led to unintended consequences, particularly in relation to accountability, environmental standards or the integrity of the NSIP regime?

I also welcome my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments in this group. I understand he has had many discussions with the Minister, and I thank the Government for their response on these amendments.

Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also raises important questions for Ministers about the ability of farmers and landowners to develop small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities. We know we need more reservoirs, and the Government have talked about this a great deal. We look to Ministers to show willing on smaller reservoirs too, and we encourage the Minister to listen to my noble friend on this important issue.

Finally, Amendment 7A in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson and my Amendment 7B are on introducing due process for communities and heritage threatened by reservoirs being delivered through the NSIP process. We tabled these amendments in response to the Government’s amendment tabled last Monday and we are keen to work with the Government to get a workable amendment into the Bill, if it is necessary.

I also say at the outset that we are fully supportive of the steps to get on with the delivery of critical national infrastructure, but where consultation of local communities and heritage protections are disapplied through the NSIP process, we have to be sure that is appropriate in those cases. As the Government seek to deliver more reservoirs, we want to ensure that communities, heritage and local individuals who have their homes, gardens and history invested in those areas are protected and that the Secretary of State takes proper account of their views. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay has spoken about a number of historical examples. If villages are to be flooded in the future, with all their history and heritage, we must make sure a proper process is followed.

It is not just in the north of England that we have reservoirs. I farmed near Bough Beech and I knew Bewl Water in Kent; both of these were where some communities were flooded. Decades and generations on, people are still talking about the community that is under that water.

We will therefore seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7B and ask the Minister to seriously consider making sure that future communities will be protected.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will keep my comments relatively brief, because I had a lot to say at the beginning of this group. I start my concluding remarks by pointing out to noble Lords that it was concerns about water provision that encouraged the Government to bring forward further amendments in this respect. I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in engagement both in the recess period, which I was very grateful for, and subsequent to that. I thank all those who met with me.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his contribution. He set out his concerns very clearly and we appreciated that. That is why we are able to accept his amendments.

On the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I understand the great and ongoing concerns around the Capel Celyn issue. I am afraid that the powers in this Bill are for England, but I will come back to him in writing about what powers the Senedd has to act in a way that might help with his concerns. If that is acceptable to him, I will write to him on those specific issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, discussed the efficiency of reservoirs. There have been recent improvements in that, but there is room for further improvement, and I am sure that colleagues in Defra are as exercised as she is in making sure that that is the case. I am very glad that she mentioned Professor Bellamy; that brought back some very happy memories. I will not try an impression—I am not very good at them—but he was a real character. His contribution to the natural world in this country was enormous, and I am very grateful for that.

The noble Baroness asked about how the need for water is assessed; the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to that too. Water companies have a statutory duty to provide a secure supply of water for customers efficiently and economically and to set out how they plan to continue to supply water through statutory water resources management plans. They are assessing that constantly. These set out how each company will continue to meet this duty and manage the water supply and demand sustainably for at least the next 25 years. There is therefore a constant assessment of that.

On the noble Baroness’s points about smaller reservoirs, I hope that I set out clearly in my comments that these can be undertaken currently under permitted development. We recognise the need to look at those permitted development regulations, and we will return to them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I understand that I bounced this idea into the debate and that the Minister was not aware that I would do so, but can she write to me on the state of the proposals to dispense with the Reservoirs Act and bring forth recommendations from the Balmforth review from 2019? That is an incredibly long time. Can she set out what the timescale will be?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am happy to do that.

I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, out of order, because, as he said, some of the issues that he raised could not happen now; the Planning Act 2008 means that many of those issues would not be the case now. I am making my response to the noble Lord out of order because I want to come back to the points about heritage issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. As the noble Lord said, my colleague from DCMS and I have now set up a very useful round table with heritage organisations, or organisations representing heritage issues. I will raise some of those specific issues with the round table; it is important that we do so. The National Policy Statement for Water Resources Infrastructure has a dedicated section on the historic environment, which sets out what applicants should do in their development consent order application.

The Secretary of State will, when determining applications, specifically identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development. All applicants for development consent, including dam and reservoir schemes, are required to provide information about heritage impacts from their projects when they submit their application. Where development is subject to an environmental impact assessment, the application is also required to take that assessment, as I pointed out earlier.

With the examining authority considering that as part of the examination, and the Secretary of State identifying and assessing the particular significance of heritage assets, I hope that that gives some reassurance that proposed developments must comply with specific obligations related to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments. That obligation is placed on the Secretary of State and set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the noble Lord.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, discussed some of the other measures that can be taken to conserve water; I do not disagree with her on that. Colleagues in Defra are exercised in ensuring that we make efficient use of water and that we are not setting up reservoirs unnecessarily. Because I come from one of the areas of great water scarcity in the country, I know what a huge issue this can be. I point out to her that, in contrast to where reservoirs were built for the steel industries and then the water was not needed afterwards, we are now looking at data centres as a new generation of economic activity. They need water, so I know that there will be new needs for water going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, were first brought forward in Committee, and I made the point then, which I repeat now, that Clause 4 systematically removes several of the existing pre-application requirements.

This amendment seeks specifically to retain Section 47 of the Planning Act, the statutory duty to consult the local community. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised, we have said throughout that it is only right and appropriate that local communities should be consulted and involved. Removing this requirement for pre-application consultation risks cutting communities out of the conversation altogether. It means local people may neither understand nor even be aware of the broad outlines or detailed implications of developments which, for better or worse, will have a direct impact on their lives and the local environment.

As I understood the Minister in Committee, the Government’s concern was not with the principle or value of consultation in itself, but rather with the potential delay cost that the current process might entail. However, delay and cost can be addressed through sensible reform of the system. That does not justify what feels like a nuclear option: the wholesale removal of the duty to consult. We remain unconvinced that the House has yet been given a satisfactory explanation as to why such sweeping change is necessary.

The Government have said:

“I am sure we all have experiences of the best in consultation—with a developer that not only consults but truly engages with communities over a period of time to get”


a better project

“and those at the opposite end that carry out a half-hearted tick-box exercise and then”

carry on regardless

“without changing anything, keeping a laser focus on”

minimising their costs, and that

“We want to encourage the former, not the latter”.—[Official Report, 17/7/25; cols. 2073-74.]

That is an admirable sentiment, but how is that objective served by the removal of the very mechanism that requires such consultation in the first place? These questions matter not merely as points of process but because they go to the heart of public confidence in the planning system.

The Government should provide clear and succinct guidance on pre-application consultation: that there should be genuine engagement with communities; that the relevant information should be provided transparently and in easily digestible form; that the issues and ideas from the consultations are reflected in the final application or a rationale for not doing so.

However, these amendments propose a much more prescriptive and, I might say, confusing and even contradictory pre-application process. While we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment in full, we equally cannot support the Government’s decision to sweep away the entire framework. A more balanced approach could have addressed legitimate concerns about delay, while enhancing the opportunities for local people to have their say on developments that shape their communities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing back these amendments, which we debated extensively in Committee. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to reinstate the statutory duty for applicants to consult during the pre-application stage of a development consent order application. While we absolutely recognise the value of early and meaningful engagement, we have been clear that the existing statutory requirements have become overly rigid and are now contributing to delays and risk-averse behaviours.

Removing the statutory duty instead allows developers to tailor their engagement to the scale and nature of their projects, supported by guidance. I repeat: the Government still expect high-quality consultation to take place. We have listened carefully to the industry and the message has been consistent. The current statutory framework is slowing things down, encouraging excessive documentation and making developers reluctant to adapt proposals for fear of triggering further rounds of required statutory consultation. We are confident that developers will continue to consult meaningfully and that communities will still have further opportunities to engage through the examination process. We are so confident, in fact, that this will not undermine the quality of applications brought forward that we are amending the Bill to make reasons for rejection more transparent, a point which I will come to later.

Guidance will be published to ensure that applications remain robust and responsive to local issues. The Government are currently consulting on proposals associated with this guidance and will take into account responses when it is developed. If these amendments were accepted, we risk reverting to the status quo and failing to address the very issues we are trying to fix: delays, complexity and confusion. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.

Amendments 11 and 12 seek to impose statutory obligations around guidance for pre-application consultation, despite the statutory requirement to consult being removed from the Planning Act 2008 through this Bill. The decision to remove the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation was not made lightly. It was introduced to tackle the growing delays and procedural burdens that have crept into the NSIP regime over time. We are trying to fix a system that has become too slow, too risk averse and too complex.

As we have discussed and recognised throughout the passage of the Bill, the current Planning Act requirements have led to rigid approaches, which are designed with the need to meet legislative prescription in mind, rather than the need to develop high-quality infrastructure schemes which are capable of improving the lives of local communities and delivering positive environmental impacts. I suppose my frustration here is that we all agree that we need to speed the system up but whatever we propose to do that, Members object to.

Over the last few months we have had the opportunity to meet a wide range of stakeholders and discuss the removal of pre-application requirements, including a number of bodies and individuals with valuable insight and experience of the NSIP regime since its inception back in 2008. We have seen a positive reaction to our proposals from those stakeholders. Speaking to local authorities and statutory consultees, it is clear that the existing requirements are not successfully driving constructive engagement and consultation.

Our discussions have reaffirmed our conviction that the existing approach is not working; changes are needed for the Government to meet the UK’s national infrastructure needs. These reforms will save time and money, benefiting everyone. This does not mean worse outcomes or poorer quality applications. Instead, it means resources can be focused on the main issues at the heart of the planning decision. It means there will be greater flexibility for applicants to innovate in how engagement is done when working through the iterative stages of an application during pre-application. It opens the door to more bespoke, targeted and effective engagement and consultation practices.

Requiring applicants to have regard to guidance about consultation and engagement, where the underlying legal duty to consult has been removed, would, we feel, be confusing. Moreover, the noble Baroness’s proposed amendment goes further by attempting to bind the content for future guidance to a fixed set of principles. While I understand these principles are well-intentioned, we do not believe it is right to legislate for them. The Government have already launched a public consultation on what the content of the guidance should be, and we want it to be shaped by the views of those who use guidance, not constrained by prescriptive legislative language developed before that process has even concluded.

All sides of the House agree on the importance of meaningful engagement and consultation; it is essential if we want to deliver infrastructure which is well designed and delivers positive outcomes for neighbouring communities and the environment. We expect developers to engage and consult proportionately and constructively, but we also believe that flexibility, not statutory rigidity, is the best way to achieve that. While I appreciate the spirit behind the amendments, they would undermine the very reforms we are trying to deliver, so I hope the noble Baroness will not press them.

Amendment 80 was a proposal previously raised in Committee. As the House will recall, the clause seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider how community consultation has been carried out when deciding whether a nationally significant infrastructure project application should be accepted for examination. It sets out a number of criteria, including whether the applicant has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during early phases, obtained relevant local information and enabled appropriate mitigation through consultation with the affected communities. As we discussed at length in Committee, the Government recognise the value of community engagement. Since 2013, the pre-application stage has nearly doubled in length. Our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament by reducing delays across projects.

I say this to remind noble Lords of the reasoning behind these changes, including the “adequacy of consultation” test in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. We had a system where applicants focus on defensibility rather than dialogue, and where consultation is treated as a hurdle to clear and not a tool to improve proposals. The reformed acceptance test allows the Secretary of State to make a balanced judgment about the quality of the application, recognising that the NSIP process is a continuum from pre-application through to decision. It incentivises applicants to engage with the objective of producing good-quality applications, as opposed to meeting prescriptive statutory requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

13: Clause 6, page 11, line 14, leave out subsection (2)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the amendment made by clause 6 to section 37(3) of the Planning Act 2008, with the result that the test for acceptance of an application for a development consent order would remain unchanged.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 13 to 16, 18 and 20, which revise Clause 6. They are essential to ensuring that the Bill delivers on its core objective: to speed up the delivery of infrastructure by removing unnecessary complexity and delay from the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.

As noble Lords will know, Clause 6 was originally introduced to provide flexibility at the acceptance stage by allowing the Planning Inspectorate—PINS—on behalf of the Secretary of State to request minor changes to applications. It also introduced a new form of words at the acceptance test, requiring PINS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to determine that an application was

“suitable to proceed to examination”

before it could be accepted. This would have replaced the existing test, which is for the application to be of a “satisfactory standard”.

Although a decision not to accept an application at the acceptance stage is rare, the uncertainty that this may occur has contributed towards the growing delays at the pre-application stage. Clause 6 intended to address this in two ways: first, by reducing the risk of a decision not to accept an application by PINS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, by inserting a discretionary power for PINS to delay a final decision while applicants remedied minor issues; and secondly, by making it clear that the acceptance test should focus on whether an application is suitable to be examined.

Since that time, the Government have proposed more radical steps to streamline the system. In future, guidance for applicants will support them in their approach to engagement and consultation on national infrastructure projects. The Government also published a consultation on changes to consultation guidance over the summer.

Although Clause 6 was intended to speed up the system and provide greater certainty, feedback from the sector throughout the Bill’s passage has made it clear that these changes risk doing the opposite. There are concerns that the change of language on the acceptance test is unclear and subjective. One concern is that it may require PINS to routinely interrogate whether there has been sufficient agreement on key issues. There are also concerns that the acceptance test will be too vague and open to interpretation. There are justified concerns that this could lead to inconsistent decisions or even higher barriers to entry of the system. Equally, there are concerns that the new process whereby PINS could request minor changes to applications before they were accepted may be routinely used by PINS to delay applications, rather than being used on rare occasions to assist applications that would otherwise fall.

That is why I am moving amendments that listen to and seek to address those concerns. They restore the original, clear test for acceptance, requiring applications to be of a “satisfactory standard”. They remove the power to delay acceptance decisions through requests for further information and they strip out the consequential provisions that would otherwise support or reference these now removed powers. These changes are simple, targeted and effective. They preserve clarity, reduce uncertainty and ensure that the acceptance stage remains focused on what it should be: assessing whether an application is complete, clear and ready to move forward in statutory timeframes, not interrogating whether every issue related to the project has been resolved.

Although we want applications to be well developed at the acceptance stage, it is not right or realistic to aim for consensus or agreement between all parties at this stage of the process. At the acceptance stage, we want application documents to meet the required standards and we want applicants to be well prepared for the upcoming examination. This means having an awareness of the issues likely to arise and using pre-application to develop a high-quality application, but it does not mean that PINS needs to see that all issues have been resolved.

I can be very clear and say that we remain absolutely committed to high-quality applications being accepted into the NSIP regime. However, in the light of feedback, we no longer think that these select provisions in Clause 6 support achieving that.

PINS will still have tools available to request that applicants address clear gaps, correct deficiencies or provide additional information early on in the process, through either Section 51 advice prior to submission or making procedural decisions during the pre-examination stage. These mechanisms allow for clarification and improvements to documentation, but without creating uncertainty or additional process for applications which meet the acceptance criteria.

These technical amendments are pro-growth, pro-delivery and pro-certainty. They reflect what we have heard from noble Lords and the sector, and they align with the broader reforms we have already made. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting them.

Government Amendments 17 and 19 introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to publish reasons for deciding not to accept a development consent order application at the acceptance stage and clarify the point in the process when a legal challenge against such a decision can be brought. These amendments respond directly to concerns raised in Committee by noble Lords from across the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, who rightly highlighted the importance of and need for transparency and accountability in the early stages of the nationally significant project regime. A transparent process holds everyone to account, and applicants should be reassured that this amendment removes the risk of arbitrary or opaque decision-making.

While I disagree with the position that our pre-application consultation changes will create greater uncertainty in the system or allow poorer-quality applications to progress further, I am in favour of shining a light on the decision-making process and ensuring that the system is as transparent as possible. In other words, we are putting our money where our mouths are. The Planning Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to notify the applicant of their reasons when they decide not to accept a DCO application. At present, and in line with its openness policy, PINS, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, already publishes reasons for its decisions not to accept a DCO application. However, as noble Lords noted, there is no statutory obligation to do so. These amendments aim to improve the legislation to address this gap.

The amendments align the acceptance stage with the principles already embedded in Section 116 of the Planning Act 2008, which requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons when refusing development consent. The amendments ensure that applicants, stakeholders and the wider public can understand why and on what basis a decision has been made not to accept an application, supporting the integrity of the NSIP system. This is a principled response to concerns raised in Committee, and I hope it shows that we are listening carefully to noble Lords’ concerns about how our changes impact the system as a whole. I therefore commend this amendment to the House and urge noble Lords to support its inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened in Committee to the concerns that were raised about the acceptance process. I am pleased that there has been a rethink. The changes proposed in the amendments are not opposed by these Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

14: Clause 6, page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (3)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 12, line 31.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 20A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, was considered in Committee. A number of questions were asked, and I think a number of questions remain unanswered. While we fully recognise the importance of sustainable development, we are not persuaded that this amendment is necessary. It appears to us that the Government already have—or should have—the tools they need to guide public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process, and I think we are satisfied that these powers are sufficient.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for meeting me during recess to discuss this. His Amendment 20A seeks to ensure that, in relation to NSIP for low-carbon energy, relevant authorities should have special regard to the achievement of Government’s environmental targets and sustainable development.

The amendment is similar to one debated in Committee. It refers specifically to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting and adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts under the Climate Change Act 2008, the achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021, and achieving sustainable development.

As the Government made clear in Committee, we recognise the importance of this issue, but we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It is vital that we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure we need, not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. The Bill will deliver a win-win for growth and nature. Developments such as clean energy infrastructure are key to tackling the climate crisis and supporting nature recovery. The Government also appreciate the important role that these bodies play in the planning system. That is why we have taken action in response to the Corry review to ensure that these bodies are joined up and aligned with the Government’s broader priorities. I will say a bit more about that in a moment.

As I did in Committee, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are already utilising the tools they have to guide the considerations given by public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process. The first of these relates to national policy. The energy national policy statements already take full account of the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and to ensure that the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. We are also strengthening national policy statements through this Bill by requiring that they are updated at least every five years, and by making it easier to undertake interim updates for certain types of material amendments. The Government have recently concluded consultation on drafts of EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5, which will be updated to reflect the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan.

The second relates to guidance. It is critical that public bodies engage fully in examinations so that the examining authority has access to their expertise and can properly scrutinise the application before reporting to the Secretary of State. Through the Bill, the Government are introducing a new duty on public bodies to have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State in making representations as part of examinations. This guidance will support government objectives by ensuring that these bodies engage effectively in the process and can provide the right information in a timely way.

We are currently consulting on reforms across the NSIP system to streamline the process. As well as consulting on what pre-application guidance to applicants should contain, we are seeking views on whether to strengthen expectations that statutory bodies attend hearings in person where relevant. As we then review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider how this, alongside government policy in national policy statements, can support the intent of the amendment.

As I have made clear today, the guidance the Government will issue to statutory bodies about their role in the NSIP process will play a vital role, I hope, in addressing noble Lords’ concerns. The Government are clearly in the process of developing policies to update, streamline and rationalise the operation of these bodies and that of regulators and their role in the operation of the planning system, in response to both the Corry and the Cunliffe reviews. My colleagues would welcome further engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and others in the House who have a particular interest in this area, as we undertake the important work.

Complex projects engage multiple regimes, and I understand that they find themselves batted backwards and forwards between Defra regulators. So we are piloting a lead environmental regulator model to provide a single point of contact for developers on the most complex schemes. We have already made a start, working with the Lower Thames Crossing on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked about the timescale for releasing strategic policy statements for Defra regulators in response to the Corry review. This is one of nine fast-tracked recommendations—and I mean fast-tracked. We will communicate on this very soon—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that I am sorry to use that term—and, when I say “very soon”, I am talking about days, not weeks or months; I hope that gives him some guidance. As the noble Lord knows, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters that are relevant and important to decisions. For all those reasons, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those remarks. I am reassured by what she said on timescales and the work that is being undertaken on the NSIP process and the guidance that will come out of that. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to work with her and her team on that guidance. There is more work to do here. The key is ensuring coherence, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said. But I am encouraged by the progress and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 10 July 2025. The Government are committed to the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England. Our remediation acceleration plan sets out how we will remove barriers so that buildings are fixed faster. Crucially, this will allow residents to be and feel safe in their homes.

The Government have already committed £5.1 billion of taxpayers’ money to the cost of remediation. We want to protect leaseholders and residents from further costs that are not of their making. The building safety levy is an essential step in achieving this. The purpose of the levy is to fund the Government’s building safety remediation programme. We estimate that we need to raise around £3.4 billion over 10 years. The draft regulations enable the levy to be imposed. The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floorspace in England. Subject to the approval of the Committee, it will start being charged from 1 October 2026.

Local authorities will collect the levy on behalf of central government. They are well placed to carry out this role as custodians of local building control, with tax collection expertise. I thank local authorities for the vital role they will play and for the steps they are already taking to prepare. My officials are supporting local authorities to ensure that they are ready for the levy launch. We will provide collecting authorities with grant funding for set-up costs. All ongoing costs will be recoverable from the levy revenue received.

The levy provides essential funding to deliver a safe built environment that meets residents’ needs. It complements our broader housing goals, including the delivery of 1.5 million high-quality homes over this Parliament. The levy is designed to minimise detrimental impact on housing supply while securing the required revenue. To achieve this, there are different levy rates for each local authority, which reflect local house prices. This protects viability in areas where house prices are lower. The differential rates are set out in the instrument. Development on previously developed land will benefit from a 50% discount rate. This discount compensates for the often higher cost of developing this type of land, ensuring that more sites remain viable.

The Government are committed to getting Britain building again. Small and medium-sized builders play a crucial role in driving up housebuilding rates but have faced significant challenges in recent years. In fact, just before I came here, I had a very interesting meeting with a round table of SME builders, so I know the immediate challenges they are facing. We are therefore helping SME developers by exempting developments of fewer than 10 dwellings from the levy charge.

Earlier this year, we announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. The building of more good-quality, affordable housing must be accelerated. With this in mind, all affordable housing is exempt from the levy charge. However, we have gone further, and any housing built by a non-profit registered provider of social housing is also exempt. Profits from sales of such homes are often reinvested into the provision of further much-needed affordable housing. Supported housing and other types of important community facilities, such as hospices and care homes, are also exempt from the charge. We will keep the rates and processes under review and will report at least every three years. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of this substantial SI. Although the formula on page 15 may have deterred the casual reader, I found the Explanatory Memorandum at the end a helpful summary of what is proposed.

I welcome the measure as it is a key part of the package proposed by the previous Government to fund remediation costs after the Grenfell tragedy. Although there is an element of rough justice here, in that developers which were not even around at the time of the Grenfell tragedy will have to pay, the alternative—the remediation costs in those cases where the developer was not remediating the building falling entirely on the taxpayer and/or the leaseholder—was even less palatable.

As the Minister said, this SI originates from the Building Safety Act 2022. At first sight, a delay of four years before it is introduced and a further delay before any money is paid are difficult to justify, given the urgent need to make progress with remediation. However, that does not matter; perhaps the Minister can confirm this. Although the taxpayer contribution is capped at £5.1 billion, the Treasury is, as I understand it, prepared to lend the department additional funds should that cap be reached; it will then recoup the money from future levies. As there is no sunset clause, the levy will remain in place until the Treasury is back in funds.

I have two main concerns about the building safety regime: the speed at which it is happening and the exemptions from the Building Safety Act. I made these criticisms of the previous Government, as noble Lords who were there may recall, and tabled amendments—unsuccessfully—to a variety of Bills. So there is nothing partisan about my remarks.

First, on speed, the department published its remediation portfolio dashboard showing the position as at the end of August this year. Of the 5,554 buildings covered by the Act—buildings are still being uncovered—35% had had their work completed and 14% had work under way. This means that, more than eight years after Grenfell, work has not actually started on over half of the buildings at risk.

The dashboard does not label this as “work not started”. Instead, there is a Whitehall euphemism describing it as “in the programme”. The next time my wife asks me why I have not unloaded the dishwasher, I will say that it is in the programme. Seriously, though, this means that thousands of people are still trapped in unsellable homes with unsafe cladding and fire safety defects, often with high service charges and high insurance—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

In programme was the phrase; well, we need “in action” rather than “in programme”. We welcome the levy. It has been designed with care and certain exemptions are in place, particularly for smaller developers, social housing providers and community- focused schemes. Those exemptions are vital and they ensure that the supply of affordable and socially beneficial housing is not inadvertently undermined.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s findings are that the overall impact on house prices and supply is expected to be modest and that the administrative costs are proportionate to the revenues raised, but I want to come on to some of the issues that were raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller. There are two aspects to this: the first is the safety of the people who are in unsafe buildings, which is crucial; the second is that we need to ensure that we are still building buildings for people who do not have a place to live.

Concerns raised by the National Federation of Builders and others about the cumulative impact of regulatory pressure on housebuilding should not be dismissed out of hand. This has its greatest impact on London. My noble friend gave a number of statistics, but Molior’s current analysis suggests that only 15,000 to 20,000 homes will be under construction in London in January 2027. That compares to a target of 82,000 and that was a reduced target. There are 185,000 people living in temporary accommodation in London and over 350,000 in the UK. We need homes, and we need to ensure that whatever we do helps to deliver new homes in a safe and meaningful way, and that there is no cumulative impact from this.

The second part of this—the resourcing and performance of the building safety regulator—is really important. Since July 2024, over 2,000 applications have been submitted for building control at gateways 2 and 3. Of these, 283 have been approved, 670 have been either declared invalid or rejected and 997 are still awaiting approval. Those are delays to buildings. In fact, Building Magazine estimated that one in four that hit stage 4, which is the final approval, are not yet approved: that is hundreds of empty apartments that could be occupied. Therefore, I am again seeking assurance from the Minister on what will be done to speed up the building safety regulator. As my noble friend Lord Fuller also said, the process is somewhat complex; how can we make it more transparent and accessible, so that we can get stuff done more quickly?

Delays or bottlenecks at this stage are slowing down vital safety work and much- needed development alike. As my noble friend Lord Fuller raised, the cash flow impact means that schemes become increasingly unviable, and I have heard a developer say, “We are not starting with this”; not because they are not willing to build safe buildings, but because of the financial risks of unforeseen and unnecessary delays in trying to get through the building safety regulation scheme, and because banks are charging increased interest rates because of that risk to developers. Getting this right is a win-win: we will have more safe buildings and more homes for people. We need to take that into account.

I would like to take a moment to reflect on the wider context. The Grenfell Tower fire was more than eight years ago, and it continues to cast a long shadow in the profound systemic failings in regulation, in oversight and in the way residents’ voices were ignored. Progress has been made since that tragedy, but we must continue to push forward with urgency and determination. The promises made to affected communities must be honoured in full, and the culture that allowed such failures to occur must be permanently changed. In that spirit, we support the introduction of this levy. We believe it is a proportionate and necessary measure, and we will continue to hold the Government to account for how it is implemented. I thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations and commend the work of all those across both Houses and across all parties who have contributed to this important legislation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for those very helpful contributions to this debate and for the broad support that these regulations have received from all noble Lords who have spoken. I completely understand the stress and emotional upset that these issues have caused to all those affected by them, not least because I have a building in Stevenage called Vista Tower, which was profoundly affected by the issues. It was not a cladding issue, it was a different issue, but I have dealt with that over the years since those issues were discovered.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that for those affected by the Grenfell Tower disaster it has been a very long time indeed. We need to move things on as quickly as we can, not just for all those who are still suffering from the impact of the building safety issues, but for those people at Grenfell who have very bravely and courageously, in my view, used the awful experience that they went through to champion the cause of others who have been affected. I hope we can accelerate this plan so that we can get through these issues as quickly as possible. Indeed, as all noble Lords have recognised, this building safety levy is part of the mechanism to help us do that.

I will pick up some of the individual points that noble Peers have made. If I miss any, I am sure they will stand up and ask me again or I will reply in writing.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to Treasury support and the ongoing funding for this. Remediation funding is already being provided, and the levy launch date does not affect the pace of remediation, so we are not going to slow it down and wait for the levy to kick in. The Government are committed to remediating buildings as quickly as possible, so levy receipts will cover the remaining remediation costs once taxpayer contributions, industry pledges and contractual obligations have been taken into account. It is our intention to keep going within an accelerating plan, not wait until the levy comes in to carry on with this work.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the scope of the levy. The scope of the levy does not imply responsibility on behalf of levy payers for historic building safety defects. I think the noble Lord was broadly supportive of putting this levy across the board. Developers have to make a full contribution to the overall cost of making buildings safe, reflecting the wider benefit that they derive from a well-functioning market and the substantial funding support the Government continue to provide to the housing market. So, it is being applied across the board.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, and other Peers mentioned the remediation acceleration plan. Clearly, eight years on from Grenfell there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Our goal is clear: to remove the barriers to remediation, to get buildings fixed faster and to allow residents to, at last, feel safe in their own homes.

An update on the remediation acceleration plan was published in July and outlined our plan to bring forward a remediation Bill in order to create a hard endpoint for remediation. A proposed legal duty to remediate will compel landlords to remediate buildings within fixed timescales or face criminal prosecution.

The RAP set timescales to provide greater clarity to residents on when they might expect their buildings to be remediated. As noble Lords have recognised, we expect that, by the end of 2029, every building over 18 metres in a government funding scheme will be remediated and every building over 11 metres with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated or have a date for completion, or else its landlords will be liable for penalties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

In the comment she just made, the Minister said that all buildings over 18 metres will be done by 2029 and that all buildings in the second category will, by 2031, either be done or have a completion date. The completion date could be one or two years away.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is expected to be a reasonable date. We are not going to let people push it forward another 10 years, for example; that would be unreasonable.

I note noble Lords’ comments about the insurance industry. We continue to work with the insurance industry on this matter. I understand that this is a difficult issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about non-qualifying leaseholders; I know that this matter has been a very sore point with such leaseholders. The leaseholder protections were designed to protect people living in their own homes. That is why the threshold was set at ownership of three properties in total: to distinguish between owner-occupiers and those who have made investment decisions. However, there is still substantial support. All leaseholders benefit where a responsible developer has been identified or where the freeholder is or was associated with the developer, and all leaseholders benefit from protections in relevant buildings if it is their principal home.

Where no responsible developer can be identified or made to pay, the cladding safety scheme funds eligible cladding remediation for buildings over 11 metres, ensuring that leaseholders do not face cladding bills. The law also allows for the recovery of costs for interim measures and expert reports via remediation contribution orders, placing costs with those responsible rather than residents. Even if some leases are non-qualifying—those for investment properties, for example —a leaseholder’s principal home on 14 February 2022 in a relevant building can still be a qualifying lease and benefit from protections if it meets the statutory criteria.

On the issues around construction product manufacturers, the power to charge the levy in the Building Act 1984 do not allow for it to be charged on construction product manufacturers. In February 2025, the Government published the construction products Green Paper, setting out comprehensive proposals for system-wide reform of that construction products regime. We are reviewing consultation responses, including on measures to introduce sufficiently robust sanctions, penalties and liabilities in order to hold economic operators, including construction product manufacturers, to account. The Government are committed to ensuring effective redress for manufacturer failings, whether they are historical or arise in future.

The cost of remediation must be shared equitably among those who have profited from or have an interest in the development and construction of unsafe buildings. It is unacceptable that some construction product manufacturers have not yet made a fair contribution to resolving this building safety crisis; I want to be very categorical about that. The Building Safety Act introduced new provisions in Sections 147 and 151 to enable developers, building owners and leaseholders to bring a claim against construction product manufacturers and suppliers where a product has been mis-sold or is inherently defective; Section 149 allows claims for historical defects where cladding products have rendered a building unfit for habitation. These provisions create redress routes where no direct contractual relationship exists.

Developers sit at the apex of the industry and are therefore well positioned to take the lead in funding and co-ordinating remediation works. Once they are complete, developers can seek to recover costs from the other parties involved in the supply chain. We are currently reviewing those sections of the Building Safety Act to make sure that the redress routes are robust, support effective cost recovery and promote accountability. We will provide an update on that later this year.

On the protection for buildings over 11 metres or five storeys—we have had this discussion before—evidence shows that problems with historical fire safety defects are concentrated in medium and high-rise buildings, where the risk to life tends to increase with height. By contrast, buildings under 11 metres typically present lower risks and can often be managed with other proportionate mitigations rather than remediation schemes. I know that there is a dispute with the insurance industry over that and, as I said, we continue our dialogue with it.

Leaseholders in collectively owned buildings are excluded from the leaseholder protections because the freehold is owned by some or all of the leaseholders, and the protections would therefore not have their intended effect. Collectively owned buildings are still eligible for the Government’s cladding safety scheme and the responsible actors scheme, and they can also bring remediation contribution orders against former owners, developers or associated persons. We are committed to reviewing how better to protect leaseholders from costs.

The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, raised the pace of housebuilding and its impact. The levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply impacts while balancing the need to raise the revenue required to make homes safe. All the issues raised with me at the SME round table I attended earlier this afternoon are already being explored and looked at, and I will continue that dialogue with those people. I have undertaken to give them some feedback.

Developers have had plenty of notice that the levy is coming and to include it in their viability plans. It was announced in 2021, and developers have had 15 months from being provided with the detailed design until the launch in 2026. Levy measures to minimise the housing supply impact—I mentioned these in my introduction—include variable levy rates at local authority level, the discount on developments on previously developed land, exemptions for affordable housing and developments of fewer than 10 dwellings. We expect that the cost of the levy will, in time, be reflected in the price that developers pay for land. Affordable housing is exempt from the building safety levy, and the Government are unlocking housebuilding at an unprecedented level. We have already taken urgent action through the planning reforms, which we will discuss next week, and through the £39 billion of investment for social and affordable housing.

I will make some comments on the building safety regulator because it is really important and noble Lords have mentioned it. Local authorities will administer the levy even when the building safety regulator is the Building Control Authority. The levy has been designed to minimise additional responsibilities imposed on the BSR. On 30 June, we announced a new phase for the BSR, including strengthening the leadership of that organisation, tackling operational challenges and moving it from the HSE to a stand-alone body. The building safety regulator has been open and transparent about the challenges of implementing a significant shift in the way building safety is now regulated in high-risk buildings.

The BSR has implemented a range of operational improvements, and it will recruit over 100 new staff to strengthen capacity by the end of the year. Over the past three months, the BSR has made major changes to improve the processing of gateway 2 applications, including a new fast-track innovation unit. Early indications suggest that the new model is working effectively. We expect the model to start to deliver improvements in processing times in the coming months, and we continue to commit to the highest standards of safety. The fast-track process is about refining a new system, not stepping back on commitments. I take the noble Lord’s point about the quality of responses; it is clearly not acceptable to send a response back with just “roof” written on it. I will take that back. His points about digital compatibility are well made. I will take those back and reply to him in writing.

On the payment point, I understand that the levy is paid at building control application, and in a major development that would probably be phased, so the building levy would be applied in that phased way. The noble Lord asked for a delay to the introduction, but developers have already had 15 months after being provided with the detail, so I do not think that that would be justified.

On the SME point, we are still consulting on the issue around medium-sized developments. I will respond in due course, once we have analysed those responses.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about reviews. They can be more frequent—the minimum is three years—and there will be a continual review process. We need a balance, providing certainty with an ability to amend in the light of changing circumstances. We will continually keep this under review. In response to his question about PBSA, 30 bed spaces in PBSA are roughly equivalent to 10 dwelling-house thresholds, so that is why it has been set at that rate.

In conclusion, we think that the building safety levy is essential to fund the remediation of these historic building safety issues without further burdening residents and leaseholders, who have already suffered quite considerably through all this. The Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and to unlock growth. That must work in parallel with our commitment to remedying the building safety failures of the past. The industry that contributed to such problems must pay to remedy them. The draft regulations set out a fair approach to collect the required funds, while ensuring minimal impact on housing supply and industry.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister very kindly commented on the improvements in the speed and transparency of the building safety regulator—that is very good. Is there a timetable of targets for how quickly it will turn around gateway 2, gateway 3 and gateway 4? I do not expect an answer now, but, if so, would the Minister be kind enough to write to us on that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. A new person—Andy Roe—is in charge of the building safety regulator. It would be helpful for me to ask Andy to draft a letter for noble Lords to set out our progress on making the BSR more effective.

Motion agreed.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.

11A: Because the usual tenant’s deposit can cover pet damage, so a specific additional deposit is unnecessary.

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A I will, with the leave of the House, speak also to Motions E, F, G, G1 and L, which are grouped together.

It is a great pleasure to bring the Renters’ Rights Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I start by thanking my colleague in the other place, the Housing Minister, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments agreed by your Lordships. As he outlined, the Government made a clear manifesto commitment to the people to modernise the insecure and unjust private rented sector. The Renters’ Rights Bill delivers on this promise by empowering private renters with more rights, protection and greater security of tenure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments in this group.

I begin with the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, Amendment 11B, which would allow landlords to require an additional deposit equivalent to one to three weeks’ rent as a condition of their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. A requirement for a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. This is unaffordable for most tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300.

While I truly appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has considered these affordability issues to a degree in his amendment in lieu by stating that the additional deposit may be from one to three weeks at the landlord’s reasonable discretion, I am afraid that we still cannot accept this amendment. In practice, this provision would effectively be the same as allowing landlords to request up to three weeks’ deposit, as the original amendment did. Many landlords will charge the full amount, giving rise to the same affordability challenges as the original amendment.

As outlined at Lords Report, the Government have existing powers under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 which will allow Parliament to require a larger deposit where a landlord has consented to the tenant having a pet. We will continue to keep this position under review following Royal Assent. If there is clear evidence that pet damage is exceeding normal tenancy deposits, we have the Tenant Fees Act power, which would allow us to remedy this.

Amendment 39D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would introduce an annual reporting requirement on the quality of military accommodation. I express my grateful thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill, for their continued engagement on this issue. I also extend my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his tireless advocacy for service personnel and their families. I am sure that the whole House will agree that our armed service personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. The Government acknowledge the vital role that accommodation plays in their lives. We are determined to ensure that our personnel have access to safe, high-quality accommodation that meets their needs and reflects the importance of their service to our nation.

As I have previously outlined, the Government are committed to driving up the standards of military accommodation further. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in service family accommodation over the next five years, above that already committed. Later this year, the Government will publish a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lived experience of our personnel.

I welcome the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness and can confirm that the Government support this approach in principle. We have therefore tabled Amendments 39B and 39C as amendments in lieu, which will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard. This amendment will place on a statutory basis the commitments the Housing Minister made in the other place for greater transparency and accountability on the quality of military accommodation. Alongside the Government’s wider actions that I have already highlighted, this will make a real difference in ensuring that service personnel and their families have homes of the quality they deserve. I have discussed the Government’s amendment in lieu with the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, and with Gideon Amos MP, to whom I am grateful for his strong advocacy on this issue in the other place. They have indicated their support, and I hope that noble Lords will also support this amendment.

Finally, Lords Amendments 26 and 27, which were tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, would require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his constructive engagement on this issue. We believe that local authorities will enforce these measures against the relevant standard of proof effectively. However, we understand the concerns from noble Lords that if this is not the case, there is a risk of an unsatisfactory decision.

With that in mind, I can confirm that the Government will include in the relevant statutory guidance to local authorities advice that a local authority exercises a quasi-judicial function when imposing a civil penalty, and should therefore be satisfied by credible, reliable and sufficient documentary or other evidence on the balance of probabilities that a person has breached a relevant requirement before imposing a penalty. Moreover, the Bill already gives a person against whom a local authority proposes to impose a penalty a right to make representations before a final decision is made, as well as a right to an appeal by way of rehearing against a penalty. I am pleased to have come to an agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, on this issue. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords and that they will agree to the Motion not to insist from the other place.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters: first, the Ministry of Defence accommodation, and then the pet deposit. On the Ministry of Defence housing, we thank the Government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised, and the Government’s response has been both proportionate and pragmatic. On these Benches, as ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the Government’s Motion.

Turning to pets, I support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on an issue that has filled my inbox and, I know, that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson as well. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet-related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. However, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, emphasised, no such insurance product actually existed. Once the Government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing was put in its place.

The noble Lord’s amendment would restore that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring that renters can keep pets in their homes while landlords have reassurance that any pet-related damage can be covered. If there is no damage, the deposit will be returned. Recent research by Propertymark shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets. Yet more staggeringly, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.

Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these Benches will support him.

Finally, I thank the Government for their constructive engagement and the assurances given in writing and from the Dispatch Box on the standard of proof. Those commitments provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister’s response.

Taken together, we believe that these measures improve the Bill, and make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for tenants and landlords alike.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their positive approaches throughout the course of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his support—I will come on to some of the points that he raised in a moment—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

I think the responses to this part of the debate are pragmatic. I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. He mentioned the Government’s change in position on pet insurance. We had an extensive debate, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We drew on the expertise of Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees. The Government consulted further with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following that engagement, we concluded that we were no longer confident that the insurance and underwriting sector would have sufficient or suitable products available for landlords or tenants to purchase.

In view of that, we did not want to leave tenants in a position where they could not comply with conditions set as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean they would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having pet provisions in the Bill. I am pleased to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has indicated its support for the Government’s approach, including the approach of not accepting this amendment. I received just today a letter of very strong support from Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, and another email from Shelter expressing its support and hope that this amendment would not be accepted, because it did not feel that it was in the interest of tenants or their pets. We used the information from the University of Huddersfield as part of our consideration.

It is important to say that, as I noted in my opening speech, we will continue to keep this under review. We have powers to allow for higher deposits for pets, if needed. We are satisfied at the moment that the existing requirement of five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any increased damage by pet ownership. I know some landlords are concerned about potential damage that may be caused by pets. Landlords can deduct damage costs from the normal tenancy deposit, as they do now. In rare cases, where the deposit did not cover the cost of the damage, the landlord could take the tenant to the small claims court and bring a money claim to recoup any outstanding amounts, in line with the wider rules in the sector.

We do not want to put tenants in a position where they cannot have a pet because there are no suitable insurance products available or they cannot afford the additional cost of a deposit. We will keep this matter under review, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Motion.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

I thank your Lordships for your thoughts and speeches. I am pleased about, and support, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, being accepted by the Government.

The Minister has not changed her position on my amendment. I understand the comments regarding the deposit scheme. On the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I am just as passionate about allowing more people to have pets. With this amendment, I am trying to encourage landlords not to leave the sector due to tenants having pets. I would like more people to have pets, and I realise how important that is, but there is a balance to be struck with trying to reassure landlords, because they do not accept pets at the present time. There are very few properties on the market that allow them.

This amendment is trying to create a balance. I appreciate that some tenants will struggle to find that deposit, but I believe that, by having it in place, more landlords would be willing to accept pets, and there would be less disruption between landlords and tenants when tenants ask to have pets. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 14A in lieu—

14A: Clause 14, page 22, line 3, leave out “16C” and insert “16B”

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions C, C1, D and D1, which are grouped together.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments relating to the no-let restriction. Lords Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is intended to reduce the no-let period to six months where the property has been demonstrably on the market and no suitable offers have been received for that period. The noble Lord and I, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have discussed this amendment at length and I thank them again for their continued engagement on this issue. The Government understand that there may be situations where landlords genuinely intend to sell their property but cannot do so. However, the reletting and remarketing restriction is one of the strongest safeguards we have in the Bill.

I know that many noble Lords agree with the restriction in principle but disagree with its length. The Government believe that the 12-month period will make it unprofitable for a landlord to abuse this ground. It is vital that these strong protections for tenants remain in place, and I want to be clear about the Government’s position and commitment. This is shared by Members in the other place, and today I was pleased to receive strong support from Shelter, citing research from the Nationwide Foundation that one in five landlord sale evictions does not result in a sale.

Lords Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would exempt shared owners from the re-letting and re-marketing restriction and other important restrictions. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking the time to meet, particularly during recess when he was kind enough to have meetings to discuss this important issue, and for his continued support for shared owners. I also thank him for his amendments in lieu: Amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.

The Government are very sympathetic to shared owners experiencing building safety issues and the particular challenges they face. We have already taken a number of steps outside the Bill to provide greater clarity for shared owners on what flexibilities and support they can expect from providers. These include new commitments in the update to the Government’s remediation acceleration plan, published in July. The noble Lord’s amendments in lieu acknowledge the unique circumstances in which shared owners operate, while not compromising on the core aim of the Bill to improve security of tenure in the sector. The Government are delighted to support his amendments and we encourage the House to agree to them. We will continue to work with the noble Lord as the Bill is implemented. I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will address Amendment 18, Motion C1 in place of Motion C. To recap very briefly on the substance of the amendment, the Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property fails to sell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to our ongoing discussions on these matters.

On the failure-to-sell points, the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Pannick, queried why we are determined not to reduce the no-let period to six months if the landlord can prove that the property is not selling on the open market. Of course it is imperative that we provide the very strong protections against back-door evictions so that renters have more security and stability and can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of becoming homeless.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to 12 months being a disproportionate sanction, but we have carefully considered the balance between the rights of the landlord and the security of the tenant, and that is why we have come to the conclusion that the current 12-month restriction on reletting being introduced will prevent abuse of the possession grounds, for example, by potentially opening up the practice of backdoor Section 21-style evictions to unscrupulous landlords. This length of time will make it unprofitable for a landlord to evict a tenant with the intention of reletting the property to another tenant at a higher rent. Any noble Lords who have dealt with housing cases will know of cases where that has undoubtably happened. In the areas where the markets are very hot, it happens even more. The restriction also ensures that landlords cannot pursue the retaliatory evictions so clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We hear of frequent examples of that as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to me talking about people being forced to reduce the price. I do not think it was a matter of forcing people to reduce the price. If the property is on the market for that 12-month period, it discourages landlords from marketing their property at a price which they know will not sell. It will give time for that property price to be reduced over time and means it is less likely to encourage those Section 21 evictions via the backdoor.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about properties being empty for a whole year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, very ably demonstrated, there is no need for those properties to sit empty. They can be marketed while the tenants are still there if notice has been given. We do not need to have this protection reduced to six months. It is very important. I have had a plea from Shelter, as well as other renters’ organisations, over the last few days that we do not water down this provision in the Bill. It is a very important part of the protection for tenants. We genuinely believe that we have got the balance right between the rights of the landlord and the protections for the tenant.

On the issue around shared owners, as other noble Lords have commented, I have been very impressed with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has championed the cause of shared owners. We all realise the very difficult situation they find themselves in. I would also like to thank the Shared Owners’ Network, which has been very good in its briefings to all of us and in helping us to come to the conclusions we have reached on this. Shared owners find themselves in a very difficult position—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, describes them as reluctant landlords, and we know that that is where they are.

The noble Lord asked how the requirement for a shared owner to inform the assured tenant of the exemption will work for existing tenancies. The Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared-owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have the opportunity to provide this information to their tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take time to make sure that we get the right approach and ensure that we find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do this by using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by Clause 147 of the Bill. I very much look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Young, on this point as we prepare for the implementation of the Bill. I beg to move.

Motion B agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 18A.

18A: Because it is not appropriate for the restricted period (when re-letting is not permitted) to be reduced below 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.

19A: Because it is not appropriate for new sections 16E and 16F to be disapplied in relation to shared ownership leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 26, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 26A.

26A: Because the criminal standard of proof is not practical for the imposition of a financial penalty under clause 42.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 27A.

27A: Because the criminal standard of proof is not practical for the imposition of a financial penalty under clause 59.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 39A, and do propose Amendments 39B and 39C in lieu—

39A: Because it involves charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 53, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 53A.

53A: Because there is insufficient justification to extend ground 4A beyond student house-shares.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion H. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions J, K and K1, which are grouped together.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for their amendments relating to grounds for possession. Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would remove the restriction from ground 4A, which limits it to only students living in HMOs. This would allow students living in self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties, for example, to be evicted each year.

We have been clear from the outset that this ground has been carefully designed to ensure that the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We believe that the ground applying to typical groups of undergraduates living together in a shared house is the right position, while a postgraduate couple, for example, who have put down roots in the area and may live in a smaller property, should benefit from the full set of protections that the Bill gives tenants.

Noble Lords have expressed concerns about the impact that this restriction will have on the supply of one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties in the student market. With respect, I do not think that these fears will be borne out. There will continue to be demand for these properties, and many students will continue to move out in line with the academic year, even when not evicted. Renting to students continues to be a buoyant market, and I do not believe that the Bill will dampen this.

As I have stressed at length, one of the core principles of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure being evicted more regularly. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness does not insist on her amendment.

I turn next to Lords Amendment 64, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, which would introduce a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves, their spouse or child. I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtful amendment in lieu. He has carefully considered some of the points I raised when we discussed his previous amendment. It is more specific on the type of care to be given and ensures that the ground can be used only where the dwelling is very nearby to the person requiring care.

The Government of course recognise the vital work that carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. We will continue to look at what steps we can take to support the care sector, and phase 1 of the independent review into adult social care chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, should report next year. While we are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid that we cannot support the amendment.

I remind the House that we have already strengthened possession grounds to cover some situations, such as housing employees. In these cases, we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.

Providing security for tenants in the private rented sector is the Government’s priority, and we have put much thought into the design of the possession grounds to ensure that they balance the needs of landlords and tenants. There must be a compelling case for new grounds, with strong evidence that it is justified for a tenant to lose their home. This proposal does not meet that bar.

We engaged extensively with stakeholders throughout the development of the Bill, and there have been only very limited calls for a ground for landlords who require care. Any added ground increases the complexity of the system, which allows more potential for abuse. The amendment could lead to a long-term member of the community losing their home to house a carer required only for a short period, and there have not been significant calls for it from the sector. I therefore ask that the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in lieu.

On government Amendment 62A, I would like to extend my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers’ Union for their very constructive work with the department to find a solution to the concerns they raised. As the Housing Minister explained in the other place, the Government have reflected on their position and tabled amendments in lieu, which narrowly expand ground 5A to allow agricultural landlords to evict assured tenants in order to house both employees and non-employed workers engaged in agriculture.

We believe that this is a small technical change that supports the Government’s ambition to ensure that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising security of tenure. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers’ Union have indicated their support for these changes. I hope that noble Lords will also support the amendment. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am sorry, but every single person who would use this would be evicting a set of people, and the Bill is about protecting tenants in their place. Very few people will be in that privileged position. We and the Government have to make decisions about where that balance lies, and the decision has been made that way. I am sorry if it offends some people, but that has to be considered when making a decision of this sort.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to this debate. There have been some emotive discussions—I will come on to those in a moment—and some very thoughtful and considered responses to the amendments, and I am grateful for that.

I will start with the potential expansion of ground 4A. The Government recognise that the new tenancy system will have an impact on the way the student market operates. While we believe the ground covers the majority of the market, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that covers all circumstances. We think it is reasonable that the ground will apply to full-time students in larger house-share situations. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure—such as single parents living with their children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area—being evicted more regularly. I took my degree as a mature student. I am very sympathetic to people who have to run other parts of their life alongside their student life. They may be working or have families or caring responsibilities to cope with alongside their student life.

Noble Lords have raised concerns that the Bill could cause severe shortages of student accommodation or force students into expensive purpose-built student accommodation. We do not expect our reforms to have that level of destabilising effect on the rental market. I shall quote from Shelter’s email to me today: “This amendment would deny a group of renters the security and stability offered by the Renters’ Rights Bill, many of whom will be in employment or with caring responsibilities that sit alongside their student life”. That is when stability is key, and we do not believe they should be denied that stability. We will continue to work with good landlords and their representative associations throughout the implementation of the Bill.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for his amendment. As I have outlined, everyone in the House is aware of the remarkable and vital work that carers do to support families and individuals in difficult circumstances. However, given the risk of abuse and the very limited circumstances—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, put this very well—in which it might apply or could be used, we do not believe this new ground is warranted. We have ensured that possession grounds are fair to both parties, giving tenants more security while ensuring that landlords can recover their property when reasonable. For example, if the carer is a family member, as set out in ground 1, a landlord can use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate the carer.

I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Warwick for illustrating some of the issues that may arise, particularly in rural communities, around who may be evicted as a result of this ground. I want to add to the list of those who could be evicted an existing carer living in a rural setting where there might be very scarce housing, so you may have to evict one carer to put another carer in place. If there is scarce housing in that area, you may end up in that circumstance. Of course, the Government will continue to look at ways that they can support carers. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that once the Casey review is published, we will look at all the issues around carer support once again.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his comments. I know that he was not able to stay in the Chamber for the end of the debate, but we had specific issues raised by stakeholders, including the National Farmers’ Union. We listened very carefully to what they said, and we have ensured that the ground now has appropriate protections in place preventing landlords evicting assured tenants to house short-term workers. I am glad that that met the noble Lord’s request in terms of the amendment that he submitted previously.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 55 to 62 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62A in lieu of Lords Amendments 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62.

62A: Schedule 1, page 173, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—
“The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a qualifying agricultural worker.
For the purposes of this ground a person is a “qualifying agricultural worker” in case A or B.
Case A is where—
(a) the person will be employed in agriculture as a seasonal or permanent employee under a contract of employment, and
(b) the employer under that contract is—
(a) the landlord, or
(b) in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of those landlords.
Case B is where—
(a) the person will be—
(i) employed in agriculture under a contract of employment, but the employer under that contract is not the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, any of those landlords, or
(ii) working in agriculture under a contract that is not a contract of employment, whether the contract is express or implied and (if express) whether oral or in writing,
(b) the person will be employed or working in agriculture under that contract wholly or mainly for—
(i) the landlord, or
(ii) in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of the landlords, and
(c) the relevant landlord intends that employment or work to continue for at least six months after the relevant date; and here “relevant landlord” means the landlord, or whichever of the joint landlords, the person will be wholly or mainly working for.
In this ground—
“agriculture” has the same meaning as in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (see section 1 of that Act);
“contract of employment” has the meaning given by section 230(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 64, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 64A.

64A: Because there is insufficient justification for enabling possession to be sought to accommodate carers

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion. I beg to move.

Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)

Tabled by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 67, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 67A.

67A: Schedule 2, page 194, line 11, leave out “16C” and insert “16B”

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 23, Schedule 1, Clauses 24 to 41, Schedule 2, Clauses 42 to 52, Schedule 3, Clauses 53 to 66, Schedule 4, Clauses 67 to 83, Schedule 5, Clauses 84 to 90, Schedule 6, Clauses 91 to 113, Title.

Motion agreed.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

249A: Clause 55, page 92, line 23, leave out “the”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be a drafting correction so that subsection (6) refers to “the environmental impact of development” which is the defined term in subsection (8).

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the regulation-making powers governing the nature of the restoration levy. The powers provide the framework for how the levy will operate and how it will be used to unlock development and deliver nature restoration. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, that we have a whole group on CPO powers, group 9, so I am sure we will have further discussions about that then. The substance of the levy will be governed by secondary legislation, which will be laid under the affirmative procedure following Royal Assent. It is worth highlighting that, as well as receiving scrutiny from Parliament, the relevant charging schedule will form part of the consultation on each EDP, and, to reiterate, the use of an EDP will be a choice for developers.

Turning to Amendments 256 and 313, tabled by the noble Lord, Blencathra, the Government have designed the nature restoration fund to work on a cost-recovery basis, with actions required to deliver EDPs funded by the developers who use the EDP. The framework of powers ensures that the levy can be designed to achieve this aim, and that all appropriate costs can be met through the levy. This follows the polluter pays principle, as the EDP will address the negative impact from development, so it is right that these costs be met through the levy. Given the range of matters that may need to be addressed through an EDP, there may be circumstances where the acquisition of land is required. Where this is the case, it is only right that this cost be recovered through the levy, rather than through public funds, whether the land is acquired by agreement or through compulsory purchase.

While I recognise the concern around the use of compulsory purchase, these are important powers to ensure sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, land can be acquired for delivering conservation measures. This again highlights the importance of consultation on each EDP to ensure proper scrutiny before the EDP is considered by the Secretary of State.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt again, and I appreciate that other amendments deal with this, but the very simple principle is that if you are buying somebody’s land, you should pay a fair market price for it, surely.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct, and there are provisions for that in the process.

Turning to Amendment 307, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, I note that he is a non-native species of Surrey; I hope he is not an invasive species of Surrey. His amendment would limit what administrative expenses could be included within a charging schedule to those included in Section 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. These powers were drafted long before the NRF and extend solely to charging for providing a service and for licences. Natural England’s role in the NRF is wider than simply providing a service. It will be drafting EDPs, conducting surveys and analysis to work out the most appropriate conservation measures, and consulting on them and presenting them to the Secretary of State. It will subsequently have administration costs as part of implementation, such as contracts with service providers and administration of levy collection. Many noble Lords have also referred to the need for a proper scientific basis, and it will be important that it be able to deliver that scientific evidence.

As mentioned previously the Government’s objective is for the NRF and Natural England’s role in delivering it to operate on a cost-recovery basis, which would not be possible if we were to accept this amendment. To ensure value for money for the taxpayer, it is important that Natural England can recover all appropriate costs as part of the levy.

I turn to Amendment 308A from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. We agree with the noble Lord. The Government are clear that money from nature restoration levies will be used to deliver the EDP and secure the necessary conservation measures. While Natural England will be the organisation drafting EDPs on behalf of the Secretary of State, it will not always be best placed to deliver the conservation measures, so we will work with other bodies when securing those measures. We will set out a procurement strategy in due course that will speak to the issues the noble Lord is driving at through his amendment.

When Natural England works with or through partners it will remain bound by the provision in Clause 71 to

“spend money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy on conservation measures that relate to the environmental feature in relation to which the levy is charged”.

Money used in this way cannot simply be used for other purposes. For that reason, Clause 71 still requires that this money be monitored and accounted for. On the basis that there is always a link between the levy and the delivery of conservation measures, regardless of whether Natural England is the body delivering them, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 309, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government have tabled an amendment making it explicit that Natural England can only deliver network measures—measures that do not directly address the impact on a protected site but improve the same feature elsewhere—where it considers that they will make a greater contribution to the improvement of the environmental feature in question than measures that address the impact of development locally.

Under these proposals, Natural England will be required to state how it reached this conclusion with reference to the best available scientific evidence. Crucially, network measures could never be used where to do so would result in the loss of an irreplaceable habitat, as this would inherently not pass the overall improvement test. More generally, the amendment would limit actions within the boundary of a local planning authority that may not align with the ecological boundary of, or environmental impact on, a protected site. I trust that this speaks to the substance of Amendment 309, given that the Government’s amendment provides an ecological lock on the use of these measures by requiring Natural England to pay regard to the need to protect the overall coherence of the relevant site network.

Amendment 310, also from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations covering all the matters listed within Clause 71(3). There are many indispensable elements to the levy regulations that will be brought forward to ensure that this legislation can operate effectively. However, framing the power as a “may” rather than a “must” provides the Secretary of State with discretion when deciding whether it is necessary to bring forward specific requirements in regulations.

I turn to Amendment 312 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The Government agree that transparency is vital throughout the EDP process. That is why the Bill already includes reporting requirements at the midpoint and endpoint of an EDP that will include information about the cost of conservation measures. In addition, Natural England will be required to publish annual reports across the NRF that will include a summary of Natural England’s accounts, with information about the total amount of levy received and the amount spent on conservation measures each year. Through this process, we are confident that there will be an adequate level of transparency in respect of both costings and expenditure.

I turn to Amendments 314 and 315, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Blencathra. As I set out previously, removing Natural England’s ability to recover administrative expenses would require the Government or Natural England—and as a result, the taxpayer—to shoulder the cost of creating EDPs and any administrative costs of implementing them. Similarly, removing Natural England’s ability to include previous expenses would directly impact this and remove the Government’s ability to forward conservation fund measures to Natural England, which would then recover the money through the levy when development proposals come forward before repaying the Government. Furthermore, limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure would restrict its flexibility to secure the most appropriate conservation measures and plan for unforeseen circumstances. Allowing these costs to be included within a charging schedule will ensure the long-term viability of the nature restoration fund and provide greater certainty that environmental outcomes will be achieved.

In a similar vein to previous amendments, Amendment 301A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would require that money accepted through the nature restoration levy be classified as additional to the core funding of Defra or Natural England. I can assure the noble Lord that the legislation is clear that the nature restoration levy is provided to Natural England to deliver on the EDP and cannot be used for purposes outside the EDP. As part of this, and to ensure transparency, regulations may require Natural England to account separately for any money received through the nature restoration levy that would prevent this from being merged with central budgets.

Although the levy can be used by Natural England for administrative expenses in connection with an EDP, this must, as the drafting suggests, be in connection with an EDP. This might cover the costs of drafting and implementing a specific EDP, or a proportion of the cost of setting up a digital platform for the NRF generally, but the nature restoration levy would not affect the core budget of either Natural England or Defra, which remains a matter for the Government. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel comfortable to withdraw his amendment.

On Amendment 307A, the nature restoration fund is being established to support development, so it is vital that the nature restoration levy does not undermine the economic viability of development while still being able to secure sufficient funding to deliver the necessary conservation measures to meet the overall improvement test. There is no legislative requirement to include contingency in the levy, as framed by this amendment. However, it is important that the regulations allow for circumstances where it may be necessary or prudent to include a precautionary buffer to support the delivery of conservation measures, whether through back-up conservation measures or simply because the primary conservation measures may cost more than originally anticipated.

Crucially, a draft charging schedule will include details of how the levy has been calculated. If a contingency were included in the charging schedule, this would form part of the draft EDP, which will be subject to consultation before being considered by the Secretary of State. While I am confident that the nature restoration levy will be set at a fair price that supports development, the use of EDPs will remain voluntary in all but the most exceptional circumstances. A developer is therefore free to use the existing system if they do not think the EDP or the levy is appropriate. Developers will have full clarity on what they are paying—

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I thank the Minister for explaining those points, but I just want to clarify something. I think that we were both at the same meeting where I challenged Natural England on this, and it assured me that there would be a contingency. For a large project, I think it is perfectly sensible to have a contingency, but when I questioned what would happen to the contingency, or indeed any unspent funds, after of meeting the required level of environmental reparation, I was assured, to my astonishment, that it would not be handed back as excess but would spend it on some more good environmental stuff, above and beyond what was anticipated for the levy. That is a sleight of hand, if I can put it in those terms, to use money that was not needed for the purpose for which it was provided for another purpose. Perhaps, at best, there is a difference in understanding between the department and Natural England, which it would be helpful to clarify.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point; I will attempt to clarify that for him. There are potentially significant complexities and legal and financial liabilities introduced by requiring the return of the money with interest to developers. Given that developers will have already received the benefit they paid for, it would be more proportionate, and better for nature, for Natural England to use any excess funds to the benefit of the environmental feature. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The noble Lord and I are starting to repeat ourselves, so perhaps we can talk about it outside. However, that is not the reply that the Minister has given me.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am happy to continue the conversation on this, but I would reiterate that it is up to the developer whether they enter into an EDP. They will have a charging schedule set out before them and, if they feel the contingency is too great, they can argue it or not take part in the EDP.

On Amendment 309A, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Young, I reassure my noble friend that the intention of her amendment is already captured. I agree that it is crucial that Natural England ensures the effective delivery of conservation measures, which is why Clause 55 sets out that the conservation measures in an EDP

“are to be taken by, or on behalf of, Natural England … to … address the environmental impact of development”,

as well as

“contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the identified environmental feature”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

256A: Clause 57, page 93, line 5, leave out “the conservation measures are considered” and insert “Natural England considers the conservation measures to be”
Member's explanatory statement
This would be a minor drafting change to align the style of paragraph (a) of clause 57(2) with that of paragraph (aa) (as inserted by my another of my amendments to clause 57) and paragraph (b).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

258B: Clause 57, page 93, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) Where an EDP includes conservation measures of the type mentioned in section 55(4) (network conservation measures), it must state how, in the opinion of Natural England, the measures comply with the requirement in section 55(4A) (network measure to make a greater contribution to improvement of conservation status of the feature than onsite measure).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that, where an EDP includes network conservation measures, it must state how Natural England considers that these meet the requirement in section 55(4A) (inserted by my amendment to clause 55 at page 92 line 12) that they are more effective than onsite measures.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

260A: Clause 57, page 93, line 19, leave out “58(2) and (3)” and insert “(General duties when exercising functions relating to EDPs)(3) and (4)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment leaving out clause 58 and my amendment inserting a new clause before clause 88.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

262A: Clause 57, page 93, line 24, leave out from first “the” to end of line 27 and insert “EDP (see section 76(4) and (5)).”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 76 inserting a new subsection (4).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

278A: Clause 59, page 94, line 28, at end insert—
“(A1) When Natural England decides to prepare an EDP, it must— (a) notify the Secretary of State of that decision, and (b) publish the notification given to the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment leaving out clause 58.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

286A: Clause 60, page 96, line 4, leave out “conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to” and insert “effect of the conservation measures will materially”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make changes to strengthen the overall improvement test, which the Secretary of State must consider before making an EDP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 292, which requires that, where land has been acquired under compulsory purchase but is not then used for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Secretary of State should seek to return it to the landowner. Surely that is natural justice. However, it leaves open what happens to any compulsory purchase funds that have been paid to the landowner. To my mind, the funds should be returned if they wish to take back the land.

I draw the Committee’s attention to evidence from HS2, including coverage on the BBC—is there a debate we can have without reference to HS2? Land was compulsorily purchased, but when it was decided that the land was not needed, it was offered back to the farmer in question to buy at a far higher price, or the so-called market value, which is a fine example of profiteering on the back of compulsory purchase. I also remind the Committee of the concerns I evidenced on Monday about the bullying behaviour of agents acting for authorities with compulsory purchase powers. Despite what it says about it being a last resort in theory, when the agents are motivated to acquire the land as quickly and cheaply as possible, different tactics often apply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group relates to the powers in Part 3 for Natural England to make a compulsory purchase for purposes connected with the taking of conservation measures. The Government have taken a cautious approach in respect of compulsory purchase powers, but it is clear that this needs to be available to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure that conservation measures are delivered. However, the Government recognise the need for such powers to be tightly constrained, and I am confident that, when considered alongside existing safeguards, the proposed amendments are not necessary.

I turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, which seek to require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order in two different scenarios. The first is when Natural England uses these powers to purchase a piece of land and the Secretary of State later decides not to make the EDP in question. I can assure the noble Lords that this will never happen, as Natural England cannot make a compulsory purchase before the EDP has been made.

The second scenario is when an EDP is revoked. Where an EDP is revoked, any land secured through compulsory purchase may 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. Requiring land to be returned automatically would risk removing a crucial way of delivering remedial measures and potentially damaging the relevant environmental feature.

Where land has been compulsorily purchased and is not needed, and it would genuinely be surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply. The land would be offered back to the former owner, their successor or sitting tenants at market value, provided that the land has not materially changed and none of the exceptions under the rules applied. These rules are well-established, as we discussed in a debate the other day, so I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.

Moving to Amendment 323, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I assure the noble Lords that the subject of their amendment is already addressed in the Bill. CPO powers may be used only in connection with the taking of conservation measures, as defined in the legislation. Amendment 324 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is part of a private dwelling. I would first like to assure noble Lords that this type of land is incredibly unlikely to meet the high bar for compulsory purchase or to be approved by the Secretary of State. The use, or future use, of land will be taken into account by the Secretary of State when approving the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight, and noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act 1998. I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned that himself.

Finally, Amendment 352 would extend the compulsory purchase powers to Crown land. The CPO powers in the Bill are there to provide assurance that land can be acquired where necessary to ensure that an EDP can deliver the necessary conservation measures. Extending these powers to cover Crown land is unnecessary. To put it simply, if Natural England were to require Crown land for a conservation measure, that would be resolved between Natural England and the relevant authority. I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this short debate and previous debates covering other amendments relating to CPOs have been a clear demonstration of just how emotive compulsory purchase is. Handing these powers to Natural England almost unfettered is surely a step too far. I am grateful to the Minister for trying to reassure the Committee, but the comments about going back at market value are exactly the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted: if that market value has changed dramatically between when the CPO happened and when it was decided to return it, that would seem rather unfair. A requirement to buy the land back at the same price would be fine.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

295A: Clause 62, page 97, line 19, at end insert—
“(5A) A report under subsection (1)(a) (midpoint report) must also include an assessment of whether the EDP is likely to pass the overall improvement test.(5B) A report under subsection (1)(b) (final report) must also include—(a) an assessment of whether the EDP has passed the overall improvement test, and(b) if the assessment is that the EDP has not passed the test, the extent to which the conservation measures have failed to outweigh the negative effect of the EDP development as mentioned in section 60(4).(5C) A report under subsection (2) (revocation report) must also include—(a) an assessment of whether the EDP would be likely to pass the overall improvement test if it were not being revoked, but reading section 60 as if—(i) the reference in subsection (4) to the conservation measures were a reference to the conservation measures that have been or will be taken despite the EDP’s revocation (but not including any measures taken by way of remedial action under section (Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked)(4));(ii) the reference in subsection (5) to the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply were a reference to all of the development in respect of which a developer has paid or will pay the nature restoration levy despite the EDP’s revocation;(b) if the assessment is that the EDP would be unlikely to pass the test, the extent to which those conservation measures are likely to fail to outweigh the negative effect of that development.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to include more detail in its reports about the effect of any conservation measures that have been implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

295B: Clause 63, page 97, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) Where Natural England requests, or the Secretary of State is minded to make, an amendment to an EDP that—(a) increases the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply, as specified under section 54(5),(b) changes the development area to include a new area to which the EDP does not currently apply, or(c) adds new conservation measures that are of a kind not currently included in the EDP,the Secretary of State must direct Natural England to consult on the EDP as proposed to be amended.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult when an amendment is proposed to an EDP which would increase the maximum amount of development covered by the EDP, include new places in the development area or add new types of conservation measures.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

296A: Clause 64, page 99, line 5, leave out subsections (6) to (8)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

298ZA: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked(1) This section applies where a report under section 62(1)(b) or (2) (report at end or on revocation of EDP) contains an assessment that the EDP has not passed, or would be unlikely to pass, the overall improvement test (see section 62(5B) and (5C)).(2) The Secretary of State must take such action (“remedial action”) as the Secretary of State considers proportionate for the purpose of seeking to materially outweigh the negative effect on the conservation status of the identified environmental feature that is (or is likely to be) caused by the environmental impact (as identified in the EDP in accordance with section 55(1)(b)) of any development in respect of which a developer has paid or will pay the nature restoration levy.(3) In deciding whether remedial action is proportionate, the Secretary of State must take into account—(a) the extent of the negative effect on the conservation status of the identified environmental feature,(b) the extent to which the remedial action would remedy that negative effect, and(c) the cost of the remedial action.(4) Remedial action may include—(a) taking (or continuing to take) any conservation measures included in the EDP, or directing another public authority to take (or continue to take) such measures;(b) taking, or directing another public authority to take, any other measures to improve the conservation status of the identified environmental feature.(5) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the report mentioned in subsection (1) is published, publish a statement setting out—(a) the remedial action that the Secretary of State intends to take, and(b) the effect that the remedial action is expected to have on the identified environmental feature.(6) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the statement mentioned in subsection (5) is published, publish a report setting out—(a) the extent to which the remedial action has remedied the negative effect mentioned in subsection (2), and(b) whether the remedial action has had its expected effect, as set out in the statement under subsection (5)(b).(7) If any measures taken by way of remedial action have not been fully implemented by the time the report mentioned in subsection (6) is published—(a) that report must set out when the measures are expected to be fully implemented, and(b) the Secretary of State must publish a further report, containing the information required under subsection (6)(a) and (b), before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the measures are fully implemented.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to take remedial action in any case where an EDP ends (not only in cases of revocation) and its conservation measures have been assessed not to have been effective. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of the remedial action that will be taken and to report on it when it has been taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lord Randall of Uxbridge cannot be here, but their Amendment 305, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench has also added his name, is really important in trying to make sure—going back to the environmental principles and government policy—that developers should be rewarded for doing the right thing up front, instead of just being prepared to sign a cheque. It is certainly not a blank cheque, but it could be a very big cheque. That should be offset, recognising the work done by developers as they develop their housing and other projects.

I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will go into more detail, but in essence, we risk entering a regime where mandatory levies are applied, and it is not even necessarily guaranteed that planning consent will be given. Meanwhile, instead of outsourcing, in effect, a lot of the work that would happen as a consequence of an EDP, we want developers to make sure that they design in the integration principle, which the Government have in their policies. It is a transfer of that into thinking how we build right first time, instead of constantly thinking about how to retrofit or do other elements, which, frankly, may not be as well done considering the original design.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the payment and collection of the nature restoration levy. First, Amendments 299 and 308, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, seek to reframe the powers to make levy regulations. In designing these powers, the Government have been careful to ensure they cover everything required to support the levy. These powers are drawn from existing powers in the Planning Act 2008 to make community infrastructure levy regulations, to which the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Lansley, referred. These provide for all relevant circumstances. As such, we believe the powers as drafted are appropriate and sufficient to cover the matters the noble Lords set out in their amendments. In addition, Clause 69(1) already requires Natural England to base the schedule on the expected costs of conservation measures when considering how much to charge developers.

On Amendment 304, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, while the only test the EDP needs to pass is the overall improvement test, ensuring the viability of development is a crucial consideration for any EDP. Put simply, if using an EDP would make development unviable, then developers will simply choose not to use the EDP.

Amendment 305, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to add a duty on Natural England to offer discounts to developers paying into an EDP if they incorporate measures to enhance biodiversity on their sites. This approach risks conflating the existing BNG requirements with the discharge of environmental obligations through an EDP. However, we will look to ensure a smooth, user-friendly experience for developers, including the SME builders that we have been talking about so much during the debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I note that, in Clause 69, there is a provision that the regulations may require or permit Natural England to integrate the process—that is the levy process—

“to the extent and in the manner specified by the regulations, with processes undertaken for other statutory purposes”.

Are we in that territory? Are we in the territory where a community infrastructure levy, environmental delivery plan levy or the nature restoration levy could be part of the same process?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not sure they would be the same process, but I think that refers to the fact that some of the same processes—for example, the appeal process—might be similar to the process being used for the levy for the EDP. That is what that reference is to, but if it is any different to that or more complex, because the way that the noble Lord described it would be a much more complex integration of both processes, I will confirm to him.

The noble Lord also referred to the viability assessment and the way that developers do this. In my quite lengthy experience of planning, I have found that developers are pretty masterful in developing their viability assessments. In the early days of this, they will want to look at how EDPs and the charging regimes around them are being framed. Most developers are quite competent at working up a viability assessment to take into account some of the new things that come along. The guidance point is an important one. We will always aim to assist those who are involved in this process with guidance, so I would anticipate that there will be guidance forthcoming. With this explanation, I hope that noble Lords will be content not to press their amendments.

Finally, Amendment 306A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seeks to allow the nature restoration levy regulations to impose the liability to pay into the nature restoration fund where the impact of the development cannot be fully dealt with through the mitigation hierarchy. The levy regulations will already allow for differential rates to be charged based on the varying impact of development. It follows that development that is having a greater impact on the environmental feature will be charged a higher levy rate. Where a developer chooses to use the existing system, they would need to address the impact of development through that approach. However, should a developer subsequently decide that they wish to use an EDP, they could still make a commitment to pay the levy prior to the planning application being determined. As such, the legislation can already accommodate the circumstances envisaged by the amendment, so I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before my noble friend replies, can I just ask the Minister if—perhaps not now, but at some point before Report—she could just go back to the question on Clause 66 regarding the circumstances in which an EDP makes the levy mandatory and explain what kind of circumstances are anticipated?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not answer his question, which was quite clear. I think the issue of mandatory EDPs was put in as a precaution, but he is right—it would be useful to have some examples of where that might be necessary. We will come back to that between Committee and Report, so that we are all clear on the kinds of circumstances where a mandatory EDP may be put in place. It is important that we all understand that.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this short debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his comments clarifying my question about financial viability. I remain not completely clear. The letter this morning was helpful, but it would be helpful if, when the Minister responds to the questions raised in this debate, she could say whether the actual cost of contributing to the NRL will be available prior to Section 106 being available. The Minister has much greater experience than I do on how developers act in these ways, but it would be reassuring to know that there is no excuse for reopening affordable housing contributions in Section 106 based on unexpected costs of the NRL.

I thought the Minister’s response about the proportionate nature of the application of the nature restoration levy very helpful, and I will go away and read her comments. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

318A: Clause 76, page 108, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) monitoring EDPs.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would move the requirement on Natural England to monitor EDPs (currently in clause 57(7)) into clause 76.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

320A: Clause 76, page 109, line 1, at end insert—
“(4) In monitoring an EDP, Natural England must take sufficient measures to monitor—(a) the effectiveness of the conservation measures that have been implemented, and(b) the effects of the EDP in general.(5) In deciding how to monitor an EDP, Natural England must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide more detail about exactly how Natural England must monitor its EDPs. It would also move the provision about guidance from clause 57 into clause 76.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for their excellent amendments—excellent because I was a co-signatory. These amendments seek to ensure consistency in treatment between statutory undertakers and private individual land managers as regards the powers of entry to be exercised by Natural England.

Frankly, this was an unwelcome addition to the Bill in the other place, giving Natural England even greater powers than already envisaged. I have referred before, or my noble friend has, to Natural England being turned into an authoritarian empire. This is part of what I was referring to. These amendments would require that at least 21 days’ notice be given to both sets of parties by Natural England to enter and survey or investigate any land covered by this part of the Bill. This appears to be the least amount of respect that private landowners should be entitled to. There are major issues around biosecurity—the risk that entrants to land carry on animal disease or predatory species. Given Natural England’s activities across the country, there is a considerable and real risk involved in their entry.

Farms may also have livestock that pose some risk to visitors and need to be kept away from roads and public rights of way, but for the behaviour of which they remain liable. Giving the additional time would allow landowners and Natural England to consider the risks around the entry and sensible precautions that can be taken and warnings given.

We in the Conservative Party have always strongly believed in both equal treatment before the law and the importance of public and private land ownership. These are principles we will always continue to support and are rights that we believe all should have access to. I therefore welcome Amendments 321 and 322, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss them in further detail.

I hope that those who drafted this law did not take the view—we have no evidence that they did—that, “The public sector is good and can be trusted but private ownership is bad and cannot be trusted, so let us go in and speak to them straightaway”. As an aside, I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that if inspectors arrived at the farm of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and wanted to see it immediately, if it meant she could no longer travel on a ghastly Avanti train with me I can understand why she would happily ask them to come in straightaway.

However, I trust that the Government will take these amendments seriously and I agree with the underlying principles. I await the Government’s response to them with anticipation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to disturb the travelling arrangements of noble Lords who live in Cumbria. Amendments 321 and 322, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, 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.

Although we agree it is important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions in the Bill are consistent with powers of entry in similar legislation. In aligning with other legislation, we are reducing the risk of confusion for landowners but also recognising the justified difference in treatment regarding statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and so may require additional preparation to protect public safety and to prevent disruption.

However, noble Lords have made some very good points and we will consider this further. It is also worth highlighting the additional safeguards in the Bill, such as ensuring that these powers cannot be used to gain access to private residences—I believe it says “residences” not “dwellings”, so I hope that covers the point about gardens that the noble Earl made. These safeguards further ensure that the powers cannot be used in any other manner other than for carrying out functions under this part of the Bill.

The noble Earl made a very good point about a second or subsequent visit. We do need to consider that further. He also raised the point about notice in writing. He is right to point to the fact that this could be an actual letter—a physical letter—or it could be an email; it could probably not be social media, because that would not be an appropriate way of communicating directly with the person concerned.

With that, and a commitment to discuss this further, I hope that, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I think that is the most positive reply we have had from the Government in 48, 58, 68 hours. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that. I feel she understands the point that my noble friend Lord Blencathra and I are after: fairness. I was involved as a surveyor in giving notices to people, and there are circumstances when 24 hours is required, but this is not emergency legislation. There should be no need for Natural England, if it is doing its job properly, not to be able to give a decent length of notice and treat people in a civilised manner. I am very grateful to her and look forward to hearing from her shortly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage)]

322A: Clause 82, page 112, line 36, leave out “revoked EDP” and insert “remedial action”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

325A: Clause 84, page 115, line 3, leave out “revoked EDP” and insert “remedial action”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

325C: Clause 85, page 115, line 26, leave out paragraph (d)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the need for an annual report on EDPs to include an assessment of the effectiveness of all EDPs in force, which is considered no longer necessary in view of the changes made by my amendment to clause 62.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 342 seeks to add weight to the Government’s newly introduced national standards for sustainable drainage systems, making the right to communicate with the public sewer conditional on having applied the standards first. This creates a direct incentive for developers to follow the Government’s guidance and to take the standards seriously. I hope that the Government take this amendment seriously as one possible way of enforcing the national standards for sustainable drainage systems.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling these amendments and for her thorough introduction. I meant the other day to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to take our very good wishes for a speedy recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who I hope is recovering quickly. I am sorry that I did not do that before.

Effective implementation of SUDS, including adoption and maintenance, can reduce the impact of new developments on sewers by adding up to 87%, creating headroom for additional developments where they may not be possible with only conventional drainage. I have previously shared with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, some of the outstanding schemes that I have seen in Sussex and with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in Cambridge. The responsible developers make provision for the ongoing maintenance of these schemes. We need to see sustainable drainage in more developments, to designs that cope with changing climatic conditions, deliver wider water infrastructure benefits and help to tackle our water pollution problems. We have already taken steps to improve the delivery of SUDS through the planning system. The update to the NPPF, published on 12 December, expanded the requirement to provide SUDS to all development with drainage implications. I restate that, although the NPPF is not a statutory document in itself, it is part of the statutory planning system.

Sewerage undertakers have the ability to refuse a connection where it appears to them that it would prejudice their network or not meet their reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to a sewerage system. The Independent Water Commission, chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe, is reviewing the water sector regulatory system in England and Wales. The UK and Welsh Governments will consider the report, including whether it has implications for the right to connect. That report should be factored in before considering any potential legislative changes to Section 106. Regardless, the Government are strongly committed to requiring standardised sustainable drainage systems, or SUDS, in new developments and are considering how best to implement our ambitions.

The Government published updated non-statutory national standards for SUDS in June 2025, which were welcomed by stakeholders as a positive step. We intend to consult on the national planning policy related to decision-making later this year, including policies on flood risk and SUDS. I will take back the noble Baroness’s point about run-off, because it would be useful to consider that at the same time. Also this year, we will consult on ending freehold estates, which will include options to reduce the prevalence of private management arrangements for community assets including SUDS. For this reason, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to all who have spoken and those who have supported the amendment: the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who echoed my concerns about why the original legislation was not implemented; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for reminding the House about the “slow the flow” scheme, particularly the Pickering pilot scheme that I was closely associated with; and my noble friend Lady Coffey for pointing out the reason for the blockage and delay. It is like, “We are going to do it, but just not yet”. There is a degree of urgency and let us bear in mind that, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the Front Bench pointed out, if your house was built on a flood plain since 2009, you cannot be insured, or the only insurance that you can get is probably so cripplingly expensive that you cannot afford it.

For a host of reasons, I believe that the time is now. I was told during the passage of the levelling-up Act that we would have to wait for a different opportunity. The time is now, so I will revert to this at a future stage of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I did not say overall; I said in some regions.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have had figures bandied around about solar. The total figure covered at the moment is 0.1%, and the total figure for the energy plan, which goes up to 2030, is 0.8%.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

And I repeat: it is 8% in some regions—not in all regions, and not the overall figure for the United Kingdom land space.

The Secretary of State’s need for wind and solar seems to have blinded him to the mounting costs and spatial limitations they could impose. A 24/7 digital economy, data centres and artificial intelligence are not served by intermittent power. They need reliable baseload, and that means nuclear. France, Finland and Sweden—nations with some of the cheapest, cleanest electricity in Europe—all rely on nuclear. The truth is this: nuclear is not the problem; our system is. As we embrace more advanced nuclear technologies, we must try and fix it now in this Bill.

The current regulatory regime puts documentation above the national interest. It pretends that a legal checkbox exercise is the same as protecting the environment. It is not. By making it near impossible to build a handful of nuclear stations on tightly controlled sites, we are instead forcing ourselves to cover more of the countryside with wind turbines and solar panels. Of course, we all care deeply about the environment. Our national love of the countryside and of our natural heritage runs deep. But a planning system that blocks low-carbon, low-footprint, clean energy is self-defeating. It turns environmental regulation into a tool of environmental harm.

Cheap abundant nuclear is not a fantasy; it is our route to energy sovereignty, to lower bills and to powering a modern, prosperous Britain. If we are serious about delivering the infrastructure that will enable growth, attract investment, support heavy industry and safeguard our national interest, then we need to be bold enough to cut through the red tape that is holding us back. Britain stands on the cusp of a new industrial renaissance, but we cannot reach it with the planning system stuck in the past—particularly as we embrace the new, small and advanced nuclear technologies. These amendments are a crucial step towards a future that is energy secure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I wanted to speak briefly on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made on regulatory alignment. I like regulatory alignment in principle, provided it meets the right level of agreed regulation. I am fairly certain with everything I read that British regulators are perhaps over-nitpicking and over-fussy here, and are causing delays at Hinkley Point by double- and triple-checking the welding. I am also fairly certain with what I read that American regulators are—I would not say sloppy—much more relaxed.

If regulatory alignment comes about from British regulation experts talking to American regulation experts and reaching agreement, I can live with that. What I could not live with is a political agreement on regulatory alignment. I admire the way that President Trump goes around the world fighting for American interests, and stuffs everybody else provided that American interests come first. My worry here would be that, at some point, he may offer a deal saying, “Okay, Britain, you want no tariffs on steel and whisky? I can go along with that, provided you accept American terms on regulatory alignment for our nuclear reactors”. It is the political deal that worries me, not any regulatory alignment brought about by experts. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer that or comment on it; I merely flag it. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, nodding, and I am glad that we agree on this point.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not get drawn into the geopolitical issues of international trade on the planning Bill, but I will address the points in the amendment.

The Government shares the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, who moved his amendment, to make nuclear development faster and more cost effective, and the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for SMRs. My noble friend Lady Hayman mentioned AMRs as well, which are important. Quite simply, we cannot grow the economy in the way that we want to without rapidly tackling the clean energy issue on all fronts, including nuclear. That is about not only clean energy but providing us with energy security and lower energy prices, which will help not only businesses in our country but households as well. It is important that we get on with that.

I fear that the solutions proposed in this amendment—I appreciate that it is a probing amendment—would potentially invite problems of their own, and risk undoing the growth we have seen in public support for new nuclear. I look first at allowing the Secretary of State to disregard environmental impact assessment requirements, where doing so would

“secure the provision of the generating station in an economic, efficient, proportionate and timely manner”.

We should remember that environmental assessments include not just impacts on wildlife but also take account of the impact on communities—noise, air quality, human health, and so on.

An application for a new nuclear power station will include proposals for mitigation measures designed to limit or remove any significant adverse environmental effects that it would have. This amendment could remove any requirements for those mitigation measures, which simply means that the significant impacts would not be managed. Like the noble Lord, we recognise that environmental assessment is in need of reform, which is why we are already carefully considering how to bring forward environmental outcome reports that will allow us to ensure that EIA is proportionate and to reduce the risk that these assessments are used to unduly delay development coming forward.

Allowing the Secretary of State to exempt nuclear power station projects both from the habs regulations and from any requirement to pay into an EDP could leave our most important protected sites and species at risk of irreparable harm. Simply providing for these regulations to be disregarded is probably the wrong approach and risks removing the need for even the most common-sense consideration of environmental impacts and actions to address these.

As I hope I have already set out to noble Lords in these debates, the nature restoration fund will allow developers to discharge their environmental obligations around protected sites and species more quickly and with greater impact, accelerating the delivery of infrastructure at the same time as improving the environment.

The planning regime must support new nuclear, so we have introduced a transformative draft national policy statement on nuclear energy. It is important, therefore, that both this policy statement and the overarching national policy statement for energy are considered when deciding applications for new nuclear power stations. This amendment would remove the centrality of these national policy statements in determining applications for those power stations, which would only slow down and confuse the decision-making process. The habitats regulations must be applied sensibly, which is why the overarching national policy statement for energy has already introduced the concept of critical national priority projects. This creates a presumption that the importance of low-carbon energy infrastructure is such that it is capable of amounting to imperative reasons for overriding public interest. We recognise that we need to go further and the nuclear regulatory framework—my noble friend Lord Hunt, referred to it, I believe—must avoid increasing costs where possible. We have therefore launched the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, which will report later this year.

The Government remain firmly of the view that, when it comes to development and the environment, we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both infrastructure delivery and nature recovery stall. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, will be able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered and rather encouraging response, and indeed all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for reminding the Committee about the exciting progress towards regulatory alignment between the US and the UK on nuclear matters. I join him in encouraging the Government to investigate bringing forward helpful legislative changes on Report in the light of recent research. For now, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

346E: Before Clause 88, insert the following new Clause—
“General duties when exercising functions relating to EDPs(1) This section applies where—(a) Natural England or the Secretary of State is exercising any functions in relation to the preparation, amendment or revocation of an EDP, or(b) the Secretary of State is considering whether to take, or is taking, remedial action under section (Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked).(2) Natural England or the Secretary of State must take account of the best available scientific evidence.(3) Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to—(a) the development plan for the development area,(b) the current environmental improvement plan,(c) any Environment Act strategies, and(d) any other strategies or plans,so far as Natural England or the Secretary of State considers them to be relevant.(4) Where an EDP specifies as the development area an area that includes waters adjacent to England (see section 54(2)(b)), Natural England or the Secretary of State must also have regard to—(a) any marine plan,(b) the marine policy statement, and(c) the UK marine strategy,so far as Natural England or the Secretary of State considers them to be relevant.(5) Where an EDP includes as an identified environmental feature a protected feature of a protected site, Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to any conservation objectives of the site that relate to the feature, so far as Natural England or the Secretary of State considers them to be relevant.(6) Where an EDP includes as an identified environmental feature a protected species, Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to achieve favourable conservation status for that species in their natural range.(7) Subsection (8) applies where—(a) an EDP includes as an identified environmental feature a protected feature of a protected site, and(b) the EDP includes conservation measures of the type mentioned in section 55(4) (network conservation measures).(8) Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect the overall coherence of each relevant site network of which the protected site forms a part, so far as it relates to the protected feature.(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about other things that must be done by Natural England when exercising functions in relation to the preparation, amendment or revocation of an EDP.(10) In this section—“current environmental improvement plan” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021 (see section 8 of that Act);“development plan” has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004;“Environment Act strategy” means a strategy prepared under any of the following provisions of the Environment Act 2021— (a) section 104 (local nature recovery strategies);(b) section 109 (species conservation strategies);(c) section 110 (protected site strategies);“marine plan” has the meaning given in section 51(3) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;“marine policy statement” has the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 44 of that Act);“relevant site network” means—(a) the national site network within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations 2017 (see regulation 3 of those Regulations);(b) the national Ramsar site series within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations 2017 (see regulation 3 of those Regulations);(c) the network referred to in section 123(2) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (marine protected area network).“the UK marine strategy” means the strategy developed under the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1627).”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 58 sets out matters to which Natural England must have regard when preparing an EDP. This amendment would extend that duty to the exercise of other functions relating to an EDP (e.g. amendment and revocation) by both Natural England and the Secretary of State. It would also add in additional matters to which Natural England and the Secretary of State must have regard when exercising functions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

349A: Schedule 6, page 173, line 1, after “(1)” insert “—
(a) after the definition of “marine area” insert—““the national Ramsar site series” means all the wetlands in the United Kingdom that have been designated under paragraph 1 of article 2 of the Ramsar Convention for inclusion in the list of wetlands of international importance referred to in that article;”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be a drafting correction to insert a definition of “the national Ramsar site series” into the Habitats Regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing forward Amendment 356A for the consideration of the Committee today. The proposed new clause would allow for pre-consolidation amendments to be made to planning legislation in anticipation of a full future consolidation Bill. Its purpose, as I understand it, is to probe the desirability and feasibility of consolidating the extensive and at times unwieldy body of planning law. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the matter.

It comes at a timely moment. We hear that, hot on the heels of the first planning Bill, the Government may now be contemplating a second. As we have said from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, if the Government had proceeded to commence either in full or even in part the schedules and clauses already contained within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, we might well have avoided the need for yet another Bill in the first place.

That brings me to the specific questions for the Minister. Can she confirm whether there is any truth in the strong rumours circulating that a new planning Bill is indeed on its way? If so, will such a Bill aim to consolidate the many changes that have been made right across the breadth of planning law in recent years? Do the Government accept that consolidation is both needed and desirable, not least to provide clarity and certainty to practitioners, local authorities and communities alike? Finally, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered what such a consolidation process might look like and under what timescale it might realistically be delivered? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for Amendment 356A and for highlighting the merits of consolidating our planning legislation. As someone who has been on the sticky end of it for a number of years, I can absolutely see his point.

My noble friend is not the first to consider this. Indeed, the existing legislative framework provides the Government with sufficient powers to consolidate the planning legislation at an appropriate time. Specifically, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, Section 132 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides the Secretary of State with broad and flexible powers to make regulations that amend, repeal or otherwise modify a wide range of planning-related statutes.

While we have no immediate plans to consolidate planning legislation in England, we will keep this under review, as we recognise that consolidating planning legislation could offer some benefits. Since the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the legislative framework has undergone numerous amendments, and consolidation may help to streamline and simplify the system. However, a comprehensive consolidation needs to be weighed against the risks of uncertainty and disruption, particularly at a time when the Government are prioritising targeted planning reform to drive economic growth.

Any move towards consolidation would also require substantial resources, so we would need to be confident that it has clear benefits. At this stage, we believe that targeted reform is the best way forward, but we are live to the possibilities that consolidation offers. I hope that my noble friend and other Peers with an interest in planning will continue to work with us. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, first, that the person to whom she referred has not in fact advised me on this amendment. Secondly, she should not fear the amendment; I realise that it is a Henry VIII provision, but all it would allow us to do is have pre-consolidation amendments. We could not use it, for instance, to create a special pathway for nuclear developments in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, suggested. I hope I can reassure her on that.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. Clearly, she and her department recognise that, for people in the field, this can be very complex, so everything we can do to make it as straightforward as possible is to be desired. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

359: Clause 110, page 151, line 43, leave out paragraph (x) and insert—
“(x) section 46(1), (4) and (5) come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;(xa) section 46(2) and (3) come into force—(i) in relation to applications made to the Secretary of State, on the day on which the first relevant regulations made by the Secretary of State come into force;(ii) in relation to applications made to the Scottish Ministers, on the day on which the first relevant regulations made by the Scottish Ministers come into force;(iii) in relation to applications made to the Welsh Ministers, on the day on which the first relevant regulations made by the Welsh Ministers come into force;and in this paragraph “relevant regulations” means regulations under paragraph 9A of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964 (inserted by section 46(4));”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would adjust the commencement of clause 46 so that the repeal of existing fee-charging powers takes effect in each of England, Scotland and Wales only when new fees regulations come into force in the area concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are nearly there. I thank all noble Lords from across the House for their contributions to the Bill. Over long and often intricate debates, sometimes stretching well into the night, your Lordships have engaged with candour, with insight and with seriousness befitting the weight of these issues. The cross-party spirit of scrutiny and the diligence shown in Committee has, I believe, genuinely strengthened our deliberations.

Amendment 361, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is sound and reasonable. I shall not detain the Committee with another extended rehearsal of why Part 3 is, in our view, both damaging and unnecessary. But let me be clear: despite the Government’s determination to plough ahead with this part of the Bill, the opposition to it will only crystallise further on Report. Part 3 needs to go. At the very least, there must be an independent oversight of its administration. Without that, the concerns raised in Committee will only deepen.

The two thoughtful amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe are practical and considered proposals that go right to the heart of the issues we have debated throughout Committee. Amendment 363 would ensure that the Secretary of State updates all national policy statements before the Act can be commenced. This is vital; out-of-date national policy statements do not provide the clarity or certainty required for developers, planners or communities.

Meanwhile, Amendment 364 would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes an analysis of how each section of the Bill will affect the speed of the planning process and construction before any provisions are commenced. If the central purpose of the Bill is, as Ministers insist, to accelerate planning and speed up delivery, it is only fair to ask how it will achieve that objective in practice. Will it, for example, make any real progress towards the former Deputy Prime Minister’s target of 1.5 million new homes, a promise which, under this Government, looks ever more distant as housebuilding rates continue to decline?

I conclude by returning to the point that I made at the start of Committee. This Bill does not go far enough. It makes adjustments to processes, to roles, to fees and to training. But it leaves untouched the fundamental framework of planning—the very framework that needs serious, bold reform if we are to unlock the scale of housebuilding that this country so urgently requires. We now hear rumours of a second planning Bill to come. If that is true, what your Lordships’ House has been asked to consider is not reform but merely a prelude.

The Government have missed an opportunity with this Bill. They had the chance to set a clear vision for the planning system that delivers for communities, supports growth and tackles the housing crisis head on. Instead, they have brought forward a piecemeal piece of legislation more about tinkering at the edges than about grasping the real challenge. The Government have chosen to use up their remaining political capital on Part 3 rather than building more homes, and the Minister will soon realise that she and her department have wasted their energy on this Bill.

I repeat my thanks to all the staff in the House: the doorkeepers, the technical staff and Hansard have all had to work very hard on nights when we have sat late on this Bill, and I thank them very much for that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the amendment, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee debates and the meetings we have held around the Committee stage of the Bill. We have apparently spent 60 hours in the Chamber debating the Bill and covered 650 amendments. Noble Lords’ knowledge and experience have helped us to shape this important new approach to planning, growth and the environment, which has been especially valuable.

I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople who have shown great stamina and fortitude, which has been really greatly appreciated. I also thank all the outside bodies who have contributed to our debates in the House. I especially thank all the officials who have worked on the Bill. The processes in the House of Lords mean that our officials often have to work at very short notice on putting together papers for Front-Benchers. I also thank the staff of the House, who have worked often very long hours on the Bill.

I also give my personal thanks to my fellow Front-Bench government spokespeople, the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Wilson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who have supported me so ably on the Front Bench during Committee. I am extremely grateful to them for their support.

This final group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, relates to the commencement of the legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her support and encouragement of the growth agenda that the Bill is aimed at promoting. As we have made clear throughout Committee, our Planning and Infrastructure Bill will play a key role in unlocking economic growth, and we must progress to implementation as swiftly as possible to start reaping the benefits of these measures and getting shovels in the ground—including shovels operated by SME builders. My noble friend Lord Livermore yesterday quoted the fact that this Bill has already been assessed to be making a great contribution to the economic growth we all want to see.

On Amendment 363, while I commend the intent of bring all national policy statements up to date, we must resist this amendment because the clauses in the Bill already address this through the introduction of a requirement for all NPSs to be reviewed and updated at least every five years. These clauses include transitional requirements, the most stringent of which require the NPSs which were designated more than five years before the date when the clauses came into force and have not been amended, to be brought up to date within a two-year period. Delaying the commencement of the rest of the Act until such a time as all NPSs have been updated is therefore unreasonable and would have a detrimental impact on the objectives of the Bill, stalling delivery and growth in our country.

Amendment 253 also seeks to have all remaining sections of the Bill come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. Commencement regulations under this amendment are to be subject to a negative resolution. The commencement of each section of the Bill has been carefully considered with regard to the specific issue and relevant circumstances to determine whether that provision should come into force on the day the Act is passed, or a set period beginning with the day on which the Act is passed, or on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. This bespoke consideration should not be displaced by a blanket rule requiring commencement regulations, and I do not believe there is any reasonable basis for requiring all commencement regulations to be subject to the negative procedure rather than the generally standard procedure of commencement regulations not being subject to any procedure.

Amendment 364 would require the Secretary of State to publish analysis regarding the impact of each section of the Bill on the speed of the planning process before we can commence any of its provisions. I appreciate the noble Baroness’ intentions behind this amendment, and we are aligned in that we want the Bill to have as big an impact as possible in unlocking growth and accelerating development across the country. However, we have already published a full impact assessment on the Bill, including analysis of how each measure will impact on the planning system. As I mentioned earlier, this analysis showed that the economy could be boosted by up to £7.5 billion over the next decade by this pro-growth legislation, and we should not look to delay the implementation of these clauses and the reaping of the Bill’s benefits across the planning system.

We are confident that the Bill will streamline and turbocharge planning processes. For example, our analysis of the Bill’s reforms to the pre-application stage of the NSIP regime shows that these changes could reduce the typical time projects spend in pre-application by up to 12 months. This is a dramatic acceleration of the current system and of delivery of major economic infrastructure and demonstrates clearly how the Bill will get Britain building again. With these reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.