English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 239, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I will be brief, given the stage of the evening we are at. She gave me a good lead line there in talking about Incredible Edible. A friend of mine founded that movement, which does what this amendment would enable more widely—namely, help identify and release temporary land currently unwanted by local authorities to local community groups to grow their own food, with all the benefits that the noble Baroness pointed out.

The two elements of this are: first, that there needs to be a list of temporarily unused land; and, secondly, that community groups interested in growing food need to be prompted. The most important thing is that there is a simple, low-risk standard contract for a meanwhile use lease. In many cases, landowners and local authorities were nervous about the risks of taking on a temporary use lease and surrounded it with lots of complicated legal negotiation, which meant that community groups fell out of the loop. I very much support the noble Baroness in this.

Incredible edible is an incredible organisation, and it has grown to more than 100 groups across the country. This proposition would avoid it having to be argued every time by every single community group, and would produce a standard way forward that makes it much simpler. I support the noble Baroness in that.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I just want to intervene on what the noble Baroness was saying about the importance of councils being able to take it up, by just making a quick reference to one of our most innovative gardens, which was on the new King’s Cross site. It was in skips. Every time the development there moved around, we picked up the skips and moved the garden. It can be done that simply.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I finish by saying that I also support the amendments so ably put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Bennett, about bringing forward the third leg of the three-legged stool that is supposed to be sustainability. It is difficult to sit on a two-legged stool; why is the environment missing when the economic and social elements are there?

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of all nine amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name. They do two things, and are both modest in scope and significant in effect.

First, Amendment 233 gives a practical definition to the phrase “cultural interests” by setting out clear and familiar examples, such as we heard, including

“music venues, recording studios, theatres, rehearsal spaces, visual artists’ studios and other creative spaces”.

As it stands, the term “cultural interests” is vague and open to interpretation, as the noble Earl said. This amendment would remove that ambiguity, provide certainty for local authorities when making listing decisions and reflect the lived reality of how culture is made and sustained at a local level.

Secondly, the remaining amendments address a question of status. At present, cultural assets sit awkwardly beneath the heading of social assets and are implicitly treated as being of lesser importance than sporting assets. Yet within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport itself, culture and sport are regarded as equal partners. The Bill as drafted sends the opposite message by inserting “cultural” alongside “economic” throughout the relevant provisions of Schedule 29. These amendments would place cultural assets on an equal footing with sporting assets, reflecting their shared significance to community life, local identity and local economies.

If we accept that principle—that assets of genuine value to communities deserve explicit recognition and protection—the same logic would extend beyond culture. That is why I support Amendment 225, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, to which I have also added my name, and why I am sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which pursue the same objective for environmental assets. These amendments would extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental well-being of local communities, alongside the economic and social benefits, provided that the land is not, as we have heard, allocated for other purposes in the local development plan.

Environmental assets may not host performances or exhibitions, but they are no less vital to the identity and well-being of a place. I am thinking of the green fields that provide breathing space between developments, the woodland that offers respite from urban density, the riverside walk that connects neighbourhoods or the community orchard that brings residents together across generations. These are the lungs and ligaments of our communities. If a theatre deserves protection as a community asset, so too does the green space that gives a neighbourhood its character and its calm.

I am also sympathetic to the probing amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which ask important questions about the robustness of the designation framework itself. Should recent use, as well as current use, be considered when determining whether an asset qualifies? Is the automatic expiry of listings after five years appropriate, or does it leave valued assets vulnerable? Should buildings designated as assets of community value be protected from permitted development and demolition? These are sensible and searching questions. If we are to take community empowerment seriously, we must ensure that the criteria for designation are broad enough to capture what communities value and that the protections, once granted, are robust enough to be meaningful. Yet even the best definitions and the strongest protections will achieve little without the means to act.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 241B is in my name, and I strongly support Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

The devolution Bill creates these large, powerful strategic authorities whose decisions on planning, housing, transport and infrastructure will shape England’s carbon emissions, climate resilience and natural environment for decades to come. Once they are in place, these six new mayoral districts and combined authorities will be responsible for the strategic oversight of 75% of England’s landscape, so huge swathes of the landscape will be under these authorities. Despite this, as it currently stands, the Bill contains no clear mechanism to ensure that these authorities will contribute to the UK’s legally binding climate and nature targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. Both have clear, unambiguous delivery targets to which we have agreed—they are in our law.

These targets are spatially constrained and require both strategic oversight and the consideration of competing land uses. Currently, however, they sit under the Secretary of State only. Without even a mention of a duty to deliver on these targets in the devolution Bill, I believe that there is a high degree of risk that they will be undeployed, or at least deployed unevenly. This is a real risk; it is particularly important given the shifting political priorities and how they can deprioritise action. As the system stands, the Secretary of State-level duty for our Climate Change Act and Environment Act targets does not automatically filter down, be it to a local government, a regulator or a non-departmental public body.

I am sure that the Minister will say that local authorities have a “duty to conserve biodiversity”, under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which was strengthened by the Environment Act 2021 and requires an authority to consider what it can do to conserve and enhance biodiversity. This is of course correct, but it is rooted in guidance—that lovely word to which I keep coming back—that can, and I am sure will, be changed. That then leaves it up to the individual authority as to whether it will or will not further the objective. What happens if we have an elected mayor who does not agree with net-zero policies or is someone who sees nature as a luxury that we can no longer afford? What will be their guidance on these strategic decisions to their commissioners, if we even have commissioners appointed for climate and nature, since this is far from guaranteed under the Bill as it is currently constructed?

My Amendment 241B would require strategic, mayoral or local authorities to take all reasonable steps to contribute to our net-zero target and the targets under Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act, and to adapt to the risks set out in the climate change risk assessment report. It is hardly as if we are starting from a good place. We have only to look at the papers or the reports coming through from the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee, which are loudly ringing the alarm bells to say that we are nowhere near delivering on our targets in the Climate Change Act or the Environment Act. Without any firm duty on mayoral authorities to deliver, I fear that we will move further and further away from these targets.

I put it to the Committee and the Minister that we cannot rely on whatever provisions we currently have or the fact that we have national targets. We need to embed the targets in everyday decision-making—in local decision-making on the ground by council officials and elected members, as much as anyone. We can say that councils already do this. That may be the case, but it is too little and not quickly enough. If we look at the climate scorecards produced by Climate Emergency UK, which has assessed councils’ progress on a variety of climate and nature issues, they demonstrate this clearly: we are not moving quickly enough and we are seeing the consequences of this day in, day out. Species numbers are going down, landscapes are being lost and we are seeing flooding as a result of a lack of joined-up thinking on nature-based solutions.

At worst, without a duty such as this one, we could have authorities pulling in a completely direction from what Ministers or the Secretary of State expect or desire. I would hope that, from a legal standpoint, Ministers would want to be seen to be doing everything within their power to meet those targets by empowering the new strategic authorities with a responsibility to contribute. Just because an individual council decides that it does not want to progress further towards these targets—or, worse, that it actively wants to make them harder, if particular mayors come in with that role—it does not mean that we should just roll over and accept it. These issues absolutely transcend borders and affect us all. They are not within these mayoral authorities; they are much broader than that.

We have been happy to give local authorities other statutory duties; social care is the obvious big one but there are many others. It is welcome to see the new health improvement and health inequalities duties coming through. My amendment asks that the same statutory duties be given on the environment and climate change. On this critical matter, we must align local government with national government. This point was made succinctly in Dan Corry’s review for the Government last year, which covered Defra’s regulatory landscape for driving both economic growth and nature recovery. In it he said:

“A stronger and clearer link is needed between targets and plans set nationally and the activity being carried out to protect the environment and support development locally”.


That is exactly what this amendment tries to do.

With the biggest shake-up of local government in generations, if we fail to give a duty to do what we can to address two of our most critical threats—nature loss and climate change—what are we doing, really? I see this as very important.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 241B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which was moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. In fact, I think she probably has the slightly better amendment, if truth be told; I may go into that later.

I am sure that the Minister is detecting a pattern here. A number of public authorities have already had similar duties for the achievement of various legally binding environmental targets laid on them either in legislation or by agreement with Ministers in subsequent guidance. Recent examples include Great British Energy, Skills England, the Crown Estate, Ofwat and the GLA. This is particularly important for these strategic authorities because they have key functions in housing, strategic spatial planning, economic development, regeneration and health improvement. If you think about it, the achievement of these environmental targets is part of the fundamental underpinning of the delivery of growth, economic development, regeneration and health improvement. Conversely, the achievement of the national environmental targets will be possible only if there is effective local and regional action. Without explicit provisions in the Bill, there will be a structural gap between national environmental commitments and these important, new, local decision-making bodies.

Having this duty would ensure clarity, consistency and legal certainty, which would certainly benefit not only authorities themselves but business and investors. So it is not surprising that the proposed duty is supported by businesses across relevant sectors, the LGA, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils, ADEPT, the majority of UK100’s members and a number of council leaders and Cabinet members. There is widespread support for this duty being applied.

Another point is that, as has been said already, the national environment and climate change targets are pretty stretching; the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee are already expressing concern that the Government are not on track to meet them. If the Government are to have any chance at all of achieving the statutory targets, all relevant public bodies need to do their bit—especially strategic authorities. Simply listing the areas of competence for the strategic authorities is not enough. These bodies need a duty; it has to be something that they must do, not a competence that they may carry out in a variety of ways.

Amendment 192, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is particularly elegant. It would apply a sort of triple lock, if I can use that expression. Apart from the duty, it would introduce a requirement that the authority must not only exercise the duty in carrying out its functions but think about how all the decisions it makes fit in with the duty; that is the genuine spirit of the integration of environment and climate change requirements into all decision-making, which has long been talked about as a principle but, alas, is not really happening as yet.

The most cunning thing about Amendment 192 is that it goes on to say that each authority will have guidance from the Secretary of State, and that the guidance will be “clear” and “measurable”. That is a pretty neat combination; it is better than our amendment, I think, and therefore I would endorse it beyond ours.

In both amendments, the duties would apply not only to strategic authorities but to mayors and local authorities. It is important that all these local decision-making bodies are singing from the same hymn sheet. Since the GLA was set up with climate and biodiversity duties from the very beginning, I ask the Minister whether the Government will agree to do the same for strategic authorities, mayors and the reformed local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord for their comments on this group. It places me in a bit of a dilemma, because I have a lot of sympathy for the objects of these amendments: we agree that the environment is important, and we like community wealth building and so forth.

I refer back to my comments on the previous group. I have a big issue with placing duties on a local or strategic authority without the means and resources for them. This is very much a half-amendment, because it would place the duty without the means to deliver it. I think the noble Baroness commented that the LGA backs this, but the LGA actually said

“local authorities need statutory duties and powers, sufficient funding, and robust support to lead on climate action”,

which is a lot more than just having the duty. So, to progress on these, we need to recognise that you cannot just place a duty. I say that quite seriously because, when I was running my council, around 85% of our expenditure was on statutory duties and we had very little room for manoeuvre on any choice-based things. Given the pressures on adult social care, SEND and so forth, I am sure that if I redid the numbers now, that figure would be way over 90%, and we end up compromising on statutory duties. So I am very wary of placing lots of statutory duties without providing the means to deliver them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about support. I am 100% behind providing support to do something, but that is not quite the same as saying, “You must have a duty as well as support”.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Quite a lot of local authorities are doing well on this. Many of the things that they are delivering do not require additional funding but are about making the right decisions on their day-to-day routine responsibilities for planning, regeneration, growth, urban development and all sorts of things. They are making these decisions in a way that is good for the environment, climate change, biodiversity, air quality, people and sustainability, rather than making them without thinking about these things. So a duty is not a huge imposition; it is about a mindset, not a set of expenses.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I beg to disagree. Once you place a duty on an authority, all its decision-making needs to have that in mind. The authority can be challenged for not doing X, and X could involve significant expenditure, or it could be something that it has very little power over. To take a local example, my local council has a statutory duty on pollution in certain areas, such as Ampthill, which is just down the road from me, but it does not have the ability to stop cars going into Ampthill, and they are the cause of the pollution. So you end up with these dilemmas, and that needs thinking through. That is why I am wary. I do not disagree with the thrust of what the noble Baroness is trying to do, but we need to do it in a practical and deliverable way. All good councils will try to seek to do the right thing wherever they can.

As certain Peers have alluded to, in the future there may be somebody who might not be as keen as some of us are on the environment, well-being or anything else. That brings me to my second point: I am a huge believer in democracy. We have a very serious question to ask ourselves: do we believe in democracy? That means local decision-making and devolution, and, at times, it may mean that people do not do what we would choose to be our priority. That is a dilemma that we face and have to accept. If you believe in democracy and devolution, you cannot always seek to bind the hand of people to do what you want, because that is not devolution and democracy but centralisation and state control, which may be the right thing—

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We must ensure that any spatial development strategy underlines and works with the principles of the Environmental Improvement Plan and the upcoming land use framework, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out. Particularly regarding the latter, it makes no sense to have two systems dealing with how we use our land pulling in different directions—which is the risk here. We have these central government legally binding environmental targets, so we need to use the Bill to ensure that this new devolved governance structure means that each tool is deployed in an effective but consistent manner. Consistency is key here.

Bluntly, I do not see how we can halt biodiversity loss, let alone restore it, without giving authorities the duty to work towards meeting these targets. A recently published global biodiversity assessment highlighted the threats to the UK’s national security and prosperity from biodiversity loss and really stressed the importance of delivering the 30by30. This is a very tall target at the best of times, but if we have the devolved Governments pulling in different directions on this, there is no chance that we will reach anywhere near it. We are a long way off right now—at 7%—so have an awfully long way to go in the next seven years.

This amendment would mean that authorities think about nature recovery, soil, water and land use from the outset, rather than as something to be dealt with at a later stage. We had a long-standing debate on this in the planning Bill. This is often where the delays are, caused by nature and environmental considerations. If we consider the environment strategically before we get into this whole planning process, I hope many of those delays and debates will go away, so we do not have them. This will reduce conflicts and create more consistency in how we achieve our environmental targets. It is a very good amendment and it has my strong support. I see it as essential but also proportionate.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Spatial development strategies are a really big opportunity and much to be welcomed. We have long needed a spatial view at that sort of level, so we have to get this right because there is a lot that they can deliver.

However, to be frank, if spatial development strategies do not play a key role in delivering things such as the Environmental Improvement Plan statutory targets, I am not entirely sure how government will get those statutory targets delivered, because the land is fundamental to delivering those targets. The question really is: if there is not some strong guidance that the spatial development strategies must play a role in delivering the Environmental Improvement Plan statutory targets, how will government ensure that these targets are met? Is it envisaged that there will be guidance rather than something in the Bill?

We should not underestimate the importance of the environment for growth. I remember years ago, when some of the big drug companies were thinking about where they were going to put production facilities, they came to the conclusion that England’s green and pleasant land was a pretty good place to come. Not only was there a reasonably stable economy in those days, but there were also excellent places for the people they would have to attract—potentially from other countries but also from other parts of the UK—to come and work for them. They were also potentially attractive places for those businesses to come and pursue sustainability and growth as part of their global strategies. Therefore, a pleasant, productive environment not only provides security against climate shocks, flooding, heat and all those things if done on a big enough scale; it is also an attractive place for businesses to come because they can get good staff who want to come and live in pleasant places. That is a crucial element that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly pointed out.

I have stood up and talked about the land use framework many times; I do go on about its importance. For me, it has two major importances. First, it brings a degree of rationality to considerations and discussions about competing land uses, which is absolutely what regional—spatial—development strategies ought to be doing as well, so they are very complementary. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, pointed out, the land use framework is also a means of reducing conflict.

We all too often see development being delayed because there is local or county-level antipathy by the public to what is being proposed. A land use framework approach is a way of getting that dialogue going across multiple land uses—including land for climate, biodiversity and other environmental management, and land for development—that can introduce a note of calmness, conciliation, balance and rationality to the debate. The land use framework is important and the big problem right now of course is its timing. We have been a very long time waiting for it. My understanding, and the Minister can perhaps confirm this, is that it is in a good enough shape for write-round, but we hear that it may well be delayed.

The reality is that we are up against a hard deadline. The hard deadline for me—and this is a purely personal view, not the view of my party, I am sure—is that we are going to have a rough time in the elections in May and there could well be all sorts of reshuffles emanating from that. The last thing that any of us wants is for a brand-new set of Ministers to be appointed as a result of a reshuffle, or even a few Ministers to be appointed as a result of a reshuffle, who quite rightly, in the case of something as important as the land use framework, will want to delay and have a look at it themselves to make sure that they understand it and that they are behind it. That could cause even more delay, so if we do not get it agreed and published by late April, we could be stuffed—I think that is the technical term. Perhaps we could persuade the Minister to tell us what it would take to get this announced by April.

There is one further requirement that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, does not cover, which is the whole issue of local nature recovery strategies. Those noble Lords who have played a role in local nature recovery strategy development and approval will realise just how much sweat and blood has been magnificently used at a county level to produce these agreed strategies. They are very much another brick in the wall of the rational approach to land use. There has been a huge amount of engagement of local authorities, communities and NGOs at the county level to get these strategies going. They are incredibly valuable, because they have been a meeting ground for all these competing land use bodies. One has to ask: what is the point of a local nature recovery strategy if it does not play a role and does not figure in the spatial development strategy? Can the Minister assure us that local nature recovery strategies will be material in local development strategies? If so, why not put it the Bill? Depending on her answer, I may have to egg on the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to add that into consideration on Report.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments, but can I probe the Minister, for when she responds, about what happens in London? In London, all 33 boroughs—or 32 plus the City, if you want to be pedantic—would all have their own local plans, and out of those local plans would come all our different plans. Then, of course, you have the London Plan, which potentially trumps—I am going to take on board some of the language just used, but I think “trumps” probably is the best phrase to use—what is done locally. Not only can it contradict what is done locally, which has quite often cost an awful lot of money, time, sweat, tears and everything else, but in addition to that it creates uncertainty. When the Minister responds, perhaps she could think about the London scenario, please.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

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

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the discussions and assurances she has given us on Motion K1. I was rather fond of Motion K1 and would have preferred the amendments in it being in the Bill—it represented a fair compromise. The reasons why it is very important are threefold. One is partly to provide some pacing for Natural England, because there is a real potential for it to overextend itself and not do any of the EDPs very well as a result.

Secondly, there needs to be proper evaluation, because this is a very new and untried system. The monitoring and evaluation should be not just about biodiversity but about whether this works for developers, because the whole point of the exercise is to try to unlock delays, and it is quite a complicated system for developers to operate in. So, on the early ones, we need to really examine our conscience and see whether they are delivering both for biodiversity and for speeding up the development process.

Thirdly, clarity for developers is important, and I very much welcome the fact that there will be a pipeline in the annual report that will enable developers to see what EDPs are likely to come up for development in the future. The usual situation, of course, is that when middle ground has been filled by concessions and assurances, you ask yourself why they cannot just be expressed in statute, since they meet many of the points that we have raised.

However, I recognise that this is probably as far as we will get on this one. I welcome the assurances and concessions that have come in the direction of the concerns that we have expressed.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, on Motion K1, I want underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said about the need for independence in the monitoring and evaluation. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, referred to it, but I am not sure that the Minister did so—forgive me if I missed it. Can we please hear from her on this, just to put it beyond doubt?

On the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about the need for flowcharts, we are definitely going to need a definitive agreed one.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief in speaking to Amendment 237 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for their support.

Amendment 237 is on a similar theme to my earlier amendment, relating to the delivery of green and blue spaces in spatial development strategies. I will not repeat the arguments that I made previously, other than to say that the provision of accessible green and blue space in urban areas has been identified by many different organisations as a critical component that can support health and well-being for urban populations.

This amendment deals with the same issue. However, this time, it seeks to put the statutory requirement for the provision of accessible green and blue spaces into the objectives of the development corporation responsible for delivering new towns. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to create blue and green space in new towns.

This point was emphasised most recently by the New Towns Taskforce report, published in September 2025, which stated that:

“New towns provide a rare opportunity to plan holistically”,


and that they should have,

“easily accessible green spaces and recreational facilities”.

The Government responded to this report by saying that they are

“committed to ensuring that all new towns are thriving and sustainable places”,

and that they will

“consider how best to ensure expectations are set and managed at a national level”.

However, similar to the spatial development strategies in the NPPF, I imagine the Government will respond to say that the new town development corporations are sufficiently equipped to deal with the provision of blue and green spaces. I will give three counterpoints related to this. First, exactly the same as the NPPF, this is only guidance. It is toothless unless it is written into law. Secondly, there is no clear, mandatory, legally binding standard for equality of access to blue and green space. Over the last five years, yes we have seen more green spaces created, but more and more they are created in rich areas compared to in poorer areas. We have to take this seriously, or inequality of access to green space will get worse.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the recommendation of the New Towns Taskforce was that new towns could be delivered by the introduction of special development orders. That would mean that the Secretary of State could determine a planning permission for a new town and grant it directly through this special development order, with the potential to override the provisions of local plans and the NPPF. We do not even have the NPPF or the local plans any more to ensure blue and green space in cities and equality of access to it.

This is a fairly simple amendment, which would not cost anything. I hope we can find a way to move forward, and that the Minister will accept my amendment. It offers a reasonable and non-burdensome way to implement what the Government recognise is an important issue: to hardwire blue and green space into new towns so that they can deliver critical spaces for health and well-being for everyone in those cities. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have put my name. I will talk briefly about the opportunity that the new towns offer by ensuring that they are beacons for providing green and blue space close to where people live, especially for deprived communities. With her depth of experience, the Minister has seen green and blue spaces and placemaking in Stevenage and, not that far away, in the historical examples of Letchworth Garden City and others, including, more recently, Milton Keynes, which indubitably is full of green and blue spaces.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, I am sure that the Minister will restate her faith in the NPPF requirements—although the noble Baroness raised a question about that—and refer to the New Towns Taskforce report and the strong emphasis it put on placemaking principles and green and blue open space. There is no doubt that new town development corporations are already equipped with sufficient legal powers to provide blue and green spaces, but powers are one thing and commitment is another. I want to see some provision of this sort in the Bill to ensure that, in the push for new towns that the new towns programme represents—to provide housing, businesses and places to live—there is also a push for accessible green space, especially for more deprived communities.

I would like our new towns, in respect of this green and blue open space, to be praised by future generations in the way that the Victorian model towns were praised, in the way we praise the garden cities and in the way that some of us, grudgingly, praise Milton Keynes and, dare I say it, Poundbury.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I have the honour to serve on your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee. It is no coincidence that two of us who have added our names to this amendment are on that committee, the second being the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who is its chair.

An issue that we have come across as we have made our inquiry into new towns—the first module of which was published recently, as was the New Towns Taskforce report—is that there is a lack of vision. There is no vision for blue and green space in the New Towns Taskforce report. Obviously, it is integral that houses are part of a new town; that goes without saying. It should be integral that green and blue space is part of a new town; that should also go without saying.

Last week, we had a fascinating debate in your Lordships’ House on swifts and swift bricks. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, taught me a lot about why swift bricks were perhaps less important, because they could not be positioned in the right place. But the fact is that if those swifts do not have any food, because there is no green space or blue space to produce the insects, all the debate we had about swift bricks is completely meaningless—and that goes for every single species.

It is not just about the species. I will not repeat all the arguments we made in Committee and last week about the other amendment concerning green and blue space being in the NPPF. I simply say that it is equally essential, for all those reasons—for human health and well-being and for children—that green and blue space is as integral in the vision of development corporations as the houses themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O'Donnell (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 250 because I believe that it is a necessary and proportionate measure to remove a legal blockage to sustainable growth—a blockage that is holding back both our national well-being and our economic prosperity. I declare my relevant interests. On the well-being side, I am a member, unpaid, of the board of the World Wellbeing Movement and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics. On the economics side, I am a professional economist with decades of experience at the Treasury, and unpaid president of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, I naturally view this issue through the twin lenses of economic growth and fiscal sustainability. Of course, I am a member of the committee of the All England Lawn Tennis Club, which is obviously where I have experience that others can, I hope, learn from.

Regrettably, the decision that this House made in April, that we must exclude our non-financial interests from the register, has led to a degree of misunderstanding and, in some quarters, to unwarranted personal attacks on me—hence my need to put these matters on the record at my first opportunity. This is the first time I have spoken on this issue. I note that I asked the registrar’s office about this on 6 March: I wanted to carry on including my non-financial interests in the register, because they are really important, and I was told that this was not possible. It is ridiculous, so I am stuck with this.

I go back to the point of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, mentioned all the KCs and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the rest of them have all the legal arguments; I will not even try to rival their expertise. I am an economist—that is what drives me—and I care about well-being. As was said, this amendment responds to the unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Day case. In essence, that judgment created a new and retrospective uncertainty over land ownership, affecting potentially innumerable development sites across the country. This is the important thing to get across. This is important for the economic growth of the country. The Wimbledon example is an important one, but it is only one among a number. The Minister is very aware of the long list of projects—because I sent it to her—that are now held back by this legal shadow. Because the problem is itself retrospective, the remedy must necessarily also be retrospective if we are to restore the legal clarity that the market and our communities so badly need.

I will go to my area of expertise: the real-world effects are best illustrated, to me, by the experience of that much-loved British institution, Wimbledon. I declare again that I have been a long-standing member of its main committee and put this in the register for many years, until that April change. The Day judgment has created significant delay and uncertainty for Wimbledon’s ability to transform the land that has, for more than a century, been a private members’ golf club.

I stress that there are lots of other examples but, in the Wimbledon example, the expansion already has planning permission from the Greater London Authority; it has been upheld by the High Court, yet progress is now halted because of the uncertainty surrounding the Day case. But this is about far more than economics. Wimbledon is a jewel in the crown of British sport. The other Grand Slams are investing heavily in their facilities and the fan experience. For Wimbledon to maintain its place at the pinnacle of world tennis, it must be allowed to evolve as they are. This expansion is crucial to that future. It is not only about elite sport; it is also about national well-being. The proposed development would turn qualifying week into a festival in its own right, offering three weeks of world-class tennis and community celebration rather than two. It would enhance the experience for the thousands who camp out each year in the queue. Let us remember that Wimbledon is not a profit-maximising organisation: 90% of our surplus goes back into the LTA and the other 10% goes into improving Wimbledon every year. So it would allow fans to have a better experience and capitalise on one of the country’s finest examples of soft power by extending the celebration of Britishness that the nation holds so dear.

Yet, perhaps most importantly of all—I stress this to my colleagues to my right—the benefits extend to the environment and local community. This is not an act of overdevelopment but of restoration, environmental enhancement and the opening up of new green space. Let me be specific: the project will convert 27 acres of private land into publicly accessible park land—a 50% increase in green space for local residents. It would restore the historic Capability Brown Wimbledon Park lake, which is terribly silted up at the moment, creating a circular boardwalk and reviving a landscape feature of national heritage. It would help to deliver a substantial biodiversity net gain, with the planting of at least 1,500 new trees and the creation of rich habitats for wildlife. These arguments were made at the GLA planning stage, and the environmental case won the day. As someone who massively believes in green spaces and in well-being, I am afraid that I have to disagree with those who think that somehow this development will do the opposite of that. It is not—it will make things better.

I urge the Government to swiftly find a way to support the amendment, which is a modest and necessary measure to restore certainty, enable sustainable growth, strengthen our national well-being and help to deliver the kind of forward-looking development that future generations will thank us for. I honestly do not understand why the Government, who accept that the current situation needs to be changed via legislation, cannot bring forward at Third Reading in their own wording, taking account of any issues that they may have, something that can solve these problems.

I have experience of these matters; there are more there are more than 50 brilliant and excellent draftsmen in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Every department has additional drafters. It is not beyond the wit of man to do this reasonably quickly. When I am told that we might do this in some future legislation, I remember the words of my successor as Cabinet Secretary, alas, the late Jeremy Heywood. When faced with issues like this, he would say to me, “Gus, we need to get a grip”. He was right. Can we please get a grip, get on with it and solve this problem, which will enhance national well-being, improve the environment and stimulate economic growth?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I do not want to take up the time of the House at this stage of the evening, but I want to speak against Amendment 250 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Banner, Lord Pannick, Lord Grabiner and Lord O’Donnell. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, in one respect, that it is a backwards step for what the register of interests now represents, in that non-financial interests absolutely ought to continue to be highlighted. We have just had a prime example of that tonight, if I may say so.

I was slightly nervous about saying anything against such an illustrious line-up as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has lined up, but my understanding of the situation is not that, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, tried to persuade me, we are all misunderstanding the position. I do not think we are; there is a real need for this to be gripped, but this is not the way to do it. This amendment has caused substantial concern that it erodes the protection of green space and removes long-standing public rights to green spaces, where the land is sold by local authority, with or without consultation. For the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to say that a judicial review is the way forward, frankly, misrepresents the position of many local communities, which are absolutely incapable of bringing a judicial review, either by degree of organisation or financially.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 114 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ravensdale, to which I have added my name. I thank my noble friend for his excellent introduction to the amendment and also for his hard work in the background with the Minister. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment, which I support—it has a similar intent to Amendment 114—and I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his reminder that biodiversity is also important. I was a little surprised, in fact, because when we debated my Private Member’s Bill, which placed a climate and nature duty on all public authorities, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was not totally supportive. Perhaps in the meantime he has reflected and come to my side—I welcome him.

I want to make one specific point, because I do not want to extend the debate beyond the limited time that we have. I will focus on an illustrative example to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already alluded: the problem of overheating in buildings. We should all remember that the climate change agenda is not just about mitigation, but adaptation; so there are in fact multiple targets. The Government are committed to net zero by 2050 on the mitigation side, but they have also committed in a variety of ways to adapting us to the inevitable consequences of climate change, however good we are at mitigating it. One aspect of adaptation is to future-proof our buildings in the face of more extreme climate events.

I make particular reference to overheating because, in Committee in September, I asked the Minister how many homes being built today are resilient in the face of overheating, which is highly likely to become increasingly important. The noble Baroness kindly wrote to me on 18 September to answer the question, and the short answer is that in 2025, roughly 50% of new homes are future-proofed in relation to heating. That means that half the people who have bought new homes will find them very hard to live in during the decade ahead. That is shocking. We should be really embarrassed about allowing people to spend their valuable money on homes that will be unsuitable in the decades to come.

However, the Minister also pointed out that Part O of the building regulations introduced in 2021 requires new residential buildings to be built in a way that reduces the risk of overheating. The letter goes on to explain how that is done, and it includes making windows that can be opened when outside temperatures are cooler. When outside temperatures do not get cooler—when it is 25 degrees at night and 39 degrees in the day—opening windows will not help you: the ingress of heat must be prevented during the day. Therefore, although Part O of the building regulations alludes to making buildings resilient in the face of excess heat, it does not go far enough.

The recent letter from the Adaptation Committee to Emma Hardy, the Environment Minister, written by my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge—my successor as chair of that committee—emphasises that the risks of overheating will double in the decades ahead. In the foreseeable future, there is an 80% chance of extreme heat in the summer in this country. It is unacceptable for us to allow builders to build houses, and indeed other public buildings such as hospitals and schools, that are not resilient in the face of excess heating. I hope that the Minister will go back and discuss with her officials how we can strengthen the building regulations, or the NPPF, to ensure absolutely that people do not move into new homes or new public buildings today that will be unhabitable in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I briefly add one further point to the support for Amendment 114, to which I put my name. I am sure the Minister will tell us that local authorities and Ministers already have responsibilities for the roles outlined in the amendment, including in the NPPF, but this would bring the responsibility up to date and in one place. In these times, when one could infer from “build, baby, build” that only development matters and nothing else, this amendment would provide clarity and a long overdue appropriate sense of the importance of balance.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments at this stage of the Bill and, clearly, we are heading towards Part 3. I am trying to understand why bringing aspects of this into primary legislation is necessary, given existing legislation and, indeed, a plethora of programmes put in place by government. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 121F, because we were successful with the Environment Act, and we put in place a biodiversity duty through regulation, similar to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to do with Amendment 206 in applying the Climate Change Act. But there are very different circumstances here. Through climate change and carbon budgets, we have national programmes that in effect already control what is happening for local authorities in carrying out their duties. When it comes to biodiversity, what is significant is quite how different parts of the United Kingdom are—or, in this case, in terms of the legislation in England. The beauty of the local nature recovery strategies—which we are yearning to get into place—is that the principal thing a local authority can do is to decide how land is used, and what planning permissions are granted to enhance biodiversity. That is the whole point behind the local nature recovery strategies.

There is merit in my noble friend’s amendment trying to link that directly—in primary legislation, not a regulation—to the achievement of the requirements of the 2021 Act, to achieve, in effect, the stopping of the halting of biodiversity by 2030. Combining the direct links and helping local councils to continue to navigate that way is why I think there is a lot of merit in Amendment 121F. If my noble friend Lord Blencathra were to consider testing the opinion of the House on it, I would of course support him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I have retabled slightly amended versions of Amendments 115 and 116, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. These amendments try to ensure that compliance with habitats regulations assessments happens earlier in the process, at the local plan and spatial development strategy stage. This would better direct development away from the most vulnerable habitats and would help speed up the pre-planning process for developers by enabling them to focus on sites that are more suitable for development.

This approach is very much in line with conversations I had a number of years ago when, as a biodiversity scientist in Oxford, I was asked to provide advice to senior officials from a certain extractive industry. They made the point that, in looking for areas in which to work, they often get extractive rights for around 10 kilometres but their footprint is only half a kilometre. I asked them what information they needed from us biodiversity scientists, and the answer was, “We want to know, where can we damage?” As a biodiversity scientist, I was slightly alarmed by that reply, but that is the nub of the problem, and it is a really good question. Can we inform people before the pre-planning stage which areas are suitable for development and which are not, based on the ecological risk they would carry if they were damaged? This is about looking in a totally different way at where to put our energies, and it would do what it did for those extractive industries and provide, in this Bill, a pragmatic and fast way for developers to move on.

These two amendments are very much in line with that sentiment. We already have in place a mechanism that should be doing this—land use frameworks— but in the absence of that, I bring forward my Amendment 115. It would provide that, when developing their local plans, local authorities must consider the habitats regulations and conduct strategic environmental assessments for all sites proposed for development. Amendment 116 seeks to ensure the same with spatial development strategies, so that local authorities will have already done the work on the habitats regulations, and planners can then move on to the areas where they know they are not going to get huge pushback the minute they submit their plans to the planning authorities. Such measures would highlight the areas that can be developed, streamline the process and protect those really important areas of biodiversity—all things that the Bill’s key objectives set out to do. They would just change where these things sit in the process to ensure that it is good for building and good for nature.

Finally, although the majority of planning delays are caused not by environmental regulations but by other pressures, such as lack of resource and expertise in our planning departments, I want to emphasise that my amendment would also reduce costs. The work would have been done already, so we would not have a whole slew of environmental impact assessments, for example, coming in at a later stage, and the duplication that causes much of this delay. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her introduction to this amendment, to which I put my name.

I have read carefully what the Minister said in Committee and during the various meetings that have taken place, which she kindly arranged. I am comforted somewhat by the assurances given that both local plans and spatial strategies will be required to take account of the habitats and species regulations and to conduct appropriate environmental assessments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, outlined, the aim of these amendments—in conjunction with Amendment 130, which we will debate later—is very much to encourage as much of the heavy lifting on habitats regulations compliance as possible to be undertaken in advance of planning applications, in order to guide developers away from more sensitive sites so they can achieve a faster trip through the planning process.

There is, however, one issue that remains unresolved in my mind, which is the question raised by Amendment 116 as to whether the spatial strategies will be required to take account of the land use framework. I was encouraged on Monday when the Minister spontaneously referred to the land use framework. At least that must mean that the land use framework is still alive; I thought it might have been parked by new Ministers. Perhaps the Minister could assure us about the relationship between strategic spatial plans—and indeed local plans—and the land use framework, and when we might expect to see the land use framework. If used properly, it would obviate many of the requirements of Part 3 by having a rational approach to competing land use demands.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 115, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is of course our total champion on the land use framework. I share her desire to see progress in that area as soon as possible.

I will just highlight what this is about and why we should have these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said that the question being asked is, where can we cause damage? That is what will happen. We are talking about the sites and species protected by the habitats regulations, which are of the highest international importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that we have had reassurances from the Minister that this is taken into account in local plans. I would be interested to hear what further reassurances the Minister can provide, because I do not think that that is what is happening. We are continually told, “Don’t worry about this. We don’t need this amendment because this is already happening; it is already covered by existing rules, regulations and laws”, but we all know that these things are not happening. Perhaps the Minister can answer that question. If those are indeed the rules, why is this not happening and what will the Government do to make sure that it does?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I declare my interest as a director of my family farming company. I will not make a long speech.

I looked at my notes on Amendment 122, which is an important amendment. They read: “Guidance simply needed to stop the commissars of Natural England running amok”. That probably covers it. The amendment seeks to ensure clearer definitions, parameters and accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, outlined so eloquently; it also addresses the potential abuse of compulsory purchase. I will say no more on that amendment.

The vital amendments in this group are Amendments 130 and 201, which focus on the clarity, deliverability and efficiency of the EDP process. I also support Amendments 128 and 129 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is seeking once again to make specificity, rather than generality and vagueness, the hallmark in the construction of EDPs.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who laid out the case for it very eloquently. It is a rather elegant solution to the tensions over Part 3—and there are undoubtedly tensions, not only here in the Chamber but out there in the country. Confining EDPs only to those issues to which the EDP process lends itself and which are best resolved on a strategic landscape scale—such as nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource and air quality—would deliver multiple benefits.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 148 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing it so clearly. It is quite a modest little amendment because all it asks is that, within six months, the Government publish draft regulations that would address a number of issues that have been of concern to several folks around the House, as well as external audiences. It is about a set of important issues that can give assurance that the Bill will definitely deliver, both for the environment and for development.

The Government have already given a bit of clarification on the requirements laid out in this amendment, with some very useful but limited government amendments being tabled after the Commons stages of the Bill. We have had assurances that irreplaceable habitats would be unlikely to meet the overall improvement test. We have had assurances that the environmental principles are already captured through drafting and various government amendments. We have had reference to the Secretary of State meeting the environmental principles policy statement as an alternative to the mitigation hierarchy. However, there were also other downsides in the comments made by the Minister in Committee.

For example, on whether measures need to be put in place in particular circumstances before a site is developed, I was rather concerned that it was said that that might be the case in instances where habitats or species are rare or fragile. You would think that if habitats or species are that rare or that fragile, we probably ought to be using the mitigation hierarchy to avoid doing damage to those really important areas. The Minister was clear that the Government would not require developers to use the mitigation hierarchy to do that very important thing: to try to avoid damage to the most important sites and to direct development to sites of rather less importance. That is fundamental if the Bill is to deliver both for the environment and for development.

The Minister very kindly had a drop-in session on EDPs, during which I asked whether we might see guidance and draft secondary legislation before Third Reading. Actually, I asked whether we would see it before Report, but I got a stout rebuttal at that point. It is really important that if there is a need for clarity, as I believe there is on the sorts of issues that are in Amendment 148, we see as much as possible of what will be in the guidance before we have to finally press the button on the Bill, because at the moment we are buying a bit of a pig in a poke.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

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

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

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 199 is about heritage trees, and I thank everyone who has stayed for this debate. A special thank you goes to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has worked on this for far longer than me.

The existing mechanisms for tree preservation prove consistently inadequate when confronted by development pressure. To halt the continual attrition of irreplaceable ecological and historic assets, we must introduce specific mandatory, statutory safeguards. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for also signing Amendment 199, which achieves this by empowering local planning authorities to make heritage tree preservation orders: HTPOs. A heritage tree is precisely defined as one listed by Natural England based on its exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecological importance. They are exceptional—not just any old tree in somebody’s back garden.

Natural England is explicitly tasked with creating, publishing and maintaining this register of heritage trees in England. The measure would guarantee that these assets were afforded all the protections of a standard TPO but mandate significantly more rigorous enforcement and proactive care. Under it, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying that breaches of an HTPO incur additional or higher penalties. Crucially, the system would move beyond reactive enforcement; the regulations must specifically enable the responsible authority, the planning authority, Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner or occupier to take specified, reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree. If the owner failed to comply within a reasonable timeframe, the authority could execute the work itself and recover the reasonable cost.

This proposal would ensure that these vital historic assets were kept for future generations. It would be financially enforceable and remove uncertainty. Furthermore, transparency would be mandatory: owners must publicly advertise the tree’s status and penalties for harming it in the vicinity. The provision also encourages collaboration through heritage tree partnership agreements between the responsible body and the owner concerning care and costs.

The mechanisms within this amendment would deliver the focused legal protection required for irreplaceable features, moving accountability from discretionary planning guidance to a mandatory framework of enforcement and proactive conservation of our vital heritage trees. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, it would be exceptional if I did not support this amendment, in that it takes the provisions of my Private Member’s Bill and puts them into the amendment—so it would be a bit two-faced of me if I did not support it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has laid out clearly what the issue is. It is a very important issue in the public domain. We saw the outpourings that happened at the Sycamore Gap, and we see every year in the Tree of the Year competition just how many people exert themselves to vote for their favourite heritage tree. We have the beginnings of a register of these trees already in existence. I believe that my optimism, which was raised when the Government commissioned the Tree Council to put forward a report on what should happen, deserves a bit of encouragement, because, as yet, we have not had a very satisfactory response to the Tree Council’s research.

In Committee, I summarised the Government’s position as being that they felt that by saying that these trees were irreplaceable habitats was simply sufficient—but it is clearly not, as they are increasingly being damaged either by demolition or by poor management, so being called an irreplaceable habitat is not having any impact whatever. The second worry that I had in Committee was that, although the Tree Council had come forward with recommendations, it was clear that the Government were not planning to do very much as a result of them. It would be good to hear from the Minister tonight that, with this having been reflected on, there has been a change of heart, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, having also attached my name to this amendment, for reasons I shall get to in a second, let me say that it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender —and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in particular, as she has been our champion in this space.

I am going to speak about two groups of trees in Sheffield. Members of your Lordships’ House may remember the great Sheffield tree controversy and the struggles that the whole city went to to defend its street trees. Two groups of those would, I think, have been covered by a heritage tree preservation order. One was about 40 trees on Western Road that had been planted in 1919 as a living memorial for the soldiers killed in the First World War from that community. The council planned to cut them down. There were paintings by artists underneath the trees and a huge march in World War I-style uniforms from the trees down to the town hall, and a huge campaign that demonstrated just how important those trees were to the community, and nearly all of them were saved.

On the other side of the city, in a much more deprived area, there were two cherry trees that were planted to commemorate two brothers killed in the Second World War. They were just cut down and people were deeply shocked. We have talked a lot in your Lordships’ House, throughout the passage of this Bill, about how nature is terribly important to people’s health and well-being, but here we are talking about individual trees that communities have an individual relationship with and that desperately need protection. They are part of their history, part of their future. At the moment, we do not have ways of protecting them, except for communities going to the kind of extraordinary efforts that the people in Sheffield had to go through to save those trees that they did manage to save.

I will make one other point. Poland has a green monument system that marks tens of thousands of trees across Poland, and Romania has a similar scheme. Britain is supposed to be really keen on nature and really keen on heritage, and look how far behind we are.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 88 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and various other Peers. I also very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson about sports fields. I just wanted to make a few points that somehow often do not come up about green spaces.

In 2008, when I worked for the then Mayor of London, Mr Johnson, we started a project called Capital Growth. It was a simple and madly ambitious idea to create 2,012 new community vegetable gardens in London by the time of the Olympic Games. It was a steal entirely from Vancouver, which had done something similar, but we counted each garden as one garden, whereas they counted each plot as a garden, so I think we won. In four years, we created 2,500 gardens, and all of them are still there. Supporting the notion that a lot of these spaces do end up in much more wealthy areas, once communities were given the chance and a tiny bit of money, in fact, 78% of our gardens ended up in the most deprived areas of London, because that is what people wanted. Very many things happened that we did not anticipate. One was that all the local police came and said that the gardens had transformed the area.

To give an example, you would be in a place where there was a high-rise block and an area designed back in the 50s where mums could walk with their babies in the midday sun; but it would be full of needles and beer cans, and people would not go there. They would stay in their tower blocks because they were frightened to come down. However, you took over the space and created a garden, and then, people got pride and came down. It altered things dramatically, and we saw that over and over again. The police were pleased, the doctors were pleased, the community was pleased, and people started to take ownership of their public space.

We set up a system whereby we challenged every borough in London to create 60 spaces. They all rose to the challenge, but my point in supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment is that, if we do not make this happen, nobody has a chance. It is not something that should be the privilege of people with money; this should be accessible to all, not just because it is healthy and makes you eat better. We had wonderful groups selling to local restaurants; we were having barbecues; they were feeding kids. The knock-ons are amazing, so please do not think of it simply in terms of one single thing. The point about plants and gardens and gardening is that it spreads dramatically.

I have one final point before I sit down. I was reading an extraordinary book the other day about heat in urban areas. During the heat dome over the west coast of America, the researcher had measured the heat in the middle-class areas in Portland, Oregon, where there were lots of trees, and in the poorer areas, where there was just concrete. The difference was 20 degrees. So we must have these spaces as the world’s climate changes, because they really work a lot better than practically anything else.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have put my name. This is a time of huge opportunity. We are going to be building an unprecedented number of houses and creating 10 new towns, and the value that can be added to that effort by open green spaces and blue spaces, delivering some of the benefits that have already been spoken of around the Chamber, is tremendous. It really is an opportunity we must not miss.

It is true to say that, at the moment, deprived communities do not get as good a deal on this as richer communities, and work that the Woodland Trust has done on tree equity has shown that the poorer communities have far less access to open spaces with trees. These are vital for health, mental health, well-being and air quality; we heard about heat, natural flood risk management and the huge range of things that, apart from allowing people to have room to enjoy open spaces, are also going to be delivered by these open spaces.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 64 has been packaged in the media, and even in the Marshalled List, as augmenting the Secretary of State’s power to call in an application, but, as the Minister made clear in opening, in fact it does not do that. It leaves Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the call-in power, unchanged. What it actually does is augment the holding power, under Section 74 of the 1990 Act, so that the Secretary of State can issue restrictions on the refusal of planning permission to facilitate consideration of the call-in power. In that context, I seek some clarification from the Minister as to what is intended procedurally, were this amendment to become law.

Currently, there are procedural safeguards in place in relation to called-in planning applications: there is a statutory safeguard in Section 77(5), which gives either the applicant or the local planning authority the right to be heard before an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. That, plainly, will not be changed, because there is no proposal to amend Section 77, but the obligation for the Secretary of State to cause a hearing to be heard is also the subject of a policy that exists in the Planning Inspectorate’s guidance on call-in proceedings. The policy in the Planning Inspectorate guidance is that the right of a local authority or an applicant to be heard under Section 77(5) is to be exercised by means of the inquiry procedure. The public inquiry procedure, of course, allows for greater scrutiny of the evidence and greater public participation than a mere one-day informal hearing.

Is the Minister prepared to offer a commitment on behalf of the Government that there will be no dilution of the procedural safeguard in the Planning Inspectorate’s published policy and that the right of a local planning authority to insist on an inquiry and to exercise its statutory right to be heard through the inquiry procedure, as opposed to a lesser procedure, will not be diluted and will remain?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 64 was billed by the Minister, in the letter that she wrote to all Peers laying it out, as seeking to address a minor gap. I am not sure about that. I think other noble Lords have also expressed different concerns from mine. I take this opportunity to seek reassurances from the Minister. I am grateful for the way in which she presented the circumstances in which call-in takes place, and the safeguards, in her introduction to the amendment, but the amendment could be read as a considerable change in tone on the Government’s intentions and role in the planning system.

I am probably caricaturing it but, under the current arrangements, the Government used to be regarded almost as a knight on a white horse. They would come in at the last minute on planning decisions where the local authority was getting it wrong in granting permission, often in cases which were going to be to the detriment of the environment. That was a rather fine thing, in my view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the premise on which the amendment she moved is based. My Amendment 194 seems to be a little out of place. I should have asked for it to be taken with the rest of Part 3, because it seeks to amend Clause 86 in Part 3 to insist that the power to designate a person to exercise functions under this Act should indeed belong to a public body.

Clause 83 provides the power to acquire land compulsorily, including new rights over land, to Natural England, subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) provides that the power can be exercised only if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an EDP. This came as a surprise to many, not least, as the Minister will be aware, the NFU, which is deeply anxious about the purport of Clause 86, in particular the definition of a “designated person”. It is alarmed that Clause 83 gives Natural England the compulsory purchase powers set out in that clause. It is further exasperated by Clause 86 allowing the Secretary of State to designate “another person” to exercise Natural England’s functions, potentially giving another party compulsory purchase powers. On what basis would those powers be given and who would these people be?

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for lending her support to this amendment. I am grateful to her, and indeed to the Ministers, for agreeing to meet us to discuss this amendment last week. I would like to understand what bodies the Government have in mind. Are they individuals? Are they organisations? Can the Ministers name them this evening, so that we have an idea who they are? Is it an indication that, as I understand it, Natural England is losing staff over the coming months and therefore the Government are accepting that, possibly, Natural England will not have the capacity to cope with the volume of work set out in Part 3?

We will go on to consider the whole remit of compulsory powers in Clause 83 onwards. I think that will be next week, unless we are here all night. I would just like to understand the basis on which it will not be Natural England, when these powers are being given to Natural England for the first time, who the other bodies or individuals might be, and to make a plea that, for the purposes of that clause, a “designated person” must be a public body.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group. Government Amendment 68 would permit Natural England to not respond to requests for advice under Section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, so that it can prioritise more important cases. That reflects pretty well what is happening at the moment, if the truth were known, because the reality is that Natural England’s resources are very thinly stretched and, in many cases, it provides advice simply on the basis of standing guidance and sometimes on the basis of empty silence. I want to probe the Minister a bit further on this and I apologise for giving her grief when she is clearly beset with some affliction.

I have three questions. The first is, it is my understanding that Natural England would have to consult only the Secretary of State on the development of this statement about how it intends to deal with requests for advice. Should there not be a wider consultation on such a statement, which is important for how local planning authorities are assisted to make more informed planning decisions?

The second question is: has the Minister any concerns about Natural England reducing further its support to local planning authorities when we know that only one in three local planning authorities now has in-house ecological advice? We are facing a reduction in the advice coming from Natural England and a reduction in the available advice to local authorities. I know that they can buy that in, but it is less flexible and less readily available.

My third question is: should we perhaps wait for this change to happen once the Government’s forthcoming consultation on statutory consultees has taken place? This is a consultation about consultation—this is the sort of world we live in these days.

Noble Lords are being asked to approve this change, which it is intended will come in immediately on the passing of the Bill, and there is a specific clause that effects that, without seeing the wider picture of reform for statutory consultees within which the statement of prioritisation would sit. If a requirement to consult more widely on the statement that Natural England is supposed to produce were placed in the Bill, that would enable proper consideration once the picture on statutory consultees had been settled. So I think that hastening rather more slowly on this would make for a much better decision.

I support Amendment 194 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government would expect any delegation by the Secretary of State of Natural England’s role in developing or implementing an EDP to be generally to a public body. In talking to the Minister—I was pleased to be able to talk directly to both Ministers about this issue—the only examples that so far have been put forward for this power of delegation have been either to National Parks England or the Marine Management Organisation, in circumstances where the expertise might be more relevant to a particular EDP. That is entirely appropriate. If a reliable public body is publicly accountable and has the right sort of expertise to draw up and implement an EDP, it is appropriate that that happens. But, if it is normally going to be a public body, why do we not just say “a public body” in the Bill rather than “another person”?

There needs to be a lot of clarity here about the difference between delegating to “another person” to develop and implement an EDP and the sorts of partnerships that I am sure most EDPs will involve, where Natural England can partner with or delegate the delivery but not the preparation of part of an EDP to a whole range of partners, including businesses, including some of the natural resources businesses that are growing up, NGOs, landowners and farmers. I am sure that there will be a huge range of people joined with Natural England in delivering EDPs and that that will happen widely. But that will happen with Natural England as the co-ordinating body, co-ordinating the delivery by partners in line with the EDP.

That partnership working is absolutely admirable and can happen without this delegation provision. Clause 86 is, in reality, about taking the development and/or the delivery of these potentially highly controversial EDPs away from the body that is the Government’s statutory adviser and agency on nature conservation and potentially giving extensive responsibilities and powers to a person or persons as yet unidentified. If they are to be public bodies, why not state that in the Bill? If they are not, can the Minister help us understand a bit more who these non-public bodies might be? Can she give us some examples? I would find it very difficult to believe that a private individual or organisation would have the range of expertise and experience that statutory bodies accrue from doing these things successively over time, and which they will develop even more as they take forward successive EDPs and learn increasingly how to do it.

If I were a landowner, I would be very anxious about not knowing who might, in the future, have all these Natural England powers to develop and implement EDPs; not knowing their background and expertise; not knowing the extent of the powers they are to be given, and their stance on and approach towards compulsory purchase. Public bodies are, to a large extent, known quantities; another person or persons unknown are not. If public bodies screw up, the Government can sack the chairman. I know all about that. The Government have no sanctions of that sort for private bodies. Can the Minister tell us how they will hold them accountable? Can she reassure landowners about their concerns? If Ministers are pretty clear that, in reality, they would delegate these important duties and powers only to a public body, I would suggest that the safest way forward is simply to reassure everybody by saying in the Bill that it will be a public body.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to speak to all the amendments in this group. I want to speak to Amendment 200 and make just one remark about Amendment 194.

I am not persuaded by Amendment 194. Our day- by-day experience of working with organisations which provide environmental impact assessments and environmental outcome reports, and that have all the expertise we might need in this context, is not to be found exclusively in public bodies, so I would not support this amendment.

Turning to Amendment 200, in Committee we had a short debate about the relationship between Natural England and the making of development plans. Clearly, as we noted then, Natural England has to have regard to these. The sooner Natural England can be aware of the potential requirement for environmental delivery plans, the better. They do not necessarily start at that stage, but they can certainly engage in programming for their activity. The pressure on them is clearly going to be considerable. My Amendment 200 is about local authorities having a duty to tell Natural England when they have potential sites for development. I interpret this as being at Regulation 19 stage. If they are coming forward with the development sites they are proposing for consultation, they should tell Natural England. Natural England can then factor into the thinking about environmental development plans what might emerge, typically a year or more after that point, as the adoption of a development plan. It gives them access and time.

I completely understand if the Minister says that this is not necessary because they can already do this. We are talking about statutory processes and local planning authorities who are so pressed that they will not do what they are not required to do. In order to make this system work, a Regulation 19 requirement to notify Natural England to inform the process of EDP making would be a helpful addition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I know this is against the rules on Report, but I think this is such an important issue. I do not understand what the Government are saying now because the Bill is very clear. It actually says that the Secretary of State will make decisions about who the powers will be delegated to, not Natural England. If it was Natural England doing it, I would be entirely content. That is not what the Bill says at the moment, so I am unclear as to exactly what the Minister’s last couple of sentences mean.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I was trying to clarify that it is the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State will consult on this and that Parliament will be given an opportunity to comment?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

What I am saying is that any delegated powers from Natural England are subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation and that the use of this power is subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. I hope that is clear.

I will now turn briefly to Amendment 200 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which would add a duty on local authorities to inform Natural England, when making development plans, of potential sites for development that may require an EDP. As we mentioned in Committee, Natural England is already required to have regard to relevant development plans when producing an EDP. We have also ensured that local authorities will be required to co-operate with Natural England during the process of preparing an EDP, which will ensure that information on site allocation can feed into the design of EDPs. We share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that EDPs dovetail into the wider planning system, and I understand where he is coming from with this amendment, but we believe that placing a further duty on local authorities to provide such information is unnecessary, given that the Bill requires Natural England to proactively consider such plans when designing an EDP. On that basis, I trust that the noble Lord is content not to press his amendment.