Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 306, which is in this group in my name, but I want to make a number of other points. First, I want to note that we have just agreed Clause 65. I remember that my noble friend Lord Caithness did ask a question in a previous group at an earlier time about the opportunity to challenge an environmental delivery plan, to which the answer was that there was a provision for that somewhere. This is indeed true; it is in Clause 65, which we have just agreed. I will just point out—we may need to return to it and check that we are clear—it is a challenge by way of judicial review; there is not the opportunity to challenge an environmental delivery plan in circumstances where one believes that the facts and the evidence are wrong. The merits of the decisions may not be challenged; only the procedural aspects may be challenged by way of judicial review.

I mention that because, in this group, my noble friend in his subsection (1)(c) of the new clause in Amendment 308 refers to a right of appeal in relation to the establishment of the levy. This is an appeal on a question of fact, so it is a different kind of an appeal for a different purpose. I think that it is rather a good thing, but the question is: to whom should it go? Clause 70 sets out that there may be an appeal, but, unfortunately, it does not say to whom, or how or whatever. Do the Government happen to know to whom the appeal will be made? When I look at Clause 69 and the provisions setting out at some length how the charging schedules may be established in regulations, it seems to me awfully similar to the legislation that provides for the community infrastructure levy, for those who recognise these things. An appeal against the community infrastructure levy would be to the District Valuer Services, so it might be sensible for Ministers, if they can do nothing else, to at least tell us if it is the intention that the District Valuer Services would undertake the work on charging schedules and levy amounts for the environmental delivery plans.

The point of my Amendment 306 is to acknowledge that we have this lengthy set of clauses that tell us that the EDP must be calculated in relation to its costs and that that must be turned into a charging schedule. Clearly, we cannot assume that the development will be the responsibility of any one person; it may be the responsibility of many persons. The charging schedule is actually very like a community infrastructure levy charged against the development, and indeed it might be imposed, and the charging schedules could, as Clause 69 says, be determined by reference to the nature and/or the amount of development. It could be very like a community infrastructure levy for commercial purposes; it could be so many pounds per square foot and so on. If it is very like it, it would be quite useful to know that.

The Minister might say there is not really a requirement on local authorities to consult about a community infrastructure levy, but actually many do. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that, when an environmental delivery plan is proposed, it will be the intention of Natural England to talk to the people who are potentially liable to pay the levy. Otherwise, I am not quite sure how we arrive at the point, which the legislation appears to anticipate, that the developers would volunteer and request to pay the levy. They need to know about it and be consulted. They should also be consulted about the charging schedule, not with a view to agreeing it, but certainly to be able to understand the nature of the additional costs.

This is linked to the second point in my amendment, which is about the regulations setting out when and how a viability assessment might be undertaken. Often, for developers, the viability assessment that matters is the one that starts out the development—at the point at which one is buying the land, at the point at which one is understanding the costs, at the point at which one puts all these potential costs together and says, “How much is this option worth? How much is this land worth?” The later viability assessments are potentially very burdensome and may torpedo a development, but that is not what we want to do. We want to arrive at an understanding at the earliest possible stage of what all the costs look like.

The regulations should provide for Natural England to talk to the potential developers who might pay the levy and make provision if necessary for a viability assessment to be undertaken at a relatively early point. To that extent, it is a probing amendment, because I want to be sure that these things will happen. They can, under the legislation, be included in the guidance that is to be provided. The question is: will they? If Ministers cannot say that they will do so, perhaps they ought to reconsider or at least look at whether the regulations should provide for that.

In Clause 69, when the amount of the levy has been determined, we suddenly encounter the proposal that the environmental delivery plan may be mandatory. I have not found the place where we understand in what circumstances and for what reasons the levy becomes mandatory as opposed to voluntary. I would be grateful if the Minister, either at this stage or at a later stage, would explain that to us.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 304 in this group on the payment of the NRF levy and appeals. This amendment seeks to ensure that

“the cost of works for nature restoration and enhancement are covered by the developer, in accordance with the Polluter Pays Principle. The setting of the Levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developments that would have an outsized impact on the natural environment, redirecting them to locations with lower environmental impacts”.

This is an amendment to Clause 67 aiming to define the fundamental purpose of the nature restoration levy and to embed a core principle of environmental justice into the legislation. In this way, the amendment is quite different from the others in this group, and it is important. It proposes that the Bill explicitly states that the Secretary of State, in making regulations for the levy,

“must ensure that the overall purpose of the nature restoration levy is to ensure that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features are funded by the developer”.

It further clarifies:

“The setting of the Levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developments that would have an outsized impact”,


thereby redirecting them. This is important to make sure that we are not just permitting this kind of damage.

I thank the Ministers for their letter earlier today. I was in Committee this morning, so I have not managed to go through it fully, but there are still concerns about the nature restoration fund and developers paying to offset and the potential impacts that exist in the Bill. My amendment seeks to change this by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that the overall purpose of the levy regulations is that developments remain economically viable. The approach in the Bill has been identified by the Office for Environmental Protection as risking leaving the process open to economic compromise. The Wildlife Trusts, similarly, has articulated that it is essential that it is not the case and that achieving overall environmental improvement should be an absolute priority within the new system. It argues that that would

“correct the oddity of clauses which are meant to be environmental in character having an economic viability overall purpose”.

The amendment directly addresses this flaw by placing nature restoration, funded by the developer, as a primary overarching purpose of the levy. In so doing, it does three things. As I said, it upholds the “polluter pays” principle. It prioritises nature recovery; it ensures that the nature restoration levy is a tool for delivering genuine ecological improvements rather than a mechanism designed primarily to facilitate development viability at nature’s expense, and it directs the levy to act as a deterrent. A robust levy set appropriately will incentivise developers to choose sites with lower environmental impacts, thereby proactively safeguarding our natural environment and preventing irreversible harm.

This is a sensible amendment. I welcome the other amendments in this group, which I read as probing amendments, so I am interested to see what the Minister says in response to those. This is an important matter. I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister prior to Report and to her response.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments to say, basically, that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I thank her for her contribution.

I wholeheartedly recognise why both noble Lords have brought forward the amendments, the point that they are making about the energy transition and the fact that we need to get on and build this stuff. In doing that, however, there is a balance to be achieved. If we do not transition to clean energy, there will be an impact on the environment. Obviously, there are some cases where these things come into contact and conflict, so we need to find ways to manage them. It is absolutely vital that we transition. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we need to walk away from the polarised debates that are happening and to recognise that habitats are only one issue among a whole bunch of issues.

The bigger thing for me, weirdly, is the fact that the Bill could be doing more to help with infrastructure. There is a missed opportunity here, which is perhaps why there is talk of another Bill coming forward. I am interested to see how the Government will respond to the amendments. These are issues of balance, so painting all the problems as being about habitat regulations—and given the way that the noble Lords have painted their canvas—does not help the debate.

The Government have more to do to look at how we deliver infrastructure. I believe that that needs to be done—let us be honest—not at this time of night, with about four people in the Chamber who would rather be at home, but through a proper look. What I take away from the noble Lords’ amendments is that, with all these issues—getting to clean power, being a crowded island, managing habitat regulations and managing other projects—there is more to be done to consider other ways to help deliver the infrastructure that we all know we need, while balancing the facts that our nature is in decline and we are a small, crowded island. What we need to do is all work together in a spirit of co-operation to examine what are very technical and complicated problems. I thank the noble Lords for bringing their amendments, because they have resulted in important debates.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments address the critical interface between planning law and the protection of our sensitive natural environments governed under the habitat regulations.

Amendment 350, which I have signed—I should really have signed Amendment 349 too, which I also support—proposes a new Part 1A to the habitats regulations, placing scientific evidence at the centre of decision-making. That principle is vital. All too often, planning decisions are mired in ambiguity and subjectivity, which, in turn, creates delay and a window for opportunistic challenge. These amendments would create a framework that distinguishes between material and de minimis effects, gives due weight to credible science and offers clarity for both developers and conservation bodies. That said, we must take care that the new language, particularly around decisions not requiring absolute certainty, does not inadvertently weaken precautionary safeguards. It is a fine balance and one we will want to explore further.

I imagine that I am fortunate not to have read the article in the Telegraph today, so I am completely comfortable with the amendments. The only thing from the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, with which I did not entirely agree is the idea that nature has to suffer. A lot of the debate we are having around the Bill is about how to make sure that nature suffers as little as possible and how to mitigate that in the hierarchy. I believe that these amendments can be part of that.

That goes to the broader debate that we on these Benches have been having throughout the discussions on the Bill about why we have Part 3 at all. When we started debating the groups on Part 3, we offered a number of amendments to deal with nutrient neutrality, two of which, taken together, would have released 160,000 houses immediately after the Bill commenced. I am still not clear how EDPs will release those houses from the blocking guidance from Natural England.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has tabled a number of amendments that would significantly restrict the extent of EDPs, which I also support. In all the amendments I have mentioned and which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has brought forward today, there are solutions which, frankly, would be far better than Part 3 for speeding up development, increasing certainty and reducing costs. I therefore support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, I shall speak to Amendment 346DG. I should say at the outset that I agree with much of the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in the previous group. This probing amendment continues in a similar vein. It addresses the urgent need to accelerate the delivery of new nuclear power in all its forms in the UK. It is designed with a clear objective: to ensure that our planning system enables, rather than obstructs, the development of the energy infrastructure that this country so desperately needs.

British-built plants cost far more per kilowatt than those of our competitors—six times more than in South Korea. Both France and Finland deliver the same EPR design for far less per kilowatt, at 27% and 53% respectively. These costs are driven by many factors, including slow, resource-intensive consultations relating to planning and permitting, and an 80,000-page environmental impact assessment driving overspecification on environmental and safety grounds. We need the process to become much more efficient.

Amendment 346DG would allow the Secretary of State, when determining an application for a DCO, to disregard regulations relating to environmental impact assessment, habitats regulations assessment or any environmental delivery plan if it is considered necessary for the delivery of a nuclear power station. It also requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to put in place a more proportionate environmental impact assessment regime for a proposed nuclear power station development. This would put an end to the practice of blocking or delaying vital national infrastructure on environmental grounds alone and ensure that we cannot be held hostage to a system that prizes paperwork over progress and process over power generation.

The need for energy security is no longer a theoretical debate. It is a strategic imperative. We are presiding over the highest offshore wind auction prices in a decade, demand for electricity is rising rapidly and the UK is still overly reliant on imported energy sources. The last nuclear power station to come online in this country was in 1995. Hinkley Point C, the only one under construction, is now set to become the most expensive power station in history, not because the technology is flawed—far from it—but because of bureaucracy. We have witnessed the absurdity of eight years of negotiations to install 288 underwater loudspeakers—the infamous fish disco—to deter a trawler’s worth of fish from swimming into the water intake system. This amendment would put an end to that: no more paperwork that chokes innovation and pushes up costs, but rather a more proportionate environmental impact assessment regime that will give a level playing field to the UK nuclear industry.

We must be clear: nuclear is safe, is low-carbon and has the smallest land footprint of any energy source. Dr John Constable of the Renewable Energy Foundation estimates that wind and solar require up to 3,000 times more land to produce the same amount of power as nuclear. This matters—as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, agrees. We are a small island. In some regions, solar farm applications already cover up to 8% of available land, and the Government’s plan will require even more. Their decision to scrap our 24 gigawatt nuclear target—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I do not recognise the figure of 8%.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will very briefly respond on this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for introducing it on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel. To be honest, we are unable to support this amendment for various reasons. I understand that is a probing amendment, but it does not come across as a fully figured out or good way of doing things.

I fully take the point that other noble Lords have made about the announcements today on the back of Trump’s visit about small modular nuclear reactors, which this amendment is about, in terms of their importance for the economy. Separately, I have tabled an amendment to this Bill about the need for energy efficiency and for small modular reactors. It is important that, while we grow the economy, we make sure that the new things that we are building are actually energy efficient and fit for purpose. We cannot just keep having new power-hungry technology and expect to get to clean power at the same time. We cannot let the AI beast get out of control.

First, just to respond to this amendment, I know that it is probing, but the key thing here is that the Government have not asked for any of these powers. Indeed, they have just recently updated a lot of their nuclear policies. We have had an update to EN1 and to EN7. At no point during that time have the Government requested any of the sweeping powers set out here.

The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State may, if “this is considered necessary” and appropriate, disregard the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Infrastructure Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. That wording in itself is just a carte blanche for the Minister to do whatever they want whenever they want. It is not good wording. Moreover, the amendment slashes the page limits for environmental impact assessments to 1,000 pages. I fully get that some of these documents are too long and that that can delay things, but 1,000 pages seems an arbitrary figure: 1,001 is not acceptable, but 999 pages is. It cuts the consultation period to 21 days. Again, it strikes me that these are vaguely plucked out of the air and are not properly thought through.

This could undermine democratic accountability, and people being able to consult on these things. It could incur significant legal risk, as we have obligations under retained EU law, international treaties and all sorts of things. It is also a risk as we are transitioning to a completely new way of doing nuclear energy—dispersing it, having it run by companies, and, inevitably, its being situated closer to communities. It is important for delivering this transition that we take communities with us and, as we deploy a new technology, that this is done in a way that creates confidence and does not undermine the very thing that we want to do. As we start to roll this out, it is more important than at any other point that we do this properly and appropriately. My worry is that rushing to sweeping powers like this could do the exact opposite of what the amendment intends, and undermine confidence in this part of our energy transition, so I am not able to support the amendment.

I have raised this in the House before: whenever we have this conversation about nuclear, it is always put in opposition to solar, and solar has taken over the world. Actually, this week we have had the Treasury itself saying that the long-term geological store for our historical legacy of nuclear waste has gone on to the red list and is not deliverable. Nuclear energy comes with different issues and benefits, but also has big, non-associated costs that are not always put forward. It has a long-term historical legacy of highly radioactive waste that needs to be dealt with. We recognise that nuclear is part of the mix but, coming back to what I said on the previous amendment, if the Government feel they need more regulation in this space—they may well do—we will listen to that. However, that needs to be done in the round and, as we transition to a new form of nuclear energy, this stuff needs to be done very carefully indeed.

[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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

185N: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Energy consumption of AI and technology-related infrastructure(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of this Act coming into force, prepare and publish a National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy for the purposes of informing planning policy and guiding the development of artificial intelligence and technology-related infrastructure under this Act, in so far as it relates to energy consumption.(2) For the purposes of this section, “artificial intelligence and technology-related infrastructure” includes, but is not limited to—(a) data centres,(b) high-performance computing facilities,(c) server farms,(d) AI research, training, and testing facilities, and(e) any other installations primarily designed to support AI and large-scale digital processing.(3) The purpose of the strategy is to—(a) balance the energy demands of artificial intelligence against the energy efficiencies enabled by artificial intelligence,(b) achieve a national objective of ensuring that AI energy use is better than carbon neutral before 2030, and(c) support the integration of AI-enabled efficiencies into national energy planning.(4) The projected energy consumption of a proposed development and its contribution to national energy efficiencies, as set out in the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy, shall be treated as material planning considerations.(5) An application for planning permission relating to such infrastructure must be accompanied by an assessment covering—(a) the expected level of energy demand arising from the development,(b) proposed measures to improve the energy efficiency of the development, and(c) proposed steps to reduce or mitigate the impact of energy consumption on local and national energy supply. (6) In determining an application to which this section applies, a planning authority must have regard to—(a) the extent to which the development will utilise renewable or other low-carbon sources of energy, and(b) the consistency of the development with the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy.(7) The Secretary of State must issue guidance specifying minimum energy efficiency standards for such infrastructure.(8) Planning authorities must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (7) in exercising their functions under the Planning Acts.(9) Planning conditions attached to permissions under this section must include local arrangements enabling independent AI-related energy sources to provide surplus capacity to the national grid at times of surplus or at times of national demand, including requirements for grid-balancing.(10) The Secretary of State must, not later than 18 months after the publication of the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy, and every three years thereafter, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—(a) the progress made in reducing the energy consumption of AI and technology-related infrastructure,(b) the contribution of such infrastructure to national energy efficiencies,(c) the effectiveness of planning conditions imposed under this section, and(d) whether additional measures are required to meet the objectives set out in subsection (3)(b).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to make the energy use and efficiency of AI-related infrastructure a statutory planning consideration supported by a national strategy, guidance, and reporting duties.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, in opening this group of amendments on AI infrastructure and community energy I will move my Amendment 185N and speak also to Amendment 185P. The simple truth is that AI’s energy and water demands are outpacing our development of policies to regulate AI’s energy and water usage. AI’s expected energy usage is due to go up from 7 terawatt hours to 62 terawatt hours by 2050, which is enough to power 27 million homes. Some estimate that it could go up to 71 terawatt hours by 2050. AI is exceptionally power-hungry just at the pinch point when we are desperately trying to reach clean power.

Against this background, our overall electricity demand is set to double by 2050. SMRs will help, but we should note that they will not come online until the mid-2030s. Meanwhile, many big tech companies are rowing back from their clean energy targets; Google is one example. This Bill is notably silent on AI, meaning that planning frameworks lack explicit provisions to assess or moderate the substantial energy and water demands of AI. I believe that, with the right legislation, we can make provision to require that AI is used for public good by ensuring that its power is also applied to finding ways we can drive national energy savings and efficiencies. AI is a powerful tool used to drive energy efficiencies, for example by enhancing the electricity grid, providing stability and efficiency and improving forecasting and integrations of variable amounts of new renewable energy generation and unlocking substantial transmission capacity savings without the need for new power lines.

More widely, AI can be used to heat and cool our buildings, improve our transport sector and to improve any number of industrial processes requiring large amounts of energy. So there is potential for huge savings by employing AI. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a national AI energy efficiency strategy within 18 months. This would establish projections of energy use as material planning considerations and mandate developers to account for both supply and efficiency measures in their applications. The measure also aims to ensure that surplus energy resources from data centres can be fed back into the national grid at times of energy need.

Amendment 185P also looks at the significant issue of projected water usage by AI. A typical data centre can use as much water as 100,000 homes. At present, 8.5 million homes in the UK are subject to hosepipe bans. Seven out of 17 regions in England are expected to have water stress by 2030 and 12 by 2040. The shortfall between sustainable water supplies and expected demand is projected by Defra to be nearly 5 billion litres per day by 2050. This represents more than one-third of the 14 million litres we use daily. Facing a warmer world, it is essential that national policy demands a clear water efficiency strategy, enforces targets for alternative cooling technologies and ensures that planning authorities rigorously assess water availability and resilience before consenting to new developments.

I absolutely welcome the relatively newly established AI Energy Council and the work being done but, to date, this is an evolving project without any clear outcomes. Will the Government, at the very least, mandate that the AI Energy Council formulates clear policies and formally reports on these matters within a set timeframe? I also ask the Government to give a clear commitment to an energy and water efficiency strategy for AI and to develop a national energy policy statement on AI energy use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes an important point about reusing the energy created by data centres, which we are exploring. It is very important that the new towns task force has a chance to do its work. They will be subject to the planning process, just like all other applicants, when they put them forward. But, as I said, we are aiming to protect grades 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land, and I hope that other areas come forward to site the data centres. They are very important; we cannot do without them, that is for sure, so we need to consider very carefully where they might be sited, and the land use framework will give us a good indication about that.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, it was right to bring these amendments forward; they are important considerations on the future of AI and community energy. I thank all those who have spoken and broadly supported the amendments—the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the Conservative Front Bench—and the Minister for the detailed response I have received to the issues I raised. I welcome the fact that a national policy statement will be forthcoming; it is needed, and I look forward to seeing that.

The bit that is still slightly missing on AI is embedding the idea of energy efficiency in the planning system and making sure that we hold these big tech companies to account, because it is very easy for them to consume energy, and that causes a lot of problems for us as we transition to clean power. If the Government allow them to build data centres, they need a system to get access to those data centres to drive energy efficiency. I was trying to create a mechanism to do that with these amendments. My mechanism might not be the right one, but there is a conversation to be had about being able to use the power of AI to redesign the energy network according to how we best plug in renewables, for example, to drive energy efficiencies. I will leave that as a problem for all of us to think about going forward.

I also welcome the commitment and work from the Government on community energy; they added it as one the objectives of the Great British Energy Act and are coming forward with further guidance on that. I very much welcome the efforts being made to ensure that communities can not only generate power but benefit from it. That is essential to ensure that the public’s support stays with all of us who support the transition and that the next wave of energy is not done “to people” but “for people”, so that they get to benefit from the transition in the longer term. I look forward to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 185N withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the proposition that Part 3 not stand part of the Bill, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I have signed. It was unusual, but I feel that it was the right thing to do to bring this forward to indicate the strength of political feeling on these matters of nature protection. I am pleased to have added my name to them. Equally, I think it is right that they are not pursued at this stage.

I pay my respects to and thank the Government, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others, who have worked on and looked again at the concerns raised about the possible impacts of this Bill as it was initially drafted. Those have been voiced very strongly by the general public, by the NGO community and by Members of both Houses of this Parliament. It is not often that such a package of government amendments is tabled without a vote, but I must say it is a very welcome move. After Second Reading, I was not looking forward to the rest of the stages because I could see a showdown on basic nature protections coming down the line, so I am immensely grateful that this Bill has been substantially amended and improved. These amendments are not perfect, as others have said, but they do offer some substantial improvements.

I believe in the friendly hand of scrutiny, and I am convinced that Governments who listen and compromise make better laws than those who do not. Fundamentally, however, I feel that this Bill is still flawed. It carries a fundamental flaw through its heart in Part 3, because it identifies the wrong problems and then sets out to fix them in a not particularly great way. All the while, there are multiple other blockages to the planning system that do not really get the solutions that they need. They need to be unlocked so that we can get growth for housing, transition to clean power and do everything else that we really need to do.

I know the Government have made concessions and want this Bill passed. My hope is that, with shorter speeches from all, this Government will continue to listen, and we can continue the constructive dialogue in the time remaining to discuss the remaining important issues. In the interests of that time, I will not run through the changes but on these Benches we still have concerns about the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy as representing a really significant shift in approach—an approach that generally has worked fairly well.

This change of approach carries with it significant bureaucratic burdens and inherent risk for the businesses which will be undertaking this stuff and will face reputational damage. It creates an almost communist scale of new bureaucracy about moving nature as if it was Lego bricks from one place to another, but I am deeply concerned about the irreplaceable habitats. We will have opportunities to discuss this on the remaining clauses of this Bill.

We are also concerned about the mitigation hierarchy. Fundamentally, I still do not understand; I have looked at all the updated energy policies, such as EN-1 and those on nuclear power, the grid and renewables, and the mitigation hierarchy remains at the heart of those policies. I do not understand why, when that will continue to be the case after the Bill has passed, the mitigation hierarchy needs to be removed for housing. The Government might want to make arguments about the mitigation hierarchy in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects but, when we can deliver energy projects with the mitigation hierarchy, I do not see why that needs to be removed for housing.

I shall close on the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this morning, as quoted in the Times. While I deeply respect the Minister and everything that has been done here, I worry that another Bill will come down the line; that some aspects of this Government still perceive nature as a blockage to planning and development, even though the Government’s own impact assessment shows that this is not the case; and that commitments made here might be changed later on. Still, I thank the Minister; there is more to discuss, but I am grateful.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

There are three reactions coming to the fore about Part 3. A bunch of folk want to kill it because it is awful and unnecessary; a bunch of folk are predisposed to accept it, because although with the government amendments it is still not very good it is good enough, and we can probably get more amendments in the process of its passing through this House; and the third position is finding an alternative way of focusing on and resolving the issues that are stopping development happening. The last one is the way that I espouse.

Originally I had my name down to the mighty list of clause stand parts drawn up by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which would have completely kneecapped Part 3. I thank him for giving us the opportunity to discuss the problems with Part 3 that arouse such strong antipathy across the piece, regardless of which of the three reactions you espouse. However, I took my name down from the clause stand parts when I tabled my Amendments 185F, 185G and 242A. I presented those amendments with a heavy heart to the small but dedicated band who were still here, since it was the final group of Thursday night’s session. I had never experienced a death slot quite like that one before; it felt like a wet Tuesday night at the Aberdeen Empire.

I believe that EDPs are a risky and not very good way forward, for a number of reasons. One is that they are probably unnecessary because they are too sweeping, regarding EDPs as needing to cover a plethora of issues that have already been resolved or, in the eyes of developers, are not really the problems that are getting in the way. Another is that the habitats regulations have stood us in good stead over many years. We invented them as a bunch of Brits, and they represent the highest level of protection for that tiny, most important set of sites and species. Developers have got used to applying them over 30 years; they have developed an understanding and expertise within their operations. Many developers admit that the habs regs and nature are a long way down their list of blockages. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, are not in their places tonight, because they have developed a wonderful road map that shows how EDPs simply add another route to getting permissions rather than simplifying the existing routes.

My amendments would take the, I hope, constructive avenue of trying to find a middle way by restricting them to those issues for which they can be effective, which are strategic and landscape-level issues of nutrient neutrality, water quality, water quantity and air quality, and by adding amendments that I combined with them to give the heavy lifting on habitats regulation assessment to regional spatial strategies and local plans. By the time a developer came to put forward a planning application, not only would the majority of surveys and assessments have taken place but developers would be clearer where they should avoid sites with tricky protected species and instead aim for those sites rather less likely to have wrangles at stake. These already debated amendments have had a second opportunity to find their way to the light at a slightly more auspicious point in the timetable, and I hope that Ministers will consider them. They would be less dramatic than the clause stand part massacre of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.

I do not wholly support the solutions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to the nutrient neutrality issue, mainly because I do not actually understand what his amendments intend to achieve. I will swot up on that before Report.

However, I will briefly speak in support of Amendments 302 and 303, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I have added our names. They confirm that only impacts addressed by an EDP should be disregarded for the habs regs. We must make sure that any disregarding of the habitats regulations is absolutely forensic and rapier-like, not broad, woolly and unformed. They are important building blocks for nature conservation and recovery in this country. They do not get in the way of development if they are properly administered. They are about process rather than substance, and we can streamline them in a whole load of ways without wrecking them.

This is the nub of the Bill. If the truth were known, Part 3 is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that I have seen, and my first conversation with Ministers in the Commons did not reassure me. When I said that I was worried about the environmental impacts of the Bill, they said, “Don’t you worry about it. This isn’t an environment Bill; it’s a planning Bill”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

No, it is not a witch hunt against Natural England by itself, because I think a lot of the agencies suffer from exactly the same problem. However, this Bill is giving Natural England huge executive powers which it has not got at the moment. Those executive powers should be used by the Secretary of State so that they can be questioned in Parliament.

My noble friend Lady Coffey also spoke about Natural England’s capabilities. It is worth looking at some of its capabilities. It manages a national nature reserve at Moor House; it is the only one it manages directly. It was supposed to be a beacon of best practice and demonstration. After 70 years of quango management, of the 25 sites of special scientific interest, only five are in favourable condition—as assessed by Natural England itself—and the rest, 80%, are either unfavourable, declining or in one case destroyed. In Dartmoor, the trust between farmers, landowners and Natural England broke down so seriously two years ago that the Conservative Government had to commission a review chaired by David Fursdon. That reflects very badly on Natural England.

More recently, Natural England launched a new interactive peat map and invited the public to use it to inform responses to a live Defra consultation on heather burning. One would think that was fairly simple and straightforward; what could go wrong? Well, within minutes of the map becoming live, owners, farmers and tenants highlighted major inaccuracies in this new mapping tool, making any work based on it of spurious value. These were not minor glitches, but a basic failure of environmental cartography. Natural England’s track record is not very good. In fact, it is pretty useless. I therefore strongly urge the Government to change the wording of the Bill as proposed in the amendments from my noble friend Lady Coffey and myself.

I commend and support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas. If we are going to go down this route with Natural England, it is hugely important that trusted partners take on the work of running the EDPs. If you look at some of the farming clusters already set up and ready to do this, it is much better that people who live on and work the land are the ones who take over and run the EDPs, rather than a quango based elsewhere, which is not there on a daily basis. I will be talking more about the trusted partner in later amendments, but the principle of what my noble friend Lord Lucas wants to do is absolutely right.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this group of amendments on the role of Natural England. It is a big group, so I will not respond to everyone at this late hour. It is clear that there are remaining concerns about the Bill in terms of not weakening nature protections and the complexity of the new systems that are being put in place. There are two problems here. There is the complexity of what needs to be done and there is the issue of whether Natural England is able to deliver on what it is required to do under the terms set out in this legislation, should it be passed.

Natural England is absolutely central to delivering the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. I want to return very briefly to the comments in the paper today, because I think this is important. The Government cannot both create more complicated systems that as a result of their actions require more people to do more things, to see that the duties made by their legislation get done, and at the same time say that the actual organisations that need to deliver those need to be slashed and cut. Actually, that tension between what are almost two different sides of government worries me. It worries me a lot in terms of what is being done overall. I will just park that there.

Turning to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, of course I fully understand the intention that it is about looking at responsibility, bringing in the Secretary of State and trying to hold the Secretary of State accountable for what is being done. There is an argument to say that Natural England may not be as accountable, and I understand that. My problem is that the Bill actually sets out a process where we have EDPs and the nature restoration fund and I do not think that just changing the wording of the Bill changes any of the complexities of the reality on the ground. There are other ways that we can do that, in terms of holding the Secretary to State to account in any case, and holding Natural England to account, so I do not particularly feel that that is a solution to the complexities that are created by the legislation.

I want to speak to Amendment 328A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 333 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was not certain whether Amendment 328A was a probing amendment, but the noble Lord has clarified that it is. As such, I welcome it and I look forward to the Minister’s response. My view is that the national park authority should be included, and I hope that is the case, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

Amendment 333 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Young, seeks to clarify

“that the powers given to Natural England under Part 3 can only be delegated to a public body”.

I welcome this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I also note what the Minister said on the previous group, that the intention of the Government was that it would only be a public body. We definitely welcome that statement. I think there is still perhaps a need to have this amendment to the Bill and, with that, I will sit down.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, back in 2022, when the nutrient neutrality rules came in, it started a three and a half year hiatus that has prevented the building of new affordable homes, caused the bankruptcy of local architects, the closure of local builders’ merchants, the liquidation of many smaller builders and the folding of so many white van journeyman contractors—the plasterers, plumbers, groundworkers, roofers and tilers.

What was the basis of this catastrophe? As a council leader, I sought to find out. It did not take long to identify Natural England as the culprit. So I asked it for its reasoning. It advanced a theory that there was complete equivalence between the application of a single kilogram of phosphate anywhere in a catchment, regardless of the distance from a special area of conservation that needed protection under the regulations. It fundamentally refused to countenance the sort of risk-based approach that would be applied in any other walk of life or by any other regulator. Its approach was that the flushing of a lavatory directly into the protected Surlingham Broad was absolutely equivalent to going to the loo in Shipdham, over 30 miles away along a convoluted network of ditches, streams, tributaries and rivers before those rivers passed by the Surlingham Broad.

It is nonsense. I do not deny that there might be some infinitesimally small, theoretical riparian link between the lavatory in Surlingham and the toilet in Shipdham, but anyone who has studied for O-level or GCSE maths knows that the area around a point increases with the square of the distance, so the effect of the loo in Shipdham would be 30 times 30—900 times—less impactful; that is, if the water from that loo did not percolate into the aquifer, become assimilated into littoral plants, adsorbed on to soil particles or carried away in a farmer’s crops, in which case the impact would be significantly less, and it is.

When I asked, the designated person said that as there are no major processes for permanent phosphate losses within the aquatic environment, the nutrient neutrality approach is to assume that all the phosphorus will at some point reach the site, albeit this may take varying lengths of time and therefore there is the possibility of it contributing to the eutrophication impacts now or in the future. You do not have to be a scientist to realise that this “bathtub principle” is poppycock.

I asked Natural England to provide me with the scientific evidence. It sent me a slim paper repeating its assertions, with a long list of academic references. So I read them. The academic references that Natural England said supported its position argued the reverse. They made it clear that there were major processes for the permanent phosphate losses from the aquatic environment.

As I said in the previous group, this is my specialist subject. Before I joined your Lordships’ House, I gave written evidence to the Built Environment Committee on this point. I will not list all the ways in which I said that the scientific papers contradicted the Natural England stance but, in summary, it disregarded a whole range of natural mitigation factors, including: confusing adsorption with absorption; denying percolation to the underlying aquifer; ignoring the precipitation of phosphates in the calcareous soils that are found in the Yare catchment and along the River Wensum; the related effects of high soil pH in locking up phosphates; the effect of dilution by rainwater and the flows out to sea; and the incorporation and deposition of organic manures in the crops and along the brooks and streams.

The ban on housebuilding has been advanced on a completely unscientific, false premise, and one cooked up by Natural England. In short, Natural England’s interpretation of the scientific literature was misleading and mendacious. Its justification used selective quotation to misrepresent the balance of evidence.

Under the regulations, the test is one of significant harm. Natural England has misdirected itself and advised Ministers to substitute “significant” with “any”. How can it be trusted if it acts in this way? Its misrepresentation of the risk of the flushing of toilets in new homes has allowed it to prosecute a war on the housebuilding industry without justification. It is the enemy of growth. I can hardly believe I am going to say it, but this is probably the once and only time I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because she has fingered Natural England in the article in the Times referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as the enemy of growth.

Further, I then scrutinised Natural England’s nutrient calculator, which I found to be loaded with flaws and poor assumptions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 261 is to be considered in this group. Specifically, it would require that an EDP must pay not just regard but due regard to the local nature recovery strategy that has been published by the appropriate public authorities for that area.

This matters. We have been on this journey, right across the country. I genuinely believe that, rather than the EDPs we are debating, the local nature recovery strategies will be the building blocks of how we rescue nature in this country. The reason for that is that local people know what is going on, and have a sense of the relationship between place and their community, and there are powers in local government to consider not only planning decisions but other aspects of infrastructure that come together towards it. By and large, across our country, the local nature recovery strategies are being made at county level, though that is not true in every geographic county. There are some unitary councils—such as Northamptonshire, though I cannot remember the reason now—where they are split in two, which is somewhat sad.

Nature knows no boundaries of administrative convenience of how councils are determined. Building on the Lawton principles, which will be absolutely vital in trying to ensure that we have nature recovery, it is important that public authorities at the higher level—key to this is that it is the upper tier, not the lower tier, that tends to do the planning—have due regard to the discussions about what has been put in place. That will have already gone through extensive consultation, as is happening right now, right around the country.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I will speak briefly to this group of degrouped amendments, which all look at various aspects of the relationship between Natural England and the scope and framework of timetables for an EDP. I will speak to Amendments 231, 249, 253C and 274. Taken together, they are about strengthening the framework for environmental delivery plans and helping to provide further clarity, safeguards and accountability. I am reading all those amendments as having a probing nature, asking questions and seeking further clarification from the Minister.

Amendment 231, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, seeks clarification that the Secretary of State should be able to issue guidance to Natural England or any designated authority on how an environmental delivery plan is prepared. I assume this is about ensuring consistency across the country, setting clear frameworks for public consultation and providing further protections.

Amendment 249, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is about adding detail and transparency. This amendment would require environmental delivery plans to be monitored and to show their scientific basis, alignment with local policies and the timeframes for addressing environmental impacts. Again, this is about making sure that plans stand up to scrutiny and deliver measurable results.

My noble friend has already spoken to Amendment 253C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so I will note the comments that have been made already.

Amendment 274, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord, Caithness, would require Natural England at the outset to define the measures it believes necessary and to invite expressions of interest for their delivery from persons or organisations.

Finally, Amendment 277A, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would limit the number of EDPs Natural England is expected to prepare in the first two years to four in the first year and 12 in the second, and, if capacity permits, that that could be extended. I assume that this is a probing amendment. It would definitely be better if it was. I am interested in the Minister’s response to how many EDPs the Government think there is capacity for.

Taken together, as I said, these are probing amendments seeking further clarification from the Government.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments considers the preparation of EDPs and what they are required to contain. Many of the amendments seek to add various matters to which Natural England should have regard when preparing an EDP. These matters include the scientific evidence base for conservation measures, how the EDP relates to local policies, the local nature recovery strategy, the land use framework and the timeframe required to address environmental impacts. The Bill, as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments that we have already tabled, requires these matters to be taken into account. I can therefore assure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary, as these matters will already be adequately considered when developing an EDP.

Amendment 274, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would add three requirements to the preparation of an EDP: first, requiring the conservation measures to be used to address the environmental impact of development to be defined; secondly, creating a pre-consultation period for EDPs, during which expressions of interest to deliver the conservation measures must be sought from appropriate persons or bodies; and, thirdly, publishing the expressions of interest should the EDP proceed to be made. The first of these is already addressed in the existing provisions in Clause 55. The existing provisions also allow Natural England to delegate functions to other bodies, including those in the private sector. Specifying a particular procurement method and creating an additional pre-consultation period would be unnecessarily restrictive, given that EDPs will need to be tailored to the specific local and environmental circumstances. The land use framework and other strategies that we are developing in Defra, such as the food strategy, will obviously be part of any consideration. We all work together very closely. We talk to each other, which may surprise some noble Lords, because we want these to be delivered effectively.

Amendment 231 seeks to provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP, specifying various topics that this guidance may cover. It would then require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with this guidance. As noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State already has the power to issue guidance on key matters that Natural England must have regard to when carrying out functions under this part. Guidance should be used to guide Natural England, not to compel it. This would be more appropriate for a regulation-making power, which is subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State will still be able to make guidance on any relevant matter and will be able to assess the extent to which it has been applied when making the EDP.

We believe that Amendment 277A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would be unnecessary, as Natural England will operate only within its capacity when it is producing EDPs.

Turning to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 253C, regarding the interrelation of the NRF model and existing biodiversity net gain arrangements, I assure noble Lords that the NRF and biodiversity net gain are distinct but complementary policies. The NRF will focus on enabling development that encounters specific environmental obligations relating to impacts on protected sites and species, whereas BNG applies to all new developments, bar the limited exceptions.

I come to the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, regarding the consultation on BNG, when we would get its outcome and whether that would be before Report. It is a pertinent question, and I will take it back and look into it for noble Lords.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to give him reassurance, the NRF will not affect the existing requirement to deliver BNG. That is a free-standing obligation outside the NRF. I hope that, with this clarification, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I rise very briefly to speak to this group of amendments, which are all on consultations on EDPs. Considering the time, I am going to be even more brief than I have been before. While I welcome and look forward to the Minister’s response to all the amendments in this group, I particularly support Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for their amendments, which all address the consultation requirements for EDPs. Those noble Lords who have heard me speak in the House on many occasions will know that I love consultation. It is really important, but it is important that it is also done properly.

As I set out in my opening statement on the NRF model as a whole, we recognise the importance of allowing relevant authorities, businesses and individuals to have their say on the development of EDPs. It is for this reason we have included a requirement that all EDPs are subject to public consultation. We have also proposed government amendments to clarify the consultation requirements when amending an EDP.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked a number of questions about Natural England’s planning and evaluation expertise in bringing forward an EDP. Many of his questions related directly to the planning process and such decisions would be taken by the local planning authority or, of course, the Secretary of State if it was a nationally significant infrastructure project. Looking at what Natural England’s role is, discussion with the relevant experts would of course be an important part of any development of an EDP. Natural England would use surveys and consider the best available scientific evidence to assess how developments of any given type will impact on the relevant environmental feature. This process will then allow Natural England to set a maximum amount of development which can be covered by that EDP. The Bill also gives the opportunity for this to be included in guidance.

Local nature recovery strategies are an important tool protecting nature, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for highlighting the important role that these can play in informing EDPs. There is already a requirement in the Bill for Natural England to consider local nature recovery strategies in preparing an EDP and a further duty to consult local planning authorities for the relevant area, which should be expected to include consideration of their LNRS. We also understand that, depending on the content of an EDP, certain sectors may have particular interests in specific EDPs, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for raising their interests at this stage.

Through the existing public consultation requirements, any group, business or individual—this would of course include farmers and land managers—who is affected by an EDP will have the opportunity to respond to the proposed EDP and raise any concerns. For the purposes of each EDP, it would not be practical for Natural England to go to each business in a whole sector, such as the fishing sector, due to the large number that it would need to consult. Nor would the Government wish to impose any duty or obligation to respond to a consultation on private businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will speak to his Amendment 265, which has a notable similarity to Amendment 237 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. If the noble Lord were here, I am sure he would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for co-signing the amendment, as I did.

Amendment 265 deals with one of the fundamental concerns that we have with EDPs: the issue of timing. As it currently stands, if you have to engage with the habitats regulations or biodiversity net gain, remedial measures have to take effect before the developments are undertaken. In contrast, that is not the case for the EDPs. There is the fundamental question: what happens if the desired mitigation measures, as outlined in EDPs, do not happen? They might not happen for a number of reasons; for example, because some of the money may not come in from the developers—they have the right to appeal, as we have heard in earlier debates—or because not enough developers sign up for an EDP and therefore not all the measures can be delivered. In that case, you do not get enough of a quantitative biodiversity gain to deliver the mitigation measures for what may have already taken place in a site that has already been damaged.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, does two things. First, it calls for an implementation schedule for an EDP, and I believe that the Minister, in summing up, will say whether government Amendment 245A partly addresses that by promising an implementation schedule. However, I have not seen anything from the government amendments that deals with the more fundamental issue that the remedial measures for an EDP do not come until after the damage has been done. Secondly, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, says that, if Natural England believes that there will be irreversible damage, those measures have to be undertaken before the damage is caused. That is the issue on which we are seeking some reassurances from the Minister this morning, and if we do not get them, I am sure that we will return to it on Report.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I will very briefly speak to my Amendment 237. I apologise to the Committee; I had not realised just how similar my amendment was to the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and to which my noble friend has just spoken. My noble friend made all the arguments that I was going to make. I absolutely agree there is a risk here, and I think the Committee wants further reassurance. It is a real worry to lots of people that this damage can be done before mitigation measures are put in place. Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is probably better worded than my own, so I will likely not press my amendment between now and Report. These are important issues, and we seek further reassurance on these matters. Without that, I am sure that an amendment doing this will come up on Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to conservation measures and their implementation. They seek to add provisions on a range of matters related to the design and implementation of conservation measures. The Bill as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments we have tabled in Committee, already require or enable these matters to be addressed in an EDP. I therefore trust that, in discussing these amendments, I can assure the Committee that the existing provisions, bolstered by the proposed government amendments, already require or enable consideration of the points raised.

Amendment 234, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, seeks to require that an EDP start date must be within six months of the date of any planning permission granted in reliance of that EDP. Development cannot rely on an EDP until the EDP is in place, and so planning permission could not be granted in reliance on an EDP without that EDP having been made by the Secretary of State. As the EDP will always be in place before planning consent can be granted in reliance on the EDP, I trust the noble Earl can be assured on this point.

As part of the package of government amendments, we will also now require EDPs to set out the anticipated sequencing of the implementation of conservation measures, with specific reference to the timing of development coming forward. This will provide additional assurance that EDPs will not lead to open-ended or irreversible impacts from development. This would include detail as to whether and which conservation measures must be in place in advance of development coming forward, ensuring that no irreversible harm could occur to an environmental feature. This would form part of the Secretary of State’s assessment of whether an EDP would pass the overall improvement test. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, proposes a requirement that the end date of an EDP must be appropriate to the conservation measures proposed, and that the EDP must include a review date. The end date of an EDP cannot be more than 10 years from the date it comes into force. This is to ensure that there is clarity that the overall improvement will be achieved no later than 10 years after the EDP is put in place. However, there is nothing to prevent an earlier end date being specified for an EDP where that would be appropriate either for the type of development or the environmental feature.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak to this group of amendments and particularly to Amendments 145, 174 and 175. In so far as Amendment 145 is concerned, which requires there to be an assessment, I am not sure that the amendment is actually needed. I have put many local plans through the local planning system, and this has been an integral part of our system. In fact, the inspector has written to us on more than one occasion to say that plans for building, housing, businesses and other environmental goods must be pari passu—alongside and equal with—the requirements to assess Gypsy and Traveller sites. The sense of what Amendment 145 seeks to achieve is already done—and I have the scars on my back to prove it.

As a leader, I have taken my responsibilities for this part of the population very seriously. One of the very last steps I took as the leader in my authority when I joined your Lordships’ House was to commit £1.8 million out of a net budget of £12 million—a significant proportion—to a complete refurbishment and upgrade of a transit site which, when it returned to us from a long lease, needed to be knocked back into shape and made decent. No one understands the importance of this more than I do.

I know that the guidance is listed in Amendment 175, but the custom and practice and effect of these assessments has changed since Covid. That has resulted through mission creep, though well meaning, to a systematic overstatement of the requirements as opposed to previous assessments. I draw noble Lords’ attention to some of the methodological changes. Amendment 174 contemplates a restatement of how we make these assessments and so it is important to lay before the Committee my knowledge of how the methodology has changed.

There has been a material reduction in travelling since Covid. Evidentially the use of transit sites has reduced, and the annual caravan count supports this assertion. The new methodologies that we seem to be sleepwalking into place significantly less regard and importance on the caravan count, a system that has supported the population over many years and has stood the test of time.

There have been other methodological changes. Instead of the face-to-face interviews that consultants engaged by councils have previously undertaken, there has been a switch to telephone interviews. Instead of the rigour and observation of family circumstance and history of travelling, custom and practice now is simply to ask youngsters whether they want a house. It is capturing wants not needs, with leading questions.

This is the point that we need to focus on. There needs to be more rigour as it is leading to a systematic overcounting. If you ask two youngsters whether they would like to have a house and they say yes, and then eventually they get together, the initial need for two is really for only one house, because they got together and are living in the same dwelling house.

I do not want to go through every single enumeration of all the changes, but we need to recognise that there has been a change in methodology since Covid, and the apparent increase in need is partly as a result of those changes and confusion between needs and wants. This is important.

As to my opening remarks, if the inspector places enormous weight on the importance of having a Gypsy and Traveller assessment alongside other parts of the local plan, if there has been a systematic overstatement and misrepresentation then otherwise good local plans could be sent back to the drawing board on a false premise. As the leader of the District Councils’ Network, although I cannot remember the precise example, I recall other districts where they suffered that indignity.

It is not good for the families concerned to have a misrepresentation, it is not good for the local economy to have plans delayed, and it is certainly not good for the national economy with the consequential of stopping building. By all means we must have the counts, but the methods must be robust and evidentially based. We need to get back to the system as it was, tried and tested, rather than the situation we have been sleepwalking into.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I support this group of amendments, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I speak on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who has signed her name to all the amendments in this group.

I will not take up a lot of your Lordships’ time. It is a pleasure to support these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and others for proposing them. It is essential that, in this Bill, all communities and sections of society are included. It is important that we make sure that the Bill represents the needs of the Traveller and Gypsy communities.

Amendment 145 makes explicit something that is currently uncertain in the Bill: that Gypsy and Traveller sites must be recognised as part of the housing need when the strategic development plans are drawn up. The need for clarity is absolute and, without it, there is a danger that these communities will fall through the cracks and their needs will not be properly met and accounted for.

Amendments 173 and 174 seek to establish a statutory duty for local authorities to assess Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs and to conduct those assessments according to clear and consistent national guidance. These amendments are vital. We need consistency in methodologies, which often vary from area to area. These assessments are subject to criticism and there is worry about incoherence in the way they are done. We need to provide proper, clear and rigorous guidance to make sure that these obligations are carried out fairly and equitably across all areas and communities.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and as a director of Peers for the Planet. I thank my supporters on Amendment 127, the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am very pleased to bring back this amendment, which I originally raised as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act a couple of years back. The reason I am pleased to bring it back is that it is a reminder that we have made a lot of progress in this area over the last couple of years. Noble Lords may remember the great progress we made following ping-pong on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, when we started that process of embedding net zero and climate into our planning system.

Since then, we have had the updates of the National Planning Policy Framework, again embedding climate further into the system, which is already good progress, but as Ministers and noble Lords like to say, there is always more to do. Despite this progress, it is vital that the Government go further, because Peers from all parties across the House have worked extremely hard in recent years to embed our climate and nature goals across a range of sectors and regulatory regimes. That includes the health service, in the Health and Care Act 2022; our skills framework, in the IfATE Bill; Ofwat; the Crown Estate; and Ofgem, in the Energy Act 2022. It is vital that we take those same steps for our planning system, embedding this in statute, not only to help the Government deliver on their overarching climate and environmental goals but to support the 2030 electricity system targets and the target to build 1.5 million homes.

It is particularly important in planning, and the reason is that there are so many different issues to contend with when decision-makers are considering a planning application. Part of the problem is that lack of strategic guidance and direction on which factors are important; that is partly what is leading to paralysis in our planning system. In recent years, we have had legal challenges which have actually delayed sustainable homes being built for years—for example, the Salt Cross development in Oxfordshire—and we have had pushback on solar farms and other aspects of our electricity grid because of a lack of clarity in the planning system.

I am sure that when the Minister responds, she will come back to the NPPF, as I mentioned earlier, but many noble Lords have set out today in previous groups the limitations of relying on the NPPF. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said that the guidance that has been there on green spaces for many years has just not delivered.

We really need the strength of a statutory duty in this area, because guidance in the NPPF is not future-proofed. It is only guidance and does not refer to our targets. It is also worth saying that, in the way we have structured the amendments, it is a statutory duty but it is worded around “special regard”, which is a well-tested legislative approach. It is not saying the environment must be considered, because there may be other material considerations that, on balance, override that, but it is saying that it should carry weight within the planning system. This perspective is fully supported by the recent Corry review undertaken for Defra, which says that Defra

“needs to find a way of ensuring clarity, from a spatial perspective, for how the multitude of nature and planning strategies come together in a way which local authorities and combined authorities can understand and deliver, in partnership with regulators”.

The duty would provide exactly that: a golden thread running through the whole town and country planning system to ensure that it delivers for our national goals. We heard earlier in the debate about the future homes standard, which is coming up in the autumn. This duty would complement and work with that future homes standard to make sure that our targets are delivered.

It is this simplification and clarity that is going to help the Government in their target to build those 1.5 million new homes. The House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 stated:

“Local plans are currently too complex and detailed, which results in delays. Alongside introducing time limits on plan-making processes, the Government should produce standardised definitions and simplified guidance for local planning authorities. Simplification will also aid community engagement with local plans”.


Ultimately, that is helping local authorities and local areas deliver. It is all about the devolution of power because in many areas local authorities want to play their part, but they are being blocked—fundamentally because there is little integration and join up at a local level, whether that is local area energy planning, rollout or clarity in our planning system. This leads to an inconsistent approach—a patchwork quilt of responses across the many local authorities in terms of their approach to the environment and net zero. Again, a thread throughout the system would help fix that.

To summarise, this amendment would have important practical effect through ensuring that the town and country planning system delivers against the UK’s strategic objectives: 1.5 million homes that are fit for the future, unblocking and simplifying the system and, critically, giving local authorities the power to play their part, working in concert with the future home standard. Rather than the current piecemeal mentions of climate change and planning policy scattered through the legislation and the NPPF, there is a fantastic opportunity here for the Government to update the Bill to fully embed these targets within statutes and ensure that there is a coherent thread running through the whole planning system.

I have added my name to Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. For me, this is just another case in which there is work being done within industry, but we need a central function to co-ordinate these efforts and bring that consistency to reporting. However, I will not say any more at this stage.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendments 145B and 216 on overheating and climate change are in this group. This is an important group, and we generally support all the amendments that have been put forward.

We have just had the warmest summer on record—the warmest since 1884. Summer temperatures were 1.51 degrees above the long-term meteorological average and all five of the hottest summers have been since 2000. A summer as warm as the one we have just had is now 70 times more likely due to climate change. Obviously, continuous exposure to heat is a slow-motion killer and it is bad for our population. Our homes are not built—or fit—for the future, which is here now.

Buildings are responsible for over 40% of the energy demand in the UK. Some 80% of the buildings that will be occupied in 2050 have already undergone construction. Therefore, we must do more—all of us—to ensure that the homes we build and plan today are fit for the future. My Amendment 145B asks that, where a spatial development strategy includes provisions relating to housing, it also includes provisions for housing to meet recognised high efficiency and climate resilient standards, including but not limited to Passivhaus standards. This is with a view to reducing energy consumption, improving temperature controls and ventilations, particularly in response to extreme heat and contributing to our regional climate change mitigation and adaption objectives.

We have to do more. The Climate Change Committee has also been clear on these points. The UK will not meet its emission targets

“without near-complete decarbonisation of the housing stock”.

The houses we build are places of shelter. They need to provide long-term security, affordability, to be resilient and to cope in the warming climate. This is about asking simple questions about the houses we are building. Are they fit for the future?

Each new home that we build without proper standards leads to higher emissions, higher heating costs and greater vulnerability for those that live within them. Conversely, if we build to high efficiency standards, we can curb our emissions, reduce future retrofitting costs, protect families from the risk of heatwaves and reduce their energy bills.

The amendment refers to standards, particularly Passivhaus, but it allows flexibility; it is not restrictive, and it is not telling local authorities what they have to do, but it is for them to have regard to these things. Therefore, it is not prescriptive. We believe that is a good way of doing these things. It can save people money and give them a better quality of life. We think that this is a good amendment.

Amendment 216 proposes that every new home built in the country should meet a net-zero carbon building standard and be equipped with solar-powered generation as standard. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for adding their names. This not a radical measure; this is a reasoned, practical response, designed to support government policies which are either in development or are being developed but have not fully been put forward. Obviously, it covers exactly the same points. As we know, retrofitting is five times more expensive, which is just too expensive. We do not have the time, and we cannot afford to wait.

I acknowledge and thank the Labour Party for the work it is doing in this space. We look forward to the future homes standard and welcome the moves the Government are making on installing rooftop solar. There are various different strands and elements of policy that all need to come together. There is a warm homes plan, the overheating requirement that the Minister has referred to as well, and general building regulatory reforms around zero-carbon buildings. But a lot of these measures are either not here or not strictly laid down in planning law with the certainty that my amendment has.

While I welcome the measure the Government are taking, and I know there will be policies published in the autumn, I want to push the Government as to whether, when those policies come forward, they will have the level of certainty to meet the actions we need. My amendment hopes to solidify and support the work that the Government themselves are actively doing, and to strengthen some of those measures. My question to the Government is: if you are not supporting my measures, what certainty can you give us around the weight the measures you will put forward will have in law?

I give my support to Amendment 127, so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Krebs and Lord Grantchester. I will not speak to it for too long, but this is an essential amendment. As the noble Lord said, it puts a golden thread through this stuff. “Have regard to” is good wording. This stuff needs to happen. All too often, these issues are ignored or set aside and do not have the clear weight within planning law that they need to. Therefore, we welcome this amendment. This needs to change and it is a sensible and well-reasoned amendment.

I am in favour of Amendment 180, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would introduce a carbon assessment, as required for larger developments. We are no longer blind to one of the most significant drivers of climate emissions. The construction sector is responsible for a quarter of the UK’s carbon footprint and that is set to rise. These emissions remain largely invisible within the planning system, and we need a proper system to take better account of them and to regulate them, so we also support this as a sensible amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

As I say, I am heartened by the interest across the Committee in this measure, and I look forward to hearing the contributions on this group. I will listen particularly hard to the contributions from the Minister. This is a change of approach that could make a real difference, and it cannot come about soon enough. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak broadly in support of this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth. The amendment would embed the promotion and use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution in our planning system. I inform the Committee that I have been an elected local councillor sitting on a planning committee and worked for a number of years as a community mediator, helping to run a community mediation service specialising in neighbour disputes.

For too long, our approach to resolving planning disputes has been overly adversarial, leading to court battles, mounting costs, lengthy delays and frustrated developers, communities and local authorities. Too much of our planning process revolves around zero-sum games—talking to people, doing things to them and resorting to formal legal processes when things go wrong, as they inevitably do. The amendment is an invitation to do things better, for the benefit of all people and the interests of better governance and speeding up the planning process.

Mediation is no longer an untrusted novelty. It is widely used in all sectors of society. Its benefits are well established in many sectors and many areas of everyday life. It is used fairly infrequently, but it is used in the planning process. Properly structured and supported mediation interventions and processes can resolve specific contentious issues at an early stage, reducing hostility and helping to build trust, to foster positive relationships in a way that litigation is not capable of doing. When used, it produces high satisfaction, more creative solutions and results that last beyond the immediate dispute. As opposed to legal processes which are imposed from on high, mediation resolutions are designed and tailored by the parties themselves to fix exactly their individual needs. These outcomes can be transformative and, because the parties design them themselves, they tend to work more for their specific needs, meaning that they are more committed to the outcomes that they have helped to create.

Mediation will obviously not work in all cases, but it can work in some. What is certain is that, if mediation is not widely available, not promoted and not explored, it will not work in the planning processes. In some areas I do disagree with the noble Lord. My view is that mediation should be wholly a voluntary process for both parties. Every dispute that is kept out of lengthy appeals or court hearings is a saving to the public purse, a saving to local councils and a help with the Government’s stated aim of speeding up the planning processes. Studies have found that as many as 73% of mediated cases avoided further appeals, cut expenses and helped to reduce times.

It is not just about saving money. This is about making the system more accessible, making it work better for the people involved and making it more inclusive. Mediation enables genuine dialogue and empowers communities to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process. It is especially effective in complex cases—major developments, local plans, Section 106 negotiation and compulsory purchase disputes—where misunderstandings and mistrust can easily escalate into enshrined conflict. Mediation offers confidentiality, tailored solutions and better governance. Some worry about the cost, but this could be overcome and lead to savings. I call for the Government to look at this and to take it seriously. However, for this system to work it would need some dedicated funding and support from government.

I conclude with a couple of questions. We know that we have some mediation processes within planning, but they are rarely used and not very well embedded. Have the Government done any assessment on the use of mediation to date? Has it helped to speed up processes? Has it resulted in better outcomes? Have those outcomes lasted longer than legal ones? If the Government are not going to support this amendment today, can they consider doing a larger-scale trial of the use of mediation within the planning process? Then the outcomes can be properly monitored and the Government can make a fair assessment of the use of mediation more wholly within the planning process.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on Amendment 133, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. We welcome the opportunity the amendment provides to hear more from the Government on how they intend to reduce the risk of lengthy and expensive litigation within the planning process. As many in the Committee will know, such disputes can cause considerable delays, uncertainty for local communities, and significant costs for both the applicants and local authorities. It is therefore important to understand what practical steps the Government are considering to streamline proceedings while ensuring that proper scrutiny and accountability remain in place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

That being the case, the intention of my amendments is to substitute that statement and ask, “Why shouldn’t the Government use that?” The difference is that this would have to be consulted on and approved by both Houses of Parliament before it were the designated plan for the purposes of Ofgem and NESO. When the time comes, I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers to some of those questions; obviously, I reserve the right to come back to this on Report.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my recorded register of interests: I am a non-executive director and a board member of the Water Retail Company. I will speak to my Amendment 79 and respond to the amendments on connections reform.

Amendment 79 calls on the Government to insert a new clause into the Planning and Infrastructure Bill under the heading of “increasing grid capacity” and proposes that, within three months of the Bill becoming law, the Secretary of State should publish a plan to achieve two simple yet crucial objectives: to reduce the cost and the time taken for new connections to the electrical transmission or distribution system; and to permit the development of local energy grids. The need for this amendment should be beyond reasonable doubt. I am concerned that, if these reforms are not made, we will not be capable of meeting the Government’s stated objective, which we share, to achieve clean power by 2030—a key step on our overall climate change and energy targets.

To decarbonise, we must electrify. Electricity demand is set to rise by at least 11% before 2030 and at least double by 2050. How we heat our homes, how we travel and how we power our industry must all be by electricity, which demands wiring everything up and ensuring that both low-voltage and high-voltage networks are fit for purpose. I would argue that this is one of the biggest societal energy changes since the Industrial Revolution and is only some five years away, which is merely the blink of an eye in planning terms. At present, the delay in getting grid connections is one of the greatest obstacles to decarbonisation, to developing new housing and industry, and to increasing our economic output as a country. Our businesses and communities are waiting seven to 10 years—even longer in some cases—before they can secure the right to feed clean energy into the system or to make power connections. Developers in grid hotspots—or “not spots”, potentially—are reporting connection waits of several years as being typical.

We need to be prepared and to get this stuff done. My amendment is designed to help do that. If we are going to be a leader in renewable energy and to get all the renewable energy in place, the grid connection system needs to be reformed. I very much recognise the Government’s recent reforms to try to update the grid connection system. In April 2025, working alongside Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—the Government announced reforms to prioritise clean energy and infrastructure for grid access, aiming to eliminate so-called zombie or speculative projects and to fast-track the shovel-ready schemes that are set to go. The new target model option, TMO4+, introduces stricter queue management, milestone targets and progressive penalties for lagging projects, as well as prioritising the projects that are crucial for clean power and our overall economic growth.

These reforms are intended to help deliver that 2030 clean power plan, unlocking up to £15 billion in investment and supporting a more responsive and modern grid system. These are all steps in the right direction, and we definitely welcome how the Government have made progress since they came to power, but I feel that more needs to be done, hence the amendment that I put forward here. I worry that, if we do not do more, we will simply not be ready and will not hit these targets.

The second element of my amendment touches on local energy grids. Local energy grids are still in their infancy, but my party very much supports them. They empower our local communities and help them to benefit from the clean power revolution that is coming. Their efforts are quiet, modest and determined, and I want this Government to do more to support them. I believe they are essential in galvanising public support and helping the Government to take communities with them on this journey. Alongside many others across both Houses of Parliament, I fought to get community energy into the Great British Energy Act and I am delighted to have done that.

However, more help is needed to get this stuff over the line. Local energy grids are important and will benefit the country. They help to make the grid more secure and resilient. They reduce the need for transmission and the loss of transmission time, and they reduce the need to invest in the high-voltage grid overall. They take our communities with us and bring support. We all need that: this Government need that and we need that. Our communities should benefit from the revolution that is taking place. My amendment is designed to help and to support the Government. My hope is that the Government can support this amendment, or it would be appreciated if they brought forward an amendment on Report.

I turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. I recognise that the Minister has put forward a drafting amendment and we are fine with that. On Amendments 73 to 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we recognise what they are about and welcome the questions that the noble Lord raises. These are important issues, which we should discuss in Committee, about the replication of policy and policy statements, and how those systems are set up and will work in practice.

However, as we go into this rapid period of change, my worry is that, if his amendments are passed, we could end up with a system that is centralised more in Westminster, is less responsive to the changes that need to happen at pace and at scale and is not as well connected to the communities and those on the ground facing change. Those would be my general concerns with those amendments, if agreed, but I look forward to the Minister’s response and I think it is important that those amendments were raised. I look forward to further debate on this group.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, connections reform is very important if we are to give the grid capacity. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right in wanting to speed things up and to ensure that these connections are not too costly. That matters whether you want more renewable energy in the mix or would prefer—as I would—to continue with a mixed supply, including better and continued use of North Sea oil and gas.

However, the fact is that the grid is not resilient and everything is too slow. We have too many layers of decision-making, too much strategising, too many bureaucratic rules and, therefore, not enough speed and determination. I know that that is behind the Government’s planning reforms. I fear that my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments could also slow things down, but he may be able to reassure me on that. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how we can ensure that these changes will speed things up and get us the reforms that we need, if the economy and the energy economy are to work well in the months and years ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

77: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Extension of permitted developmentThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed—(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—(i) upgrading of existing electricity lines from single to three phase;(ii) alteration of conductor type;(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wooden poles;(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 (consent required for overhead lines) and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2665);(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years;(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling electricity distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would expand permitted development rights for upgrades to the transmission network.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are all on the extension of permitted development. My Amendment 77 concerns the extension of permitted development rights for low-voltage electricity networks. It intends to help this Government achieve their ambition of a clean, affordable and secure energy system by 2030.

The amendment would enable clearly defined and modest upgrades to be treated as permitted development. That includes the upgrading of electricity lines from single to three-phase, the alteration of conduct type, modest increases in pole height where required by regulation, the temporary placement of lines to facilitate works and the reinforcement of existing apparatus such as pole-mounted transformers.

This is not a revolution; it is about pragmatism. These are modest technical improvements that would make our national grid fit for the 21st century. This is not about new infrastructure on green fields. This is needed simply because our electricity network, built decades ago, is fundamentally ill-equipped for the task required of it. I am increasingly worried about the capacity of the low-voltage grid and the investment in it. This is needed to bring electricity to our homes and to ensure that we can make the transitions we need to make—having electric vehicles and installing heat pumps to help us hit our clean-power targets.

At present, these modest network upgrades face planning processes that can take months and sometimes even years, often longer than building the relevant generation plant itself. That results in higher costs and, in some cases, stranded investment. Companies across the energy sector report the same difficulties: planning bottlenecks, slow permissions and land-acquisition rules that lag behind those of gas, water and telecoms. That is not right; there should be a level playing field for these things.

Without reform, costs for paying for clean generators to turn down because the grid cannot handle their power could soar from £2 billion a year today to £8 billion by the end of the decade. These costs are absorbed by companies and passed on to bill payers, who face higher bills. We need to get this stuff done and it needs to work. It takes a series of minor but essential upgrades and technical adjustments to equipment, not new developments, and relieves them of lengthy planning processes. Nothing in this amendment would reduce safety. Electricity safety, quality and continuity regulations remain firmly in place under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, which still governs overhead powerline consents. The safeguards endure. What would change is that we would no longer require the full machinery of a planning inquiry simply to raise a pole by a few feet or to replace a conductor with a modern equivalent.

The benefits are clear. First, it would speed up bureaucracy and get things moving. Secondly, it would lower costs and avoid delays. Thirdly, it would help us achieve our climate and renewable targets. Fourthly, it would provide us with security and resilience in the system and help get electricity to our front doorsteps, where we need it. This amendment would also require consultation on further measures, ensuring that where wider reforms are proposed, the public and stakeholders are fully engaged. I am not asking for a blank cheque here; this is a carefully drafted step forward. The Government have said that this Bill is central to their plan for clean power by 2030, and we agree. This amendment is modest and seeks to help unlock the arteries to make sure that electricity can be delivered.

As I have said, this is slightly complicated because it is a shopping list of very minor improvements. But it reminds me of the approach of British Cycling, which found that a number of very small incremental differences, if implemented as a philosophy, made huge fundamental strides and gains in its ability to win and achieve its goals. The same is true with these amendments. More importantly, these are reforms and changes that DNOs and wider industry bodies are calling for, and that they say they need to achieve clean power. This is about making sure that they can do what they signed up to do to help secure more investment and get things moving.

As I am opening this group, I will circle back to the other amendments at the end. I do not want to speak to other people’s amendments before they have introduced them.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 185B, and I completely agree with the noble Earl on his amendment. I have tabled amendments on permitted development elsewhere in this Bill. It is a hugely important part of getting planning right. The Government should take some courageous decisions on what delays we do not need. What do we recognise that we have to do and how do we allow people to get on with it? Getting an efficient transmission network is something we absolutely need to do.

Moving a transmission pole may upset someone locally, but it is part of a national need. That it should be delayed, that people should take huge amounts of time on whether it should be here or there or whether an extra prop to a pole should be allowed, is just ridiculous. I am very sorry that we have allowed this to accumulate over the years. I am delighted to find the Liberal Democrats in support of reducing regulation; long may this continue. This is a really constructive way forward.

I have added the idea that we ought to allow a bit more freedom for wind generation. When I grew up, it was common to see agricultural windmills—those galvanised towers with clanking blades—all over the rural landscape. They provided power of a kind, type and price which suited the local conditions.

I remember when land wind turbines were introduced, and we all thought that they would be horrid, would desecrate the landscape and that it would be miserable, but we are used to them now—they are part of everybody’s landscape, just about. If we do not overdo it, I think that we have a reasonable basis for saying that we should experiment on allowing people to put these down for local need to generate electricity where it is needed and in a way that it is needed. It will not get done unless there is a commercial requirement for it, but we should look at freeing up the restrictions that we have placed on people putting up wind turbines and ask what is really needed here. Have we not learned enough to allow us to free this up a bit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

We all share the opinion that we need to get this Bill on to the statute book speedily and to ensure that we have the growth to which the noble Baroness alludes. However, we need to do this by reflecting on and responding to the consultation, and for that to happen, we have to wait for it to finish—which is tomorrow, by the way. We will look diligently and carefully at the responses and ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, growth and development, so that this country grows. This Bill will play its part, but there will be secondary legislation following consultation. We hear noble Lords’ desire, which is also the Government’s; we are all on the same page, and we want to move robustly and diligently in considering the consultation that we launched.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments. It has been a very useful group, and I note the unanimity around the House on these issues.

I thank the Minister for his response. I note that there is a consultation, which is closing tomorrow, on some of these matters. I would be interested to know which bits of my amendment are not in the consultation and how the Government plan to take those forward. I also press the Minister to take them forward as quickly as possible. If there is any scope for having conversations between now and Report, I would welcome that. If we can collectively take action on these matters where we agree, and make progress, that would be welcomed across the House. A government amendment on Report would also be greatly appreciated.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her important amendment. It is important that floating solar is not excluded. As she said, it is a nascent technology, subject only to the issues of not taking up water and leisure space, and perhaps that of drought. I absolutely welcome her amendment and hope that it can progress as well.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. I am not certain I can promise him a bonfire of regulations from my party hierarchy, but I support the amendment he has put forward, subject only to that one drafting issue. It is in exactly the same spirit as my amendment but comes from a different place, looking at what we can do to provide permitted development for such things.

Across these amendments, there is some interesting uniformity and common purpose on getting these things done, and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 77.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

78: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in group three are all on electricity distribution and cabling. I apologise that there is quite a lot of crossover between my amendment in this group and those in the other group; in retrospect, it might have been better to have kept them together. A lot of the overarching general points that I made in the last group apply to this group. I am introducing a series of practical measures that I would like the Government to take forward to help them achieve their stated aim, which I share, of getting to clean power.

My Amendment 78 is about land access rights. It would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land. Land access rights need to extend to renewable energy operators as well, and that is my mistake; the drafting of my amendment was not as clear as it should have been. If the Minister, in responding to my speech, could also include the issue of renewable energy operators’ ability to access land in building renewable energy facilities, that would be greatly appreciated.

This is about using the opportunities the Bill provides. This measure, which the district network operators and industry bodies are calling for, is not in the Bill, which is why I have brought it forward. These are small, practical steps—like the British Cycling example I gave earlier—which, if implemented, would help to get done the things we all agree on.

If we do not address these issues, we will have delays, increased costs and issues in getting towards clean power. At present, electricity licence holders have fewer statutory rights when it comes to acquiring and accessing land compared with other utilities such as gas, water and telecommunications. I am not aware that the Government have done any consultation on this, but if the Minister could let me know when he responds whether consultations are ongoing, that would be greatly appreciated. We are looking to resolve the lack of parity, remove the unnecessary bureaucracy and make sure that we can get this stuff done.

The amendment would ensure that electricity distribution network operators are given carefully defined powers to acquire rights over land for overhead lines and cables, to purchase land for new substations, to enter land for the maintenance of existing equipment and to carry out vegetation management critical to the safety and reliability of the system. These powers will not be unlimited; they will be subject to both proper consultation and fair compensation for the landowners concerned, but they will mean that we can proceed with essential infrastructure works in a timely, straightforward and cost-effective way, in line with other utilities.

I welcome the fact that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has launched a consultation on land rights, published last month. However, it falls short of what is required to make clean power 2030 a reality. It does not extend to renewable electricity generators themselves, despite their central role in the energy transition. Without legislative reform in this Bill, we risk kicking the issue down the road.

As I said, the amendment enjoys the backing of the sector, which has been lobbying Members of this House—and, no doubt, the Government, including the Minister—on it. It has long been called for by the Energy Networks Association. These are the people operating on the front line, investing in green power and taking the risks. They are the people with the contracts to deliver this stuff for the Government, so it is important that the Government do what they reasonably can to help these companies succeed, so that we can share that joint ambition and achieve things together.

To conclude, my intention is to help the Government; I share their intention to hit our clean power targets. I want to work with the Minister; I am happy to look at amending my amendment and to speak to him between now and Report. The intention is for further consultation with the industry to look at these things and try to find some practical solutions to these relatively easily surmountable issues. I hope that is possible. I will circle back to the other amendments in this group after they have been introduced. I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to ask for a point of clarity from the noble Earl, of which I gave him due warning earlier today. As neither he nor the Minister picked up my question in the debate on Amendment 77, I hope that I will be luckier in this debate on Amendment 78.

Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 78 refers to

“the acquisition of rights over land”

by network operators. Will the noble Earl confirm that he does not have in mind compulsory purchase powers? We will hear a lot about them later in the Bill—in fact, they probably should have had a Bill on their own, but we are where we are. Will he just confirm that? Giving operators compulsory purchase powers, in effect, has been a disaster in the radio mast arena. I would not want to see it happen again here.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

That is not my intention. I apologise for not being able to respond to the noble Lord’s email this morning. It is not my intention to give compulsory purchase powers. This is wayleaves, not compulsory purchase.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my probing Amendment 79A. They say that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. That could be extended to making the same point again and again and getting the same answer, which I have been doing over the past few months about burial and the different options for dealing with the great explosion we are going to witness of overhead power lines.

I am slightly nervous about the seeming consensus across the Committee this afternoon that nothing must stand in the way of the Government’s own date of 2030 for clean power, nothing must stop growth, and nothing must stand in the way of progress.

I fully concede that the Government have inherited a grid of which all Governments of every persuasion, over the last 20 or 30 years, have been neglectful. We have power being distributed in wrong parts of the country and shortages in other parts of the country, and the bearing loads of some of the grid are simply not up to the capacity that it is now required to meet. Additionally, we have an explosion in offshore wind, which has to be brought onshore, and that necessitates a great increase in the number of substations and, in turn, linkages to the grid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place on the Front Bench. I look forward to the exchanges ahead.

I turn to Amendments 78 and 79A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I thank them both for tabling these amendments and for their interest in and commitment to improving grid capacity and electricity distribution infrastructure.

Amendment 78 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to grant distribution network operator powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land, with the aim of accelerating electricity distribution network infrastructure build and maintenance. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030. It is clear that a rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. Although we agree with the intent behind this amendment, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill.

As previously outlined, the Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow, on 2 September. That consultation includes proposals on land access and rights and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. Once the consultation closes, the Government will undertake a thorough evaluation of the responses to understand stakeholder concerns and to assess any potential unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, before that work has been done, would pre-empt that process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowner rights.

We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is reassured by this response; I kindly ask him to withdraw his amendment. I will take his offer forward with my officials and look forward to meeting the noble Earl, alongside my noble friend Lady Taylor, on the issues raised in this area.

I move on to Amendment 79A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. This amendment would introduce a statutory presumption in favour of undergrounding power lines. It would require developers to demonstrate that undergrounding was their preferred and initial option, and that it was infeasible on cost or engineering grounds, before overhead lines could be approved. We understand that some communities hold strong views in favour of undergrounding, particularly due to concerns about the visual impact of overhead lines. We are aware that the support is partly driven by examples seen internationally, where undergrounding is used in certain contexts.

The Government’s position is that overhead transmission lines should be the starting presumption for electricity network developments except in nationally designated landscapes, where undergrounding is the starting presumption. That is because overhead lines are significantly cheaper, as undergrounding can cost up to four and a half times more, with costs ultimately passed on to bill payers. Overhead lines are also quicker to build, cause less environmental disruption and are easier to maintain and connect to existing networks.

That said, we totally understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I reassure him that neither I nor my noble friend Lady Taylor answered the Question that he asked in relation to pylons, but we look forward to speaking to and working with officials to get more detailed examples of costs and how they work in different ways in different combinations. The noble Lord asked a question that I did not previously answer on whether the network permitted development rights proposals in the current consultation cover compulsory purchase. I can confirm they do not, but there will be a huge debate—well, hopefully not a debate, but a huge discussion—on compulsory purchases in due course.

Strategic network planning is critical to ensuring that transmission infrastructure is designed and delivered in a way that meets system-wide needs. The National Energy System Operator, NESO, through the forthcoming centralised strategic network plan, will assess technology options against key criteria—including cost, deliverability, operability and community and environmental impact—and recommend optimal solutions. Developers will then apply those recommendations at a project level, refining routes and designs within existing planning and regulatory frameworks.

Accepting the amendment would move us away from a strategic, co-ordinated, system-wide approach to grid development and towards a more fragmented process. While undergrounding is already used on a case-by-case basis where justified, the amendment could lead to more frequent project-level decisions, undermining strategic system-wide planning. That risks creating inconsistency, reducing efficiency and ultimately slowing down the delivery of the infrastructure. We need to meet our clean power 2030 and net-zero targets. Further, the amendment would shift the burden of proof onto the developer, which would add complexity, legal risk and delay to an already lengthy consenting process. Given the significantly higher costs and technical complexity of underground lines compared with overhead, the amendment is unlikely to increase the use of undergrounding but would add additional time to the planning and delivery process.

Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would require that electrical or communications cables under land in active agricultural use must be buried to a minimum depth of two metres from the surface level, and deeper if required. Existing legislation for electrical cabling is contained in the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2022. They require that:

“Every underground cable shall be kept at such depth or be otherwise protected so as to avoid, so far as is reasonably practicable, any damage or danger by reason of such uses of the land which can be reasonably expected”.


This legislation is supported by industry codes that provide the specific standards for the relevant minimum burial depth, considering different factors and use cases. These industry codes must comply with the legislation that forms the quality standards that network operators must legally operate within.

For agricultural land, the minimum recommended depth for electricity cables, set out in the Energy Networks Association’s engineering recommendation G57 for cable laying on agricultural land, is 910 millimetres. This is intended

“to provide sufficient depth to safeguard against damage from deep ploughing and cultivation, and from the mechanical installation of drainage systems”.

Recommendation G57 says:

“This depth requirement takes account of the wishes of the National Farmers’ Union”.


Agricultural activities including deep cultivations, subsoiling and mole draining rarely extend deeper than 700 millimetres below the soil surface. Installing cables at depths greater than 910 millimetres can introduce engineering and environmental constraints, such as increased heat generation from the cables, which may require additional mitigation measures such as increased pole spacing. Deeper installation would necessitate a wider and deeper trench, raising the risk of potential detrimental impacts on the soil resource due to soil handling and storage. The existing legislation is supported by detailed industry standards, ensuring an agile framework whereby the relevant standards can be flexibly updated and refined in line with evolving circumstances such as innovation while minimising potential impacts on agricultural land.

To conclude, similarly for communication cables, the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 include a requirement that code operators must install apparatus such as cabling at a depth that does not interfere with the use of the land. This ensures that the land can continue to be used for the purpose that the landowner wishes, even where there is electronic equipment buried in the ground. Introducing a new requirement for the depth of communications cables could increase digital infrastructure deployment costs substantially, slowing network build and potentially preventing the Government’s ambition of a nationwide coverage of stand-alone 5G and gigabit-capable broadband.

For the reasons outlined, I do not think that these amendments are necessary and I therefore kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting group of amendments, and I thank everyone who has tabled an amendment or taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister for responding so thoroughly and welcome his commitment to work with me between now and Report in relation to Amendment 78.

My only real concern is that I am aware that renewable energy operators are not included in the Government’s consultation. Equally, they were not included in my amendment, but they are an important part of the picture. If we could work together to try to find a solution so that they could be included in the process, preferably prior to Report, it would be appreciated.

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place and recognise the point that she made on parliamentary scrutiny in relation to my amendment. I will take that on board. It was not my intention to exclude it.

On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, it is important that these issues are raised. I welcome the fact that this was put forward as a probing amendment. These are difficult issues that need to be balanced. I do not think that anybody knows the true cost of burying cables, because it depends on what you are burying them in, so I do not think there is an absolute answer. It seems clear that some of these costs are coming down. That may be something that the Government want to look at again.

There is an important need in this debate to balance the cost, which ultimately goes to consumers, with the need for the Government to be open, able to listen, to vary plans in response to communities’ concerns and to be able to persuade and hold the energy companies to account to take more expensive options where there are particular impacts. To that end, I also welcome that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Swire, would be against the EN-1, the overriding energy policy statement. I ask the Government to be open to the idea. I know that there are legislative conditions around areas of outstanding natural beauty, but the Government should be open and mindful of community concerns and make sure that budgets are available for burying cables where communities raise particular concerns or there are particular types of landscapes. I welcome the news that we had yesterday of the cable from Norfolk going south. In response to the consultation that took place with communities, bits of that have been buried. I think that is the right approach. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 78 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 82B in my name would require the Government to evaluate and report on how this legislation affects the UK’s capacity for long-duration electricity storage. Clause 25 outlines the introduction of a scheme intended to stimulate investment in long-duration electricity storage. Yet, as with any initiative of this scale, we must pair aspiration with scrutiny. It is one thing to launch a scheme, but quite another to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

We hear regularly that storage will solve the challenge of intermittent renewables. It is a reassuring narrative that excess wind and solar can simply be stored away, ready for when needed, but that message risks masking the scale of the task ahead. To get the facts straight, the UK’s average electricity consumption is around 780 gigawatt hours per day. Current grid-scale battery storage stands at roughly 12 gigawatt hours, enough to meet national demand for just 30 minutes. On a global scale, the picture is not much better. All the batteries in the world combined could keep the UK powered for less than a day.

Storage is not futile. However, we must acknowledge that we are starting from a very low base. We must also ensure that any storage added to our energy infrastructure does not undermine grid stability and that it is available to release power in the timeframe needed. This could be seconds for battery through to hours for pump storage. My amendment seeks to ensure transparency. We need regular reporting to Parliament on whether the measures we are introducing are expanding our storage capacity at the pace required.

Moreover, as we look to scale up these technologies, safety must be a central concern. My noble friend Lord Fuller rightly highlights the risks associated with high-capacity storage, particularly lithium-based battery systems. These systems often contain highly flammable materials and, when they fail, the consequences can be catastrophic. Fires involving lithium-ion batteries are notoriously difficult to control and demand vast quantities of water to extinguish. In rural areas, where many of these installations are proposed, access to that water is limited. Climate change and restrictions on the preventive burning of fuel load in wild environments are leading to greater wildfire incidence and severity. In urban settings, proximity to homes, schools and critical infrastructure raises additional risks. We must ensure that local fire services are not only consulted but properly resourced to assess and manage these risks. Any developer seeking to install large-scale storage must be required to engage with emergency services and contribute fairly to risk assessments and preparedness.

We must also consider the environmental impacts. In the event of a fire, runoff containing hazardous materials could seep into groundwater or flow into rivers. This is not just a fire safety issue; it is a matter of public health and environmental protection. We cannot afford to be complacent. As our electricity system becomes more complex and decentralised, so too do the risks. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that those risks are identified, assessed and addressed. Long-duration energy storage may be a useful addition to our energy mix. However, we cannot rely on this technology alone to support our renewable future.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond briefly to this group of amendments on long-duration energy storage. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for bringing forward Amendment 82A. These are important topics. While long-duration energy storage facilities are essential to the energy transition and have a very high safety record, they are still an emerging technology and it is right that we seek to balance planning and safety regulations with the need to build these facilities. To be clear, a number of the fires that he referred to were from individual batteries and not big long-duration energy storage facilities. As far as I am aware, there have been only two such fires in the UK. These big long-duration energy storage facilities have a very strong safety record.

However, it is true that UK fire and rescue services have described BESS and long-duration energy storage facilities as an emerging risk, noting that when these fires occur, they can last for hours or days and produce toxic emissions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment, as it rightly highlights the critical importance of the safety of long-duration energy storage as we accelerate towards our energy transition.

The amendment would establish a specific statutory duty requiring operators of long-duration energy storage systems to consult local fire authorities prior to installation, with the authority empowered to assess fire risks and levy a reasonable fee for doing so. On the face of it, I recognise the merits of such an approach. These can pose material risks and it is important that the fire brigade is involved and included in some of these planning decisions. It is also important that our fire services are aware of and prepared for particular hazards and have clear plans to deal with them should anything untoward happen. That being said, there are questions as to whether a statutory provision of this kind is the right or appropriate mechanism at this stage. A number of regulatory avenues already apply, including planning law, the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, and general fire safety legislation. The Government have also indicated their intention to update planning and permitting frameworks, considering the rapid growth of battery storage technologies. It is absolutely right that they do so.

--- Later in debate ---

That is my challenge to the Minister. Those folk in the Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and south Wales coalfields, and others, have had pylons for a long time, so either we have no compensatory scheme or we include those who have them already in a time-limited fashion. Let us have a bit of fairness in all this. I look forward to hearing how the Minister will respond to my challenge.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 86 in this group on bill discount schemes and community benefits. It sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major infrastructure schemes. The amendment proposes a new clause that would establish a statutory scheme to provide community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects, ensuring that those who host the infrastructure necessary for our clean energy transition are directly recognised and rewarded.

Let me begin by acknowledging and welcoming what the Government have already done in this space. The provisions now in the Bill for compensation for households living near transmission lines represent, without question, an important step forward. Households living day in, day out under new pylons or beside substations reasonably expect that there should be some benefit for them and their local communities. I welcome the fact that the Government have done that. I also take on board my noble friend’s point that this stuff is also good for all in our communities and our future.

I welcome the position that the Government have taken in the Bill but, as part of this broader group, it is important that we discuss some areas of how the Government have designed their own compensation; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, clearly mentioned, there is the point about generation not being included, as well as the fact that a fixed 500-metre distance was used in the DESNZ consultation. There are strange situations in which you could get compensation and not have visible sight of pylons, and there are other situations where you could have visible sight of pylons and not receive compensation. All of that needs a bit of working through; I welcome the other amendments in this group that are trying to do that. We should circle back to this on Report, but the important thing is that there is a compensation scheme. We on these Benches welcome that.

My amendment wants to go a bit further; it is additional to what the Government are doing. Although individual compensation is welcome, it has more limited scope and is of more limited benefit than pooling money together and using it to provide community benefits. I fundamentally believe that that is a better way of bringing real transition and change to the lives of the people who are impacted by this stuff.

Crucially, my amendment seeks to tie the benefit directly to the scale of the project, amounting to 5% of annual revenue. This is important because it requires not one or two pieces of infrastructure but lots of the stuff that we will have. As I said at the beginning, in energy terms, this is as big as the Industrial Revolution. Our communities will carry this weight; they should be able to be transformed by, and to get benefits from, it. I believe that pooling those benefits is a better way of helping our communities.

For example, I know that, over the summer, the Labour Party had a real concern about what happens to our coastal communities, which are some of our country’s poorest and most deprived communities. In the GB energy Act, we have community energy. It struck me that we could be doing a lot more if we used this type of money to help build local windmills and provide energy to these people living in poverty; that could be a really good scheme. It is important that this is about not the Government doing things to people but them doing things with people—that is, taking people with them on this journey and allowing them to be included in it, to benefit directly from it and to see it. I want people to go down the pub and say not, “Green energy is going to make my bill more expensive”, but, “We’ve got a local windmill or solar farm and we’re benefiting from it. We’re included in it. We participate and we get something back from it”. That is a very different conversation from the conversations that are happening now.

I recognise that my amendment is not fully workable; there are areas that obviously need reform and change. What I am trying to do is make a point. I am asking the Government to go further and go beyond what they have done already. In this country, there is a lot of conversation about and resentment of the Norwegian sovereign fund. When Norway started developing its oil and gas wells, it had the foresight to create that sovereign wealth fund; it has benefited from it. We did not do that in this country, and we have blown through most of the North Sea oil and gas. We do not have those long-term benefits.

As we start this new energy revolution, there is an opportunity here to make a system that compensates our communities and gets benefits flowing to our communities—indeed, to our whole society—from this new form of energy and transition. We can use that to bring people in and take them with us on this journey in order to make sure that this is about not one Government or one party but all of us working together for our communities, our future and the future of our children. I accept that there is a lot more to do but lots of other countries are doing this stuff, including Denmark, Germany and France, which has been mentioned. I encourage the Government to look at some of the schemes that other countries have, to look at what works and what does not, and to look at this again.

Turning briefly to the other amendments, I fully recognise the purpose of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. She said that this is time limited, and I also note that there are over 20,000 pylons. I am interested to know whether the Government could do an assessment on what the cost of that would be; I suspect that it would be quite big and could well be prohibitive. I do not know the answer to that, but it is a question that needs asking and it is good that it is being asked.

I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is in his place, but we do not support fracking. It is not appropriate and will not solve our energy problems; it will cause pollution to our groundwater systems as well as earthquakes. It was his own party that decided that fracking was not the answer and, as far as I am aware, the Conservatives have not changed their policy on that part of the energy transition. That is certainly one amendment—unless he is working for Reform, which I doubt—that I cannot see the point in adding to the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 83, which seeks to introduce a bill discount scheme for eligible households living near major energy infrastructure. This amendment seeks to ensure that those most directly impacted by the presence of new energy developments, especially large-scale infrastructure, receive a tangible, meaningful benefit—namely, a £1,000 annual discount on their electricity bill for 10 years. In contrast to Amendment 86, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which appears to direct funding to local authorities rather than local consumers, we want to see individuals benefiting directly, not local government.

This proposal stems from a clear and pragmatic principle: if the Government are to meet their national energy and net-zero targets through new infrastructure, they must take the public with them. That includes recognising that hosting such infrastructure in their area has consequences for local communities, whether because of the visual impact or disruption from construction. It is disappointing that the current Government have chosen to step back from the community benefit scheme proposed by our previous Conservative Government. In doing so, they have shown not only a lack of ambition but a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact that these developments can have on communities.

Indeed, in a 2023 paper published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, it was recommended that

“an electricity bill discount for properties located closest to transmission network infrastructure … could offer up to £10,000 per property (£1,000 per year, ~£80 per month, over 10 years)”.

The rationale was simple: communities should be compensated for their proximity to infrastructure that serves the national interest. In achieving this compensation, there is likely to be greater community consent, limiting the length of time for the planning decision to be taken and the cost associated with it. Yet despite this recommendation, the Government have failed to follow through with a credible or generous offer. Amendment 83 seeks to correct that failure.

Amendment 84, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, would provide for the creation of community benefit schemes linked to onshore wind turbines. The amendment again recognises that, while additional energy infrastructure is essential, it is not always welcome, and that community consent is far more likely to be secured when there is tangible benefit for those living nearby. My noble friend’s amendment acknowledges that local communities must be partners in our energy transition, not passive recipients of top-down decisions. It would be helpful to understand the Government’s position on why onshore wind projects—and other energy infrastructure projects, for that matter—are not currently in scope of formalised benefit schemes and whether that could or should be changed.

Similarly, Amendment 94, also from my noble friend Lord Lilley, proposes that individuals should be entitled to financial benefits from shale gas companies. While shale gas remains a contentious issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, the underlying concern remains valid: communities affected by energy extraction and production should not be left behind. I also point out that fracking was pretty much invented in, and is commonly used throughout, the North Sea; it is simply the shale gas issue that we are addressing here.

I also support the sentiment of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These important amendments seek to extend benefit schemes to energy generation infrastructure and network transmission infrastructure and ensure that such schemes are not merely optional but required. They mirror the spirit of the amendment in my name by embedding fairness into our energy transition and making community benefit a standard, not an exception.

What links all speakers and amendments in this group is a shared concern for the people and places that bear the burden of our national energy ambitions. From onshore wind to transmission lines, from shale gas to solar farms, these projects do not exist in a vacuum; they are local and in real communities. These amendments attempt, in different ways, to ensure that the impact is matched by investment and that no community feels exploited in the name of national progress.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is uncosted, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, and concerns a retrospective scheme. The noble Baroness used the word “fairness”, and I ask: fair to whom? This provision, if implemented, would fall on bill payers and the infrastructure providers that had not anticipated these costs when they developed the infrastructure. I very much remain to be persuaded on the necessity for this amendment.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and urge her to provide clarity and assurance on the Government’s approach to community benefits. The concerns raised by this group of amendments go to the heart of fairness, consent and the long-term credibility of our energy strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was not here to move his amendment but, as other noble Lords have commented on it, I should respond. His amendment seeks to mandate the provision of financial benefits from new and historic onshore drilling works for shale gas. In May, the Government published a working paper which outlined proposals for the introduction of a mandatory requirement for developers of low-carbon infrastructure. These responses are being analysed, but the proposals did not include financial benefits from shale gas works, as there is currently no fracking for shale gas anywhere in the UK and the Government intend to ban fracking for good. In addition, our proposal on community benefits will not apply retrospectively. We wish to minimise the risk of the introduction of a mandatory community benefits scheme creating funding issues or delays by imposing new requirements at a late stage of development. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is satisfied with that answer.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. She has mentioned the working paper in relation to several amendments, including mine. I welcome the words that she has given and the direction of travel. However, we have the usual phrase, that “in due course” something will come forward. The Minister may not have the answer to hand, but if there is a possibility of bringing forward those proposals in time for Report in relation to this group of amendments, it would be welcomed across the House.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I accept the noble Earl’s point. I am not fond of “in due course”, as he well knows—he has heard me say that many times. I will endeavour to find out what the timescales are likely to be. It usually depends on the level of responses that have been received and the complexity of dealing with them, but I will respond in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

In this group on the Forestry Commission’s actions and duties, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 88 and in support of Amendment 93, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I support pretty much all of the amendments in this group. This has been an interesting conversation on not only the role and development of the Forestry Commission but its relationship with hosting energy, including what safeguards and protections need to happen as we go down that road and what our forests will look like in the future under climate change.

My amendment is designed to put in place some safeguards on the new powers granted to the appropriate forestry authorities for energy generation, transmission and storage on public forestry land. At the heart of all this is a balance between what we do to hit our climate and nature change duties and what we must do not to further damage our ecology and biodiversity. It is fine to make use of our forests for these things, but it must not have detrimental impacts. That is what I have tried to balance in my amendment.

The commission gains unprecedented powers to host and sell energy from renewable installations on land under its management. Yet, when I looked at Clause 28, there were no clear legal protections for most precious habitats. My worry is that, without such safeguards, we will see renewable energy infrastructure sited in ways that harm our ancient woodlands, our carbon rich peatlands and other priority habitats that the Government have a duty to protect, particularly under our 30 by 30 biodiversity targets.

I am looking for a reasonable balance between timber production and nature conservation. That reasonable balance is in the Bill, but what does it mean? It is not purely defined in the Bill, which was also a worry for me. In response to that, my amendment tries to take a pragmatic way forward. I note the issue raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, about the percentages. My amendment says that no more than 2% of all Forestry Commission land and no more than 5% of any individual site could be given to energy storage and development. I will go away and look at that. At the moment, there is no cap on that at all. Noble Lords may not agree with my percentages but putting a percentage in the amendment is a whole lot better than having no percentages in there at all; however, I will go away and look at whether there is another way in which that might be done.

This issue is particularly acute in our national parks and where our national parks and Forestry Commission land co-exist; in the New Forest, that is 47%, while, in Northumberland, it is 15%. These are treasured landscapes. Energy development must be proportionate, consistent with statutory park purposes, subject to democratic oversight, not impacting on leisure facilities and making sure that our national parks authorities have some say in and control over these things. These are important matters.

My amendment does not seek to reject the role of using Forestry Commission land to help with our energy; it just seeks to put some safeguards on that. I will go away and consider my amendment. This debate has been useful for me, and I will reflect on this, but there need to be more safeguards in the Bill—of that I am still certain. I would be very happy to work with the Minister between now and Report to see whether there are ways in which we could do that together; that would be welcome.

This has already been discussed in detail but, turning briefly to Amendment 93, I have supported the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, at every stage of its passage through the House. It is absolutely essential that we update our climate change legislation. In the last debate on his Bill, I said that it was the equivalent to the Government being the general and knowing what the military strategy was but failing to tell any of their own troops. The Government need to work with all these public bodies. These things are so pressing and so complicated. The Government are holding on to all this stuff and not passing the orders down and empowering others, including the public bodies. The Forestry Commission owns 5% of all public land. It needs a duty to enhance and meet our climate change and biodiversity targets; it is silly that it does not have that.

I am sorry. I am a little buoyed up having come through the Crown Estate Bill and the Great British Energy Bill, where we managed to work with Ministers and get such provisions added to the Bills. It is on my agenda to do that in this Bill; that makes sense. I would like to work with the Minister, but it is a minimum for me that a similar amendment to the ones in those Bills is added to this Bill. If the Government want to make use of forestry land for energy generation, that is fine, but with that comes some responsibilities; those responsibilities include that this duty should added.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much approve of what the Government are doing in this clause. I think they should go a bit further. I want to illustrate this in the context of the challenges faced by southern broadleaved woodlands, which existed for many centuries as places of industry. People made things there; a lot of products came out of it. The whole biodiversity of that ecosystem comes out of a continuous pattern of use. It is interesting to see, for instance with NEP, how little biodiversity is left in the woodland when the woodland ceases to be of value. All the biodiversity there, which is considerable, has moved outside. Our woodland biodiversity is important.

The Government should be organising themselves, and the Forestry Commission, so that we can see a restoration of a commercial purpose to the southern broadleaved woodlands, particularly in England. We cannot at the moment rely on forestry. All the species that we used to grow in profusion have no big current use. Our neighbouring forest in Eastbourne was planted to beech 100 years ago. When they are felling it now, 100 year-old trees are going to firewood. There is no market now for really high-quality beech.

In the small wood that I own, oak is the main crop. We have acute oak decline coming in now. You are asked to wait 100 years for oak. If it is all going to rot away before then, there is no outlet. We really need a system that can take general wood output—branches, brash, thinnings, uneconomic trees—and turn it into something useful. The outlet available at the moment is energy.

The Forestry Commission is hugely important in this as it has a breadth of organisation and understanding, whereas the ownership of woodland tends to be extremely fragmented in the south. It can bring a lot in motivating, organising, inspiring and controlling when it comes to looking after biodiversity principles.

I am very pleased to see the direction in which the Government are moving here. My understanding is that this clause is written in a way that allows the Forestry Commission to work with partners in achieving its objectives; it does not have to do everything itself. However, I urge the Government to make one change to this: not just to look at renewable power but to look at renewable feedstocks for industry.

If we are to replace oil as the feedstock for our chemical industry, we need to go after every available source of concentrated carbon, and woods produce quite a lot of that. In looking at the powers that Forestry Commission has under the Bill—there are already young British companies using wood products to produce jet fuel and similar things—we need to add that extra aspect: not just renewable energy, but renewable feedstocks for industry.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

90: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“Local Area Energy Plans(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan in order to inform their decisions about local electricity infrastructure requirements.(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Local Area Energy Plan” means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I open this group of amendments, which are all on local energy plans; my amendment proposes to insert a crucial new clause after Clause 28 of the Bill. It would mandate that all local authorities and combined authorities must create a local area energy plan.

Considering the late hour, I will give a slightly condensed version of my original speech. I also express my strong support for the other amendment in this group, Amendment 177, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish vital guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans within 12 months of the Act being passed. To my mind, that is almost like the flipside of the same coin to what I am asking. The amendment that I have tabled and this amendment would work well together, complement each other and make each stronger than they would be without the other. From my point of view, it would be good if it was possible to progress both of the amendments in this group.

I do not really want to go into too much detail. Everybody knows what local area energy plans are. They are vital to devolving these tasks down to local authorities, including local people. They work really well; they are powerful. It is really good that we speak to and include local people and that they have a say, and it is good that we take account of local peoples’ needs and what is happening in local areas. It is good that we do this level of granular work on the ground and talk to local people. These plans are happening in some places: obviously in Wales, and there are some other places where councils are voluntarily doing these things, whether that is in London or other metropolitan authorities.

What does not exist in legislation is a mandated requirement for these things to be done or a mandated support to help local authorities to do these things. Were that to happen, it would help this Government to meet their environment and climate change targets. Frankly, I do not know how we got to where we are without having it in this Bill. I wonder whether that is purely just an oversight.

From my point of view, I stand ready to work with the Minister alongside the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We would like to include this in the Bill. We feel that this would fit within the Bill, help to deliver targets, help us to get to where we need to be and help to empower our local authorities. I will leave it at that considering the late hour that we are sitting, but I genuinely think that this would help all round. I beg to move.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 177 in my name and declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and as a director of Peers for the Planet. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support for the amendment.

I start by saying that I completely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, just said. I view these amendments as very complementary in terms of local area energy planning. This has to be a staged approach. We first need that guidance set out for local authorities, so that we have a consistent approach to planning but, ultimately, we need a funded programme with funding available to local authorities to enable them to undertake these plans and get to the place where we need to be with the noble Earl’s amendment. Therefore, they are very complementary in that sense.

To add to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, I put this amendment forward to the then Energy Bill a couple of years ago. It is worth reflecting on what we have seen so far in terms of the energy transition, which is a very top-down driven approach. However, we have seen some really good progress since the Energy Act. We have had the formation of the National Energy System Operator, the NESO. We have started to see that thinking about flow-down to regions and local areas, with the formation of the regional energy strategic planner role, the RESP.

However, there is a missing piece of the puzzle in terms of the flow-down to local areas: the bottom tier, which is what the local area energy plan fulfils. In terms of spearheading the transition, it is really important that we get this joined-up view of the governance system and that we have some guidance for local area energy plans. As the Minister knows, this is not a conceptual approach—it is a well-tested road. In fact, since the end of last year, these have now been rolled out and completed for all 22 Welsh councils. There is a funded programme, a technical adviser to ensure coherence in the Energy Systems Catapult and there is that guidance to ensure a systems approach. Now that they have that basis, there is then flow-up to their own national plan as well, which offers great benefits.

This amendment would put a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidance for local authorities on local area energy planning and to clarify some of the criteria that should be included with any guidance. This is based on the Energy Systems Catapult guidance and includes how local area energy plans can contribute to meeting our net-zero environmental and adaptation targets.

I will briefly illustrate one of the reasons we need this. The pilots undertaken in the UK, in Newcastle, Bridgend and Bury in Manchester, divided each area into zones suitable for different types of heating technologies. The balance of technologies across the three areas shows how different areas can be. In Newcastle, the plan found that roughly half the homes could be heated by a heat network, in Bury it was less than 30% and in Bridgend it was 15%. In Bridgend, a far higher proportion of homes would need to be heated with high-temperature heat pumps to save on the extra expense of retrofitting insulation in its poorer-quality housing stock.

--- Later in debate ---

As it is, local authorities already have access to guidance and support on net-zero issues, including energy planning. This includes Net Zero Go, as mentioned before, funded by DESNZ, which provides a library of free tools and guidance for local authorities. They also have access to advice and support from the five local net-zero hubs funded by DESNZ, which have already supported a number of local authorities in the development of their local area energy plans. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, are satisfied with our response.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s response to my amendment and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. However, I am hearing from the Minister that this is not the right time to do this stuff. I understand that the Government are actively drawing up different strings and bits of policy and bringing them together. However, if now is not the right time, when might be the right time?

The Minister says that the Government are drawing together policy but also that there are loads of policy guidance available for local authorities that want to do this. The two statements are almost contradictory. Now is not the right time for the Government to give guidance, but guidance is available to any local authorities that want it. My worry is that this leads to guidance that is much more open to interpretation, which the Government do not have proper control of and which could be followed in multiple different ways without the Government having control over it. I strongly ask the Minister to think again on these matters. These are really important issues. I recognise that the Government are forming policy, but forming policy and working with local authorities are not contradictory things. These are everyday matters of government.

I thank the Minister for his response but call on the Government to think again.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Earl’s contribution, but I politely disagree in that there is a lot of advice and support from local net-zero hubs funded by DESNZ. I understand and sympathise with what he is saying. We have all said today that we want to get moving as fast as we can, in a speedy manner, and to grow. This is all part of the agenda. We want to make sure that we get things right, be concise and have the right level of engagement and consultation, to ensure that when we have the clear plan moving forward it is well understood and implemented and does not have unintended implications or consequences.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I take note of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, complementing the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I recognise that there is a lot of work to do. I appreciate that the noble Lord has raised this before, but now we actually have a Planning and Infrastructure Bill which will very much fix the foundations of the whole growth to net zero and clean energy 2030.

My final and important point on this is that now is not the right time because we do not want to put further burdens on local authorities while we are still developing and finalising our energy planning. That is still under development, but I reassure the noble Lord that we are on it. We want to make sure that this happens as fast as possible, and this Bill will help us to change a lot of the infrastructure, thinking and systems in place in order for our country to grow.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 90 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the stated aim of getting Britain building and kick-starting our economic growth, delivering much-needed housing and critical infrastructure. We also recognise the urgent need to fundamentally reform and improve our planning systems. We must build more homes—more affordable homes—and infrastructure to meet the challenges of our time, from improving transport systems to addressing climate change.

The current systems are clearly not working. Getting to clean power alone by 2030 will require huge investment in renewable energy and the grid. Our electricity consumption is due to more than double by 2050, and we welcome the reforms to the grid connection system.

We are at the stage of the energy transition where we need to build a lot of stuff, and we need to be able to take our communities with us to get that done. Although the intention to improve the systems and processes is welcome, some of the solutions proposed are misguided and concerning. The Government have chosen neither bats nor crested newts, because the Government want growth. These plans are much more “done to” than “done with” when it comes to our local communities. The Government suggest that existing environmental protections are a significant barrier to development and that these plans will provide a win-win for both nature and the economy, and a more strategic approach.

Nature appears to have little voice and little value within these proposals. Our planning systems need to be aligned with and support our climate and nature goals. If enacted, the Bill will degrade our nature and biodiversity, and the real reforms and funding that our planning system desperately needs will be missed. My arguments are based on the Government’s own evidence; the impact assessment admits:

“There is very limited data on how environmental obligations affect development”.


Official analysis provides no data to support the argument that environmental legislation holds up building.

Removing these protections will not help. Delays are more often rooted in lengthy pre-planning application stages, poor processes, lack of data and of data sharing, outdated national policy statements and, in some cases, yet to be delivered policies such as land use frameworks and various spatial plans. In addition, our local authorities are permanently understaffed, underfunded and unable to cope. We can add to this list skills shortages, supply chain issues and market confidence.

As we have heard, more than 1.5 million homes in England have planning permission; 95% of local planning applications are approved. All too often, developers do not build, and the systems simply fail to ensure delivery. The Bill misses an important opportunity to better hold large housebuilders to account and continues a developer-led approach.

The environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy proposals are an alarming step backwards for nature protection. The Bill proposes that developers can pay into a nature restoration fund instead of fulfilling existing legal obligations to protect wildlife and habitats. This bypasses the fundamental mitigation hierarchy: the principle that impacts should first be avoided, then mitigated and compensated for only as a last resort. There is no requirement for developers to even attempt to avoid harm before resorting to paying the off-set fee. This is a profound weakening of our environmental law.

I do not much like the idea that nature can be transplanted in this way for a fee. It treats nature as akin to a problem as simple as house removals. Nature cannot simply be moved around to suit developers’ needs. This model is entirely unsuitable for irreplaceable habitats. All sites with nature protections should be removed from these provisions. Many of these habitats are simply impossible to recreate and move elsewhere.

The abundance of 753 terrestrial and freshwater species has, on average, fallen by 19% across the UK since 1970. How do we expect to meet our biodiversity targets with these proposals? Proposals to give these unique ecosystems stronger protections were rejected in the other place and government amendments never arrived. The Government even rejected a cross-party amendment to allow swift bricks in new homes. What hope is there for nature if adding a £36 swift brick is so easily rejected? We must work with nature, bring it into our developments and promote access. Doing so provides rewards for our quality of life and improves our health. We must restore and work with nature to help mitigate the impact of climate change.

Instead, the Bill’s overall improvement test states that the conservation measures must only be

“likely to be sufficient to outweigh”

negative impacts. This introduces uncertainty, unpredictability and subjectivity, falling far short of the rigorous scientific certainty required by our existing environmental laws. We believe this must be strengthened and that the benefits must significantly outweigh any harm. The Office for Environmental Protection has also expressed significant concerns about the Bill as drafted, saying that it reduces the level of environmental protection. It describes the provisions as a “regression”, particularly for habitats and species.

Concerns also persist regarding adequate resourcing and capacity for Natural England to administer the substantial new responsibilities. These will be in a complex system that the Government are putting in place. We are calling for independent oversight of the NRF to ensure that funds are spent effectively and transparently.

To conclude, we must properly resource our planning authorities. Some 25% of all planners have been lost in the past seven years. The Government will allow local authorities to set their own fees but these must be ring-fenced to ensure that the money and skills are available to ensure a sufficient local planning system. We must strengthen our local democratic accountability and public trust. The Bill’s approach risks alienating communities and diminishing the crucial role of our elected councils. I worry this could have a negative impact as we roll out all the stuff we need to build to get to net zero. We must ensure meaningful engagement and good communications, and that communities have a voice in and benefit from the energy transition itself.

We will work with the Government to improve the Bill, but they may well be surprised by the level of cross-party consensus that has already established itself on all sides of your Lordships’ House on these matters.

Climate Change: Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the increased risk of wildfires caused by climate change; and when they will publish a Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, outdoor fires, especially wildfires, are expected by many academics to increase in frequency and impact, predominantly driven by climate change. The Home Office, as the former lead government department for wildfire, worked closely with Defra, its agencies and other stakeholders to identify policy options to enhance our resilience and response to wildfires. The outcomes of this work are currently being considered following the transition of fire functions to MHCLG on 1 April.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we are having a bad wildfire year, with 439 wildfires and 95 square miles burned already. By mid-April, the total burned area will be the second worst on record. Wildfires are devastating to people and property, and brutal to our biodiversity and net-zero efforts. I push the Government to do more. I ask the Minister to review our wildfire resilience plans for the rest of this year, to respond to the NFCC’s urgent calls for dedicated funding and specialist equipment, and for further action to improve public education.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl is right to raise this important issue. The numbers he highlighted are worrying. We are working closely with the NFCC. We continue to fund the national resilience wildfire adviser, who is tasked with reviewing capability and approaches across the fire sector. We are also providing proactive public safety communications on barbeques, cigarettes and open fires, in collaboration with the National Fire Chiefs Council.

Impact of Environmental Regulations on Development (Built Environment Committee Report)

Earl Russell Excerpts

Friday 19th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this report today. I was a member of the Built Environment Committee for a short period. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his chairmanship, and I thank the other members of the committee.

This inquiry is important and timely. As the introduction of the report says:

“At the heart of this inquiry is the interaction between two government policies: a drive for development—particularly of housing—and … a commitment to protect habitats … Both policies should be achievable in a mutually reinforcing way. In practice, our inquiry has found that this has been hampered … by lack of co-ordination in policy-making and haphazard and unbalanced implementation”.


Today I shall speak primarily to the environmental side of this debate. The Government have strong environmental ambitions, such as being the first Government ever to leave nature in a better position than they found it, and in some areas progress has been achieved. I thank the Government for halving our CO₂ emissions, which are now at their lowest level since 1837, but there is much to do and very little time to do it in.

As the tasks ahead have become more challenging, the political will appears to be declining. We have already seen the Government rowing back from several key environmental commitments or delaying them. Ambition is great, but it means nothing without a relentless drive to implement and clear and consistent policy-making. The transition to net zero by 2050 is challenging. It impacts all sections of society, and it will be a key part of government policy going forward. The transition must be a just one.

While there are strong ambitions, the Government are largely off-track to meet many of their environmental commitments. The Office for Environmental Protection’s annual report says the Government are meeting only four of their 40 key targets. To paraphrase that report, the Government remain largely off-track; many policies are at the early stages or are long-awaited; government plans must stack up; and the Government must set out transparently how they will change the nation’s trajectory in good time. The Government are also failing to meet their housebuilding targets. While they remain committed to building 1 million homes over this Parliament, they are not on target to meet that.

In my humble opinion, the general government response to the inquiry to date has been poor. The Government have not adequately engaged with or addressed many of the key areas, while in others they have provided the stock answer of blaming nutrient neutrality for the problems. The report went out of its way to search for potential solutions and point out clearly where the systems and processes in place were not working. Ideas put forward included giving housebuilding a statutory footing.

Underlying the key report is a continued trend of poorly thought-out processes, a lack of coherent policies, a lack of support for developers and a hodge-podge of systems and processes that work for no one. We have planning authorities that lack funding, a lack of planners and general systemic problems across many sectors that are inhibiting the need and the demand for housing.

When we need policy implementation across all areas of government to be a co-ordinated dance, we have something that in reality is much more akin to Laurel and Hardy than to Torvill and Dean. The idea that we can have either new housing or nutrient neutrality but not both is a false dichotomy; to accept that would be to reward past failure and to agree to continue to fail in future as well. We can and must have both, and the Government need to work to achieve that at speed and at scale. The idea that environmental targets are somehow of secondary importance is alarming. Environmental commitments must not be a convenient scapegoat for inaction, a lack of coherent policy or an inability to meet the Government’s own obligations.

We are one of the most nature-deprived countries in the world, while England has the lowest numbers of houses available in the developed world and the highest rate of inadequate housing in Europe. The Government must act at scale and at speed to change that.

Green Spaces

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to increase the number of locally available and easily accessible green spaces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

Our environmental improvement plan includes a commitment that everyone should live within a 15-minute walk of a green or blue space and includes measures to reduce barriers which prevent people accessing them. Progress on this commitment is well under way through the levelling up parks fund, the green infrastructure framework, the urban trees challenge fund, the Access for All programme and the woodland access implementation plan.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the response. I warmly welcome this commitment; it is extremely important. However, 38% of people do not have access to green or blue space. Those who are economically marginalised have the least access of all. Access to green space is vital for our physical, mental and general well-being. Can the Minister confirm what proposals the Government have to deliver the target and when they expect to make progress?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, one of the programmes I mentioned in my initial Answer, the levelling up parks fund, is focused specifically on grants given to and administered by local authorities to deliver new or improved green spaces in more than 100 of the neighbourhoods most deprived of green spaces across the UK. Some 92% of recipients of that funding have reported increases in access to green spaces in deprived urban areas. That is one example of how we are delivering on that commitment. I also reassure the noble Earl that we are working across government to ensure that there is a robust baseline for measuring that commitment, so that we can report on progress in future.