Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the informal meeting I had with the Minister last week. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in relation to my Motion E1, and I too will refer in a moment to the letter received. I am compounded by the fact that my train was late. This time a van had collided with a bridge, but, fortunately, there was no lasting damage and no-one was hurt, not like the Selby rail disaster. Then, I found that they have changed the classic Outlook to modern Outlook, and I could not load my emails. But I am very grateful for having had sight of the letter.

The Minister will be aware that the Toddbrook reservoir failed on 1 August 2019. Since that time, the Balmforth review was set up, but it is not due to report until 2027. My concern as regards large reservoirs is that the Government do not seem to be displaying any sense of urgency. I am mindful of how much reservoirs cost to build, even in spite of NSIPs under the Bill before us this evening, and that there are other barriers to overcome. The Minister may or may not be aware that each individual reservoir has to be signed off by a panel engineer. There is a chronic shortage of panel engineers, and I do not know that that is being addressed by the Government any time soon. My understanding—I have tracked this since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was adopted—is that the de minimis rules allowing a small on-farm reservoir require legislation to amend the de minimis rule to make sure that these on-farm, non-hazardous reservoirs can be constructed.

I take some comfort and great heart from what the Minister said when speaking to Motion E1 this evening, but I do not know that the issues that I have raised, both in Committee and on Report, have actually been addressed. The Minister referred to guidance being published. Can she confirm whether or not that is statutory? Just so those seeking to construct such reservoirs are very clear on it, what will the status of that guidance be? When will the actual guidance to which she referred be published?

Having made those remarks, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House, depending on what reassurance the Minister is able to give me. I put it to her informally last week that this amendment is designed to help the Government.

In June, the Environment Agency published its National Framework for Water Resources, which called for measures to curb the water deficit, including building more reservoirs, in the light of the potential public water shortages of 5 billion litres of water a day by 2055. We in Yorkshire are very conscious of the fact that the reservoirs have still not filled up since the drought this year. We have every prospect of a drought continuing into next year. The efforts to extinguish and control the wildfire on the North Yorkshire Moors were hampered by the lack of access to water. It was also the case that it was difficult for crops—arable and horticultural—to have access to water, and there was difficulty around the availability of watering for livestock.

These are very real urgent issues. I am afraid that the reason given by the Commons for failing to agree to Amendment 32 is very thin. We are told that it is not

“necessary to have a legislative requirement to publish the information required by the amendment relating to low hazard reservoirs”.

I have set out this evening the reason for urgency and why this is a very real issue. I believe we need to write in the Bill the concerns I have set out.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion B and Motion B1, which is the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. Lords Amendment 2A, which has been sent back to us, in effect puts the Planning Act 2008 back into the position it was originally in. To that extent, it is not so objectionable. But we are looking to ensure, as my noble friend eloquently presented, both now and on Report, that when these decisions are being made we take full account of the protections that should be available for irreplaceable heritage assets.

In addition to the assurances about national policy statements that the Minister has given to my noble friend, I ask her whether she will look at the guidance, which Clause 7(2) provides for, that can be given about the preparation of local impact reports, which as she will know are a material factor in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008. If that guidance makes it clear that the local impact report must make specific reference to the heritage assets that are to be affected, and to the impact on not only those assets themselves but their environment, that might highlight any potential adverse impacts for when the Secretary of State has to weigh up the adverse impacts against the benefits under the Section 104 decision. I hope that the Minister might add that to the ways in which the assurances might be bolstered to protect heritage assets.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I find that there is much to commend in her amendment, which I hope gains the favour of the House and, indeed, the Government. I am also very taken by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, who will explain it momentarily. I have tabled Amendment 60 on Report to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government that fees will include the cost of enforcement measures.

In Clause 48, the Government recognise that the local planning authority in England may set the level of a fee or a charge. Indeed, Clause 49 goes on to consider the raising of a surcharge on planning fees, which I think is going much further than my modest little Amendment 60. I am deeply concerned about the issues raised by insurance companies such as, in this case, Aviva: that the Government seem to be in denial as to the implications for potential future floods of their commitment to build 1.5 million homes in the course of this Parliament.

We will come on to discuss greater flood resilience measures and, indeed, possibly not building on the most functional flood plains, but at the moment the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has no measures to improve the flood resilience of new homes. We have to accept that these measures are expensive. They include such measures as increased insurance costs and measures to make homes more resilient. Many of them are geared to reducing the impact of climate change, and I think it is generally felt that it would be a small price to pay if these measures were included and recovered in a modest increase to planning fees. I do not think it would be disproportionately high, as the Minister responded when summing up on the amendment in Committee; that is why I have sought to raise this.

I am sure that the Minister, the department and the Government would like to see these resilience measures included. Many of them are now hopefully becoming more affordable than has been the case in the past. Life is about choices. If the Government are going to build on functional flood plains, we have to accept that those future homes have to be flood-proofed and resilient. These measures cost money.

The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the increased cost of ensuring that those measures are adequately and properly installed will be covered in the cost of a fee. I do not believe that the fee will be disproportionate. Therefore, I have returned with this amendment today to make a plea to the Minister that she will see that this is only a potentially modest increase. It is something that she, her department and her Government are asking householders to do, and I believe that the enforcement cost should be covered in the fee. That is the proposal that I put to the House this afternoon.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 61 in this group is in my name. I will talk to that in a moment, but first I want to say one or two things about the helpful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I think it points in the right direction, but we need to understand where we would end up if we were to go in that direction.

Some noble Lords will have participated in the debate that we had toward the latter stages of the last Parliament about the new regulations relating to planning fees. One thing that came through quite forcibly from that was that householders—for example, making applications in relation to their own houses—were paying significantly less than the cost of dealing with their application. I completely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that there is, and has been subsequently in the Government’s changes to the planning charges, some balancing of that, and that householders are paying more.

If I understand correctly, it is the noble Baroness’s intention that the fees charged should be proportionate to the number of households or the scale of a development—although that is not actually what her amendment says. The amendment simply says that it should be proportionate; it does not say proportionate to what. Basing it on the size of a development could mean basing it in a positive correlation or a negative correlation. I am afraid that when you write legislation, you have to write specifically what you want. Otherwise, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and his colleagues will take it apart. We do not want that; we want to be very clear about what we are setting out to achieve.

I am sure it is not the noble Baroness’s intention to press the amendment, but it raises an important issue. When Ministers bring forward regulations to set out how the planning fees should be set and the criteria by which they should be set, it is at that point that I hope they will take full account of what the noble Baroness said and the purposes she was describing.

My amendment is derived from our debate in Committee. I did not have an amendment then, but we had an exchange about Clause 49, which relates to the surcharge that can be charged for the purpose of meeting the costs of statutory consultees and other bodies that support the planning process. When we reach Clause 49, we see that new Section 303ZZB(6) states that the level of the surcharge must be set so as to

“secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons”.

I noticed, in listening to the debate, that new Section 303ZZB(8) says that:

“Regulations …may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons”.


We therefore have the curious situation where, in the same section, it says that it should not exceed the costs and also that regulations have the specific power to exceed the costs. I have not had a conversation with the Minister, but I have been thinking about this quite carefully. The purpose of tabling this amendment is to ask whether my understanding is correct. If it is, I think it would be very helpful for that to be said explicitly.

New subsection (8), which says that the surcharge could exceed the costs of the listed persons, relates to a specific application, so the charge does not have to be set so as not to exceed the costs of the work done in relation to any individual application. New subsection (6) tells us that, in effect, it is not just taking one year with another or looking at the costs, but looking at costs across all of these activities and applications, and that, overall, the listed persons should not receive more by way of income from the surcharge than meets their costs. I hope that the explanation of the Bill is precisely that: subsection (8) should only be referenced in relation to an individual application and could not be used to set surcharges so as to provide greater income to statutory consultees or others than the costs they incur dealing with planning applications.