Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 206A, 351ZA and 362 in this group, which also relate to mayoral development corporations. I am supportive of what the Minister is proposing in Amendment 186 and the related amendments. It is helpful to see that there is an established hierarchy between development corporations so that, if the Government establish a development corporation, it trumps a mayoral development corporation, in effect, while a mayoral development corporation trumps a locally led development corporation. However, my amendments raise an additional—and, I hope, helpful—issue.

Before I come on to that, let me say this: the underlying purpose of the development corporations in Part 4 of this Bill is to give mayors, through such corporations, the scope to engage in not just regeneration but development. So mayoral development corporations can be the vehicle for significant new settlements, both as urban extensions and in new sites. That is helpful, too.

Of course, what we do not have in this hierarchy of development corporations is the availability of local authorities to propose locally led development corporations on the same basis as the Government and mayors can do. That was in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but has not yet, with the exception of one of the accountability measures at the back of the section, been brought into force. Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, as I understand it, it is not the Government’s intention to bring into force the further provisions of that Act on locally led development corporations. For the avoidance of doubt, if I am wrong about that, I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us so in her response to this debate.

Members who were attentive to the running list of amendments will recall that I tabled Amendments 204 and 205 back in July. Their purpose is to give other mayors access to the same powers to establish—I should say “propose”, since the Government establish them—mayoral development corporations as are available to the Mayor of London under the Localism Act. This is not to say that mayors do not have any such powers. However, since the Localism Act, they have generally been established under statutory instruments. Some of those have given mayors similar powers to those of the Mayor of London, but there are often gaps; the time pressures on these debates does not permit me the pleasure of examining precisely which gaps have been identified and for which mayors, but that does not matter. The point is that my Amendments 204 and 205 had the objective of giving mayors—all mayors—the same powers as are available to the London mayor.

I then found, when the Government published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the other place, that Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill provided for other mayors to have the same powers as the London mayor. It struck me that, under those circumstances, there was no merit in my continuing to push Amendments 204 and 205, so I withdrew them. It further struck me that, if we provide for other mayors to have those powers under the English devolution Bill, it will run to a slower timetable than this Bill.

Therefore, Amendment 206A, which would bring into the Bill the new schedule proposed in Amendment 351ZA, is drafted in the same terms, substantially, as the Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It would have the same effect—to give mayors generally the same powers as the London mayor—but it would do so in this Bill. Instead of waiting until some time next year—a time to be determined—and given that this is the Government’s number one legislative priority and that we are going to debate into the night if we have to, we can be confident that the provision would reach the statute book this year.

Based on the past experience of the unwillingness of Ministers to bring provisions of Bills that we have passed into force, Amendment 362 requires that the provision be brought into force within two months after the passing of this Bill. Therefore, we would be looking at all mayors having the powers by the early part of next year. This is important and relevant because we are already beyond the point at which the New Towns Taskforce said that it would publish its recommendations, including sites for new towns. It said in its interim report that it would publish the final report and recommendations in the summer; it is definitely now no longer the summer. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it will do so shortly, as there is a degree of planning blight associated with their not being published. There is benefit to delivering on the objective to build more homes if we publish them sooner rather than later.

I hope that this Bill will secure Royal Assent this year—ideally, by the end of November—and that, by the end of January, with the inclusion of Amendment 206A and the proposed new schedule, the mayors will have access to those powers by the end of January.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 195A and to our probing opposition to Clause 93 standing part of the Bill.

Starting with Amendment 195A, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant in practice by the provision that allows a development corporation to

“do anything necessary … for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.

How is such a wide power to be defined, limited and safeguarded in its use? I would be grateful for a clear answer on that point.

Turning to Clause 93 more broadly, I make it clear that we are supportive of development corporations. Our concern is to understand more fully how they are intended to function under the Bill and to ensure that they are established on a sound and accountable footing.

I ask the Minister how local accountability will be preserved under the changes to the development corporations, given that they already have the ability to operate across multiple non-contiguous sites, an ability that will no doubt take on greater significance with the advance of devolution. How will such corporations function in practice alongside devolution? What safeguards will be in place to avoid confusion or diluted accountability, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation? This question seems especially pressing in the light of the changes that may arise from the forthcoming English devolution Bill, which your Lordships’ House will be considering in the coming months. How will the Government ensure that the role of development corporations sits coherently alongside wider reforms to local and regional governance?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will make just one point. While I very much agree on the necessity of accurate and supportive assessments of the needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities, alongside that, and as part of that, I hope that the needs of show people will not be forgotten. As a Member of Parliament, I had the pleasure of having quite a substantial show people site, which was developed from what was previously a Traveller site, and they were extremely good neighbours. Their needs should be taken into account. I do not want to see us in a situation where the loss of a Traveller site is treated as a detriment if, as in our case, it is converted for use by show people to come and go on a long-term basis. That actually was very successful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this group of amendments, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. On these Benches, we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that Gypsy and Traveller communities have access to appropriate accommodation. However, we do not believe—to put it bluntly—that these amendments are the right way forward. Local authorities already have duties under existing planning and housing law to assess accommodation needs across their communities, including those of Gypsies and Travellers.

To impose further statutory duties of the kind envisaged in these amendments risks unnecessary duplication and centralisation, adding bureaucracy without improving outcomes. We believe that the better course is to ensure that the current framework is properly enforced, rather than creating new and overlapping obligations. For that reason, we cannot offer our support to these amendments; nevertheless, we look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and to support my noble friend Lady Hodgson in her Amendment 215. I will focus on villages.

The Committee will recall that the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the purposes of the green-belt policy, one of which—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, may not entirely agree that it is working—is to restrict the sprawl of large built-up areas. That essentially is where the London green belt really came from. Having absorbed Hampstead Heath, Dulwich Village and Wimbledon and so on, the question was: how far is this all going to go?

Let us accept that but what is interesting is that the NPPF goes on in paragraph 143(b) to say that another purpose is

“to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another”;

“towns” is the key word here. Separately, and I note it because otherwise the Minister would be on my case to refer to it, paragraph 150 says:

“If it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt”.


I submit that that is essentially about the character of that village from landscape and related points of view, rather than anything to do with its relationship to any other settlement, or its history.

We tend to focus on the National Planning Policy Framework, but we should bear in mind that it was followed in February this year by further guidance, which in three respects looked at those purposes and tried to categorise the contributions to the purposes in various respects. It is interesting that one of the three purposes is about urban sprawl. It says that

“villages should not be considered large built-up areas”,

which seems obvious, but the point is that the guidance selects villages to be excluded from this purpose. Under “Preventing neighbourhood towns merging”, it goes on to say “towns, not villages”. In the third purpose, relating to the setting of historic towns, it says:

“This purpose relates to historic towns, not villages”.


What have historic villages done to make themselves so unpopular from this point of view? Why are historic villages not important in the same way as historic towns—and, for that matter, historic cities?

Ministers, including the Minister responding to this debate, will not recall previous debates in which I was very supportive of green-belt reviews. We had a green-belt review in Cambridge and, if we had not had one nearly 20 years ago, we would not have the Cambridge Biomedical Campus that we have today—we gave up green-belt land. I declare an interest in that I was Member of Parliament there, so I had to represent both sides of the argument, and I am currently chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, so I have skin in that game too. Nearly 20 years ago, we gave up a significant part of the green belt to enable that to happen. Subsequently, a planning application came through for development to the west side of the Trumpington Road, which would have built on to Grantchester Meadows. We resisted that, because it was not necessary to take the development across the Trumpington Road and nor was it necessary for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The central point is that Cambridge would not be regarded as a large built-up area for this purpose, but it would have reached out and this would have meant the coalescence of Cambridge with Grantchester, a historic village. The same could apply to somewhere such as Bladon, in relation to Oxford.

This is about the coalescence of settlements and a recognition that the historic setting of a historic city, town or village should be protected. Can Ministers agree to continue to look at the definitions of towns and villages, and the way villages are being excluded from any protections, whereas towns are included? This is not an immaterial issue; it has been the subject of a number of appeals to inspectors and they have more or less said—I paraphrase—“Okay, this is a village. It is not a town and therefore it does not have protection”. There are circumstances in which villages should have protection; they have an openness of character and contribute to the green belt for landscape purposes, but in specific instances the nature of that village as a settlement should be recognised in relation to its historic role.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for raising this important issue of village and specific land protection.

We fully appreciate the intention behind seeking to make better use of underused land by the Government, but concerns remain about the potential impact of such changes on the wider countryside and, crucially, on the identity of our villages. Although this matter may not directly be in scope of the Bill, it clearly interacts with it, and I hope Ministers will continue to reflect very carefully on the balance between flexibility in planning and long-standing protections afforded to rural communities.

In particular, I draw attention to Amendment 215, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. This is an important amendment, which states:

“Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate”


to those afforded to towns. I will not go into an explanation, because that has been given clearly and concisely by my noble friend Lord Lansley. However, it is important specifically in relation to preventing villages merging into one another, and in preserving the setting and special characteristic of many of our historic villages, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

We must ensure that village identity is properly protected. Rural communities are not simply pockets of houses; they are places with history, distinctiveness and a character that contributes immeasurably to our national heritage, and to the lives of the people who live there. This is a firmly held view on these Benches. I shall not detain your Lordships’ House by rehearsing our manifesto, but we will continue to stand up for the green belt and for all our villages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Banner for raising this issue through Amendment 169. His last point was that this is the second piece of planning legislation since the Hillside judgment in 2022. The earlier legislation was the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. My noble friend was not in your Lordships’ House at the time of its consideration but he will no doubt have noted that Section 110 of the Act provides for the insertion of new Section 73B into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the purpose of which is to say that material variations are permitted, as long as they are not substantially different from the original permission.

What reading the legislation will not tell him is that, during the course of the debate on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I introduced an original amendment, the purpose of which was to restore the law to the Pilkington principle—in effect that overlapping permissions would be lawful, as long as the subsequent permission sought did not render the original permission no longer physically capable of being implemented. My noble friend on the Front Bench, then the Minister, may recall that the Government at the time did not accept it, but did accept that they should legislate. There is a difference between Section 110 and the Pilkington principle. There are, in practice, quite a lot of cases in which the permission that is sought does not render the original permission incapable but would substantially amend the original permission, and does not meet the narrow test of being not substantially different from the original permission.

It was not all that I was looking for but it was considerable progress in the right direction. It was important, because a judgment subsequent to Hillside, as my noble friend will recall, said that the original planning permissions in these cases were not severable. You cannot go in, take some part of an original permission and amend it, and treat the rest of the permission as being valid. The whole permission needs to be sought all over again, which is exactly what has caused a substantial part of the problem that my noble friend has benefitted from, in the professional sense, because there are so many such permissions that would otherwise have to be sought all over again.

I agree with my noble friend that something more needs to be done. I happen not to agree with his drafting of Amendment 169. We would be better off saying of overlapping permissions that, where the later permission does not render the original permission wholly incapable of being implemented, it would remain lawful, otherwise you run the risk of inconsistent, overlapping planning permissions, which is not a place we wish to get to. It would also be entirely helpful if the amendment to be introduced would make it clear that, for the purposes of this, the original planning permission is severable—you can have a drop-in permission.

I hope my noble friend would agree with all of that. More to the point, I hope Ministers will agree that we have not solved this problem. In particular, we have not solved the problem as Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, bringing in the new Section 73B, has not been brought into force. I have asked this question before and had a positive answer, and so I hope it is the Government’s intention to bring Section 110 into force, and I hope that can be done soon. At the same time, I suggest that my noble friend comes back to this issue on Report and perhaps brings us an amendment capable of amending the new Section 73B to restore the Pilkington principle and enable planning permissions that would otherwise relate to the same overall red line to be severable for the purposes of a material change in planning permissions.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for bringing to our attention the practical implications of the Hillside judgment within Amendment 169 today. These are complex issues, but his amendment shines a clear light on the risks to developers and local authorities alike, and the potential chilling effect on much-needed projects. It is precisely at moments like these that the Government should lean on the wisdom and experience of noble Lords who understand the realities of these issues on the ground.

We have had the benefit of meeting my noble friend Lord Banner privately to discuss these matters in detail. That conversation was extremely valuable in setting out the issues so clearly, and we are grateful for his time and expertise. We will continue to work with him to ensure that these concerns are properly addressed. I very much hope the Minister will give a positive and constructive reply and that the concerns raised today will be fully taken into account.