Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Thornhill

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 135E—in another streamlined contribution—which is self-explanatory. I also speak to Amendment 135HZA in the name of noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who is sadly not in her place due to the hour; we believe it definitely has some merit.

The emphasis for this amendment comes very strongly from our commitment on these Benches to community engagement and, more importantly, from the fact that the community has never before been so apparently disengaged from the need to build houses and engaged instead in full blown opposition.

The pandemic changed everything, including how we did meetings. The one positive thing that is said is that remote council meetings increased the opportunities for planning committees to hear views from a far more diverse group of participants, because they were more accessible to a wider audience.

Several paragraphs have been chopped here. My amendment simply states that the Government would require local planning authorities to make their meetings available for observation and participation online—that latter word is key. It does allow for a degree of local authority autonomy in the way that it decides to allow such participation in meetings. It is not the intention of the amendment to be prescriptive, nor to favour one particular means over another. The purpose of the amendment is that meetings have to be recorded and should be kept for posterity. They could be used in appeals or public inquiries and are genuinely an accurate record of what was actually said.

The public being able to contribute is the key thing, and I believe that, unless this is mandatory, those councils that are not doing this will not choose to do so without compulsion. There are still a number of councils, around 15%, that do not even record their meetings, but, for the 85% that do, they are not always webcast in a way that people can participate in. It should also be said that many councils recognise a range of benefits from providing online availability for questions at meetings, so we must ask ourselves why these other councils are dragging their heels. Surely, giving more means to the public to participate, in a much less formal way than giving a five-minute presentation at the beginning of what can be, for many, a daunting meeting—which is what is afforded at most planning meetings that I have experienced—has got to be a benefit and make communities feel that their voice is being heard. It should be something we want all councils to do.

We know that there is plenty of research, particularly that done by the RTPI, that shows that digital transformation can help various groups, the young in particular. Half the people in the RTPI’s most recent survey said that being able to respond digitally would make them more likely to get involved in the system—and maybe we might then get some yimbys joining in the housing debate.

The Greater London Authority and the Local Government Association have been pioneering this. There are lots of good examples and good practice that we can learn from. This would particularly help people living in rural areas, who may have a long journey to get to meetings or be disadvantaged by poor public transport. It would better accommodate the needs of those with work or caring responsibilities, and people with personal or protected characteristics who may find online attendance or viewing much more accessible than turning up to the fairly stiff formal council meeting. That is why we believe this clause should be mandatory across all authorities.

The situation with regard to the public and planning has never been worse. Anything we can do to improve that has got to be tried, but we fear some local authorities will need the final push of mandatory provision to make it happen. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene, not least on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She is not here to speak to her amendment but, as a number of noble Lords will recall, she and I worked together during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill on amendments to the same effect. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will recall that she led an amendment for this purpose, all to the effect of bringing us firmly into the post-pandemic, 21st-century manner of holding meetings, enabling local authorities to hold virtual meetings. There are many reasons for that, which I will not rehearse.

I remind noble Lords, and especially the limited number of us who were here for the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, that we went into ping-pong on this issue on the basis of the amendment at the time from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It was sent back to the other place on a second occasion with a narrow majority in this House, which included the Minister responding to this debate. The then Opposition committed themselves in principle to virtual meetings. I hope they will see that through now.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Thornhill

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 192, which stands on its own in this group, relates to an issue that we debated briefly in Committee. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott for the time and attention that she has given to this subject, and indeed to our friend in the other place, the Housing and Planning Minister, who responded to a letter from me and Councillor Roger Gough of the County Councils Network in the early part of August. In all those exchanges Ministers have been very sympathetic, so I preface my remarks by hoping that I might get a sympathetic reply on this occasion, notwithstanding the hour—or perhaps because of it; who knows?

The purpose of this amendment concerns the point in Schedule 7 relating to plan-making. I entirely support the Government’s intention in enabling local planning authorities to work together to create joint spatial development strategies. They have set this out in a very positive way, and this is a very important step forward. I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, telling us earlier about structure plans; in my area, as I remember it, there was SCEALA—the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities—and its regional spatial strategies. As we all know, the truth is that in many of our areas individual planning authorities simply do not have the literal geographic, demographic or economic scope to undertake the kind of spatial development strategies that we know we need. They may come together as planning authorities for this purpose, and the joint spatial development strategies in Schedule 7 allow that to happen.

However, a spatial development strategy is more than the combination of the planning responsibilities of local authorities. It encompasses crucial issues relating to the provision of infrastructure, the transport strategies for an area, minerals and waste strategies, and quite often the public health strategies. There is a string of these issues which are not the direct responsibilities of the local planning authority but are the responsibilities of county councils. I will particularly focus on county councils when I come to one or two other tangential issues in a moment.

In our debate in Committee, I think the point we reached was an understanding that, for local planning authorities preparing a joint spatial development strategy to be required before its adoption to make a draft available to a wide range of interested parties—including county councils that are responsible for the area of the strategy—is too late in the process. As the Bill stands, it is quite difficult for the local planning authorities to give a draft to county councils in circumstances where they do not equally make that draft available to other interested parties under that provision of the Bill.

What we are looking for in the Bill is a mechanism by which the county councils can be engaged in the preparation of a joint spatial development strategy—not taking over or in any sense pre-empting the responsibilities of the local planning authorities themselves but enabling those authorities to have the confidence that their joint spatial development strategies will encompass the range of critical issues for making spatial development in an area effective.

The amendment that I have tabled is obviously based on drafts prepared by colleagues in the County Councils Network and has their support. I confess that I slightly amended it at an earlier stage because it is very important.

The House will see that proposed new Clause 15AAA(4) in Amendment 192 is to reference where the following authorities listed

“fall within this subsection if their area or any part of their area is in a Travel to Work Area in which the … spatial development strategy area is located”.

I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, made some helpful remarks in support of that concept. If you are undertaking a spatial development strategy, one of the central things you will look to do to make it effective is for it not just to encompass some of the functional issues of a planning authority but to look at the wider demography and economic geography of a travel to work area.

For example, if you want to think about a transport strategy and the number of jobs that will be created and homes required, in so far as this replaces the duty to co-operate, it is going to be firmly about travel-to-work areas and not just the specifics of the homes required in particular planning authorities.

Okay, there are just two very quick other points I want to raise. I ask my noble friend whether new Section 15AA(5) inserted by Schedule 7—the power for the Secretary of State to prescribe other matters—would stretch far enough for the Secretary of State to prescribe ways in which the local planning authorities preparing SDS have to involve county councils and other authorities in the process. I fear it may not. Only if I can have the assurance will I feel confident that we have what we need.

I turn to my other question. We can now see that my noble friend has tabled Amendment 201B. If I read it correctly, it will allow combined county authorities in certain circumstances to take on planning responsibilities. I would like to understand this a bit better. Under those circumstances, the combined county authorities would presumably be able to become participant authorities in a joint spatial development strategy. It is therefore all the more important that, whether or not they are involved in that process as planning authorities, combined county authorities should be, as proposed in my amendment, designated as authorities with which the local planning authorities must work to undertake their activities. I hope my noble friend will be able to give a very positive response to this amendment and I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I support Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. It is supported by my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who cannot be with us tonight. Clearly, I have chatted to her about it. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.

As a previous elected mayor of a district council, I can absolutely understand, from sore and bitter experience, how vital it is that all levels of local authorities participate in the development of joint spatial strategies. As mayor, my frustration grew year on year with the lack of collaboration and consultation with the county council. Perhaps more importantly, I was very aware of the gaps that naturally occur within the two-tier system. I genuinely felt by the end that residents got a worse deal through that system—which is not to say that districts and parishes, which are closest to people, do all the right things. Certainly, I had many a time to feel that, if we were not a two-tier system, things might be better.

It led to both tiers trying to pass the buck and duck responsibility and accountability, and it led to a blame game in the development of politically difficult but essential decisions. I think a lot of the decisions that need to be made to level up areas and improve economic development must be taken on that broader level. However, there were also good times, when working in real partnership made improvements to the whole county. I genuinely believe, being a “glass half full” kind of girl, that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. Indeed, I will say again that it is very necessary for economic development in particular.

In order to have coherent and inclusive provision across an area, all those affected should at least be able to make submissions to the joint spatial development strategy in their area. This not being the case would, in my opinion, be unwise and lead to incomplete provision and, worse than that, conflict, objections and ultimate failure. The authorities are listed in proposed new sub-paragraph (4): “a county council”, “a combined county authority” and

“district councils who are not directly involved in the joint spatial development strategy for the purposes of section 15A”.

If they are not truly engaged, the outcomes will surely be inferior and less effective than an engaged partner.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Thornhill

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 189 in this group also relates to national development management policies. Following a number of debates in Committee in which we tried to explore what national development management policies would look like, I thought it might be helpful to table an amendment that sets what the demarcation is between what NDMPs should and should not be doing. In the spirit of helping my friends on the Front Bench, I think my amendment aims to do what Ministers intend to do, which is not to pre-empt the role of a local planning authority in determining the policies for the use of land in their area for various purposes and the policies to be applied in relation to the overall structure of development in their area; I think they wish to ensure that there is consistency in plan-making and reduction of complexity in the process of determining applications.

My starting point was to look at the National Planning Policy Framework, as I did on a couple of occasions in Committee. Many of its chapters are essentially divided into two parts. The first asks what the policy is in relation to, say, heritage assets, combating flood risks or green belt designation. There then tends to be a secondary series of paragraphs relating to what happens when an application is received and how it is to be determined in relation to that subject. That is true for heritage assets, the green belt and so on. The simplest and most straightforward is the chapter on the green belt, where there are several paragraphs about how an application for planning permission inside the green belt should be dealt with, as distinct from preceding paragraphs that set out the processes by which plan-making should seek to establish the boundaries of the green belt. Similar things happen in other chapters.

That is why I went to the Bill and saw that, at the moment, the legislation gives Ministers the power to set national development management policies of such breadth that they could supplant many of the plan-making and policy-orientated decisions of local authorities. I do not think that is the intention. What I think they are setting out to do is as I have put it in the amendment, so that in Clause 88, which says what a national development management policy is, it would say that an NDMP

“is a policy (however expressed) of the Secretary of State in relation to”,

and then my amendment would insert,

“the processes or criteria by which any determination is to be made under the planning Acts, as regards”

the use of land in England, et cetera. That would mean that it would be confined to the processes and criteria for determining applications, meaning that it is not a policy that can replace a determination of the policy towards the land use and development of land in an area. That is the prerogative of the local planning authority.

I think that is what Ministers are setting out to do and I think that is how the benefits are to be derived, but it is not what the statute says. The statute gives Ministers much wider powers. As my noble friend Lord Deben said in his helpful intervention, we do not know what future Ministers might think; they might think something much more intrusive and much more pre-emptive of the policy-making decisions of local planning authorities. If you take over plan-making in a plan-led system then you effectively take over the allocation of land and development right across the country; you can effectively control it. In my view, we need to be very clear. I hoped that Ministers would find Amendment 189 a helpful clarification, and I put it into this group on that basis.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the facts around our concerns regarding NDMPs have been very well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, so I will not waste the time of the House repeating them. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, shows the real dilemma around content and demarcation with regard to NDMPs and local plans. Together, these amendments demonstrate just how much uncertainty and potential for conflict there is regarding this bold and radical change. These concerns are expressed across all parties and sectors, which is why I believe that the amendment in my name is crucial to allaying some of these very legitimate concerns.

My amendment would ensure that NDMPs receive full public and parliamentary scrutiny. It was drafted by the Better Planning Coalition and is supported by the RTPI, the National Trust, CPRE, Friends of the Earth, the TCPA and many other organisations. National development management plans could and should be a bold and positive possibility to reform the system radically, or they could be a centralising power grab designed to minimise the voice of the community. Whichever view noble Lords and those organisations take individually, what unites them is that they agree that this is an important amendment for one very strong and principled reason.

As drafted, NDMPs come with no minimum public consultation or parliamentary scrutiny requirements. Please just let that sink in: there is no agreed consultation and scrutiny process enshrined in the legislation. This greatly heightens the risk that they will turn out to be a power grab rather than a positive reform.

To add further to our concern, and as has been expressed by other noble Lords, the contents of NDMPs are as yet undefined. We have a blank page. We may well be able to guess some of the content from some of the NPPF consultation, but ostensibly we still do not know what it is going to be.

It is worth reminding ourselves of what Clause 88 says. It states:

“A ‘national development management policy’ is a policy (however expressed) of the Secretary of State in relation to the development or use of land in England”.


Note those very powerful words, “however expressed”. We are used to being asked to agree a process of accepting policies of national importance when we do not know what they are and there is no formal right to parliamentary scrutiny. As of now, those policies could relate to absolutely anything. We may have some familiarity with them, but what we do not know is whether they are going to be tweaked, changed a bit or replaced by completely new policies. The level of uncertainty is just not acceptable.

The Minister will no doubt say that Clause 87 imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that consultation, which is not defined, takes place on NDMPs, but—and it is a big but—the legislation also allows Ministers the discretion to define exactly what consultation is appropriate for their policies. This cannot be right.