Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to rise to speak to the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill—second last, as I am sure that noble Lords are aware. There is much to commend in the Bill, easing the path to building more homes for the people in this country and allowing strengthening of our infrastructure.

Before I begin, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a farmer and landowner, an owner of residential development land, a developer of commercial property, renewable energy infrastructure and new forests, and an investor in natural capital-related businesses: Agricarbon, Cecil Earth, John Deere and Circular FX.

Planning goes to the heart of how homes are supplied. I hope that the Minister will consider the means by which we bolster much-needed supply, including the supply of planning officers, as many noble Lords have mentioned. We are deeply concerned about the proposed national scheme of delegation, which would remove councillors’ ability to vote on individual planning applications. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook set out earlier, democratic accountability matters, especially when it comes to housebuilding. Many noble Lords clearly agree.

Local consent, legitimacy and trust are essential to delivering not just more homes, but the right homes. While the planning system is part of the problem in the housing shortage and slow and expensive delivery of critical infrastructure, we must also address cost of delivery, heavily impacted by inflation on labour and materials; increasing energy-efficiency regulations; tighter environmental regulations; and accessibility and safety requirements. All these add to the cost, and we need to question whether we can truly afford all of them.

Housing affordability has also been impacted by the increase in mortgage rates, thanks to inflation and this Government’s forecast expenditure remaining at 45% of GDP over this Parliament, even with optimistic productivity forecasts, undermining financial markets’ confidence. What plans do the Government have to reduce the cost of building new homes and providing their infrastructure to make houses more affordable? Does the Minister intend to drive down new and existing house prices by creating a larger supply of houses than can be absorbed by the market at current prices? The housebuilders have received a bruising this evening, but what proportion of the 1.5 million target is expected to be supplied by the private housebuilding sector and what by the public sector?

I would like to focus on the environmental aspects of the Bill, set out in Part 3. While a nature restoration levy may appear to be a welcome simplification of the environmental conditions attached to the planning system, this is a problem that is more imaginary than real. As Richard Benwell from Wildlife and Countryside Link said in giving evidence to the other place:

“It is worth noting that Natural England reckons that 99% of the housing applications that it is consulted on go through perfectly properly; only 1% receive objections on the basis of environmental concerns. It is also worth noting that … the long-term trend is that only 10% of major infrastructure projects are challenged”.


Where is the problem that the Government are trying to fix with a radical overhaul of how environmental damage is dealt with in planning? Is this really because the Government resent £100 million being spent on a bat tunnel, or because the previous Opposition, now Government, rejected our amendment to the levelling-up Bill, which would have removed the blockage by Natural England advice on nutrient neutrality rules of well over 100,000 houses?

The fingerprints of Natural England are all over those instances, and I support my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lady Coffey and others in questioning whether Natural England should really be allowed to build an authoritarian empire to deliver these EDPs. Natural England will have forcible powers of entry, the ability to set its own fees, and uncontrolled compulsory purchase order powers, extending even to gardens and allotments. This does not seem right. We will be seeking to remove or restrict these powers and to challenge the role of Natural England in Committee.

We hear major concerns about Part 3 of this Bill from the National Trust, the NFU, the Wildlife Trusts, the Woodland Trust, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Better Planning Coalition, the CPRE, the CLA, the RSPB and many more—I do not think I have ever come across an issue on which they were united. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, highlighted, even the supposed beneficiaries are very concerned about Part 3 of the Bill. Many noble Lords from all Benches have added their voices today, and I hope the Government are listening to this debate and the negative response to Part 3 from all those organisations with deep domain expertise.

The Office for Environmental Protection has been cited in passing by a number of noble Lords. In its letter to the Government, it said that

“aiming to improve environmental outcomes overall, whilst laudable, is not the same as maintaining in law high levels of protection for specific habitats and species. In our considered view, the Bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”—

the Environment Act.

“As drafted, the provisions are a regression.”

I have a number of amendments that would have the effect of underpinning the Environment Act and simplifying the interrelationship between legacy EU law and our own law, which has driven confusion. I hope the Minister will take these in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.

The apparent removal of the mitigation hierarchy, mentioned by many noble Lords, appears to lead to the potential for a complete loss of protection for key environmental features, which is both a destruction of nature but also a loss of access to that nature for local communities. The requirements on the Secretary of State are very weak, with only a “likely” overall improvement in the same type of feature over 10 years—a vanishingly small amount of time in the lifespans of ecosystems, let alone trees, and a very low bar for decision-making. This does not fill the House with confidence, and we would be interested in working with all noble Lords to strengthen these environmental protections and restore the mitigation hierarchy in the Bill.

I question whether it is appropriate that the nature restoration levy should be used for compulsory purchase by Natural England. Why should developers funding EDPs be subsidising the Government’s acquisition of land? In the other place, we suggested this should fall to the Treasury, and I expect to repeat those arguments in more depth in Committee.

The Secretary of State in the other place mentioned that

“we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income”.—[Official Report, Commons, Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 15/5/25; col. 427.]

That is a generous sentiment but, as my noble friend Lord Lucas highlighted, nowhere in this Bill do I see any requirement for Natural England to consult with land managers and farmers, or to work with them on delivering environmental improvement within EDPs. At a time when the Government have imposed the family farm death tax, slashed delinked payments and slammed shut SFI applications, I am surprised that the Government do not look to allow farmers and landowners to provide these services commercially to developers or Natural England.

To add insult to injury, the publication of this Bill has chilled the biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality markets, undermining an existing business activity for many farmers. I join my noble friend Lord Goldsmith in asking the Minister how she sees Part 3 of the Bill relating to those markets? What role can they play if developers are forced to pay the nature restoration levy without the option of their own full or partial mitigation activities, either on-site or through these existing markets?

The Minister was unable to tell me, in an Answer to a Written Question, what levy rate developers will be required to pay nor how large the nature restoration fund is likely to be. I wonder whether the Government have given more thought to this and whether they can answer those questions now. How can we be confident this will not undermine the financial viability of developments or, as other noble Lords have mentioned, be used as an excuse to reduce other contributions made by developers?

Moving outside of Part 3 of the Bill and addressing other concerns that impact on the environment and rural community, I have been confused by comments from the Minister and her officials in meetings, and by the Secretary of State, in their descriptions of when they see compulsory purchase orders being used without hope value. I would be most grateful if the Minister could lay out exactly those circumstances.

Depending on the answer to the previous question, I also ask the Minister how this Bill really can be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, given that it allows the compulsory purchase of property at beneath its market price. Let me remind the House of the Council of Europe’s explanation of the ECHR:

“Under the European Convention on Human Rights, people have the right to possess property that is lawfully theirs. Governments cannot take property away without proper reasons - and neither can other people. For example, if a government takes land away from someone for public use, the former owner has to be properly compensated”.

In response to a Written Question, the Government helpfully cited that in 2024, local authorities used CPOs 54 times and others used them seven times. Can the Minister indicate what increase in frequency of CPOs is expected, both by Natural England and other bodies with CPO powers? Will these CPO powers be used on land already controlled by housebuilders, by Forestry England, by university colleges or by the Church? Who is excluded, apart from the Crown Estate?

I expect we will also address in Committee whether the Government have got right the balance and extent of compensation to landowners and occupants. Agricultural tenants invest heavily in equipment, buildings, soil, and indeed their businesses. Their economic loss as a result of a CPO is very material. To back up my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, I highlight that the Bill provides no protection to our best and most versatile land that is responsible for much of our food security, alongside reducing protections for other land.

The Bill is attracting considerable attention in this House and beyond. As His Majesty’s Official Opposition, we intend to play a detailed and constructive role in improving the Bill and helping to deliver a better outcome for all stakeholders. Noble Lords have raised considerable concerns, many reflecting those of rural representation groups and conservation bodies. I am grateful to the Minister for conceding that there is scope for strengthening the Bill, suggesting an openness to constructive amendments.

There have been many contributions over the course of the evening. Given the hour, I will return to those in Committee. We hope that the Government are able to take a co-operative approach, engaging with all Members of this House, and have an open mind to amendments that will allow better delivery of houses and infrastructure while restoring nature and protecting those impacted by development. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

176: Clause 25, page 41, line 35, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe why the government has sought to remove section 25(1) of the 1988 Act completely.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 176 and speak also to Amendment 177, in my name. Before I begin, I refer the Committee to my interests as set out in the register, as a farmer, landowner and residential landlord. In particular, I have a number of houses occupied by employees under assured agricultural occupancies.

These two amendments are probing amendments, intended to allow the Committee to understand better how the Government sees these provisions of the Bill operating and also to probe whether the impact of the Bill in this area may have unintended consequences that need to be resolved. Before moving on to the detail of the discussion, I shall follow my noble friend Lady Scott, who on an earlier group underlined the importance of being able to offer on-site accommodation to agricultural employees.

I have three herdspeople, and one relief herdswoman, who rise daily at around 3.30 in the morning to milk. Being a short walk from the herd and the parlour is critical to their employment conditions. Those herdspeople also take primary responsibility for animal health within the herds, as well as the linked young stock. Again, being on site is vital to allow frequent inspections of the animals to ensure that they are doing well. There is also an important security consideration in having employees on site and able to deal with any malicious trespass, animal escapes and so on.

In short, this may not be a matter of huge general interest, but it is critical to farming in general, and to livestock farming in particular, that accommodation is available on site for these employees. When they leave, it needs to be available for their successors. However, we must also recognise that farm workers may have lived for many years, and even decades, in a community, and that options for them to stay in the area even when employment ends are desirable.

Beginning with Amendment 176, my Explanatory Notes indicate that leaving out this paragraph is intended to probe why the Government have sought to remove Section 25(1) of the 1988 Act completely. Since the 1988 Act, it appears that agricultural occupiers with an assured agricultural occupancy are entitled to remain in that occupation, even if they leave the employment of the landlord, as long as they remain in agricultural employment.

Omitting this subsection could mean that agricultural occupiers retain protection even after their qualifying employment ends. I ask the Minister whether that is the intention. The subsection may be being removed because it refers to fixed-term tenancies, which the Government are seeking to abolish in the Bill. However, in this case, it is linked to fixed-term employment. It appears that the Government may not have considered the importance of this link and the necessity for landlords to be able to recover agricultural accommodation linked to employment. I also ask what impact this will have on assured agricultural occupants in tied agricultural dwellings where, if they are no longer employed in agriculture, it may well be a breach of planning regulations.

Amendment 177 is a similar probing amendment. Ground 16, for recovering possession of an assured agricultural occupancy at the end of employment, was omitted from the Housing Act 1988. This created a headache for agricultural employers, but in practice its implications have been rather limited, as departing employees often leave for other employment with accommodation included, or because the open market rent for quality rural accommodation tends to be unaffordably high for those working in agriculture.

In the Renters’ Rights Bill, the Government have continued to omit the ability to recover accommodation at the end of employment—or at least that is what I thought. On an earlier group, the Minister said that

“we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A”.—[Official Report, 24/4/25; col. 859.]

However, it does not appear that ground 5A is applicable to landlords and assured agricultural occupants to ensure that houses can be recovered at the end of employment, as it is omitted as being a ground. I would be most grateful to the Minister if she could explain how she sees it working in practice for agricultural employers to recover vital accommodation at the end of employment.

These assured agricultural occupiers will also gain greater protection, given that grounds 2ZC and 2ZB are not available for use. I ask the Minister why the Government think this is appropriate. Why are agricultural landlords being treated differently from other landlords and are not able to regain possession of the properties after the landlord changes under Section 18 of the Housing Act 1988 or after taking over a tenancy?

In a previous group, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, argued for making grounds 2ZC and 2ZB discretionary. In our view, this introduction of legal uncertainty would make the complexity even worse. From my limited exposure to this Bill, I am not sure how easily anyone will be able to administer all tenancies captured by it without a law degree. This discretion may elevate that base level of expertise to actually practising at the Bar. Given that it is largely estate agents and land agents who manage tenancies, it is important to make the Bill’s provisions as clear-cut as possible.

I also ask the Minister whether the Government have considered the impact of this Bill on a particular practice that we believe will deliver unintended consequences. Many agricultural employers, when housing employees, have understandably sought to avoid creating assured agricultural occupancies by serving notice before a tenancy begins and classifying that tenancy as an assured shorthold tenancy. This allowed serving a Section 21 notice with certainty that the house could be recovered at the end of employment to ensure it was available for the next employee. As a consequence of this Bill, those employees or tenants will now gain what appears to be greater protection than originally intended. Would the Minister consider adding a provision to allow landlords and employees in this position to change the status of those tenancies, potentially to assured agricultural occupancies, before the Bill takes effect? I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 182. I am a great supporter of the policy of right to buy and right to acquire. I think it is one of the best policies of the past 50 years, making sure that people had investment in their communities and were able to determine exactly how different things in their homes looked. Basically, it made sure that we had a greater proportion of owner-occupiers.

During my time as a Member of Parliament, I had not realised that, in effect, there had been discrimination against people living in the countryside. I discovered this when busily propagating some of the latest policies that my party was putting forward and had it said to me very squarely on a doorstep in a particular housing estate in Rendlesham in Suffolk. I was told that I was doing a load of good, but, frankly, it meant nothing to them because they had already tried to acquire their housing association home and had been told that they could not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We hope to provide more financial sustainability to housing associations through our funding mechanisms, which I hope will prevent them having to do that. The Government have no current plans to change the right to acquire. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, in particular to my noble friend Lady Coffey for her comments on agricultural tie dwellings. I am also grateful to the Minister for providing a very helpful clarification. The question mark remains about what happens to dwellings that have an agricultural restriction on them which are occupied by agricultural employees after they cease to be agricultural employees but may be protected in their tenancy under the Bill. I hope she might write to me on that but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 176 withdrawn.