Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have a question about the amendment that the Minister has just moved to Clause 65. She will recall from the debates on Report that there is a whole structure in Clause 63 that is designed to allow Natural England, when making an environmental delivery plan, to focus on one environmental feature and, in relation to that feature, to focus on one negative effect of the development on it. It is structured so that the others are excluded, notwithstanding the wise insertion into that clause of material relating to water, nutrient neutrality et cetera. The new amendment, where the Secretary of State can make regulations relating to prioritisation, does not refer to the negative effect on development identified in an environmental delivery plan, but it talks about

“addressing any negative effect of development on a protected species or on a protected feature of a protected site”.

To boil that down, my question is: is it the intention that the Secretary of State’s regulations would look at only the negative effect of development on a protected feature that is identified in an EDP, or is it, at an earlier stage, setting out prioritisation in relation to what may be the negative effects of a development on a particular feature? I am afraid that it makes a significant difference when and how the prioritisation comes into effect.

While I am on my feet, I say a big thank you to the Minister and her officials for the several—in fact, many—occasions on which they have provided helpful guidance and advice on the interpretation of the Act, but I reiterate my continuing request that we be told when the powers that are relevant to the implementation of this Bill but are contained in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act are to be commenced or, more to the point, implemented. She knows that we are waiting on many of these and that they are as significant as some of the planning measures in the Bill itself.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to thank the Minister for her engagement and her reassurance on the exercise of CPO powers and the engagement of the private sector.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

Gosh, that was brief. I will say a few words on behalf of our Benches. I apologise that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is stuck—there are no trains anywhere—so the House will have me, very briefly.

We have been pleased with the engagement that we have had with the Ministers throughout Report and leading up to Third Reading today, which has brought about some important changes in the Bill, including on the issue of how we plan for electric vehicles in infrastructure, and the commitment that the Minister has made to look again at spatial standards for housing so that hopefully we can ensure that more young homeless people can find accommodation in the future.

The amendment that the Minister ably introduced—I am grateful for the many meetings about it that she and colleagues had with me and other Peers on these Benches—tries to give us reassurance that the environment will have the safeguards that are needed in this new process of strategic planning. I am particularly grateful that she has brought forward regulations—not guidance, which was an issue of concern—because we need regulations to provide the necessary clarity and transparency for those of us who are concerned about the need for environmental safeguards and the appropriate way in which the negative effects of developments will be addressed.

Can the Minister make clear how the mitigation hierarchy, a very well-established environmental principle which has served this country and indeed many countries around the world so well for so long, will apply in this new approach to strategic level planning for housing? How the mitigation hierarchy in this new process of EDPs will provide the necessary safeguards for the environment?

It is my hope that it will reduce the risk of viable impact avoidance and mitigation solutions being overlooked—I say it is my hope; at this stage, that is all it can be. However, it will definitely make it much clearer for those of us concerned about the environment just how Natural England will make its decisions. What evidence will it use in order to move forward with EDPs? That will give us some reassurance that the environmental protections will be in place. If they are not, we know there will be legal challenge. That is neither in the interests of the developers or, indeed, of the environment that will suffer.

It is a compromise on the amendment I introduced on Report, and I accept that. For some, will be a compromise too far; I accept that as well. I am a Liberal Democrat and prepared to face the political reality and the evidence that this Government believe this new approach with EDPs will deliver the housebuilding that we all want, while at the same time giving us on these Benches and others some security that the environmental backstops will be in place. That is what we need and what our ever-diminishing wildlife and habitats desperately need.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

208: Leave out Clause 90

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to my Amendment 231A. I address Amendment 208 individually, rather than as a group as in Committee, because the facts have changed following the CG Fry Supreme Court judgment. This creates an opportunity to accelerate home building, which the Bill currently threatens to eliminate unnecessarily. I will speak to the application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites from the Back Benches, and leave the policy area of housebuilding to my Front-Bench colleagues, as it is their speciality. My amendments would remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill, preventing the legal imposition of the habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. Before I go on, I refer the House to my register of interests as an owner of development land, which, as far as I know, is not impacted by nutrient neutrality or Ramsar.

We in government chose to apply the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites through policy as a well-intentioned move to recognise the special international status of these wetland sites. I do not see evidence that our largest neighbours, such as France and Germany, have chosen to do the same. Since then, we have all watched in horror as Natural England’s advice on nutrient neutrality within the habitats regulations has led to as many as 160,000 new homes being blocked. We know that 18,000 of these are through the application of the habitats regulations to the Ramsar site on the Somerset Levels. I and my noble friends have asked the Government several times: how many more homes than this 18,000 are currently blocked by the unnecessary application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites? I hope that we can receive that answer today.

The CG Fry judgment, that simply adopting this as policy does not carry legal weight, was right. The habitats regulations derived from EU law and were designed to apply to sites with protection under EU law and no further. Natural England has been able to advise for years that specific land should have SPA or SAC designation and be brought under the habitats regulations. The fact that many Ramsar sites have only partial or no protection as European sites is because, so far, Natural England has judged that they do not need it. Ramsar sites already have protection under paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework. If, after the CG Fry judgment, Natural England were to advise that more European designations were necessary on the Ramsar sites and the Government accepted that, the habitat regulations would apply at that point. Should my amendment be passed, I am sure that Natural England will want to evaluate that point, and I would urge it to be highly scientific and evidence-based in that process, because the eyes of those needing houses will be on them.

The Natural England advice in the CG Fry case relating to the Ramsar site was not even that development would add to the level of phosphates in the Somerset Levels but that it would slow the rate of improvement in phosphate levels. Natural England had no objection based on the SPA designation for the Somerset Levels. This appears to be a pretty tenuous argument.

I urge the Government to accept my amendments, not to blindly block new housebuilding, and allow the habitats regulations to perform more closely to their original intention. Clause 90 and Schedule 6 unnecessarily and voluntarily gold-plate the application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites, for which they were not intended, to the detriment of the broader interests of our country. Without my amendments, this planning Bill, designed to accelerate housebuilding and growth, will actually block housebuilding. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I have heard time and again during the passage of this Bill from the Government Front Bench that this is a Bill to streamline the obstacles for anybody who wants to get anything done in this country. That is what Amendment 208 does, and I support it entirely.

Just under two weeks ago in the Supreme Court, as my noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned, four years of litigation concluded in the Fry case. The case revolved around the protections of Ramsar sites. In essence, the court was asked to judge whether Ramsar sites were subject to the same onerous requirements as sites protected by the EU habitats directive, including the potential for developments to be blocked at the stage of discharging planning conditions, many years after they have obtained that planning permission.

For over 50 years—since 1971, when the Ramsar treaty relating to over 2,500 wetlands in 172 nations was signed in the town of Ramsar in modern day Iran—it has never been the case that EU habitats directives apply to these important places. For that period, over the entire world, Ramsar sites have been protected without any reference to the EU, EU regulations or any of the other state paraphernalia that flows from Brussels. Why would they be? There are 23 such sites in Brazil, six in Cameroon, one in Mongolia, three in Equatorial Guinea and 39 in Japan. The EU is irrelevant to these places.

Natural England, as the Government’s statutory adviser, quite wrongly asserted that EU habitats regulations were relevant when they are not. Do not take my word for it: take the word of the Supreme Court. It concluded that the regulator had no business in making the equivalence between Ramsar and the other nature sites covered by the habitats directive. The Supreme Court held that Ramsar sites were not subject to this level of protection as they fell outside the habitats directive. Twelve days ago, a regulatory burden was lifted. Inexplicably, the Government now seek to undo that pro-growth judgment by bringing the Ramsar sites back within the habitats regulations, even though they fall outside the regulations’ parent directive.

We need a moment to see what has happened here. The justices concluded that Natural England had overreached itself in its advice to government, that it could not interpret the legislation accurately, that it misdirected itself and, crucially, misadvised the entire development industry as to the truth. Natural England’s dossier had the effect of holding up tens of thousands of homes. The evidence before the court in the Fry case was that 18,000 homes had been held up in Somerset alone, many already with planning permission, owing to Natural England’s misplaced concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the amendment would have unintended consequences for the whole of Part 3 of the Bill. Part 2 of Schedule 6 makes a number of crucial consequential amendments to ensure that the NRF is operable, from amending the period of validity of species licences to removing the ability of planning conditions to be deemed discharged. Removing Schedule 6 would therefore not have the targeted effect that some may think it would. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, to my noble friend on the Front Bench for her support and to the Minister for her well thought-through and considered reply.

I have to say that I am not convinced. The fundamental principle of the habitat regulations is that they are supposed to apply to EU-designated sites. Should these Ramsar sites be deserving of that protection, then surely it is up to Natural England to advise the Government that that is the case and to put in place those protections. Without that, it is really not clear why we alone among the major European economies should be choosing to hamper our building in this way.

I am grateful for the detailed response regarding which houses are being held up. These are still material numbers of houses. The effect of the CG Fry judgment alone was to release 650 houses, and, while that may be over a 12-year period, that is still a lot of houses. The country needs those houses, and the Bill is supposed to deliver them. So we on these Benches cannot sit on our hands and watch this happen. Given that the Government are determined to plough ahead with this, I am forced to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 238A in this group, which is in the same terms as an amendment that I tabled and withdrew in Committee, reserving the right to return to it later. I have decided to bring it back for further consideration and will seek to reinforce the arguments for it.

This takes us into the largely unexplored Part 5 of the Bill and concerns the scope of exceptions to home-loss payments in what is now Clause 105. The compulsory acquisition of property, particularly a dwelling, is a drastic step for which clear and proper justification should be required. Normally the person displaced from a property that is his or her dwelling receives the market value of the property, together with compensation by a statutory home loss payment, which provides some modest recognition that the person concerned is being compelled to leave his or her home.

However, in Clause 105, a proposed new section of the 1973 Act stipulates exceptions to the right to a home loss payment when the property has been allowed to get into disrepair or there have been other failures to comply with notices or orders which have been served. Homeowners caught by those exceptions will be denied any home loss payment. Of course, the assessed amount which the individual receives on compulsory purchase will always already reflect the lack of repair. Deprivation of the home loss payment would be therefore in addition to the reduced price reflecting a poor state of repair.

Repairs or improvements to a home may not always get done, for a variety of reasons. There may well be situations in which denial of home loss payments would be justified when there has been a significant, culpable failure to comply with statutory obligations to maintain, repair or safeguard a property wholly or in part. But the proposed list of unqualified exceptions in the Bill as drafted could operate unduly harshly and punitively, taking no account of individual circumstances or any underlying reason for non-compliance with the notice or order, which would automatically trigger forfeiture of the home loss payment.

The Bill does not allow for the exercise of any discretion in depriving the homeowner of that payment. In her helpful response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that it would be for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the 1973 Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the owner. I am sure that is correct, but the situation contemplated by my amendment is that arising at a later stage, after the order or notice has been served, when the homeowner to be displaced may reasonably want to show why personal circumstances do not then allow him or her to comply with the notice or order.

I wish to stress as quickly as I can three points. First, the amendment would not place any obligation on the local authority to investigate the reasons for non-compliance in any way, unless and until the person concerned tried to show that the omissions were not deliberate and that the cause of non-compliance was either that the required work could not have been carried out because of that person’s ill health or infirmity or that it could not have been afforded because of financial difficulty, such as an inability to obtain or afford funding. The burden of proving any of that would remain on the person to be displaced and would require credible evidence. The only obligation on the local authority at that stage would be to look at the realities of the cause for non-compliance.

Secondly, in these cases the property being compulsorily acquired is a home, and the displaced homeowner will almost certainly need the home loss payment to help find a replacement home. All this amendment seeks to do is obtain some modification of the blanket application of exclusions from such payments in an attempt to make the proposed new clause fairer and more reasonable when there has been what might be called no-fault non-compliance.

Thirdly, of course it is important to consider the financial implications for local authorities, but compulsory acquisition of homes in disrepair where notices have not been complied with is rare and, if the amendment is accepted, the number of cases in which the claimant could show genuine inability to comply with the required work because of ill health or lack of finance will be rarer still. This amendment would allow those people some opportunity to show those reasons and receive the payment which the Bill would otherwise take away from them. If the Government are not minded to look at this again and reconsider the amendment or something like it, I at least hope there would be an indication that guidance would allow such circumstances to be considered. If it were possible for that to happen, I suggest that unnecessary appeals could be avoided.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 242 and 243 are in my name. The purpose of these amendments is simply to eliminate the ability of the Government to ignore hope value when assessing value on compulsory purchase orders. The Minister has kindly laid out in writing that this will happen only in limited circumstances and, by implication, that it is of little concern. That is wrong. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, put it far more simply and elegantly than I when he said that hope value is actually market value. He is right. Other government departments accept this. When land is valued for inheritance tax or capital gains tax on non-financial transfers, hope value is explicit. Tax is paid on that hope value, so why should another government department be entitled to disregard it?

Under this Government’s family farm death tax, greater inheritance tax will be paid based on this hope value of land that might lift it, in certain circumstances, from around £10,000 per acre to as much as £50,000 per acre. What happens if the Government then turn around two years later and compulsorily purchase that land at £10,000 per acre because they want to disregard hope value? This is surely absurd; that hope value has not disappeared. The Government should pay for it.

This is a power of confiscation and, as my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is probing with Amendment 251, and as I raised at Second Reading and again in Committee, it is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister’s previous responses that the ECHR allows for CPOs is right, but it does not allow them at less than market value. His Majesty’s Government appear to put the ECHR on a pedestal; I am curious whether that is only when it suits them. CPO powers are, of course, essential to a modern Government carrying out their duties, but this cannot be a tyranny of the majority. The rights of the individual have to be respected.

Can the Minister assure us that, should she reject my amendments, CPO valuations will include all elements of market value attributed to that land under historic valuation parameters, as I believe the Red Book valuations already incorporate? I refer the House to my declaration of interests as a landowner, among other things.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 250 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Grabiner, who are unable to be here this evening but who continue to support it, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell. This amendment would address the wide-reaching consequences for persons who acquire former open-space land in light of a Supreme Court decision in 2023, R (on the application of Day) v Shropshire Council [2023] UKSC 8. Given that this amendment has been misunderstood by some and mischaracterised by others, I need to explain what it is and is not about.

Open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to that land for the purpose of recreation. Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that the local authority may not dispose of

“any land consisting or forming part of an open space”

unless before it does so it advertises its intention in a local newspaper for two weeks and considers any objections received in response to that advertisement. Section 123(2B) provides that the sale of the land post advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust.

If a local resident or community group considers that the disposal of land is unlawful for any reason, including but not limited to a failure to comply with the requirement to advertise, they have a remedy: they can bring a claim for judicial review of the local authority’s decision in the High Court. If they have good reason for bringing the claim late—for example, if they were not aware of the decision at the time it was made—they can draw the court’s attention to that in support of an application for a discretionary extension of time.

In public law, the normal position is that, if a public body’s decision has not been successfully challenged by way of judicial review, that decision is treated as having all the effects in law of a valid decision. However, in Day, the Supreme Court held that, even when the decision to dispose of open-space land has not been challenged, and even if it was made many years or even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertising requirements means that the statutory trust continues to exist, and therefore continues to frustrate the beneficial repurposing or redevelopment of the land in question.

Crucially, that is the case even if the land was sold in good faith by the authority to a bona fide purchaser who was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity, and even if there remains no dispute that the land was surplus to requirements when it was sold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, made a compelling case for the issue which he has reiterated this evening—the necessity for a code of practice to set rules that can be enforced on compulsory purchase order issues. I said in Committee that I had a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord had to say. He has made an even stronger case this evening with the real-life examples that he has quoted to us.

I hope that the Minister can respond very positively this time to the genuine issues that are being raised, with a solution being offered. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has said, we look forward to what the Minister has to say, but this issue is not going to go away unless the Government grasp it and deal with it.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to add our support for Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I would draw a thread through all these debates that we have had on Report on compulsory purchase: this is a necessary tool of government to allow society’s needs to be placed above the individual in a small number of cases where the case is clear-cut.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

122: Clause 53, page 90, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Natural England, and/or a person designated under section 86 of this Act, about the making of an EDP.(5) Natural England, or a designated person, must comply with any such guidance.(6) Guidance issued under subsection (4) may include—(a) where and how draft EDPs should be published for public consultation,(b) guidance on minimum development thresholds for an EDP, (c) the types of measures that may be included as conservation measures,(d) the need to define the proposed conservation measures relating to an EDP during a pre consultation period and to seek expressions of interest from appropriate persons or bodies to deliver them, and(e) the use of its compulsory purchase powers, with a particular view to ensuring that—(i) the powers are not used in a manner which would threaten the viability of an existing agricultural business,(ii) the use of the powers takes account of the need to protect domestic food security, and(iii) the impacts of the use of such powers on important social and cultural traditions, such as those that exist around common land, are protected.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confirms that the Secretary of State has a power to issue guidance to Natural England, and/or a designated person about the preparation of an EDP.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will also introduce Amendments 201 and 203. Most of the amendments in this group propose alternative solutions to environmental blockages to planning and development, either as replacements for Part 3 of this Bill or as substantial improvements to it. To my mind, the most important amendment in this group—and the most important to Part 3—is Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I added my name in Committee and on Report. For transparency, I again refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as a farmer, a forester, a landowner, a residential, commercial and renewable energy developer and a shareholder in various natural capital-related businesses and partnerships.

I am very grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—who, sadly, is unwell today; we send her our best wishes—for their time during the passage of this Bill and for listening to our concerns. We have fundamental objections to Part 3. First, it undermines the existing mitigation hierarchy and is a retrograde step in nature protection. Secondly, it attacks the rural economy by giving Natural England enhanced CPO powers without explicitly saying that the private sector should be engaged in delivery, as well as undermining nascent biodiversity net gain markets. It gives little or no accountability by handing all that responsibility to the arm’s-length body of Natural England, which appears highly unlikely to have the capacity to deliver the environmental delivery programmes, as is envisaged.

Not only is there no evidence that this will have any immediate benefit to the housebuilding sector, but, after the CG Fry decision by the Supreme Court last week, this part of the Bill will reimpose habitats regulations on decisions related to Ramsar sites and immediately reblock tens of thousands of houses. We also hear concerns from industries that should stand to benefit from Part 3 that there is no visibility of the level of the nature restoration levy or control over outcomes of environmental delivery programmes, and therefore reputational issues if they were to go wrong.

The amendments in this and further groups will address these and other issues, but there is a bigger question that I challenge the Minister to answer. What exactly is Part 3 designed to solve that cannot already be solved through existing structures and more targeted tweaks to that system, as we and others propose? We asked this repeatedly in Committee and I do not yet feel that I have had a satisfactory answer. It would also be helpful to the House to have some comfort that the Government are listening to our concerns, which echo every interested wildlife and rural organisation outside this Chamber. I am grateful to all that have provided briefings—there are simply too many to list.

Amendment 122 is designed to force the Secretary of State to take final responsibility for the actions of Natural England and place parameters around that responsibility, to provide greater protection to the rural economy, our food security and rural community and traditions. We on these Benches distrust these supposedly independent arm’s-length bodies and, for that reason, would like the Secretary of State to take this responsibility and be answerable to Parliament and the wider community for the performance of these EDPs. Why do the Government not want the Secretary of State to take this responsibility?

Amendment 201 is a simple amendment that would allow the Secretary of State to deal specifically with the nutrient neutrality issues that are said to have been blocking 160,000 new houses. This is a repeat of our amendment that was defeated by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I have two questions that I have previously put to the Government that have not yet been answered. Without this amendment, how many of those 160,000 blocked houses can be released immediately on Royal Assent? How many houses will be reblocked by Clause 90 reimposing habitats regulations restrictions on Ramsar sites, beyond the 18,000 already identified in the Somerset Levels?

Amendment 203 would require the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to publish a report on how to consolidate the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, to allow us to have a framework dealing specifically with nature protection in the UK. There have been news stories that the Government are considering a nature Bill. That would appear to be in line with what we suggest. Would that not be the appropriate place to undertake such a far-reaching re-evaluation of the protections that our natural environment deserves, rather than a planning Bill?

I will leave the introduction of Amendment 130 to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, but I want just to highlight the benefits of the approach that we see in this amendment and to underline our support. We hope that this approach will find favour with all Benches, given that it addresses so many of the concerns from different viewpoints. Nature and species would not be put at risk should this amendment pass. CPO powers would be much less likely to be required for Natural England. The private sector would be the natural counterparty to achieve these aims. Finally, nutrient neutrality appears to be the key challenge from environmental considerations in planning, as emphasised by the Home Builders Federation in its briefing; Natural England could focus on this particular issue and increase the chances of success.

We hope to hear a constructive response from the Minister to Amendment 130. We would like to hear that the Government might at least accept the principle of limiting EDPs to these impacts until they are proven to work. We on these Benches are a responsible Opposition and would like to work in the manner in which this House works best in order to improve the Bill and to make it both workable and successful in the real world. The Government’s approach to data in Part 3 does not give us full confidence that they are approaching this in the same manner. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 128 and 129 in this group, which are in my name. I suggest to noble Lords that, if they want to follow the purposes of these two amendments, it is best to have a look at Clause 55(1), since they are, in essence, about understanding how the drafting is intended to work and what that means in relation to the practices of an environmental delivery plan in due course.

In Committee, we had a useful probing debate in relation to these issues to try to understand whether all of the environmental impacts of a development should be identified in an environmental delivery plan. The debate showed that it was not the Government’s intention that an environmental delivery plan—EDP for short—should identify all of the environmental impacts resulting from a development to which that EDP relates. Relevant in this group is that, for example, the EDP could focus on a specific subset of environmental impacts, or one or more environmental impacts, such as river quality or nutrient neutrality. Given that that is the intention—I am arguing not with the intention of the Bill in that respect but, simply, with the drafting of this provision to give effect to that—how should that potential focus be reflected in the structure of the power for making an environmental delivery plan?

Clause 55(1)(a) provides that the EDP will identify

“one or more environmental features”.

An environmental feature is either a protected feature of a protected site—Clause 93 can be seen for interpretation —or a protected species. An example that I think is relevant and useful, not least to the debate that we are shortly to have on Amendment 130, is the effect of a development on a protected site, such as through nutrient pollution arising from a development in, say, south Norfolk, which might have an impact on the nutrient level in the Broads. The Broads, as the protected site, and the nutrient level, as the feature concerned, could be the environmental feature to which the EDP relates. That being the case, if that feature is the subject of the EDP, should each of the ways in which a negative effect on that feature arises be identified in the EDP? I think that it should.

Amendment 128 would change “one or more”. I direct noble Lords to Clause 55(1)(b), where it refers to

“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”.

That defines the environmental impact. I propose in Amendment 128 that we take out “one or more”, so that the sentence would read

“the ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”—

that being the environmental impact.

That would preclude the possibility that there may be ways in which the development causes the negative effect on that feature but they are omitted. I do not understand why it would be at all reasonable for them to be omitted. That being the case, I hope that the environmental impact is always defined by reference to the ways in which a development impacts on a protected feature of a protected site or species. The focus can be narrow—which precise feature?—or it can be wide.

However, the next line after Clause 55(1)(b) says:

“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”.


It feels a bit as though Ministers have decided not only to not necessarily to deal with all the effects of a development—they can focus down; we have accepted that—but that they definitely do not even need to explain to us in the EDP how the negative effects on a protected site, or a protected feature of a site, are to be understood and incorporated into the work of the EDP.

Instead of taking that out, I have chosen, in Amendment 129, to define it a little more precisely. Why are the Government doing this? I think they are trying to say that we might be looking at an environmental feature, such as algal bloom in the water in the Broads resulting from a change in the nutrient level, but we do not want to focus on the question of allowing things to be left out of a count in the EDP because they simply relate to that effect; we want to focus on where the development gives rise to the effect.

Amendment 129 proposes adding to Clause 55(1) so that after

“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”,

it states,

“unless they are environmental impacts expected to result directly from the development to which the EDP relates”.

I hope that clarifies the purpose of the Bill, which is to focus, in an EDP, on the feature that is concerned and the specific ways in which a development might create a negative effect in relation to the feature that gives rise to the EDP.

I hope that makes clear what the amendments are intended to achieve. I hope that what this does is in line with the Government’s intentions in relation to an environmental delivery plan and that, from the Government’s point of view, Amendments 128 and 129 would therefore do no harm to the purposes. Even if Ministers are not immediately able to accept them, I hope that they might reproduce something of this kind at Third Reading.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The very nature of the EDP would do that anyway, because the action taken by the EDP must materially outweigh the impact of the development. If that is what the noble Lord is trying to say, I can confirm that that is the purpose of the EDP in the first place. I will continue now.

As set out in the Member’s explanatory statement, Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham,

“seeks to encourage debate on the proportionality of conservation measures included in an EDP”.

In doing so, the amendment proposes that EDPs should consider the monetary value of the plants or animals the conservation measures would support, to ensure that conservation measures are proportionate. As the noble Lord will be aware from the debates to date, EDPs will be required to materially outweigh the negative effects that development would have on a relevant environmental feature, be it a feature of a protected site or a protected species. That may include multiple plant species of varying abundance. Similarly for protected species, an EDP would address these impacts at an appropriate population scale.

The scale of conservation measures required will be determined by the scale of impact from the development, with the levy rate being set to ensure that sufficient measures are delivered to meet the overall improvement test. In setting the regulations that will govern the nature restoration levy, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the levy does not render development economically unviable, but the levy must be sufficient to deliver the necessary conservation measures in line with the overall improvement test. That will ensure that the levy is set at a rate that delivers for both nature and development, with developers in all but exceptional circumstances being able to choose whether to use an EDP or whether to address these impacts and secure the necessary measures themselves under the existing system. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Finally, Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require the preparation of a report by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the consolidation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as they relate to planning. I appreciate that the dual systems of the habitats regulations, which cover habitat sites and include the HRA process, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which covers SSSIs, can appear complex. However, in practice, there are integrated processes which address and manage this complexity. These processes are well understood by practitioners, and while the Government will always look for opportunities to improve processes, the amendment risks creating uncertainty that may delay development and presupposes that consolidation is necessary and desirable. At this time, we do not consider that such a report is necessary, but even if it were, it would be a legal rather than ecological exercise, which would fall outside the JNCC’s area of expertise. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for the introduction of her Amendment 130 and to those who spoke so convincingly in her support. I also thank the Minister for her response to these amendments, particularly the clarifications around the issues addressed by Amendment 122.

As I feared, the Government remain intransigent on the big issues and so our mind remains resolved. Should the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, choose to move Amendment 130 to a vote, our Benches will be in support. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 122.

Amendment 122 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

131: Clause 55, page 92, line 4, at end insert “as assessed by the use of the best available evidence”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra would require Natural England and the Secretary of State to base their judgements in respect of an Environmental Delivery Plan on the best available scientific evidence.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 131 and my other amendments in this group. Amendments 131, 137, 151 and 152 seek reassurance that Natural England will use the best available evidence when developing and approving EDPs, and that that will be confirmed by the Secretary of State. The reason for these amendments is that this has not always been clearly the case. That in turn is evidenced by the revised heather burning regulations that we will be debating tomorrow.

Amendment 156 would require that Natural England report each year on the performance of each EDP in that year. The Minister did not reassure the House in Committee that the reporting requirements for the nature restoration fund or individual EDPs were satisfactory. I am sure that each EDP will be reporting its performance internally annually. Can the Minister confirm that and, if so, why is there a reluctance to share that with the public?

Amendment 157 seeks to require the impact on the local community and economy to be assessed and reported on. In some of the more remote parts of our country we have seen rewilding schemes and similar undertaken which have undermined local economies and created distrust within local communities. It is critically important that there is this level of engagement with local communities. Requiring that ensures that their views are taken fully into account.

I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance here. Amendment 174 makes a simple substitution of “must” for “may”. Why would Natural England not be required to publish these conservation measures? Do we really think it will publish if doing so is merely voluntary? I hope the Government have made progress in addressing these concerns since Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is absolutely pointless voting for this, because Natural England cannot do the job it has at the moment. Unless it is better resourced and has better structure, it is completely pointless giving it any more jobs. However, I stand here in the throes of two very strong emotions. I signed 38 Conservative amendments—I have never done anything like that before. I committed to something that I thought that the Conservatives were going to do, and they did not do it. They let us all down: they decided not to try to take out Part 3. That is shameful. If you are in opposition, why do you not oppose? What they have just done is playing politics. This is why politicians have such a bad reputation.

My second emotion is fury, which I normally mostly reserve for the Government. Part 3 absolutely stinks, and there should be no effort to get it through this House. It is a terrible piece of legislation. It completely ignores the fact that we need nature. We depend on nature, and the Labour Government are so eco-ignorant that they completely avoid the plot.

Going back to the Conservatives, they are not to be trusted. If they cannot oppose the Government when they know the Government are wrong, why on earth are they sitting here? Why are they bothering? There are some noble Lords on this side—I use the word “noble” advisedly—who, if I had moved Amendment 123, having cosigned it, would have supported me. I am very touched by that, and I thank them. However, we are allowing these amendments to go through. We are trying to improve them, but it is like putting lipstick on a lamppost. I am not going to say “pig”—I like pigs. It is like trying to tart up something that does not need it because it should be thrown out. I ask noble Lords not to vote for this and not to trust the Tories on any amendment they put forward from now on. They are playing politics. They are not trying to do their best for Britain: they are just thinking about themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 131, 137, 151, 152, 156, 157 and 174, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, would add additional requirements to the preparation and reporting of EDPs. While the Government share the noble Lords’ desire to ensure that the EDP process is robust, I assure noble Lords that these matters are already captured through the drafting and are amplified by the Government’s amendments to Part 3. We have included an explicit provision requiring Natural England and the Secretary of State to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP.

I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about evidence over time and some of the issues that occur—perhaps even conflicting evidence —but I hope that the best available scientific evidence, which is the phrase that is used here, will give the Secretary of State and Natural England the support they need to ensure that this is proportionate. It needs to be considered as the best available scientific evidence.

Regarding reporting, as well as the mid-point and end-point reports on each EDP, Natural England will publish annual reports across the NRF with a summary of its accounts, including setting out the total amount received in levy payments and the amount spent on conservation measures. This is on top of the individual monitoring that Natural England will put in place to monitor the delivery and impact of conservation measures. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on his points about Natural England.

In addition, these amendments would require Natural England to report on the impact of conservation measures on the local economy and the community. The Bill already requires public consultation that will provide the opportunity for people to raise such matters, which will be considered by the Secretary of State when making an EDP. While we share the noble Lord’s desire to support local communities, it would not be appropriate and would add a significant burden to require Natural England to report on how each conservation measure is affecting the local economy. The final limb of these amendments would make it mandatory for the levy regulations to cover various matters currently specified as those that the Secretary of State may cover. I assure noble Lords that this is unnecessary because, while we would not propose to mandate for them, we fully expect the Secretary of State to make provision in these areas. I hope that, with these explanations and assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to my amendments in this group. I must say I am not entirely happy, and I look forward to returning to this subject in later groups, particularly on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I understand entirely her sentiments and frustration, and I am most grateful that she signed my amendments. We on these Benches are committed to being a constructive Opposition and to working with the House in the most effective way possible to improve Part 3. Many of us object to this part of the Bill fervently in its current form, and we are looking for the best outcome for the country as a whole to release houses for building but at the same time to protect and enhance nature. The noble Baroness remains my friend, and I hope she will eventually forgive me. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 131 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

If I may, I anticipate my noble friend Lord Roborough speaking to his Amendments 166 and 167. Before he does so, however, without reiterating the exchange that the Minister and I had about the way in which Clause 55(1)(a) and (b) should be used, by putting into Schedule 4 that the environmental impacts must be those identified in an environmental delivery plan, my noble friend deals with what would otherwise be a potentially serious problem. The Bill continues in Clause 55 to allow for the possibility of environmental impacts resulting from a development having a “negative effect” on a protected feature, but which are not to be included and identified in the EDP. My noble friend, in his Amendments 166 and 167, would rectify exactly that problem.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for moving his amendment in this group.

These amendments would make technical changes to how EDPs work practically. My Amendments 166 and 167 would ensure that only impacts addressed by the EDP may be disregarded for the purposes of the habitats regulations. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Lansley and am very grateful for his comments. We think that this is in line with the Government’s plans and seek to be constructive with these amendments. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not willing to accept these constructive and specific amendments?

Amendment 134 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller also seeks to strengthen the Government’s measures. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply.

Finally, my Amendment 135 is another that seeks clarity in the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government have not seen the merit of our case and would have preferred to see this clearly set out in law. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller on his questions and comments about the timing of EDPs and how they can be effective within the specified 10-year period. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 134 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which would require conservation measures delivered by a landholding to be secured solely through Section 106 agreements.

The noble Lord’s stated intention is to ensure that conservation measures are secured through a sufficiently enforceable mechanism. While we fully agree with the noble Lord that we need sufficient certainty to ensure that conservation measures are delivered, I hope to reassure him that his amendment is not necessary.

The NRF represents a shift towards a more strategic approach to dealing with the environmental impacts of development. Once an EDP is made, it will be for Natural England to secure the necessary conservation measures and ensure that they are in place, monitored and effective.

Some conservation measures may require Natural England to acquire land, but, where it does so, requiring it unilaterally to enter a Section 106 planning obligation would be inappropriate. Foremost, this would be an odd use of Section 106. Many conservation measures, such as in relation to wetlands, will not require planning permission. It is therefore unlikely that a Section 106 agreement between Natural England and the local planning authority would be needed.

What this amendment suggests is required is more likely to be a species of unilateral undertaking by Natural England—one that would unnecessarily restrict its latitude to deliver conservation measures flexibly. It would reduce the scope for Natural England to modify its approach where doing so would be within what the EDP approved and deliver more effectively for the environmental feature. Similarly, it could stop land being used for overlapping purposes.

Ultimately, it will be important that Natural England can implement whichever conservation measures it considers most effective while still being bound by the need for the measures to be sufficient to meet the overall improvement test—which this approach puts the focus on. In recognising the shift in approach under this model, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 135, which was previously tabled in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, relates to the use of planning conditions as conservation measures. In previous debates, I have been clear on the importance of planning conditions to ensure that developers take appropriate action to avoid impact in advance of other conservation measures being delivered. These conditions will form part of the draft EDP and be consulted on, which will ensure that developers are fully aware of any conditions that may be imposed if they choose to utilise an EDP.

I also re-emphasise that the Bill will allow Natural England to request that a condition be imposed only on a development coming under an EDP. The Bill simply will not allow Natural England to request planning conditions to be imposed on any development other than where that development wishes to rely on an EDP.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 166 and 167, also tabled by the Lord, Lord Roborough. These amendments were also considered in Committee, but I am very happy to further clarify our position. The amendments would amend Schedule 4, which sets out the effects that an EDP has on underlying environmental obligations, establishing that, where a developer has committed to pay the levy, the relevant obligation is suitably discharged.

“Environmental impact” is defined within the Bill as

“one or more ways in which

the negative effect

“is likely to be caused by the development”.

Therefore, the effect of Schedule 4 is already limited to those impacts. If a development has multiple environmental impacts but only one is covered by the EDP, those other impacts are not affected by Schedule 4 and must still be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and features sufficiently protected, while allowing a more strategic approach where it is appropriate. I trust that this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance, and that they will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

138: Clause 55, page 92, line 34, at end insert—
“(12) Where an environmental delivery plan identifies environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected by any invasive non-native species that is present at the site of the development, Natural England, or a body acting on behalf of Natural England, must take all reasonable steps to eradicate the invasive non-native species that has been identified at the site.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect all environmental features identified as at risk by invasive non-native species.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I raised amendments around the control of non-native invasive species in Committee. While the Government were encouragingly resolute in their policy of controlling invasive non-native species, I did not receive any reassurance that this might form any part of an environmental delivery plan. I reluctantly accept that requiring Natural England to remove these from any EDP within five years is a herculean task and likely impractical. Therefore, I have brought back a more targeted and realistic amendment on Report which I believe to be a perfectly reasonable request of an EDP—simply that where environmental features are likely to be negatively impacted by a non-native invasive species present at the site of a development, Natural England should be responsible for taking all reasonable steps to eradicate it.

I am sure that my amendment could be better drafted, and I am happy to hear from the Government whether they have a better suggestion. However, we on these Benches believe that not enough is being done to combat the spread of these invaders at the expense of our own flora and fauna.

In Committee, we discussed the rampaging grey squirrels and muntjac and the scourges of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed. There are so many more that I could mention. These flora and fauna displace our own native species and can also pass on diseases such as squirrel pox, which has had such a devastating impact on our own red squirrels. Would the Minister be prepared to go further, perhaps in guidance around the formation of EDPs, to ensure that those threats are dealt with?

I very much look forward to the introduction of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith’s amendment on swift bricks for a noble native species that deserves our help. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Those are complex, technical regulations around the construction of buildings which do not relate to the protection of species. As the noble Lord is aware, there are many species lobbying groups which might want to use building regulations for that purpose. The other thing is that building regulations cover a huge variety of different buildings—probably including the 58-foot tower that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to. If you imagine the number of species compared with the number of different sizes and shapes of buildings, we would end up with a very complex picture with building regulations if we were to go down this route.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response to this small group of amendments. Starting just briefly with the invasive non-native species, I think it was very encouraging to hear the Government’s commitment to controlling them and to hear the role that EDPs will take in managing them.

I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith for introducing his amendment, and I pay tribute to all the work he has done for the environment and nature restoration, not least as my previous neighbour in Devon with the remarkable planting schemes he did there. As regards his amendment, given that we are returning to this subject in the next group, we can address that then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 138 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

141: Clause 56, page 93, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule in the course of preparing an EDP, Natural England must not include any potential capital costs for the purposes of acquiring land.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents Natural England from including Compulsory Purchase Order costs within their budgeting for an EDP.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 141, but will speak only to my Amendment 170A, which is the important amendment of mine in this group. It seeks to ensure that developers are able to use the existing mitigation hierarchy in dealing with the impacts of their developments to the level that is practical, and only deal with the residual liability under the mitigation hierarchy through contributions to the nature restoration fund. This is important for developers and for protecting the nascent biodiversity net-gain market. It gives flexibility and continues to ensure that the private sector plays a role. We will return to that issue in future groups.

The Minister was reassuring at Second Reading, in Committee and in private meetings that this was the intention of the Bill. I wonder whether she can provide that reassurance today and indicate how this might work in practice. I look forward to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lansley introducing their own amendments—both of which are excellent—and I hope the Minister will listen carefully to both. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69 in my name. We discussed the viability assessment processes in Committee, and Amendment 69 is essentially about encouraging early consultation with the development community. I should at this point, since it is relevant, say that I have a registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, but I emphasise again that the comments I make on the Bill are entirely my own views, rather than any developer’s.

Amendment 69 is really about the sequencing. In making an environmental delivery plan, there is a process of establishing not only the impacts to be mitigated, but the charging schedule. It is really important that, at that stage in making an EDP, the development community is included. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to ensure that it takes up the levy, which we will want it to do wherever possible, or indeed that the charging schedules are correctly structured in order to encourage that to happen, and to deliver effectively the objectives of the EDP.

As far as I can see, there are regulations in Clause 67; there is guidance in Clause 75, and the regulations in Clause 67 must be adhered to in the setting of a charging schedule under Clause 53. However, Clause 58 sets out a long list of those who should be consulted on a draft environmental development plan. It consists of a minimum of eight different kinds of public authorities, and then refers to many other public authorities. However, the only consultation that is required on a draft EDP is with public authorities. This is not good enough. The development community is going to undertake the development. The development community is going to pay the levy. The development community should be included in the consultation on a draft EDP.

Since our objective is that it is mostly a voluntary choice whether to go down the route of levy payments and an EDP, I am afraid that we run the risk of invalidating many of the objectives we are trying to achieve through the establishment of an EDP. I certainly do not plan to press Amendment 69, but I hope the Minister can reassure me on the use of the consultation on a draft EDP, and on the charging schedules in particular, by way of consultation with the development community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Lord on those two issues, if that is possible.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot say that I heard satisfactory answers to many of the amendments in this group. I certainly do not feel satisfied that there will be a way for a developer to make a partial contribution to the NRF and to do what he can on his own site. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her Amendment 130, which would basically resolve this problem, as it would many others in this part of the Bill.

The point from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about the charging schedules was extremely well made. I think the House is well aware that this is a planning Bill and this section of it relates to Defra. It is encouraging that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, informed the House the other day that this part of the Bill would be governed by the Secretary of State for Defra, which gives some optimism that the charging schedule might relate to nature when it is laid. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 141 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

144: Clause 58, page 94, line 25, at end insert—
“(ja) any farmer who farms land which is wholly or partly within the development area,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult with farmers who will be impacted by an EDP after the EDP is prepared.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. In Committee, the Minister suggested that farmers, fishermen and landowners likely to be impacted by an EDP would have a chance to be consulted but only through the public consultation exercise. I still do not believe that is enough. Many public and private bodies are listed as statutory consultees, but not those people who are going to be most directly impacted by the EDP. I do not intend to push these amendments to a vote, but I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that guidance will require that those interested parties are proactively consulted by mail or similar to ensure that they are aware of the proposals, and that their views are sought.

Amendment 178A in my name, supported by my noble friend Lord Caithness, would ensure that farmers were given adequate opportunity to participate in EDPs as suppliers. It would also require a guidance document to be published so that farmers knew how to provide these services to Natural England. The Minister made encouraging comments in Committee and at Second Reading about the role of farmers and the wider private sector in providing these services, and meetings have been reassuring about how public sector procurement rules will help. However, I do not believe that is enough. The Bill makes no mention of the private sector being engaged in this, and I believe it needs to be reflected in the Bill. In fact, the amendment that I prefer in this group is Amendment 182A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I look forward to listening to his introduction of it. I beg to move.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 182A, but, first, I want to support the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 178A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.

As the Minister is aware, the majority of farmers are keen to engage in delivering environmental benefits and are increasingly collaborating geographically on landscape schemes. It would be entirely appropriate to use this expertise to deliver environmental services, building on existing commitments. Who is better qualified to provide value for money than those with local knowledge and an existing track record of delivering environmental goods?

Let me enlarge on the reasoning for tabling Amendment 182A—and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell, for their support for it. The amendment seeks to amend Clause 76 on the administration, implementation and monitoring of EDPs. I thank Ministers for their helpful letter of 13 October. I read it a number of times before deciding whether to table the amendment. Was I satisfied that the assurances given in the letter, that they would expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, were adequate?

I concluded that this requirement should be in the Bill and not just advisory. Let me try to explain why I am concerned. The purpose of the Bill, as we have heard a number of times, is to speed up the planning and development process to enable the Government to deliver their housing ambitions and critical infrastructure plans. There is, however, a deep cynicism and suspicion that to throw Natural England into the mix, into the planning and development process, will absolutely not speed it up.

I am afraid I do not share the confidence of the Minister. It is not a criticism of Natural England, but the involvement of an arm’s-length public body, any public body, will, due to its culture and accountability, lead to layers of bureaucracy that did not exist before, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, stated earlier. The spades might start digging a few days earlier, but there will certainly be a delay in the delivery of the EDPs. It is inevitable.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, most responsible developers have now established relationships with consultants, ecologists and contractors who understand the current obligations and requirements in regard to local nature strategies, biodiversity net gain, et cetera. That may not have been the case a few years ago, but it definitely is today. Why disrupt a model that has been established and is now working well? This amendment will almost certainly guarantee that the process will speed up, because those involved in market solutions will be determined to prove that they have a solution before Natural England gets its sticky hands on the development, imposes a levy and increases the costs involved.

I have another, broader concern that has been referenced before. The Government and Natural England have tried to reassure us that Natural England will be adequately resourced to carry out this additional function. It will be able to siphon off the levy, which of course will add to development costs. I will be very surprised indeed, in view of the very serious pressure on the public purse, if the Chancellor does not bear down on expenditure in her Autumn Budget, including arm’s-length public bodies.

This amendment is an attempt to improve the Bill by insisting that Natural England allows and indeed encourages private market solutions to prove that they have a solution to deliver the conservation and ecological measures necessary before NE takes it in-house, with all the bureaucracy that will then entail. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but may wish to take this amendment further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first address the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which seek to amplify the role of farmers in providing nature services in respect of Part 3 of the Bill, as well as probe the consultation requirements for EDPs for specific groups, including farmers, landowners and fishing businesses.

I begin by reiterating that Natural England will, of course, work with local landowners, private providers and farmers in the delivery of conservation measures under EDPs. The Bill has therefore been drafted to enable delegation and partnership working with third parties. This may apply both to the development of EDPs, including ecological surveys and impact assessment, and to the undertaking and monitoring of conservation measures. EDPs represent an opportunity for growth in nature services markets and revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses.

As committed to in Committee, the Government will publish guidance for Natural England regarding the role of the private sector in EDPs. This will be clear that open and competitive procurement of goods and services is typically the best way to secure value for money and innovation. We will expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competition procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary. While I applaud the noble Lord for acting as a champion for the interests of farmers, I hope this explanation provides sufficient assurance that there is a clear role for farmers and landowners in making the NRF a success.

Regarding the noble Lord’s amendments relating to consultation requirements with specific groups, as he will be aware, every EDP will be subject to statutory public consultation to ensure that everyone with an interest in an EDP has the opportunity to comment. These responses will be shared with the Secretary of State when they are considering whether to make an EDP. This consultation can run for no fewer than 28 days and can be extended through regulation. We understand that different sectors will have specific interests in EDPs, depending on their content, as each EDP will vary based on location and the issues it addresses.

Of course, we recognise that farmers and the fishing industry are particularly important sectors, and their views should be heard. However, given the large number of farming and fishing businesses that we have, it would not be practical, or helpful, to legally require Natural England to contact each one directly and personally during the formal public consultation. Nor can Natural England require any private business to respond to a consultation. We believe the Bill strikes the right balance—ensuring public consultation and engagement with the responses from landowners and businesses forming part of the Secretary of State’s consideration of each EDP. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.

I turn finally to Amendment 182A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, which seeks to introduce a requirement for Natural England to pay another person to deliver conservation measures and the related monitoring measures that are required within an EDP. As I have set out previously, we are clear that Natural England will work with third parties and private providers when delivering conservation measures and associated activities under the NRF such as monitoring. As I have set out, we agree with the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that private markets and other expert organisations can support the roll out of the nature restoration fund through delivering conservation measures. However, while we expect Natural England to adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, there may be some instances where direct delivery will be necessary and appropriate. We would not wish for the legislation to remove this option where it would deliver better value for money, better environmental outcomes or both. With this explanation, I hope the noble lord will not move his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for sticking to his brief, but I think there was not enough there to satisfy certainly these Benches—enabling private sector engagement, instead of requiring it, and not being willing to have it written on the face of the Bill are not reassuring. Direct delivery in certain unspecified circumstances does not seem to us to be a guarantee of private sector engagement in these EDPs. The noble Lord helpfully mentioned the guidance that would be delivered. We discussed this in Committee and the noble Baroness the Minister, who is in her place, indicated that she would provide that draft guidance when it was available. I very much look forward to that.

While I am very happy to withdraw my amendment for now, I should make it very clear that, if the noble Lord, Lord Curry, does decide to divide on this, he will have the support of our Benches.

Amendment 144 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

153: Clause 59, page 95, line 33, at end insert—
“(8) If the Secretary of State decides not to make an EDP, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order where the Secretary of State has decided not to make the connected Environmental Delivery Plan.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group. The purpose of the amendments is to impose further discipline on Natural England in the exercise of its CPO powers relating to EDPs and potentially to remove them.

Amendments 153 and 160 seek to impose enhanced Crichel Down rules on Natural England in regard to any land that is acquired by Natural England for an EDP under a CPO or the threat of a CPO. The intention of the amendments is that, if the land is not required for an EDP, or if the EDP is revoked or expires, the land is returned to the previous owner. In practice, I would expect that the previous owner should pay the lower of market value or the net value after expenses and tax that was realised on the initial sale. This is slightly different to the Crichel Down rules, which require the offer of the land back at market value, should the land be about to be offered for sale, and is therefore a greater protection to the original owner. I hope that the Minister can offer encouragement on these points.

Amendment 189A would modify the requirement that Natural England’s compulsory purchase powers be subject to Secretary of State approval. The amendment would have the force of requiring Natural England to share with the Secretary of State all documentation and communication relevant to the decision, as well as allowing the landowner impacted to make a written submission of their own case. The amendment would place on Natural England a greater requirement for diligence in the exercise of these powers and allow private landowners, who may feel the injustice of the compulsory purchase, to state their case.

Amendment 190 seeks to protect gardens and allotments from the compulsory purchase powers available to Natural England. In the Bill, it appears that Natural England explicitly does have the power to CPO such property. In meetings and in Committee, the Minister stated that that would be very unlikely ever to happen. In that case, why does this power need to be included in the Bill?

Should the Minister be minded to adopt these suggestions, our Amendment 191, which removes Natural England’s CPO power for EDPs entirely, may not be necessary. But, if we were not to get satisfaction, we would be very inclined to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I just want to refer to Amendment 190. Often when we are tabling legislation, people say, “Well, that’ll never happen”, but it does in a different way.

I remember a coastal path in parts of Yorkshire where Natural England had a writ for it to go through gardens. Understandably, the homeowners were very upset. Finally, at my insistence, Natural England did change the path, because I said the regulations would never be laid. There is an element here of why I understand why my noble friend Lord Roborough has tabled this amendment, and I hope that the Government will give him sufficient assurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin with Amendment 191. This seeks to remove Clause 83, which provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land to carry out functions under Part 3.

To secure a win-win for nature and the economy, Natural England needs to have the necessary powers to bring forward the conservation measures needed to secure environmental protection while enabling Britain to get building. I know that the availability of compulsory purchase powers is a concern for some in this House, which is why the Government have taken a suitably cautious approach to the provision of such powers under Part 3. But we are clear that CPOs should be available to Natural England, subject to approval from the Secretary of State, where they are needed to secure land that is necessary to deliver conservation measures required under an EDP.

This is not, as some would portray it, a power grab for Natural England, but part of a package of measures in the Bill that will ensure that the necessary conservation measures will be delivered. While the Secretary of State would approve the use of such powers only where they were truly necessary, we believe that they need to be available to ensure that important conservation measures are not prevented from coming forward. On this environmental basis, I hope the noble Lord can see why such powers are necessary and will agree not to press his amendment.

Amendments 153 and 160 from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order under two situations. The first situation would require land to be returned where Natural England has used CPO to purchase land that is then not required as the Secretary of State has subsequently chosen not to make an EDP. I assure the noble Lord that this situation will never arise, as Natural England is unable to use these powers before an EDP has been made by the Secretary of State.

The second situation seeks for land to be returned in the event that an EDP is revoked. It is important to recognise that, in the unlikely event that an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State is required to take proportionate action to ensure that the impact of development that has come forward under the EDP is materially outweighed, in line with the overall improvement test.

It is not the case that, where an EDP is revoked, conservation measures can then be discontinued. Where an EDP is revoked, it will be because the Secretary of State no longer considers that it would meet the overall improvement test. It would therefore be environmentally reckless to require the land to be returned in this scenario, given the ongoing need to outweigh the impact of development. To do so would risk removing vital conservation measures and increasing the need for remedial action that would need to be funded by the taxpayer.

Amendment 190 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers for land that is part of a private dwelling. I assure noble Lords that the powers being granted to Natural England are not a licence to turn private gardens into nature reserves. As I have set out previously, these powers are there to provide certainty that, where necessary, Natural England can purchase land in this way.

However, we recognise that CPO is a significant tool. That is why it is ultimately a decision for the Secretary of State whether the public benefits of the CPO outweigh the interference with individual property rights and whether there is a compelling public interest in making the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight. Noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act.

Amendment 252, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. To secure the successful delivery of the new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to deliver the necessary conservation measures.

We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight—including authorisation by the Secretary of State—and the landowner will receive compensation, in line with the existing approach.

The price paid to the landowner if the land is compulsorily acquired is not linked to the value of any contract proposed by Natural England prior to a CPO being taken forward, but will reflect the fair market value of the land. This approach to valuation is common across different CPO powers and is not specific to EDPs. When land is acquired by this route, Natural England will use the land to deliver conservation measures required under the EDP. The cost of these measures may vary for a number of reasons, and it is conceivable that Natural England may be able to use the land to deliver a range of conservation measures linked to different EDPs. As well as undermining the ability of EDPs to meet the overall improvement test, requiring land to be returned in this situation would expose taxpayers and developers to increased costs and would require Natural England to monitor the value of contracts associated with the land for potentially up to 100 years, with land being returned, potentially at increased value, at any point over that period.

I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the heart of many noble Lords. However, I trust that noble Lords can recognise the need for these targeted powers and can appreciate the safeguards established through the Bill.

Finally, Amendment 189A would require the Secretary of State to permit a landowner to make written representations before any decision on whether to approve a compulsory purchase is made. As part of this amendment, Natural England would be required to inform landowners that this option is available and provide all parties with the necessary information.

I can reassure the noble Lord that the important protections in his amendment already apply in the Bill. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 specifies that the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 apply to compulsory purchases made by Natural England under Clause 83. Sections 12 and 13A of that Act include provision for the notification of affected landowners as well as the ability of objectors to submit representations to the confirming authority, in this case the Secretary of State, either in writing or via a hearing.

With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply to my amendments. I did not detect much movement, although I thought it was very helpful to have the answer on Amendment 189A, which is a significant protection to a landowner who has been CPO-ed. I did not detect much of an answer on the Crichel Down rules as such, and whether it was possible to improve on those as they relate to a CPO for an EDP. Perhaps the Minister can reflect on that over the next few groups and offer something before we get to Amendment 191. I am still minded to test the opinion of the House on that, but any clarification could be helpful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 153 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 158A and 164A, which seek to understand why the nature restoration levy may be mandatory. That would appear to go against the sense of the whole of Part 3, which is supposed to offer an alternative to the existing system of dealing with environmental planning matters.

If Natural England has the power to make the NRL mandatory, what is to stop it from exercising that power unfettered and in all cases? The solution to not getting reassurance on these amendments is to take out this power entirely, which is the effect of my own Amendment 164. My noble friend made a point that is worth the Minister considering, so can she reassure the House that those conditions could be tightened up and made more explicit, in order to inspire more confidence? I hope that she can reassure the House, and I will follow on from her response in my approach to my Amendment 164.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly, just in case there is a move to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. While we understand the intent behind the proposal, we on these Benches are not persuaded that removing the provision for mandatory payments to the nature restoration fund would be a step in the right direction. If developers choose to proceed through an EDP route, it is only right that they contribute to the environmental mitigation and restoration measures that make those plans effective. Allowing them to opt out of such payments risks undermining the consistency and fairness of the system and could weaken the overall purpose of the fund to ensure that development contributes positively to nature recovery. Therefore, we approach the amendment, and a possible vote on it, with considerable caution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I must say, I smiled when the Bill first came out and I saw this clause. It shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of rural life. Someone working for Forestry England, which is probably the statutory undertaker most likely to be affected, will visit his forests probably three or four times in 80 years—it depends how many operations are going on. The guy working for Forestry England who leaves his desk gets 21 days’ notice. But the farmer, who owns his land and has to make every square metre of it count and pay the income that his family depends upon, probably gets back at nine o’clock at night, opens his computer, tries to have a meal and catches up with family life, and he is informed that Natural England is coming on to his land tomorrow. It is oblivious of what the farmer actually intends to do with the land; maybe he has people visiting, because he could be an environmental farmer. He could be ploughing the land, harrowing or harvesting it, and at nine o’clock at night it is far too late to tell anyone or do anything about it.

I do not think Natural England would naturally behave like this, because it has more sense, but it is strange that this clause gives 21 days to the statutory undertaker and 24 hours to the hard-working farmer. Mind you, as it is only notice that you are going to enter, a 10-day period would probably be enough for both, to be honest. These two amendments need to be supported.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of both amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. The arguments were made powerfully and comprehensively in Committee and well summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. Farmers, in particular, should be given adequate notice of entry in order to take necessary precautions to manage their liability towards those entering the farm and to manage the biosecurity risks that entrants to the farm pose to their animals. If my noble friend is dissatisfied with the Minister’s response, we would support him in testing the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the specific amendments, I apologise for any discourtesy to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I take responsibility for that myself. Although he was kind enough to say that it was not my fault, it is always down to the Minister to make sure that Peers are responded to. I apologise if he did not receive the response that he should have.

I thank the noble Earl for tabling Amendments 183A and 183B, which would extend the written notice period required before Natural England could demand admission to land. This is currently set at 21 days for statutory undertakers and at least 24 hours in other cases. While we agree that it is important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions in the Bill are consistent with powers of entry requirements in other legislation. Through aligning with other legislation, we have minimised the risk of confusion for landowners, while also recognising the justified difference in how we treat statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and may require additional preparation to protect public safety and prevent disruption. There are also additional safeguards in the Bill to ensure that these powers cannot be used to gain access to a private dwelling. These safeguards further ensure that these powers cannot be used in any manner other than for carrying out surveys or investigations as specified within this part of the Bill. I hope that, with this explanation and the assurance that the NRF is in line with standard practice, the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

191: Leave out Clause 83

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I did ask the Minister whether she might reflect on the debate we had earlier, and I would be very interested to hear whether she has anything to add. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The noble Lord asked for further assurances in respect of how land acquired under CPO could be returned where the land is no longer required. The Crichel Down rules are existing non-statutory arrangements under which surplus land that was acquired by, or under threat of, compulsion should be offered back to former owners, their successors, or sitting tenants.

In reference to land acquired under CPO in respect of Part 3, as I explained, it is very unlikely that land acquired by compulsory purchase under an EDP would not be used. It is unlikely to be surplus. This is because, if an EDP were revoked, the land might still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Where land that has been compulsorily purchased is genuinely surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply, as they would for land purchased under any other CPO power.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that addition to the debate. On that basis, I reserve the right to come back at Third Reading on this matter, but I am happy to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 191 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 118. I am slightly at a loss, because I expected the Conservative Front Bench to do a blinding speech on Amendment 96, to which my amendment is more or less similar. Obviously, I think mine is better because I mention biodiversity, reuse and such things, but I suspect that my amendment, which I had hoped to put to a vote, probably would not beat the Conservative Amendment 96. Both amendments are supported by the Better Planning Coalition as an obvious step forward on improving what we have already.

While I am on my feet, I will just say that I refute the concept of a grey belt. A grey belt is green belt that has been left to rot, and we should be recovering that grey belt and making it green belt again. The green belt is absolutely necessary for our health, as other noble Lords have said.

We need to protect the well-being of land, ecosystems, people, towns and villages, and we really have to remember that this is something—including farmland—that we rely on for ourselves. I am hearing from farmers all over the country that they are losing good farming land. Given climate change, we could potentially face some huge challenges in feeding ourselves, and the loss of farmland will be a disaster. I think my Amendment 118 is a great amendment, but I am prepared not to put it to a vote if Amendment 96 is moved.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 95 and 98. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support for the protection of good agricultural land. Amendment 95 is a broader application of the principle that was debated and rejected by Government and Liberal Democrat Benches in this House last week. We on these Benches believe that food security is national security and, unlike for this Government, these are not empty words: we intend to put that into practice.

We remain concerned that the principle of protecting the best and most versatile land—grades 1, 2 and 3A—appears to be trampled at will, for not just solar farms under NSIP but other developments. We must do better. This land is responsible for supplying the lowest-cost, highest-quality food produced in our country and is far more productive than weaker grades of land. Building without due consideration on the land that we need to feed us is, frankly, short-sighted.

Amendment 98 asks the Government to report annually on how much of our land is being converted from agriculture to tarmac, steel, photovoltaic panels and concrete, and provides the basis for a more informed national debate on how we treat our productive land. I will not test the will of the House on these amendments. However, I would be most grateful to receive an assurance from the Minister that the Government take this issue as seriously as they should. This was not entirely clear from the response to the debate on solar farms and BMV last week.

I also support of the concept of Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. Well-planned development needs to take into consideration access to green and blue open space, but also how this space can contribute to nature connectivity.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 121 is a vital step towards bringing clarity and scrutiny to the Government’s grey-belt policy. This amendment asks the Secretary of State to publish a clear framework for grey-belt designation within six months of Royal Assent and to lay it before both Houses. Its purpose is straightforward: to ensure that this policy is defined, transparent and subject to oversight. This concept has received remarkably little scrutiny or discussion during the passage of the Bill.

The concept of the grey belt has shifted since it was introduced in the Labour Party’s manifesto. It was first presented as previously developed land and disused car parks—which is largely brownfield land already. Since then, it has expanded in ways that raise serious concerns. Our party is not opposed to using grey-belt land sensibly, but we share the concerns of the Lords Built Environment Committee, which described the rollout as “rushed and incoherent” and unlikely to have

“any significant or lasting impact”

on planning or housing delivery, suggesting that the concept might be “largely redundant”. The current definition includes land in the green belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that does not strongly contribute to green-belt purposes.

The Local Government Association and many councillors, including in my home town of Solihull and my former constituency, Redditch, warn that this vague language contributes little and could invite subjective judgments and threaten green-belt protection in places such as Solihull and Redditch, with no other surrounding towns. The entire green belt could be vulnerable. Small housebuilders have warned that it will not help them, especially given under-resourced planning departments.

The risks are clear. Inconsistent criteria and monitoring could lead to uneven treatment and uncertainty. There is no plan to measure progress or success. In short, this policy has shifted without sufficient clarity or scrutiny. My amendment offers Parliament the chance to correct that, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

With those questions, I seek some clarification from the Minister, but these are fundamental changes that flip key parts of this element of the Bill on its head. They are introduced at a very late stage, and they raise a number of issues of concern.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will not make extensive comments on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87, as we will return to EDPs in future groups on Report. However, this amendment does have merit in that EDPs should be a relevant matter for making planning decisions.

My noble friend Lord Banner has expertly introduced Amendments 163A and 163B, and I have nothing to add except my support. I very much look forward to the response from the Minister.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87, which would require decision-makers to take account of the environmental delivery plans when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. I agree, of course, that it is crucial that EDPs are integrated into the planning system. I hope I can provide the noble Baroness with the necessary assurance that her amendment is not necessary.

At its heart, an EDP enables a developer to discharge a relevant environmental obligation by making a commitment to pay the appropriate nature restoration levy. Once this commitment is made, the legislation removes the requirement to consider that specific environmental impact as part of any wider assessment, as the impact will be materially outweighed by the actions taken under the EDP. Therefore, while the planning decision-maker will need to consider a wide variety of matters when making individual planning decisions, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to consider the EDP itself. I therefore hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

I turn now to Amendments 163A and 163B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which would help ensure that the nature restoration fund works effectively for large-scale development. It has always been our intention that Part 3 of the Bill should support development as much as possible. As we have repeatedly said, the nature restoration fund will benefit both development and nature. Therefore, we want to maximise its scope and consequently the benefits it will deliver. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling his amendments and I have looked at them very closely. As has been pointed out, the restriction in Clause 66 may in fact preclude a proportion of development from being able to come within scope of an EDP at all. Where, as is often the case, a large development needs to vary planning permission, for example, or apply for retrospective planning permission following changes outside of the developer’s control, we need to ensure the NRF can support such development, as failing to do so could significantly reduce the ability of the NRF to deliver the win-win that we all want to see for nature and for development.

While, of course, there will be complexities in how to manage large and complex development, this can be addressed through the design of EDPs and supported with government guidance. As with any development, it will be for Natural England to consider requests, having regard to that guidance. I hope I can reassure the noble Earl that this is not a way of skirting around the planning procedures in any way whatsoever; this is about access to the nature restoration fund, so all of the normal things that apply to planning permission would still apply—this is just about providing that access to the NRF once the development has started. With that explanation, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling the amendments, for all the work he has done on this and for the meetings I had with him on it. I hope the House will join the Government in supporting his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 87B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. My noble friend is calling for better recording and storage of biodiversity information, which is a noble aim. We agree with him that increasing our understanding of biodiversity in the UK is a good thing. We would support measures from government to support this, so can the Minister please outline some of the steps Ministers are taking to record biodiversity?

Amendments 87FB, 87FC, 203B and 203C in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising combine to form a constructive proposal for ensuring that bats are appropriately and pragmatically protected, while removing the time and cost burden on everyone in society from the unnecessarily prescriptive and arduous regulations that we currently suffer. Bat protections are a significant hindrance to everything, from loft conversions and roof repairs through to the largest developments.

My noble friend is not suggesting that protection for those species of bats that are endangered or rare in the UK should be weakened, simply that protections should focus on those. We need to accept that our activities are going to have some impact on nature and ensure that our response to that is proportionate. Bats in buildings are an unusual issue in that they do little or no harm to the buildings or inhabitants and are creating their own dependence on our activities. The fact that we provide this habitat should not be a cause for inappropriate encumbrance on the property owner for doing so. We are creating a perverse incentive to remove that habitat for bats wherever possible in order to ensure that we have reasonable freedom to enjoy our property. Surely that is not the outcome we want or desire for bats themselves. I hope the Minister is grateful for my noble friend’s constructive amendments, and I look forward to her reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for moving Amendment 87B, which would require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted free of charge to local environmental record centres. I was very pleased to be able to provide the noble Lord with further information on this matter during Recess.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for Amendment 87BA, which clarifies this amendment to require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted to the National Biodiversity Network and the Biological Records Centre, in addition to local environmental record centres. The Government fully recognise the importance of robust biodiversity data in planning applications, although the idea of having a new slogan, “Data, baby, data”, would mean I might have to get a new hat with that on it, which may not be such a good idea.

Although we share the intention of improving access to biodiversity data, we do not believe the amendment is necessary. The statutory framework under the Environment Act 2021 already requires developers to provide a baseline assessment of biodiversity value using the statutory metric published by the Secretary of State. This ensures consistency and transparency without prescribing how data should be shared or stored. When discharging the biodiversity gain condition, applicants can choose to share their data with local environmental record centres, and many are already choosing to do so—I will come to the noble Lord’s point about how many in a moment.

Introducing a legal requirement to submit data would add administrative burdens and technical requirements without improving biodiversity outcomes. However, I will take back to officials the noble Lord’s point that this is not happening as intended to consider what further encouragement we might give to help speed that data on its way. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lords will not press their amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for Amendments 87FB and 87FC, and for his concern in supporting the Government in what we are trying to do; I am grateful for that. Those amendments concern bat inspections during planning applications and the quality of those inspections. I also thank him for Amendments 203B and 203C, which concern legal protections for bats in planning decisions. The Government are committed to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment, including bats. However, we recognise that people can experience the kinds of costs and delays that the noble Lord has outlined associated with the existing system of bat protections, such as survey requirements.

The Government recognise that measures to protect bats should be efficient and proportionate. That is why we have already begun work to improve the bat surveying processes. Natural England’s earned recognition scheme for bat licences provides a streamlined route to securing a licence. Under this scheme, appropriately qualified bat ecologists with membership of an approved professional body can act more independently of Natural England. Through earned recognition, permissions are secured on average three to four times more quickly, and it also aims to improve survey quality to deliver better outcomes for bats. We are expanding this scheme.

In line with recommendations from the Corry review, Natural England has already updated its standing advice for local planning authorities on bats to remove complexity and duplication. In November, Natural England will publish a bat regulation reform road map, which will set out further plans to work more closely with planning authorities and to streamline licensing—for instance, expanding its pre-application advice offer, which can expedite planning applications and avoid unexpected surveys, as well as developing pilots to test quicker and cheaper survey options.

The Government are already acting on this issue. The additional reviews and regulations that the noble Lord’s Amendments 87FB and 87FC would require are therefore unnecessary and would create significant new bureaucracy. Furthermore, Amendments 203B and 203C would result in likely non-compliance with international law, including the Bern convention. Given the explanations I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 87G. In doing so, I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests, in particular as a landowner in the Dartmoor National Park.

My noble friend is right to say that national park authorities should be considered fully in the planning process to underpin the importance of protecting national parks. I would be most grateful if the Minister could be very clear on the current role of national parks in the planning process, and I hope she can reassure my noble friends that will continue to be the case in spatial development strategies. I look forward to hearing her reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 87G tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can establish strategic planning boards in areas that include a national park. As I explained in Committee, an SDS area is defined in new Section 12A which the Bill will insert into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as the area of the strategic planning authority preparing the spatial development strategy. The strategy area encompasses all local authorities, including local planning authorities, such as national park authorities. Therefore, the Secretary of State could already use the power in new Section 12B to establish a strategic planning board covering an area with a national park or part of a national park.

In response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the role of the national park authorities, I say that while national park authorities will not sit on boards, they will have a very important role to play in the preparation of spatial development strategies. We will expect boards and other authorities with national parks in their areas to engage closely with national park authorities to ensure these valued areas remain protected. National park authorities will continue to prepare local plans for their areas which will set out policies on the use and development of land. There is no change to the role of the national park authorities in preparing those local plans for their areas.

The strategic planning boards will be established through statutory instruments after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The constituent authorities will be formally consulted on the draft statutory instruments ahead of them coming into force, as is required by new Section 12B(4).

With these explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to the right reverend Prelate’s amendment. I am delighted to see him back in the Chamber; we missed him in Committee.

My noble friend Lord Roborough was absolutely right when he said in Committee that all rivers are important. Yes, that is true, but chalk streams are that bit more important. The reason for that is that we have 85% of the world’s chalk streams. We are custodians for that majority, but 83% of those chalk streams do not meet good ecological standards. We have handled the whole situation very badly. I think we have taken a retrograde step with this Government, who have dispensed with the chalk stream recovery pack, which the noble Baroness just referred to.

I have written to the Minister and told her that I will ask her a number of questions. I have given her forewarning, so I expect replies. In what respect did that chalk stream recovery pack fall short? It was nearly ready to go when the Labour Government took over after winning the election. They could have pressed the button; that chalk stream pack focused on some difficult questions that nobody had fully addressed before, so why have they torpedoed it? What do they propose to do that will be better than that pack had proposed?

Let us go down to some specifics of the pack. It had time-bound commitments to reduce groundwater abstraction on numerous chalk streams which, according to the Environment Agency’s own data, are unsustainably extracted: for example, the Darent in Kent, where over half the rainfall that feeds the river is taken away for public water supply. There was a timescale for getting that right. Will the Government stick with that timescale or will there be something longer? Do the Government have plans to move water abstraction further downstream, rather than at the headwaters of these rivers?

The chalk stream pack also had a timebound commitment to address the hundreds of small sewage works in chalk streams that do not remove phosphorus in the treatment process and where there is currently no policy or incentive to drive investment. What are the Government going to do better to give a good timescale to get all those water treatment plants in good order? The pack also addressed run-off from highways and local roads, which I have spoken about before in your Lordships’ House, and how damaging it can be to chalk streams in particular because of the added silt. The CaBA chalk stream strategy recommends revised best practice guidelines for local councils that give more protection to chalk streams. Do the Government have better plans than that? The pack also put forward solutions to reform the farming rules for water, which are currently ineffective. What are the Government going to do to replace that recommendation?

I did not mention this question when I wrote to the Minister, but I will add it now: how do the Government intend to address the physical dysfunctionality of many chalk streams moved, straightened, dredged or dammed over the centuries and put them back to their natural state? In destroying the hard work of some very good, able and committed people who produced the chalk stream pack, the Government have alienated some potential friends in their effort to improve the environment. How are they going to get friends back onside when, after all that work, they have just dismissed it as though it did not matter? What plans do they have to include such people in the future to try to improve the whole river system for chalk streams? It is no good taking just one little area in one district or county council, because chalk streams do not understand those borders; they flow through lot of different councils. The whole thing has to be tackled on a holistic basis, and the only way to do that is by supporting the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I am grateful for their excellent, informative introductions. We on these Benches tabled similar amendments in Committee. The amendments share a vital purpose: to ensure that our planning system gives proper recognition and protection to chalk streams, one of our most distinct and rarest natural habitats. These streams help define our landscapes, support unique biodiversity and supply water to many communities. The amendments would require spatial development strategies to identify and protect chalk streams, setting out the responsibilities for planning authorities in their stewardship.

These are sensible, constructive proposals and I am grateful to those who have tabled and supported them. We will support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich if he divides on his amendment this evening. Will the Minister say whether she considers chalk streams to be irreplaceable habitats, like ancient woodlands, and therefore deserving of similar policy protection? The case for stronger recognition of chalk streams within our planning system is compelling. They are an irreplaceable part of our natural heritage and a globally important asset, and the way we plan for growth must reflect that.

I hope the Minister has heard the House and will be able to accept these amendments, and explain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and my noble friend Lord Caithness have asked, why our chalk stream restoration strategy is on hold.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for Amendments 93 and 94, which propose additional statutory obligations for strategic planning authorities in relation to the identification and safeguarding of chalk streams. With 85% of the world’s chalk streams found in England, these unique water bodies are not just vital ecosystems but are indeed a symbol of our national heritage. The Government are committed to restoring them, which is why we are taking a strategic approach to restoring chalk streams. Working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, the Government will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system so that it is fit for purpose for decades to come. This is essential to restoring chalk streams to better ecological health and addressing the multiple pressures facing these habitats.

Alongside the programme of ambitious reforms, the Government are continuing to deliver vital improvements and investment for chalk streams, including £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and water environment improvement fund for locally led chalk stream projects. Over the next five years, water companies will spend over £2 billion on chalk stream restoration.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a landowner and a housing developer. Before addressing this group of amendments, I would like to ask the Minister whether her Government have considered the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the CG Fry case that was released today. This question is relevant to this and other debates we will have today and in later days on Report in your Lordships’ Chamber. For the benefit of the House, the judgment found that Ramsar sites impacted by development do not have the protection in law previously assumed to derive from the habitats regulations.

From that I have several questions. If the Minister does not yet have answers, I wonder whether she would be able to write to me before the next day of Report or perhaps comment in a later group. We know that this decision releases 18,000 housing units in the Somerset Levels alone. Of the 160,000 units currently blocked nationally by Natural England advice on nutrient and other neutrality, how many are due to Ramsar and how many to European designations, where the rules still apply? In other words, how many houses nationally have now been released from blockage by nutrient neutrality rules?

The Bill, as drafted, imposes the legal obligations of the habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. Therefore, the effect of the Bill now becomes to block housing development rather than allow it. We on these Benches will seek to amend the Bill to remove this effect. My Amendment 208 would take Clause 90 out of the Bill, and I will table further amendments as needed. Have the Government’s intentions towards Clause 90 and Schedule 6 now changed as a result of this ruling? On these Benches, we are delighted with this ruling as it releases much-needed supply into the housing market. I hope the Government are equally delighted as it is a step towards their target of 1.5 million houses. It also highlights the issue that the small nut that is being cracked by the sledgehammer of Part 3 of this Bill has just been shrunk even further, and we will return next week to the many questions around Part 3.

I turn to the amendments in this group and begin with government Amendments 68 and 262. We are satisfied that it is appropriate to reduce the obligations of Natural England as a welcome streamlining of the planning process.

Amendment 194 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is important, and we would welcome clarity from the Minister in her response that the intent is that Natural England’s powers can be delegated only to public bodies and which bodies those might be. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it should say public bodies in the Bill. We will oppose the powers being given to Natural England in this Bill as they risk creating an authoritarian empire. The idea that these can then be delegated to private sector entities or potentially unsuitable bodies really is intolerable, and we will return to this later, if necessary, in my Amendment 195.

Amendment 200 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley is a sensible amendment that would allow for better planning of EDP requirements. I look forward to the responses from the Minister.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will first go through the responses to the government amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his support.

My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked why we feel this amendment is needed now. I remind noble Lords that Natural England currently receives around 22,500 town and country planning consultations every year. Many are low to medium risk and about 30% of them do not actually need Natural England’s input because they either fall outside the statutory remit under the development management procedure order or do not relate to its general purpose as set out in the NERC Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, specifically asked what problem this was trying to solve. It is mainly because, over the last decade, the volume of planning casework received by Natural England has increased by 75%. There is nothing lurking behind it—it is just the huge amount of extra work that Natural England now has to deal with. Because of this, there is less time available for the work that makes the most impact, such as shaping local plans, advising on major infrastructure and protecting nature where the risks are greatest.

My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked about local authorities. We are looking to work with LPAs in advance of any change coming through and work through the details of exactly how it is going to work and what it is going to mean for them, so we are involving local authorities.

Regarding access to sufficient ecological advice, Natural England will continue to provide advice to local planning authorities in cases where bespoke advice is necessary, which will include any high-risk and high-opportunity casework. In addition, Natural England will still be required to provide a response under the development management procedure order, which is not affected by this amendment. This includes where a development is likely to affect a SSSI or would involve the loss of more than 20 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, local planning authorities are ultimately responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of individual planning applications in line with relevant planning policy and legislation, and this will remain unchanged.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked specifically about the Supreme Court judgment in the Fry case, which was handed down this morning. We are very grateful to the Supreme Court for the clarification. We will continue to drive the delivery of the homes and infrastructure the country needs but, as we move forward with the Bill we are debating today, we are clear that the planning system has to do everything it can to support sustainable development. On his more detailed questions, the judgment was only this morning so we need time to analyse the decision; I am sure we will be coming back to this.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would provide that only a public body could be designated to exercise the functions of Natural England under this part. Obviously, we have discussed this previously and debated it in Committee. While I absolutely recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns, I reassure her that the policy expectation is that this power would only be ever used to designate a public body to carry out such functions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, sometimes there could be unforeseen circumstances where it could be appropriate for a private body to take on some functions under this part. My noble friend Lady Young and others asked about examples. As I said in Committee, it could be national parks, the MMO and others as appropriate. The noble Baroness reminded us of the examples I had given earlier. This is not to do with shifting decision-making away from Natural England and has nothing to do with it not having the capacity. It is entirely to do with expertise and having the most appropriate body making these very important decisions. That is why we do not want to remove the possibility of it going to a private body. However, our expectation is that it would always be a public body because it would be unusual for a private body to have an expertise that a public body did not.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her commitment to this flooding issue, which impacts far too many households in this country and which, as our climate changes, is likely to impact far more.

New housing built on flood plains since 2009 is not able to be reinsured under Flood Re, supposedly because that housing does not need it. However, as my noble friend points out, that is not the case. Her Amendment 70 requires greater flood resilience measures if we are not to rule out building on flood plains entirely. It seems eminently sensible to help protect homeowners and ensure that insurance is available at an affordable price, and so we support this amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, makes strong points in Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Clean drinking water in our country is a finite resource, and measures to improve efficiency, analyse demand and increase reuse are sensible. I will welcome any comments from the Minister that show what the Government are already doing and plan to do to address these matters. However, we would not be in support of adding this to our already overburdened planning process.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

I will first address Amendments 70 and 81, concerning flood risk and resilience within the planning system. They draw attention to the important matter of how we prepare for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in light of the growing challenges posed by climate change. The Government treat these concerns with the utmost seriousness. We are aware of the distress, disruption and financial cost that flooding brings—so ably illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender; of the heightened risks associated with a changing climate; and of the necessity to maintain a robust but proportionate framework for managing these risks.

Amendment 70 seeks to require property flood resilience measures in new homes located in areas of high flood risk. As has been made clear in previous debates, enhancing the resilience of properties exposed to flood risk is indeed an important objective, which I know we all share across the House. In support of this, building regulations already promote flood-resilient construction in flood-prone areas through approved document C, while ensuring that where properties do not require additional measures, they are not subject to undue burdens.

Amendment 81 seeks to impose a statutory ban on residential development in flood zone 3. While we agree with the principle of steering development away from areas at highest flood risk, this amendment would prohibit development even in major urban areas such as Hull and central London, which, although within flood zone 3, are protected by robust engineered flood defences. Such a blanket ban would prevent development coming forward that could otherwise be made safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Instead, the National Planning Policy Framework already provides strong safeguards, directing development away from the most flood-prone areas, including flood plains, and makes it clear that inappropriate development in these areas should be avoided.

Our policy also ensures that new housing and most other development types are not permitted in functional flood plains—flood zone 3b—where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is allowed, it must be proven safe for its lifetime, with full consideration of the vulnerability of its users. The effectiveness of our current policy position is clear: in 2024-25, 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk, and these figures have remained stable over time.

Finally, I highlight that we are making a record £10.5 billion investment in flood and coastal erosion defences, the largest programme in history, including £300 million for natural flood management over a 10-year period and unlocking further investment from public, private and charitable sources.

Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I am sorry that she is not in her place because it would have been my first opportunity to welcome her back to the Chamber. The amendments, ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, concern sustainable water management and draw attention to the important need to reduce demand on water resources. The Government fully acknowledge the critical nature of sustainable water management and water efficiency.

To address that issue, in September the Government launched a consultation to review the water efficiency standards within the Building Regulations 2010. This will ensure increased water efficiency for new housing and tighter standards for water-stressed areas. The consultation includes a call for evidence on water reuse systems in new developments to enable even greater water efficiency. We are investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely. Reuse of grey water or rainwater should be subject to careful policy consideration, as any accidental, inadvertent or incompetent contamination of potable water could lead to a public health incident. In support of this, we are also examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and construction sectors, ensuring that they can safely install such systems. Additionally, in December 2024, we updated our National Planning Policy Framework to expand the requirement for sustainable drainage systems to all developments that have drainage implications. These systems can incorporate rainwater harvesting, which not only aids water storage but helps regulate flow rates from sites.

In the light of this, I am concerned that the additional measures proposed through Amendment 86 would be duplicative and would remove the appropriateness of efficiency measures to be determined on a case-by-case basis. We must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements, as a one-size-fits-all mandate may not be suitable in all local contexts. This can instead risk unintended consequences, such as increased expenses for developers and home owners, and may slow down the housing delivery that we so desperately need.

On Amendment 120, planning authorities already consider water efficiency targets in applications and can set tighter optional water efficiency standards through the planning process. Water efficiency standards and guidance are determined through building regulations. Duplicating this, adding further monitoring and evaluation requirements, could impose administrative and financial burdens on local authorities.

On Amendment 121A, planning authorities must already consider water supply and quality through strategic environmental assessment, also informed by strategic flood risk assessments, while water efficiency standards are set and enforced through the building control process. We should not duplicate existing planning guidance and building control processes.

Regarding Amendment 121B, the Government support sustainable water management and water efficiency and are already giving consideration to how water reuse can reduce water scarcity and drainage and wastewater pressures on growth where they are needed—for example, through the current consultation on Building Regulations and the associated call for evidence on water reuse systems in new development. In addition to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for all new development with drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, planning policy also requires that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for water supply and wastewater.

The existing statutory requirement that local planning authorities engage with specific consultees such as the Environment Agency and sewerage and water undertakers when developing local plans is supported by our planning guidance, which encourages early engagement between strategic policy-making authorities and water and sewerage companies. Strategic and local planning authorities will need to consider these requirements when preparing their spatial development strategies and local plans. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. They are leading and I am following on Amendment 44, which is about the duties of the Forestry Commission. Given the hour, I will be brief in bringing out two points.

First, the noble Earl rightly said that both Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Wildlife Trusts—two of our key organisations—totally back the approach in the amendment, which says that the Forestry Commission needs a clear mandate on climate and nature. As the noble Baroness just set out, this has just been nibbled at, changed and fiddled with over many decades, but that has not given the Forestry Commission the clear remit that it needs.

Secondly, the point that I will make that has yet to be made is about how incredibly precious our forests and woodlands are specifically because we have so few of them. Having just been to Ukraine and Poland—the latter is nearly 30% forest—it was striking that forest is part of just about everything I looked at. Even Ukraine, with its huge reliance on arable agriculture and the destruction it has been enduring, still has a higher percentage of forest than we do. We are talking about a terribly rare resource for Britain in looking after our climate provision and our nature. We cannot afford the Forestry Commission, which is such a major landowner, not having clear direction from legislation stating that its job is to look after climate and nature.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments in this group. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests as a renewable energy developer and as a forester and forest planter.

First, the removal of the application of Clause 28 to Wales is interesting. I am most grateful to the Minister for her explanation for why that should be. Secondly, limiting the powers granted under Clause 28 is a welcome change, in response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The DPRRC recommended that the Government constrain the power to make regulations, so that the Secretary of State’s consent can be required only in relation to generating stations that exceed certain capacity thresholds. As pointed out in its report, the Bill was originally drafted with a wider power, but the Government’s policy intention is that the Secretary of State’s consent is required only for significant renewable electricity projects. We welcome that change.

I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on 50-megawatt solar farms. It does seem strange that we should be allowing developments of that size. In general, areas that are most suitable for forestry tend also to be suitable for wind, but less suitable for solar. I would be most grateful to the Minister for any clarification she can give about the intention of this amendment. We will of course return to the competing uses of land between renewable energy and traditional rural interests in a later group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

It is a very fair question. The noble Lord is entitled to ask me any question he wants and I welcome his intervention. I have tabled loads of amendments in Committee on the Bill. This is not a Bill about solar; it is about the wider planning system. I am happy with the system as it is, so I have not put an amendment in.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for Amendment 43 and to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for his loyal and able introduction of Amendment 45 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I declare my interest as a farmer, although not of as much best and most versatile land as I would like. To illustrate the point made by my noble friend Lord Fuller, I point out that solar currently offers risk-free returns roughly five times as great as farming land. From a farmer’s point of view, the incentives for doing this are very strong and it is up to the Government to regulate and protect the best and most versatile land.

I will not repeat the arguments that we have heard. They have been very well made and were made at earlier stages of this Bill, as well as on previous Bills, debates and Questions. I will briefly outline our position on these amendments.

We on these Benches are steadfast: food security is national security. Protecting our best and most versatile agricultural land is essential, and we will not apologise for standing up for our farmers and consumers. When the most productive agricultural land is lost to solar developments, our food supply is less secure when it need not be. Where solar developments are pursued, they should be developed on weaker land, not on our most productive farmland. My noble friend Lord Fuller indicated that 42% of UK agricultural land is best and most versatile, but there is also a great deal of unclassified land. So if it is far less than 42% of our landmass, why are we building these large-scale solar farms on it?

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that there was not a problem here, but since the last election we have seen a number of NSIPs brought forward that include a significant amount of best and most versatile land. It is not necessary to use this best and most versatile land; plenty of land is available that is weaker and could support the incomes of the farming community while providing the energy that we are looking for. Should my noble friend Lord Fuller wish to test the opinion of the House, we will support him. I look to noble Lords on the Benches to my left to join us in standing up for farmers and underpinning our commitment to food security. It will be very disappointing if they are unwilling to support this important amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I respond, I send our best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for a very speedy recovery. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, his amazing contributions to our debates, particularly on human rights issues, are greatly missed and I hope he will be back with us as soon as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson—whom the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, ably stood in for—have tabled amendments relating to solar generation on agricultural land. This was debated at great length in Committee. While I appreciate the very strong feelings on this issue, the Government’s approach to these propositions has not changed.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it is important that every project is submitted to the planning process which befits its impact, scale and complexity. The Government believe that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher-quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the NSIP regime. The NSIP regime is rigorous. Local engagement remains at the heart of the process. Developers taking projects through the NSIP regime must undertake meaningful community engagement before any decision is taken. The level and quality of community engagement, among other factors, will be taken into account by decision-makers.

In Committee, the noble Lord appeared to suggest that the involvement of Ministers in the NSIP regime undermines public confidence in its ability to assess the costs and benefits of solar projects. I reassure him and your Lordships’ House that all ministerial planning decisions must be taken in strict accordance with planning policy and the Ministerial Code. This is in line with the policy governing decision-making by local planning authorities. As a result, as I explained on the last occasion when we debated this, we would not expect the planning outcomes to change.

As I argued previously, the Government are fully aware of the benefits of returning control, where suitable, to local authorities. At the end of the year, we shall double the NSIP threshold for solar, enabling projects of up to 100 megawatts to be decided locally. There is only one solar farm above 100 megawatts at the moment, and that was decided through an NSIP process.