Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Khan of Burnley

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, can the Minister give us some idea of a timetable for this, given that there is total unanimity that we are not in a sensible position and we need growth and to move this whole proposition forward? The consultation is about to end. Will we get this fixed by the end of the year, for instance? Could we be revolutionary and have something ready for Report? I am interested to hear from the Minister.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

We all share the opinion that we need to get this Bill on to the statute book speedily and to ensure that we have the growth to which the noble Baroness alludes. However, we need to do this by reflecting on and responding to the consultation, and for that to happen, we have to wait for it to finish—which is tomorrow, by the way. We will look diligently and carefully at the responses and ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, growth and development, so that this country grows. This Bill will play its part, but there will be secondary legislation following consultation. We hear noble Lords’ desire, which is also the Government’s; we are all on the same page, and we want to move robustly and diligently in considering the consultation that we launched.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I just want to welcome that speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. It was excellent in its tone and entirely different from that of her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, when he spoke from the Front Bench. I congratulate the noble Baroness.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place on the Front Bench. I look forward to the exchanges ahead.

I turn to Amendments 78 and 79A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I thank them both for tabling these amendments and for their interest in and commitment to improving grid capacity and electricity distribution infrastructure.

Amendment 78 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to grant distribution network operator powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land, with the aim of accelerating electricity distribution network infrastructure build and maintenance. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030. It is clear that a rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. Although we agree with the intent behind this amendment, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill.

As previously outlined, the Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow, on 2 September. That consultation includes proposals on land access and rights and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. Once the consultation closes, the Government will undertake a thorough evaluation of the responses to understand stakeholder concerns and to assess any potential unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, before that work has been done, would pre-empt that process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowner rights.

We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is reassured by this response; I kindly ask him to withdraw his amendment. I will take his offer forward with my officials and look forward to meeting the noble Earl, alongside my noble friend Lady Taylor, on the issues raised in this area.

I move on to Amendment 79A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. This amendment would introduce a statutory presumption in favour of undergrounding power lines. It would require developers to demonstrate that undergrounding was their preferred and initial option, and that it was infeasible on cost or engineering grounds, before overhead lines could be approved. We understand that some communities hold strong views in favour of undergrounding, particularly due to concerns about the visual impact of overhead lines. We are aware that the support is partly driven by examples seen internationally, where undergrounding is used in certain contexts.

The Government’s position is that overhead transmission lines should be the starting presumption for electricity network developments except in nationally designated landscapes, where undergrounding is the starting presumption. That is because overhead lines are significantly cheaper, as undergrounding can cost up to four and a half times more, with costs ultimately passed on to bill payers. Overhead lines are also quicker to build, cause less environmental disruption and are easier to maintain and connect to existing networks.

That said, we totally understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I reassure him that neither I nor my noble friend Lady Taylor answered the Question that he asked in relation to pylons, but we look forward to speaking to and working with officials to get more detailed examples of costs and how they work in different ways in different combinations. The noble Lord asked a question that I did not previously answer on whether the network permitted development rights proposals in the current consultation cover compulsory purchase. I can confirm they do not, but there will be a huge debate—well, hopefully not a debate, but a huge discussion—on compulsory purchases in due course.

Strategic network planning is critical to ensuring that transmission infrastructure is designed and delivered in a way that meets system-wide needs. The National Energy System Operator, NESO, through the forthcoming centralised strategic network plan, will assess technology options against key criteria—including cost, deliverability, operability and community and environmental impact—and recommend optimal solutions. Developers will then apply those recommendations at a project level, refining routes and designs within existing planning and regulatory frameworks.

Accepting the amendment would move us away from a strategic, co-ordinated, system-wide approach to grid development and towards a more fragmented process. While undergrounding is already used on a case-by-case basis where justified, the amendment could lead to more frequent project-level decisions, undermining strategic system-wide planning. That risks creating inconsistency, reducing efficiency and ultimately slowing down the delivery of the infrastructure. We need to meet our clean power 2030 and net-zero targets. Further, the amendment would shift the burden of proof onto the developer, which would add complexity, legal risk and delay to an already lengthy consenting process. Given the significantly higher costs and technical complexity of underground lines compared with overhead, the amendment is unlikely to increase the use of undergrounding but would add additional time to the planning and delivery process.

Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would require that electrical or communications cables under land in active agricultural use must be buried to a minimum depth of two metres from the surface level, and deeper if required. Existing legislation for electrical cabling is contained in the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2022. They require that:

“Every underground cable shall be kept at such depth or be otherwise protected so as to avoid, so far as is reasonably practicable, any damage or danger by reason of such uses of the land which can be reasonably expected”.


This legislation is supported by industry codes that provide the specific standards for the relevant minimum burial depth, considering different factors and use cases. These industry codes must comply with the legislation that forms the quality standards that network operators must legally operate within.

For agricultural land, the minimum recommended depth for electricity cables, set out in the Energy Networks Association’s engineering recommendation G57 for cable laying on agricultural land, is 910 millimetres. This is intended

“to provide sufficient depth to safeguard against damage from deep ploughing and cultivation, and from the mechanical installation of drainage systems”.

Recommendation G57 says:

“This depth requirement takes account of the wishes of the National Farmers’ Union”.


Agricultural activities including deep cultivations, subsoiling and mole draining rarely extend deeper than 700 millimetres below the soil surface. Installing cables at depths greater than 910 millimetres can introduce engineering and environmental constraints, such as increased heat generation from the cables, which may require additional mitigation measures such as increased pole spacing. Deeper installation would necessitate a wider and deeper trench, raising the risk of potential detrimental impacts on the soil resource due to soil handling and storage. The existing legislation is supported by detailed industry standards, ensuring an agile framework whereby the relevant standards can be flexibly updated and refined in line with evolving circumstances such as innovation while minimising potential impacts on agricultural land.

To conclude, similarly for communication cables, the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 include a requirement that code operators must install apparatus such as cabling at a depth that does not interfere with the use of the land. This ensures that the land can continue to be used for the purpose that the landowner wishes, even where there is electronic equipment buried in the ground. Introducing a new requirement for the depth of communications cables could increase digital infrastructure deployment costs substantially, slowing network build and potentially preventing the Government’s ambition of a nationwide coverage of stand-alone 5G and gigabit-capable broadband.

For the reasons outlined, I do not think that these amendments are necessary and I therefore kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.