Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Coffey ExcerptsWednesday 17th September 2025
(4 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Sep 2025)
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I agree—let us not discuss it now.
Amendment 309A in my name may not be required, but I would like some reassurance from the Minister. As currently drafted, the Bill outlines Natural England’s role under the nature restoration levy in spending funds and in monitoring the implementation of the EDPs—monitoring, as it were, the inputs and actions that are needed under the EDPs. There is no explicit duty as far as I understand—but I would like clarification —to ensure that the plans result in real ecological improvements and outcomes on the ground. By that I mean not just whether the EDP has done was it said it would but whether it has delivered the goods as a result of those actions. My amendment would make sure that Natural England had to demonstrate that the outcomes planned were being delivered and the plan was working.
The only requirement I can find—I am sure the Minister will say that this is sufficient—is that the EDP reporting requirements that are laid on Natural England in Clause 62 already ensure that it will report on whether the conservation measures are having or have had their intended effect. It would be good to have confirmation that she believes this means that it has to report on outcomes.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am supportive of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendments, and will speak also to those from my Front Bench.
There are a couple of factors in this. The Treasury hates ring-fencing, because, right now, it pretty much controls every penny that leaves the Government’s hands, whether it goes off to local government or similar. Other departments then want to try to control money that is coming out of existing government departments and how that should or should not be done, and so conventions start to happen within government. That frustrates, at times, the very purpose the levy is there for in the first place. There is precedence, as has already been said by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, in CIL and the Act that brought that in.
There are other aspects. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would make sure that this is additional money. It basically says that Natural England should not become self-financing and that every single penny raised should go to nature restoration.
Like my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, I was born in the county of Lancashire and I am very proud of that—don’t worry, I will not start singing the cricket song. There is something to be said, building on the principle of rectification at source, for trying to have that biodiversity as near as possible. Very occasionally, there have been infrastructure projects, such as the Channel Tunnel, for which it has simply not been possible to re-create the relevant habitat for certain displaced species, and it has had to go further away. It is a bit like what HS2 found: there is no point in planting trees at the wrong time of year, not watering them and then finding that—what a surprise—70% of them are dead. More money is spent on fixing the problem, instead of sorting it out in the first place. There is an element of co-ordination involved here, which I think Natural England is reasonably well-placed to do.
When we were setting up the BNG pilots, local developers sometimes could not do it, and there was then an opportunity to buy national credits. The department and Natural England were very keen for Natural England to be the only body to have this national pot, but I ensured that a few more bodies were available. It is important to have not necessarily competition but a variety of people who can provide this, as opposed to resource constraints becoming the great determining step or not helping progress. I come back to the Environment Act 2021 and its species abundance target for 2030.
There are other examples. It might be surprising to hear that the Treasury regularly holds back over a billion pounds from the collection of the apprenticeship levy, which it will often use to pay for various training here and there. Nature is too important. I thought it was no longer the Cinderella of the climate and nature environment, but I am afraid that it is back in that sad era. We need to ensure that it receives its fair dues, which is why I support the amendments in this group.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I wish to make a brief intervention. In terms of infrastructure, nothing has had a more devastating effect on the countryside and nature than HS2—for no purpose at all, which is very sad. The point I wish to put to the Minister relates to compulsory purchase orders. I do not know whether she is aware that the farmers have been paid only 90% of the value of the farmland taken for HS2, which seems grotesquely unfair. I wonder whether she would take that on board and perhaps comment on it or think about it.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 258, 268 and 353 within this group. I appreciate the extended thinking in Amendment 320B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
I endorse the need to speed up planning and development, and I support many of the measures in this Bill to improve the process, but Part 3 remains a real concern, as we have heard already this afternoon. Despite all the reassurances—and I welcome the letter from Ministers this morning—to pay a levy to Natural England to ease our environmental conscience is highly unlikely to deliver better outcomes than locally targeted solutions. I have always been rather sceptical of off-setting. This feels very much like the same principle—pay a levy and ease your conscience. It may give developers a lot more freedom, but do we really think that a public body such as Natural England will deliver better environmental outcomes through the administration of a levy than locally contracted, locally managed, locally targeted arrangements between developers and ecologists, who will have assessed the species and ecosystems at risk and are taking appropriate actions to address the impact? Contractual arrangements and relationships have been established in recent years to address this challenge, and in many cases are working really well. It would be a serious retrograde step if these were demolished by the application of measures in this Bill and replaced by a much less effective solution.
One of my concerns is that the levy will need to be administered, as we have heard. What proportion of the levy collected will eventually be spent? Will it be 80%, 75% or 70%? Natural England is a public body, so we know that a whole new department will need to be created and we can assume that lots of bureaucracy will have to be paid for.
There will be a likely time lapse. Local market solutions can be established almost immediately by local actors and in parallel with the development. Development by Natural England is likely to take place at a much slower level—I was going to say “snail’s pace”, but perhaps that is not appropriate—and it will take years for Natural England to find sites and replace lost habitats and ecosystems. There will be a constant and ongoing environmental deficit as a consequence. Ecosystems vary within a few miles, as we know, and should be replaced as near to the development site as possible. Local knowledge is essential, and Natural England may not be as close to the action as local players.
The impact assessment of this Bill has identified many of these risks, so it is a concern not just of mine. In addition, the Bill places huge responsibility on the Secretary of State. He or she will need to spend their holidays getting on his or her bike to visit sites the length and breadth of the country to make sure Natural England is doing its job. If local solutions to replace or replicate ecological sites at risk from development cannot be identified or negotiated, we should by all means apply a levy and give Natural England the challenge. But we should allow time for local solutions to be explored first. These amendments are proposed to allow developers the opportunity to present local private market solutions before the Natural England levy is applied. In response, I suspect Ministers may state that this opportunity exists; but it needs to be an explicit requirement and an obligation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is really important that we have private market solutions as a key way of delivering what we are trying to achieve. At risk of this becoming a Second Reading speech or of it being accused of that, I just want to go back a few years. The first green strategy did not mention nature at all. That was back in 2019. Then we produced the road map for sustainable investing. I managed to get in on the act when I was at DWP by talking about how pension funds should get involved in this; we had already introduced TCFD, and I hope we can get TNFD going.
Then there was the green finance strategy in 2023. It is not only for what we need to do in this country; it is the whole concept of private finance being a fundamental partner to making nature restoration real. Whether it is the GBF or the other aspects of international environmental treaties, the United Kingdom has repeatedly been at the forefront of making sure that private finance and markets are a fundamental way of achieving this.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, is looking at me in disbelief. I am not sure if that is because I have misunderstood his amendments, or perhaps he is just surprised that I am so supportive. Nevertheless, the current Administration have also talked about the importance of private finance coming in.
There is a real fear that quite a lot is going on that will kill the private nature markets and reduce land being made available, such as for BNG—this is novel, which is why it is coming up again. I am really concerned in a variety of ways that if we end up with just a state-led solution, we will fail. The advantage of the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has tabled is to be very clear in this legislation that it must be considered and involved.
While I appreciate that we may get, dare I say, warm words, as with much previous environmental legislation, if it is in the Bill and becomes part of the Act, then the Government will do something about it. If it is not, they will not necessarily do it, and they may resort to then apologising, perhaps years later, when it has not quite worked out how they had hoped.
The market was growing. It is still nascent to some extent and has got moving, but it is now having a bit of cold feet, and we do not want it to be enveloped by the Himalayan balsam or anything else, such as the ground elder, which is the worst in Hampshire. Therefore, we need to make sure we get that market thriving and not declining.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Curry, because he knows a lot, and I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, because otherwise, he might poison my breakfast—but on this occasion, I feel I have to comment.
I understand entirely that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is worried that the emerging, very valuable nature markets should not be eclipsed totally by the levy and Natural England’s role. However, some of the amendments in this group tip the balance too far the other way and say that nature markets must be the first port of call and not considered alongside all other potential organisations that can deliver the right solution for the right site for a particular EDP.
The existing nature market products are very valuable; some of them are less so. However, there are a shedload of organisations and groups that could deliver the requirements of an EDP for Natural England, such as some of the large charities, the ENGOs, farmers, groups of farmers, other landowners and the Forestry Commission. The role of Natural England must be to consider which of those organisations, or groups of them, should be the best way forward, including private nature markets but not giving a pre-eminent place to them and them preventing Natural England choosing perhaps the most effective partner, who would be someone who is local, onsite, available, already working in providing nature outcomes and could do more work to help with that EDP.
I would be particularly unkeen that we avoid Natural England being able to do it itself. On occasion, if there is work that can be delivered to take forward an EDP next to a national nature reserve that is already managed by Natural England, why should Natural England not simply do that by extension? It would be the most sensible proposition.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment I have tabled. I removed a group from the debate, noble Lords will be pleased to know, and thought this was the appropriate place to put it. I start by supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Roborough. The human rights memorandum accompanying the Bill is frankly on the edge of trying to suggest that this could well be allowable on the basis of it being for the public benefit. Clearly, if the land is no longer needed and has not been approved for use by the Secretary of State, it must go back to the original owner without question. If not, it would be a further infraction of land removed. I appreciate that there may have been some compensation in the interim; perhaps the details of that need to be sorted out.
My amendment goes all the way to page 119 in this Bill and then back to Clauses 83 and 84. It suggests that powers to acquire land compulsorily do not apply in relation to Crown land, and then subsection (10) defines Crown land in that regard. Subsection (10) says that Crown land means land in which there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest, but Crown land, as I may have explained to the Committee, is also land belonging to any government department. I appreciate that I do not know the full conventions for discussing matters regarding the royal family, but I give the example of Dartmoor, which has been a combination of Duchy of Cornwall land, part of Dartmoor National Park and privately held. It is also a significant landscape, probably of the type that could well have EDP proposals put there, ideally fixing the SSSIs that are not quite so good at the moment.
My main focus is government land. Perhaps I am being too strong, but it seems somewhat heinous that the Government can start going after all other private land. Bearing in mind how much land this Government own—I think the MoD is the fourth-largest landowner in the country—why does this not apply? Quite often, with bits of government land around the country, Homes England try to get some of it for housing, and so on. But it is an exceptionally laborious process while trying to achieve a government outcome. Departments such as the MoD often want the full market value, as if it were a commercial enterprise when selling to Homes England.
So, I am concerned. I would not mind if we excluded the bit that was the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy of Lancaster, but we should not be excluding government land from being potentially available to undertake the exercise that we want it to as a Government and Parliament intend. I therefore encourage the Government to think again and perhaps to rescope Clause 91(10) to have only the very specific narrow elements of that definition, as set out in Part 13, Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and to exclude only those held by the relevant Crown and Duchy interests that are not government land.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 292, which requires that, where land has been acquired under compulsory purchase but is not then used for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Secretary of State should seek to return it to the landowner. Surely that is natural justice. However, it leaves open what happens to any compulsory purchase funds that have been paid to the landowner. To my mind, the funds should be returned if they wish to take back the land.
I draw the Committee’s attention to evidence from HS2, including coverage on the BBC—is there a debate we can have without reference to HS2? Land was compulsorily purchased, but when it was decided that the land was not needed, it was offered back to the farmer in question to buy at a far higher price, or the so-called market value, which is a fine example of profiteering on the back of compulsory purchase. I also remind the Committee of the concerns I evidenced on Monday about the bullying behaviour of agents acting for authorities with compulsory purchase powers. Despite what it says about it being a last resort in theory, when the agents are motivated to acquire the land as quickly and cheaply as possible, different tactics often apply.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 304 in this group on the payment of the NRF levy and appeals. This amendment seeks to ensure that
“the cost of works for nature restoration and enhancement are covered by the developer, in accordance with the Polluter Pays Principle. The setting of the Levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developments that would have an outsized impact on the natural environment, redirecting them to locations with lower environmental impacts”.
This is an amendment to Clause 67 aiming to define the fundamental purpose of the nature restoration levy and to embed a core principle of environmental justice into the legislation. In this way, the amendment is quite different from the others in this group, and it is important. It proposes that the Bill explicitly states that the Secretary of State, in making regulations for the levy,
“must ensure that the overall purpose of the nature restoration levy is to ensure that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features are funded by the developer”.
It further clarifies:
“The setting of the Levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developments that would have an outsized impact”,
thereby redirecting them. This is important to make sure that we are not just permitting this kind of damage.
I thank the Ministers for their letter earlier today. I was in Committee this morning, so I have not managed to go through it fully, but there are still concerns about the nature restoration fund and developers paying to offset and the potential impacts that exist in the Bill. My amendment seeks to change this by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that the overall purpose of the levy regulations is that developments remain economically viable. The approach in the Bill has been identified by the Office for Environmental Protection as risking leaving the process open to economic compromise. The Wildlife Trusts, similarly, has articulated that it is essential that it is not the case and that achieving overall environmental improvement should be an absolute priority within the new system. It argues that that would
“correct the oddity of clauses which are meant to be environmental in character having an economic viability overall purpose”.
The amendment directly addresses this flaw by placing nature restoration, funded by the developer, as a primary overarching purpose of the levy. In so doing, it does three things. As I said, it upholds the “polluter pays” principle. It prioritises nature recovery; it ensures that the nature restoration levy is a tool for delivering genuine ecological improvements rather than a mechanism designed primarily to facilitate development viability at nature’s expense, and it directs the levy to act as a deterrent. A robust levy set appropriately will incentivise developers to choose sites with lower environmental impacts, thereby proactively safeguarding our natural environment and preventing irreversible harm.
This is a sensible amendment. I welcome the other amendments in this group, which I read as probing amendments, so I am interested to see what the Minister says in response to those. This is an important matter. I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister prior to Report and to her response.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lord Randall of Uxbridge cannot be here, but their Amendment 305, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench has also added his name, is really important in trying to make sure—going back to the environmental principles and government policy—that developers should be rewarded for doing the right thing up front, instead of just being prepared to sign a cheque. It is certainly not a blank cheque, but it could be a very big cheque. That should be offset, recognising the work done by developers as they develop their housing and other projects.
I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will go into more detail, but in essence, we risk entering a regime where mandatory levies are applied, and it is not even necessarily guaranteed that planning consent will be given. Meanwhile, instead of outsourcing, in effect, a lot of the work that would happen as a consequence of an EDP, we want developers to make sure that they design in the integration principle, which the Government have in their policies. It is a transfer of that into thinking how we build right first time, instead of constantly thinking about how to retrofit or do other elements, which, frankly, may not be as well done considering the original design.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the payment and collection of the nature restoration levy. First, Amendments 299 and 308, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, seek to reframe the powers to make levy regulations. In designing these powers, the Government have been careful to ensure they cover everything required to support the levy. These powers are drawn from existing powers in the Planning Act 2008 to make community infrastructure levy regulations, to which the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Lansley, referred. These provide for all relevant circumstances. As such, we believe the powers as drafted are appropriate and sufficient to cover the matters the noble Lords set out in their amendments. In addition, Clause 69(1) already requires Natural England to base the schedule on the expected costs of conservation measures when considering how much to charge developers.
On Amendment 304, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, while the only test the EDP needs to pass is the overall improvement test, ensuring the viability of development is a crucial consideration for any EDP. Put simply, if using an EDP would make development unviable, then developers will simply choose not to use the EDP.
Amendment 305, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to add a duty on Natural England to offer discounts to developers paying into an EDP if they incorporate measures to enhance biodiversity on their sites. This approach risks conflating the existing BNG requirements with the discharge of environmental obligations through an EDP. However, we will look to ensure a smooth, user-friendly experience for developers, including the SME builders that we have been talking about so much during the debates.
Baroness Coffey
“Pre-application biodiversity audit(1) Before a relevant planning application or application for development consent may be considered by a planning authority or the Secretary of State, the applicant must carry out and submit a comprehensive biodiversity audit of the proposed development site.(2) A “relevant planning application” means any application for planning permission, development consent, or reserved matters approval that involves—(a) land disturbance exceeding a prescribed area,(b) the creation or alteration of buildings exceeding a prescribed footprint or volume, or(c) any development within or adjacent to a site of ecological designation or significance.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “comprehensive biodiversity audit” means an assessment of the existing habitat types and their condition, and the ecological features present on the site and within its immediate vicinity, sufficient to establish a robust baseline biodiversity value.(4) The biodiversity audit must—(a) be undertaken by a suitably qualified and competent ecological professional,(b) employ a recognised methodology for habitat classification and condition assessment, and(c) include, but not be limited to, an assessment of habitat distinctiveness and ecological connectivity potential.(5) The results of the biodiversity audit, including a baseline biodiversity value calculation, must be submitted as part of the planning application or application for development consent.(6) A planning authority or the Secretary of State must not consider an application referred to in subsection (1) to be duly made unless the requirements of this section have been met. (7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make further provision about—(a) the prescribed areas, footprints, or volumes for the purposes of subsection (2),(b) the methodology and scope of biodiversity audits under subsection (3) and (4),(c) the qualifications and competence of professionals undertaking biodiversity audits, and(d) any exemptions from the requirements of this section for specified types of development or sites of negligible biodiversity value.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 335, tabled by my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lord Randall of Uxbridge. As I mentioned earlier, unfortunately they cannot be here at this stage. Their Amendments 335 and 336 are somewhat self-explanatory. It is important to have audits and that there is consideration of the baseline. I know we have had considerable debate on this—it seems it is just the nature of how debates happen in this place, depending on the groupings—so I do not wish to detain the Committee excessively by covering old ground.
My noble friends put a significant amount of detail into what qualifications anyone should have to undertake the audit and on having a recognised methodology. I think this is intended to make sure that we have consistency right across how audits are done. It has been a long-standing criticism of this part of the Bill that, if you do not know where you start, how do you know where you are going? The Government have sought to address some of those criticisms, but these amendments, in particular Amendment 335, are trying to put in the Bill a common starting point so that the overall improvement test of being significant or material, wherever we end up, can be achieved.
On Amendment 336, again, there are some technical elements in here. For the first time I have seen the phrase in an amendment, in proposed new subsection (4), “in an accessible manner”. Of course, all documentation from the Government and arm’s-length bodies should be published in an accessible manner, but this would ensure that the details of the biodiversity mitigation decisions are made very public, for everyone to see. That recognises how difficult it sometimes is and how often FoIs get rejected by a number of government bodies, and so having this in the Bill has merit.
Amendment 341, which I have tabled, is rather straightforward: it is about allowing ponds. I am conscious that over two-thirds of ponds that existed in England in the 19th century have now disappeared. Ponds support two-thirds of freshwater species, providing an ideal habitat for invertebrates such as whirligig beetles, damselflies and dragonflies, and they are a key hunting ground for flycatchers, warblers and many other birds which rely on insects for prey—including swifts, which we have debated at some length.
Ponds are also a vital habitat for amphibians, including natterjack toads, common frogs and smooth newts, and the decline in pond habitats therefore has had a negative impact on UK species abundance, with one in six species currently at risk of extinction. Ponds are also a nature-based solution to the growing risks of flooding and drought. They help to hold water on the land. They slow the flow of water during periods of heavy rainfall, thereby helping to prevent flooding downstream. In periods of drought, ponds can act as a natural reservoir, storing water on the land when it is scarce.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will talk first to Amendment 335, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It would require developers to establish a biodiversity baseline before development begins. Through biodiversity net gain, developers are already required to provide a site baseline, using the statutory biodiversity metric, as part of their planning application for Town and Country Planning Act developments. The biggest developers are also going to be required to do so from May next year, when it is extended to nationally significant infrastructure projects.
On Amendment 336, the Government agree that it is important that the use of offsite biodiversity gains by developers is justified. As part of the statutory biodiversity net gain framework, decision-makers need to take account of the biodiversity gain hierarchy, which prioritises, first, the onsite delivery of net gains. Again, this is distinct from the NRF, but we are not convinced that there needs to be a further duty on the decision-maker to prepare a statement justifying each offsite gain. The biodiversity net gain framework already requires a developer to provide information about why the use of offsite gains is required as part of the approval of the statutory BNG plan. It would be disproportionate to require decision-makers to prepare a further statement justifying the use and would add additional burdens on local planning authorities, especially for their ecologists, for little further benefit.
Turning to Amendment 339, which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for tabling, I will say that the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that decision-makers should contribute to and enhance the environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value. Local plans are required to identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation. Furthermore, the Environment Act 2021 introduced local nature recovery strategies, which are now being rolled out across the country.
These spatial strategies for environmental improvement are developed in partnership with local stakeholders and enable strategic authorities to agree a set of priorities for nature recovery. They also map out the most valuable existing areas for nature, which are often underpinned by other protections in the planning system, and areas which could become of particular importance for biodiversity. Strategic and local planning authorities will need to take local nature recovery strategies into account when planning for development under legal provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Where it is appropriate for large areas of habitat to be conserved or enhanced, local nature recovery strategies provide a mechanism to do so.
Local nature recovery strategies allow local areas to determine the best opportunities to take action for nature restoration, while also planning for any development needed in the area. In February, we published guidance setting out the role of the local nature recovery strategies in the planning system, and we are exploring how we can best reflect them in policy through our wider work.
The application of planning policy through up-to-date strategic development strategies and local plans, which consider local nature recovery strategies, will ensure that local people are equipped to make decisions about where habitat enhancement and creation can drive the best environmental outcomes. Therefore, while I understand the intent behind this amendment and agree that promoting nature restoration at scale is an important objective, the legislative framework to enable this is already in place.
On Amendment 341, we recognise that ponds can deliver important biodiversity benefits, and we want to encourage them in the right locations. We also recognise the benefits of ponds for farmers, providing valuable sources of irrigation during dry periods. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned the recent flooding; of course, things such as balancing ponds can be really helpful.
Permitted development rights are a well-established part of the planning system. For example, under an agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on-farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions, to manage and control impacts. Meanwhile, home owners can create new ponds in their gardens under householder permitted development rights.
Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the general permitted development order. A public consultation would ensure that the views of the public, including those who would benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. It would also allow for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and how these might be mitigated.
The amendment seeks to provide a national planning permission for ponds across the whole of England, regardless of whether one would be appropriate in a particular location, such as on land used for public recreation or in an area where it could increase flood risks. To ensure that ponds are properly located, there are circumstances in which a planning application is appropriate. On that basis, we cannot support the amendment. However, I assure noble Lords that we will continue to keep permitted development rights under review.
Turning to Amendment 346, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, while obviously I understand the ambition to improve information on the state of contaminated land in England, I also believe that the policy intent of her proposals is largely met by existing legislation and statutory guidance.
Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides a framework for identifying contaminated land in England and allocating responsibility for its remediation. It provides a legal definition of contaminated land and lays out the responsibilities of local authorities and the Environment Agency for dealing with contaminated land. These responsibilities include local authorities inspecting their area to identify where land may be contaminated, and maintaining a public register of land that has been identified as contaminated land. Local authorities and the Environment Agency are also required to ensure that “appropriate persons” remediate these sites.
Additionally, there is a statutory obligation for local authorities to report to the Government on the state of contaminated land in their area when asked to. Defra commissioned the Environment Agency in November 2024 to complete a state of contaminated land survey, and a subsequent report, and we will soon release the survey to local authorities. Regarding the noble Baroness’s question about Zane, I just want to clarify that the previous Secretary of State, Steve Reed, did meet Zane’s family, and it was following that meeting that the state of contaminated land survey was commissioned. We are looking to release it to local authorities to respond to very soon—this month—and we are aiming to publish the final report in spring next year.
Given that the existing frameworks are already embedded into legislation and guidance, Amendment 346 would cause unnecessary duplication and distraction for local authorities. Therefore, while obviously I completely appreciate the noble Baroness’s concerns, I would ask her not to press her amendment, and I will check the other questions she asked and get back to her in writing.
Amendment 345, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, wishes to create the new category of “heritage trees” and give them further protection. The National Planning Policy Framework recognises the benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services, which trees and woodlands provide. We are clear that opportunities should be taken to incorporate trees into new developments, and that existing trees should be retained whenever possible. Moreover, development that results in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodlands or ancient or veteran trees should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons, and a suitable compensation strategy exists.
Aside from these protections at national level, there are tree preservation orders, a key method of protecting trees and woodlands in England; and authorities are already expected to take into account the historic, cultural and ecological value of a tree. Local planning authorities are also required to notify relevant parties when the order is made so that they can encourage good tree management, particularly when determining planning applications. Local officers have powers to enforce protections, and an order makes it a criminal offence to cut down, prune, uproot, or wilfully damage or destroy a tree without the local authority’s written permission. Regarding the Sycamore Gap, the people who cut that down have actually gone to prison.
We are concerned that the creation of a new category of heritage trees could cause confusion and add to burdens on both Natural England and local authorities without the commensurate benefits. My noble friend asked about the Tree Council report, and I can say that Defra is working on a tree strategy, which I am sure she will take great interest in when she sees it.
Amendment 346A seeks to place an additional nature duty on forestry authorities when exercising their functions in planning, development and infrastructure on protected landscapes. We share the aims of the amendment and agree that public bodies should fully contribute to nature conservation and biodiversity recovery.
However, the objectives of the amendment are already embedded in the statutory and policy framework that forestry authorities operate within. Where renewable electricity development on the public forest estate is consented through the development consent order process for NSIPs, the national policy statements will apply, and the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy stipulates:
“In considering any proposed development … the Secretary of State should take into account … its potential adverse impacts, including on the environment, and including any long-term and cumulative adverse impacts … at national, regional and local levels”.
Furthermore, forestry authorities already have relevant and bespoke duties applicable to all land, and this balancing duty is a statutory obligation laid out in the Forestry Act 1967, requiring them to balance their forestry-specific duties with the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. Although I welcome the spirit of the amendment, I do not believe it is necessary to introduce this new statutory nature duty, as outlined in it.
Amendment 346DC, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove potential obstacles which may arise from Sections 1 or 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. We recognise the desire to clarify the position of development when it comes to exceptions from these obligations and offences towards wild birds. However, where impacts are unavoidable, development activity can already be exempted as lawful action in the existing list of exemptions under Section 4 of the Act. We will, however, carefully consider how to better manage the interactions between protected species and development both through the NRF and as part of our wider efforts to improve the regulatory landscape.
Having said all that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we have had another one of those odds and sods groups, with the desire to perhaps insert or add permitted development rights. I am sure that the Minister will recognise my disappointment about what she said about ponds. She will be aware that this is the only opportunity for Peers who are not Ministers to try to get some secondary regulations through and enacted. I am conscious that there was sufficient encouragement for many others in the aims of trying to improve nature, which is what many of the amendments were about. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 335.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Given that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed this amendment, I just briefly reinforce what the noble Baronesses have already said. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made the point about laws being passed and then nothing happening. That is a problem both for industry—in this case, developers—and for local councils, which are left in a state of uncertainty, not knowing where they are going with this. People start to prepare, read up and think about it. I should perhaps declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association at this point.
There is also an issue of trust with the Government—something that we discuss often in your Lordships’ House. A classic example of this is the bottle deposit scheme that we are all still waiting for after it was announced so long ago. Many people out there still believe that, when a Government announce something, it will happen—it is already on the way. Probably more people believe that, once a law is passed, that will happen. When it does not happen, there is then a real problem with trust in the Government.
I can trace my knowledge about sustainable urban drainage schemes to 2006, when the first Green was elected to Islington Council. I can remember her talking excitedly about how crucial it was to deal with local flooding issues as well as environmental issues. I had not yet learned the phrase “slow the flow”, but that is of course very much what urban drainage is about. I also recall visiting, some years ago now, Cherry Hinton Brook near Cambridge—I bring up chalk streams again, just for one final time. I talked to local people concerned about a proposed development there, what was happening with the sustainable urban drainage scheme and how it would potentially be managed. What is crucial about Schedule 3 is that it provides a framework for construction but also for oversight of management because, very often, sustainable urban drainage schemes cannot just sit there; they have to be managed throughout their lifespan for many decades. If we do not have everything set out here—the required technical analysis, the inspections and the responsibilities —as it is in Schedule 3, then we will be stuck with schemes that have been built but are not being looked after.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. To lift the curtain a little bit on life in government, it is one of my disappointments that we did not get this enacted. I perhaps have to dob people in: it was the Ministry for Housing. We had finally got there with Plan for Water, where it was adopted as a policy. We managed to get it in there and we did the review—it was all beautiful. I am pleased that the Government did the standards; they published that in July. It just needs this final push. Now that Steve Reed has moved from Defra to the Ministry for Housing, I hope that he will take full advantage of being enlightened about the benefits of ensuring that we have proper connections and sustainable drainage and, candidly, that we can get on with it and the Government take advantage of this primary legislation to ensure that it happens.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 337 and 342. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her speeches tonight. She cares about these issues deeply and I commend her for her hard work. I am sure that the Committee is united in agreement that the environment is an important factor worthy of consideration in any planning Bill. I share my noble friend’s concern about building on the flood plain. Travelling down from Carlisle to London every week, at certain times of the year I look out of the window and see that scruffy low-lying land knee-deep in water. Six months later, they are building houses on it. I wonder whether someone somewhere in government should do something about it. Thank God that it is not me.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 351A and 351B. As currently drafted, Clause 89(2) gives the Government pretty sweeping powers to amend any other Acts of Parliament or assimilated law that they consider appropriate for the purposes of implementing Part 3.
Amending primary legislation is a big step, and I think it should require the highest level of consideration in your Lordships’ House, which is the super-affirmative resolution procedure. That would mean that a draft would need to be considered by each House and could be amended before it was formally laid for passing in the House. I hope the Minister can agree to this process, considering the sweeping nature of the powers that the Government are intending to take. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said. In fact, it would be preferable for Clause 89(2) to be removed from the Bill.
My amendment is about the Secretary of State. I have not had the chance to identify in Hansard precisely where Ministers spoke to that the other day and this morning. I just think it is fair. I do not think the Minister in any way misspoke the other day.
I do not want to do a long constitutional lecture. I should point out that right now I am very keen to monitor this legislation, but I am also keen to see the rest of the second half of Liverpool beating Atlético Madrid 2-1, which is the score now.
Back to the topic: constitutionally, any Secretary of State can undertake the role of any other Secretary of State. This is where aspects of this come into play. I have extensive experience of having many legal cases against me and other Secretaries of State when I was in government. There were certain legal cases where the sponsoring department was conceived to be the decision-making power. All I am trying to do with this amendment is to make it crystal clear that Part 3 applies to the Secretary of State for Defra. The Minister mentioned earlier that it will be, except in certain circumstances or whatever. This just avoids any difficulty in that regard.
For what it is worth, my sense is that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is yet again blocking the commencement of other legislation, which is frustrating. Nevertheless, this is something I am happy to discuss and come back to on Report. I feel particularly strongly about it and would like it to be transparent in the Bill. If people suggest that portfolios and names change, there are existing procedures in legislation which, in effect, make the changes automatically. In that regard, I hope to move my amendments on Report.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Coffey on this small but important amendment, Amendment 356. It may seem a technical thing, but it goes to the heart of how this Bill and the EDP will operate. I retired from the board of Natural England in December last year. I have worked with Defra officials for the past seven years, and I know the strength of their working relationship with Natural England, so the Committee will forgive me if I speak for a little bit longer than my noble friend did in speaking to her amendment.
When I discovered on Monday that the Secretary of State to whom Natural England will report on EDPs will be for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I was appalled. I stand by my comments from Monday that no one in that department has any knowledge of biodiversity, wildlife and the countryside or can tell the difference between a bat and a butterfly.
I know that some of my noble friends dislike Natural England, and possibly Defra as well, but at least Defra understood the legal position and duties of Natural England. I ask my noble friends and Members opposite, and outside NGOs: do they seriously think that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government understands the operation of the countryside and biodiversity? I can tell them of the fight we and Defra had to get biodiversity net gain approved and past the objections of the department for housing and levelling-up, as it then was.
My main concern is that Natural England is an NDPB with complete operational independence in a large number of matters. There was a new perm sec a few years ago who initially thought that Natural England was an executive agency fully under the command of Defra, like the Rural Payments Agency and large parts of the Environment Agency. Natural England does get some ring-fenced funding, which is controlled by Defra; for example, the £50 million for peat restoration and funding, the King’s coastal path and a few other things. But most grant in aid is for the 250 legal obligations that Natural England has to perform each year. Many of these are boring and technical but they are the day job and have to be done, like responding to tens of thousands of requests from planning authorities on planning applications which may affect nature. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, had an amendment in group 7, where it was said that if the Government give Natural England extra funding for EDPs, the Treasury will claw it back somewhere else, and the Natural England budget will be squeezed on some other vital areas.
Defra understands that Natural England is legally independent in its operations. Of course, the Secretary of State can issue instructions and take control in some areas but rarely does so. I cannot see any circumstances where Defra would order Natural England to prepare plans which could endanger or diminish an SSSI or protected landscape or any national nature reserve, but would the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government show the same restraint?
I suspect that this MHCLG plan to take over control of nature was an Angela Rayner brainwave. I am sure that she and the department thought that Natural England and Defra had too cosy a relationship and Defra might not be trusted to drive through development plans, so Housing had to take charge. Defra and Natural England do not have a cosy relationship, but they have a very good working relationship, and each understands the roles and duties of the other.
One of the changes we made six years ago was to invite a very senior Defra official to attend board meetings. He had no say in our decision-making and no vote, but he heard our thinking, and when we asked him he could give a steer on government thinking. That was and is invaluable. He was the director-general of environment and is now the interim Permanent Secretary, the excellent David Hill; a quiet, unassuming modest man but with a superb brain and great intellect—and, of prime importance, he cares about the environment and biodiversity. The thought that Housing will be in the driving seat in directing Natural England on the preparation of EDPs fills me with dread, not just for the effects on farming and the countryside but for biodiversity as well.
I wonder if the NGOs realise that Housing will be the master here. I would love to hear from the RSPB, the Wildlife Trust, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and others on whether they are comfortable with Natural England reporting to the housing department on the operation of EDPs.
Let us briefly look at the Ministers making the decision. I regret that the new Housing Secretary of State, Steve Reed, whom I rather liked at Defra, issued a statement last week called “Build, baby, build”, and said that he would unleash a blitz of measures in this planning Bill. That does not sound like there will be much care for the environment and biodiversity. I assume that he has got a President Trump MAGA hat to go with that Trump slogan; I would much prefer to hear Ed Miliband say, “Drill, baby, drill”. However, no matter how nice they may be, the other Ministers in that department—from Peckham, Birkenhead, Greenwich and Chester—have no country or biodiversity experience.
In Defra, the new Secretary of State and Agriculture Minister do not have any rural, countryside or biodiversity experience, no matter how nice and decent they may be. Emma Hardy is quite good, and Mary Creagh is very good and has a track record of shadowing Defra and the Environmental Audit Committee. But there is one Minister in Defra who really knows her stuff, has represented a large rural area and understands the countryside and biodiversity, and she is sitting opposite us on the Government Benches. She is our own lass, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I hope that this praise does not kill off any further career chances for her, but I know that everyone in the House supports exactly what I have said.
We face the situation with the Bill that the only civil servants and Ministers who know what should be in an EDP, if we have to go down that route, are in the government department being bypassed. I know that the Minister’s brief will say that Defra will have input and that it will work in partnership with the MHCLG, but everyone knows that, just as departments have input into the Treasury on their budgets, the Treasury dictates everything.
The other golden rule in government is that the department with the money rules the roost. The Defra budget last year was £4.6 billion. The MHCLG budget was £25 billion—five times greater. Make no mistake, if this amendment does not succeed then all the expertise of Defra and its Ministers will be sidelined, the countryside will be ravaged and biodiversity will be sabotaged, as “build, baby, build” is unleashed by a department which simply does not understand. I do hope that my noble friend will return to this vital matter on Report.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I forgot a sentence in my contribution. I should have said that what we were informed of the other day completely explains how the Bill has been drafted. If it had been the Secretary of State for Defra definitively doing this, a lot of the clauses would not be needed, with the exception of compulsory purchase powers. I tabled this amendment in anticipation of raising the issue at this point.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, these Benches totally agree with the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because the depth and range of the changes encompassed in this Bill are significant and substantial. Throughout the Bill are references to the regulatory changes that will be made in secondary legislation; therefore, it is vital to retain understanding by the communities that are going to be affected and to help them with transparency on what the Government are doing to keep them on side rather than in complete opposition, at every turn. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, proposed, there is super-affirmative secondary legislation, the details of those changes could be properly scrutinised in draft form and then through the affirmative process. That seems an important route to take.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this and hope that the Government Benches, for once in this Bill, as we approach the end, will give us the affirmative nod.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we are nearly at the finish. All I want to do here is make a plea to my noble friends the Ministers to consider the benefit of consolidated Acts in relation to planning law. As I have discovered in my imperfect dip into planning law for the Bill, it is very complex; it is a labyrinth of Acts, and they overlap and cross-refer. They have been amended by layers of primary and secondary legislation, and the framework has become very complex. The Bill is all about growth, and I have every sympathy for people that have to operate in the field.
As Ministers, we all acknowledge that consolidated legislation is a good thing, and then we all fail to bring any consolidated legislation. I am well aware that it is my second mea culpa of the week. If we want to sort out our planning system, consolidated legislation would be a very good thing to do. It does not really involve much parliamentary time. It involves the department in work and parliamentary counsel, but the Law Commission is usually able to help. To achieve internal consistency, you need to have pre-consolidation amendments, and that is what my amendment would also allow for.
My noble friends have shown huge stamina in getting through Committee. They have responded sympathetically to many of the constructive amendments put forward. I just hope they might be able to say that they will consider this. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am concerned about this amendment, in particular subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, because it talks about repealing primary legislation. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is getting at in trying to make legislation straightforward. That is why we have all these schedules to legislation nowadays, to try to bring that about. I fear, and I have heard on the grapevine, that the noble Lord has been advised by somebody who is now advising somebody very important in the Government and who has also made subsequent comments about how nature is getting in the way of development. While I am conscious of the positive intentions that the noble Lord seeks to achieve through the amendment, I am just flagging my concern.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing forward Amendment 356A for the consideration of the Committee today. The proposed new clause would allow for pre-consolidation amendments to be made to planning legislation in anticipation of a full future consolidation Bill. Its purpose, as I understand it, is to probe the desirability and feasibility of consolidating the extensive and at times unwieldy body of planning law. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the matter.
It comes at a timely moment. We hear that, hot on the heels of the first planning Bill, the Government may now be contemplating a second. As we have said from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, if the Government had proceeded to commence either in full or even in part the schedules and clauses already contained within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, we might well have avoided the need for yet another Bill in the first place.
That brings me to the specific questions for the Minister. Can she confirm whether there is any truth in the strong rumours circulating that a new planning Bill is indeed on its way? If so, will such a Bill aim to consolidate the many changes that have been made right across the breadth of planning law in recent years? Do the Government accept that consolidation is both needed and desirable, not least to provide clarity and certainty to practitioners, local authorities and communities alike? Finally, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered what such a consolidation process might look like and under what timescale it might realistically be delivered? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Coffey ExcerptsMonday 15th September 2025
(6 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VII(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (15 Sep 2025)
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He referred to two different utilities. Energy should, in effect, be unlimited in the resource available, but it is concerning to a number of communities that, suddenly, energy projects, substations and so on are popping up around the country and lots of planning applications are going in alongside them from solar farms and for other significant uses of data, including data centres and other AI infrastructure. As a consequence, what proportion of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3a land is now being taken up with planning applications, due to not only solar farms but all the AI-related infrastructure to which the amendments refer? I do not know whether the Minister has that information; if not, I would be grateful if she could write to us.
On Amendment 185P, unlike electricity and energy, water is very much a constrained utility in this country. The amount of water available to keep powering homes, businesses and other activities, including energy stations, is significantly under threat. That is one reason why there will be one of the most significant contractions in the amount of water available to the farming sector in just two years’ time. There is something to be said about the amount of water that we think will be used by AI data centres and the like. At the moment, there seems to be no thinking about how we prioritise the different industrial sectors across our country. Nor am I aware—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that we are necessarily considering this in planning guidance, although there will be something more widely about whether water is available. This is a really important activity and the Government should absolutely be looking at it, regardless of whether this goes into the Bill.
When I did the plan for water, on making sure there was a clean supply of water—that was part of the intention—and thinking ahead, I do not think that we had really given much thought to this sort of consumption that we are now due to have. To give an example, one reason for the major delays to Sizewell C was that, all of a sudden, the water company responsible said that it could not necessarily guarantee the amount of water to be used in the construction and operation of the nuclear energy plant. That has led to Sizewell C having to think about desalination plants and reservoirs but, at the moment, there are constraints on how some of these things can be spread across sectors in the generation of a nuclear energy station. It is imperative that we think about where else this could happen; to be serious, in terms of the building planned and business growth in the east of England, after Sizewell C was given its consent, no other business has been eligible to get or ask for any more water.
This is a genuinely critical area that the Government need to look at, which is why I welcome the amendment put forward by the noble Earl today. I hope that they will give it serious consideration and I encourage the noble Earl to bring it back on Report.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I suspect that many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House are not yet fully aware of the growth, scale and significance of what we call AI-related infrastructure—the hardware and software required to create, train and deploy AI-powered applications and solutions. If we are to fully harness the benefits of AI, unlocking these new efficiencies, fuelling economic growth and creating opportunities for infrastructure investment, we must be mindful of the practical impacts that come with it, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Coffey have pointed out, with the two key areas being energy use and water.
As the noble Earl has highlighted, the sheer computational power required for advanced AI models is immense, leading to rising energy demand. Equally, the cooling systems necessary for AI data centres can involve significant water usage. These are important considerations and it makes sense that our planning system and national guidance should take them into account to ensure that infrastructure growth is both sustainable and resilient. I do not believe it is the noble Earl’s intention that these amendments hold back innovation; rather, they call for statutory recognition of these impacts within the planning system, supported by a clear national strategy, guidance and reporting requirements. That seems to me both proportionate and sensible.
The noble Earl’s Amendments 185R and 185S rightly highlight the urgent challenge of climate change and the central role that planning and development must play in addressing it. Their emphasis on ensuring a resilient and sustainable built environment is both timely and welcome, and I place on record our appreciation of the sentiment behind them. At the same time, however, it is important to strike a balance, supporting sustainability while avoiding overly burdensome requirements or excessive regulation that could impede housing delivery or economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to respond to these concerns.
Baroness Coffey
“Restriction on works affecting listed buildings: exemptionAfter section 7(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (restriction on works affecting listed buildings), insert—“(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any internal maintenance, repairs or changes to Grade II listed buildings.””Member's explanatory statement
This removes the requirement for listed building consent being required for internal maintenance, repairs or changes to Grade II listed buildings.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring that I own a grade 2 listed property.
This is intended to be a probing amendment and a deregulatory measure. We read in the newspapers today that the Chancellor has recently recruited a planning and infrastructure adviser; clearly, the advice from the ministry is not enough for her. However, it is reported that Rachel Reeves is also keen to have fewer regulators and to get on with a deregulatory approach.
In England, there are about 400,000 grade 1, 2* or 2 listed buildings. Of those, according to Historic England, 91.7% are grade 2, 5.8% are grade 2* and 2.5% are grade 1. We often think about what a grade 2 listed building is. When I did my research, I randomly sampled 100 grade 2 properties on the Historic England database. Only six had any internal features. Nevertheless, the guidance is that one has to apply for listed building consent if there is any concern not just about painting but about whether you might change aspects of the internal character or any of the original materials.
From that research—my sample was of 100 properties, but the ONS uses 1,000 as its statistically relevant sample size when it does surveys—I think it is fair to say that very few are currently considered to have internal features that are deemed worthy for listing. Consequently, it feels like a lot of work—through a lot of approaches—is done on exploring listed building consent. Dare I say it, people will often ask for forgiveness rather than permission, in case somebody in the local village or town suddenly decides to dob them in if they have heard that some internal work has been done. Perhaps that is more a story for “Midsomer Murders” than for a learned debate here today.
I completely understand that, for grade 2* listed buildings, we start to see much more consideration of internal features such as prominent fireplaces, prominent staircases and a lot of other relevant things. However, quite often, for grade 2 listed buildings, the focus is on the external. For example, the house that I own is thatched. Apparently, the brickwork was done with a particular thing called Flemish bond; you can see that only on the chimney, which is however high up. Bearing in mind those sorts of features, this amendment would offer a simple, deregulatory approach that would not particularly harm the heritage of our country. Therefore, I beg to move.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not completely in tune with my noble friend Lady Coffey, for which I hope she will forgive me. While I agree that maintenance and repairs are essential and should not be held up in any way, I urge caution about some internal changes.
In recent years, a minimalistic approach has gained popularity. In the case of grade 2 listed buildings, this may mean ripping out features of historic importance and changing floor levels, ruining the proportions and character of beautiful, old buildings. While I acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck, as sometimes, with modern living, removing a wall or making small changes can be beneficial, I would urge that this is not done without oversight.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that buildings of 1850 and before receive pretty much automatic listing. However, there are many lovely houses that are built after this, especially Victorian houses from 1850 to 1900, and they do not qualify because they are not considered special. They have no real protection. Even where those houses fall in a conservation area, it will mean that only the façade is preserved.
We are losing internal features of many historically interesting buildings. We need to put a brake on this, because once gone, we will never get them back.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which would remove the requirement to get listed building consent for internal repairs, maintenance or changes to grade 2 listed buildings. I will just very briefly recount a cautionary retail in this respect. We do not have many old properties in Stevenage, and listed ones are even rarer. There was one in my ward, which was an 18th-century farmhouse. A builder put a planning application in and we tried very quickly to get a listing for it, because in the context of my town it is quite an unusual feature, but we could not. That was because the internal alterations to the building that had been done were so extensive that the listing people held that it was no longer representative of the properties that the listing would have recognised. So, although I very much appreciate the intention behind the amendment, which is to streamline the process and free up capacity in the system, we must be careful not inadvertently to remove important protections for our heritage assets.
The Government are committed to the protection of the historic environment, which is an irreplaceable resource, so that these important assets can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. Our listed building framework offers legal protection for buildings of special architectural or historic interest. Many of these listings include those internal features that the noble Baroness mentioned—staircases, fireplaces and decorative plasterwork—and internal changes such as removing walls or exposing brickwork can erode the historic character of the building if not carefully considered. That is why we believe it is important that changes, including internal works, should continue to be subject to listed building consent. Without this vital scrutiny, we risk losing and damaging some of our most important heritage assets. The process of applying for listed building consent encourages owners to design any alterations sensitively.
We have, however, given local authorities powers to create listed building consent orders locally, which would allow them to grant a general listed building consent for specific types of work across their area. We have seen examples of this, including in Cheshire East, which grant permission for working—including, for example, relocation of loft hatches in certain listed properties in the area. We think these tools are a useful opportunity to streamline the consent process where there are specific works that would be suitable in their area.
I add that I had a first meeting last week and I now have a regular round table with DCMS colleagues and many of the bodies that support and champion the need of historic houses, so we will continue to have a dialogue with them about how we move this forward. For all those reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank noble Lords who participated. I say gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that I specifically did not include 2*, which I think is the example to which she referred. I am also conscious of what the Minister has said. It could be worth considering. I am encouraged to hear what Cheshire East Council has done, but it feels very limited for moving a loft hatch, which I cannot believe would in any way necessarily have been representative of pre-1850 homes. But, going further, I think that there could be something to be said for having a further category, where the listing does not include internal features, whether listed building consents are needed. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 212, to which I was delighted to add my name. I am conscious that this may seem like a single-minded approach, but it matters in a particular way. I say that because it is widely known that swifts are now on the conservation red list. They moved from green to amber in 2009 and to red in 2015. Between 1995 and 2021 there was a 62% decline. My noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge set out eloquently that some of this is about habitat and food but also about places for the birds to rest.
When I was in the Commons, I tried to press the case with other Ministers, but also as a Member of Parliament. I used to represent the parts of the east coast of the country that have a very natural stopping point for many migratory birds. In fact, Felixstowe port, in the words of Coldplay, has lights to guide them home. It is a very prominent place for many migratory birds, leading to the excellent and well-known Landguard reserve, as well as the RSPB’s world-famous Minsmere reserve up the coast.
On the subject of light, I am conscious of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. I would not necessarily want us to turn everywhere into a dark space when such lights may well be needed for safety in other commercial activities. But that does not mean we have them just for the sake of it.
On swift bricks, councils can already put in their plan that buildings are supposed to have swift bricks. I know that East Suffolk council has that in its plan, but it does not enforce it. We come back to the age-old arguments, “It’s going to add cost to development”, “It’s not convenient” and all these other things. We need to take action to stop the decline not only of this species but of many others. I am conscious that there is another amendment in this group which refers to a wider element.
The estimated cost of this brick is between £20 and £35. I genuinely do not believe that puts it beyond profitability. Frankly, that would be hard to swallow in terms of consideration of the cost of a particular house. But, as has been said, the Minister, when in opposition, thought this would be a slam dunk. It has already been yet another easy decision for Steve Reed, the new Secretary of State at MHCLG, to make—in the past it was actually MHCLG and probably the Treasury that held these things up.
There is another bird which often nests and is often thought to be similar to a swift. It is the house martin, and all I will say is, give us a happy hour and make sure we can have the swifts going for the future for evermore.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I congratulated the noble Baroness in Grand Committee last week and I am delighted to be able to repeat my congratulations today. It is lovely to see her in her place.
I have considerable sympathy for Amendment 212, moved by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I saw in the press last week that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park had been married, and I assume he is on honeymoon. My noble friend said he was being detained in another place, which makes it sound like a rather interesting honeymoon.
However, moving swiftly on, the swifts are magnificent birds, but swifts in the UK have experienced a severe population decline, with numbers falling by over 60% between 1995 and 2022. That has now placed them on the red list of birds of conservation concern. This alarming drop is primarily due to the loss of suitable nesting sites and buildings, as my noble friend said, and a reduction in their insect food supply. Modern buildings lack the crevices and cavities swifts need, while building renovations and demolitions destroy their existing nests. A widespread lack of insects further threatens their survival, impacting their ability to raise young.
I have the privilege of serving on the Council of Europe, and I go to Strasbourg four times a year. It is amazing the number of swifts one sees there. That is because, in the old part of Strasbourg, near the cathedral in Place Gutenberg, there are thousands of these old-fashioned buildings with cavities, crevices and little garrets, and what I consider to be holes all over the roof, which are perfect for swifts. Last year, for some reason, there were hardly any and we were infested with midges and mosquitoes. This year, one could sit outside with a little glass of wine and watch hundreds of them at dusk, swooping and diving, with no midges or mosquitoes. They had the right facilities for them to nest and they had them there.
The cost of swift bricks is roughly £30. One can get more expensive ones, of course, but they are not necessary. The Government might say that, if they make it compulsory for all buildings to have swift bricks, that will drive up the cost of housing. But not all housing is suitable for these bricks and buildings need to be higher than five metres above ground. Even if all the 300,000 houses were suitable, and if the ideal three boxes per house were installed, we are looking at £90 per house or £18 million for the whole 300,000 homes. The Government’s green levy for their fanatical drive for net zero will add 20% to all heating bills. Last year, it was an extra £30 per household. As from 1 April this year, the average household has had an increase of £9.25 to its monthly bill. That £111 is far in excess of the cost of swift bricks.
The Government are splashing out about £7,500 per household on subsidising heat pumps, and they have paid out more than £148 million for heat pump installations through the boiler upgrade scheme as of May 2024, with additional funding planned to bring the total up to £1.5 billion until March 2028. That is £1.5 billion for inadequate heat pumps, so do not tell us that a £30 brick would drive up housing costs to unacceptable levels. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to that.
As far as the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, is concerned, I am not fully up to speed on the cost of safety glass, but I can comment on the comments by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Up at our house in Penrith, we plant an awful lot of trees near the window. The trees are full of nesting birds, but we found that the reflection from the glass was causing bird strikes. The problem was quickly solved, because one can get packets of little decals at three for £5 to put on the windows. Since then, it has not been a 90% drop: it has been a 100% drop—no deaths. I am not sure that is a solution for commercial buildings or high-rise ones, but one can stop all these bird deaths in ordinary houses by simple, cheap decals that you can get from the RSPB, and the decals can say anything they like.
On Amendment 338, I can only make a personal comment. If colleagues wish to go to the new government building in Peterborough, a building which houses the Passport Office, Natural England, the Environment Agency, Defra and the JNCC, in the foyer they will find something called the Blencathra—a green wall. This came about when I served on the JNCC a few years ago. The new government building was designed, and late on in the day they shared the design with all the organisations that were to occupy it. They boasted that the windows were 100% net zero, the air conditioning was net zero, and everything else was net zero. I said, “But have you got any greenery in the place?” Ah, no, they had not thought of that. We could not put anything on the roof—it was full of air conditioning and other things—so after a considerable battle we got a green wall inside.
I appreciate that that might not be a full answer to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness. I do not suggest that we should have a compulsory law on this—that would drive up enormous costs—but, if organisations are willing to do it, the solution is quite simple.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is right that we are having such a comprehensive debate on whether Part 3 stand part of the Bill. The Whip will remind us that we are not here to do Second Reading speeches, and I agree with that, but he will remember that the advisory time limit at Second Reading was a mere five minutes to cover every single clause of the Bill. That is why we are having a debate, and trying to understand from the Minister what the effect of these clauses is supposed to be, especially as we know that, since the Bill came into this House, the Government have been forced to table amendments.
A test of this Bill—certainly of Part 3—would be whether the new Secretary of State at the ministry would stand by the assertion that Angela Rayner made when she said that there be no detriment on the basis of existing environment law compared to were this to go through. I appreciate that that is still sub judice but it would be helpful if the Minister might be able to articulate whether Steve Reed would stand by that assertion. It may be that that is part of what has led to the amendments, though, as we have already heard, perhaps the amendments do not go far enough. Certainly, the OEP was critical of the Bill—I do not need to go over its criticisms again—and some changes have been made.
My noble friend Lord Caithness talks in detail about Natural England. I intend to speak a bit more about that in the next group of amendments, but I want to give a bit of assurance to my noble friend. One of the reasons for having the environmental principles policy statement was specifically for the Government to set out how they intended these different things, such as the precautionary principle, to apply. I am conscious of what my noble friend says, but, specifically when it came to the precautionary principle—I know this because I wrote it—there is the issue of risk.
Traditionally, there has been a lot of back and forth about risk and hazard and what the right approach should be to the precautionary principle. By and large, Conservative or Labour Governments have taken a risk-based approach. I will give your Lordships a further example. If bleach was introduced today, almost certainly it would not be allowed, because the hazard would be too great. We do not do that; we do it on a risk-based approach. I am pleased to say that, in the government policy, which is still valid today, it says that
“in all cases, for the precautionary principle to apply, there must be sufficient evidence that the risk of serious or irreversible damage is plausible and real”.
I hope that reassures my noble friend.
There are various elements of Part 3 for which I want to understand and probe further what the Government intend to do. Clause 58 starts off by saying:
“When Natural England decides to prepare an EDP”.
But who is going to give that direction? Why is it up to Natural England to decide whether it is going to prepare an EDP? It would be helpful for the Minister to explain why the Government have come up with that phraseology. We will debate EDPs in a lot more detail, so I do not need to go into every intricacy of them now, but it would be helpful to get a sense of what the primary legislation is trying to get at. It feels a little like the designation of the expiration of SSSIs, where it is left entirely to Natural England to decide whether to look at an SSSI, whether to extend it and so on. That is not satisfactory either. It would be useful to understand the Government’s intentions in that clause.
It would be helpful to get some clarity on Clause 68(4) before I move on to Clause 86. Having accepted that a developer is going to pay the levy, Natural England can then
“rescind its acceptance … such that the developer ceases to be committed to pay the nature restoration levy”.
On the one hand, we are saying that the levy is mandatory; on the other, we are saying that it is not. In what circumstances has it been deemed that regulations might be needed to withdraw that? Perhaps the whole development comes to a grinding halt, but I think there will be several of us who are concerned that this is just another way to stop people paying towards the levy. I made this point in our debates last week that the chief executive of Natural England had come up with a series of assertions that it was not mandatory for developers to pay the levy and later that councils could assess the validity of the EDP being developed and the progress of it and make decisions on whether or not it was valid to grant planning consent. There are also other issues with Clause 59.
In Clause 86, Natural England is mentioned basically everywhere, and the Secretary of State is mentioned every now and again. The clause is saying that the Secretary of State can decide anyone has the power to exercise the functions. If that is the case, why have we gone into that level of detail about Natural England being granted all these compulsory purchase powers when really, at the stroke of a pen, they could be given to just one single person? That feels extraordinary.
So I am really concerned about Clause 86 in general. I am conscious that the Minister may want to elucidate on this clause in more detail, and I hope that she can explain what it is seeking to achieve. It may be that the Secretary of State wants Suffolk Wildlife Trust to develop the plan or some other body—it could be somewhere special in Cumbria. By the way, I congratulate the Minister on staying in her post given that she is the only person who has any connection to the countryside; I am sure even the Prime Minister realises that Defra needs somebody who actually lives and breathes the countryside.
However, the designated person will be defined in regulations, so it could be anyone. It is pretty stark to give such huge powers to just anybody. We have seen this in the Employment Rights Bill, where—as we finally discovered through debate in this House—a designated person or body, like the trade unions, could be given unlimited amounts of taxpayers’ money. We are seeing that here in this Bill too. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain what, in seeking that the clause stand part, the Government are seeking to achieve.
I know people want to catch trains shortly after midnight so we should not extend this much further, but I want to mention aspects of the mitigation hierarchy and to get some clarity from the Minister. I recognise this has already been brought up a few times today. In the Commons, Matthew Pennycook was very clear that he did not believe the mitigation hierarchy was in any way fixed. Can the Minister clarify whether the principle of “do no harm” is being ripped up?
I will speak separately to my noble friends about parts of the reality of the River Wye. Some of it is just that the river is too hot because somebody has managed to cut down tons of trees, so there is no shade anymore, which has led to greater chemical reactions happening than perhaps Natural England would otherwise predict.
Finally, I will speak to some of the other amendments. My noble friends on the Front Bench have tabled Amendments 346DD and 346DE; they are familiar because they are very similar to amendments tabled by the last Government, of which I was a member. I would say gently to some of my noble friends that, when I was looking at some of these significant changes, I looked at a map and some of these parts of the country are tiny. Are there not some other parts of the country where we could consider building instead of going on such a controversial route as we took at the time? This Government have gone far further with Part 3 as it stands, but I look forward to some of the explanations on that.
I completely agree with Amendments 302 and 303, which my noble friends have been tabled.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the general thrust of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough.
The focus of Natural England is bureaucratic and precautionary, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Caithness. We need to find a way around the freezing of housing developments by Natural England under its nutrient neutrality rules. This is a real growth killer in those areas. My noble friend Lord Roborough has tried to find an immediate remedy in some of his amendments; I encourage the Minister to look at them and perhaps come forward with some further amendments to this important Bill. I remind the Committee that page 6 of the Explanatory Notes says that the Bill
“intends to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure”.
My worry is that Part 3 gives Natural England the power to bring about the opposite.
Baroness Coffey
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have multiple amendments in this group. In essence, the whole thrust is that the Secretary of State should be in charge of this rather than it be passed to Natural England through primary legislation. I say that because of a number of factors. I am not going to do a big attack on Natural England, but I think it is worth exposing some of the challenges. I am slightly conscious that, according to the clock, I have already spoken for 15 minutes—time goes quickly when you are having fun.
One of the things the Prime Minister has set out is that decisions should not be palmed off to all these other bodies; Ministers should be accountable. That matters. A frustration that the wider public have is that too often it feels like Ministers have either lost control or given up control. For a variety of reasons, it has often been deemed that a third party would be better off doing this than the elected Government of the day. I do not think that is the right approach. Recognising the other piece of legislation we have had along the way in getting here, it is right that Ministers should be accountable. Natural England is an arm’s-length body, with a sponsoring department at Defra, but it has its own independent board. There are certain rules that it is not particularly accountable to because it is a regulator, and others that are delegated through a variety of ways. Importantly, Natural England is formally the statutory adviser to the Secretary of State for Defra.
As a consequence, with these amendments I am trying to say that, frankly, if the Secretary of State wants to delegate a lot of the creation of EDPs to Natural England or others, that should be in their capability to do so, but we do not need legislation to make that happen; it already exists. That is one of the fundamental reasons why I believe that, despite all the other minor protections that are in place, it is the Secretary of State who should be named, and we can get rid of quite a few clauses along the way.
I do not wish to steal the thunder of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering but, in answer to the question about Clause 86, it sounded like the Minister was ready to accept Amendment 333. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, will be thrilled at that as well, though perhaps my noble friend Lord Lucas might not be so keen.
On delivery, I worry about how much in this legislation has been concentrated. I may sound contradictory when I say thank God for that part of the Bill that allows for other people to do things that Natural England has been empowered to do. A lot of this might need changing, as I am concerned about the delivery capability of Natural England. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to this being like its dream come true. It felt like that under the Environment Act when, quite rightly, ambitious targets were set. I am pleased that the Minister wrote in her recent response to my QWA—I paraphrase, slightly—that this will definitely improve Natural England, but the question is about time. How can we get on with the pace? The Environment Act 2021, primary legislation, is specific about the species abundance target that must be achieved by 31 December 2030. I am afraid Natural England is not good at pace. I have met so many people who have been trying to plant trees, a whole series of them, yet it has taken over two years to get agreement—and not of the Forestry Commission, which is slow enough as it is, although definitely well-intentioned. Natural England is well intentioned too, but it is ridiculous that it is taking so long and we have heard complaints about housebuilding that was supposed to be updated.
Take what is perhaps not the simplest of tasks—although it feels like it should be. We started on the journey for the coastal path for England to be completed by 2020. There was a legal ruling, involving People Over Wind, which meant that Natural England had to do a bit of reassessment of its coastal path. Even then, the Senior Deputy Speaker said at the Dispatch Box that it would be done by the end of 2021. I put in the environmental improvement plan that it would be done by the end of 2024. The latest is that Ministers are saying 2025-26. The latest update is that, by August of this year, of the 2,700 miles, two-thirds had been done. There are still 900 miles to go. That is just one example of whether Natural England will actually do what it is being asked to do. That is my big fear.
A lot of developers will be trying to get away from these environmental obligations and all these different things. That is why I am concerned about outsourcing this in primary legislation to a completely different, although admittedly arm’s-length, party. I would not only prefer that we do not have this thing more broadly, but that we can hold the Secretary of State to account, day in, day out, on what progress they are making, and not only on the environmental targets. Ultimately, that is what this is all about: to hit targets and to save this planet. That is why we negotiated so hard in Montréal. It has all been done to make sure that we have a planet in the future. That is why I have tabled these amendments. I beg to move Amendment 228.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed today. I should have mentioned my noble friend Lord Caithness, who co-signed a lot—pretty much every single amendment—in that group. I am grateful to him. The Minister may have attracted a few more questions than she answered in certain areas, but I am sure that we will return to aspects of this on Report.
I assure noble Lords that I am not trying to carry out a big attack on Natural England. We want it to succeed at improving nature, but there are too many examples of it already having stuff to get on with, such as SSSIs. I will debate separately with my noble friend Lord Blencathra what I said about the coastal path being an example, because I am relying on data that was published just last month. There are other stories I could tell, but they could perhaps wait for another group or another debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. We cannot think about EDPs in splendid isolation. It is important that we as a Committee look at the wider context, including biodiversity net gain, that the EDPs will slot into. In that regard, it is incredibly important that, before we get to Report, the Government make clear their response to the consultation that they launched on biodiversity net gain, which closed before recess. If the Government were to decide to significantly change biodiversity net gain for the smaller sites that are up for grabs, it would have hugely detrimental impacts for the environment. It is important for us to know that before Report, so that we can then think about other amendments we might wish to bring forward.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 261 is to be considered in this group. Specifically, it would require that an EDP must pay not just regard but due regard to the local nature recovery strategy that has been published by the appropriate public authorities for that area.
This matters. We have been on this journey, right across the country. I genuinely believe that, rather than the EDPs we are debating, the local nature recovery strategies will be the building blocks of how we rescue nature in this country. The reason for that is that local people know what is going on, and have a sense of the relationship between place and their community, and there are powers in local government to consider not only planning decisions but other aspects of infrastructure that come together towards it. By and large, across our country, the local nature recovery strategies are being made at county level, though that is not true in every geographic county. There are some unitary councils—such as Northamptonshire, though I cannot remember the reason now—where they are split in two, which is somewhat sad.
Nature knows no boundaries of administrative convenience of how councils are determined. Building on the Lawton principles, which will be absolutely vital in trying to ensure that we have nature recovery, it is important that public authorities at the higher level—key to this is that it is the upper tier, not the lower tier, that tends to do the planning—have due regard to the discussions about what has been put in place. That will have already gone through extensive consultation, as is happening right now, right around the country.
Earl Russell (LD)
I will speak briefly to this group of degrouped amendments, which all look at various aspects of the relationship between Natural England and the scope and framework of timetables for an EDP. I will speak to Amendments 231, 249, 253C and 274. Taken together, they are about strengthening the framework for environmental delivery plans and helping to provide further clarity, safeguards and accountability. I am reading all those amendments as having a probing nature, asking questions and seeking further clarification from the Minister.
Amendment 231, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, seeks clarification that the Secretary of State should be able to issue guidance to Natural England or any designated authority on how an environmental delivery plan is prepared. I assume this is about ensuring consistency across the country, setting clear frameworks for public consultation and providing further protections.
Amendment 249, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is about adding detail and transparency. This amendment would require environmental delivery plans to be monitored and to show their scientific basis, alignment with local policies and the timeframes for addressing environmental impacts. Again, this is about making sure that plans stand up to scrutiny and deliver measurable results.
My noble friend has already spoken to Amendment 253C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so I will note the comments that have been made already.
Amendment 274, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord, Caithness, would require Natural England at the outset to define the measures it believes necessary and to invite expressions of interest for their delivery from persons or organisations.
Finally, Amendment 277A, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would limit the number of EDPs Natural England is expected to prepare in the first two years to four in the first year and 12 in the second, and, if capacity permits, that that could be extended. I assume that this is a probing amendment. It would definitely be better if it was. I am interested in the Minister’s response to how many EDPs the Government think there is capacity for.
Taken together, as I said, these are probing amendments seeking further clarification from the Government.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 233, I shall also speak to Amendment 283A in my name. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough, who has Amendments 281A to 282 in his name, all of which sit within this important group concerning consultation on environmental delivery plans.
As ever, the detail matters, and in this case the missing detail is the voice of those most directly affected—the landowners and farmers who will be expected not only to comply with, but often to deliver the outcomes envisaged in EDPs.
As my noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned at Second Reading, the Secretary of State in the other place remarked that,
“we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/25; col. 427.]
That is a generous sentiment. Nowhere in the Bill, however, do we see any requirement for Natural England to consult land managers and farmers or, indeed, to work with them at all in delivering environmental improvement within EDPs.
At a time when the Government impose the family death tax on farms, slash delinked payments and slam shut the door on SFI applications with minimal notice, I am surprised that Ministers have not seized this opportunity to allow farmers and landowners to be part of the solution, commercially and practically, by providing environmental services to developers or to Natural England itself.
That brings me to the amendments in my name. Amendment 233 ensures that when Natural England is specifying the maximum amount of development permissible under an EDP, it must consult qualified surveyors from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. This is not a bureaucratic embellishment. Instead, it is about ensuring that land value, local economic conditions and development viability are properly understood by professionals who work in this space every day. Without their input, we risk setting thresholds that are arbitrary, potentially unworkable and, in some cases, detrimental to both development and conservation goals. Let me take a moment to explain why this is not merely desirable but essential.
Clause 54(5) and (6) require Natural England to determine and
“specify the maximum amount of development”
that an EDP may apply to, and this may be defined, according to the Bill, by area, on floor space, the number of buildings or units, the values or expected values, or the scale, in the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects. These are not ecological metrics, they are economic, planning and valuation judgments, yet quite simply, Natural England does not have, in my opinion, a single person who knows how to do these metrics.
Some of my noble friends may profoundly disagree with me on this, but when Natural England considers scientific criteria for SSSIs, it produces experts of the highest calibre, world-renowned specialists in species and habitat conservation. That is the strength of Natural England, but valuing property is not. We do not need to speculate on this. I am not revealing any board confidences here, because Natural England’s own 2023-24 annual accounts make this crystal clear. On heritage assets, it states:
“There is valuation uncertainty affecting Natural England’s heritage assets because there is limited market evidence of comparable assets being bought and sold”.
That line stems from a change in international accounting standards that required Natural England to revalue its national nature reserves from an historical rating to a current one. For three years, not one auditor, not one surveyor, not a single person in Natural England could arrive at an agreed valuation. Why? Because Natural England does not do this work; it was never designed to. So I ask: if Natural England cannot put a value on a nature reserve, which, depending on your view, is either absolutely priceless or worthless because you cannot build on it, how on earth can it make informed decisions on the scale or value of commercial development? How can biodiversity experts determine whether, say, five acres of housing is better or worse than five acres of an Amazon distribution shed or an AI data centre drawing on vast quantities of water?
These are not theoretical questions, they are real-world decisions with significant implications, and Natural England is asked to pronounce on them in Clause 54. How can Natural England assess the number of units within buildings or predict how those units might be used, particularly in commercial or mixed-use developments, when such usage can change frequently depending on the occupancy of the tenants? Lastly, how can Natural England pronounce on values or expected values, which lie firmly in the realm of chartered surveyors, when even they would preface their valuation with caveats or “depending on local markets”, planning conditions, service access, environmental strengths, and so on.
This clause as it stands is unworkable. At best, it asks Natural England to make judgments it is unqualified to make. At worst, it risks undermining both development viability and environmental outcomes through guesswork or error. Amendment 233, therefore, is not only a safeguard, it is an enabler. It would ensure that decisions are made with the right expertise at the table. Without it, we are, in effect, asking marine biologists to assess logistic parts and entomologists to forecast land values.
Amendment 283A is a practical one. It would change the consultation period on draft EDPs from 28 to 40 working days. For many, 28 days is simply not long enough to engage meaningfully with what can be highly technical and significant documents. Forty working days is not excessive. It aligns with best practice elsewhere in the planning system and gives consultees a fair chance to respond constructively.
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough, I also commend his Amendments 281A and 281B, which would require Natural England to consult with both farmers and landowners after an EDP has been prepared. It is crucial that consultation is not limited to the early stages but continues throughout the process, particularly once the practical implications for those on the ground become clear. Successful environmental management depends on partnership.
These amendments are not hostile to the principle of EDPs. On the contrary, they would help to make them work. They would build trust. They would increase buy-in. They would make the outcomes more deliverable. If we treat farmers and landowners as partners, not passive recipients of policy handed down from above, we are far more likely to achieve the landscape restoration that we all want. Indeed, when I joined the Natural England board in 2018, it had just launched a policy called “working in partnership”, or something like that. I cannot remember the exact name, but it was moving the whole strategy from one of merely trying to enforce things into working in partnership with landowners.
To that end, we also support the sentiment of Amendment 280 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, which rightly seeks to ensure that neighbouring authorities with a local nature reserve strategy must be consulted.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is not in his place at the moment, but when we were talking about EDPs, he said that a senior Natural England official said it was the most exciting thing in his lifetime. Maybe that is the same senior official who told us three years ago when looking at the Environment Act 2021 of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, that local nature recovery strategies were the greatest step forward in nature recovery in British history and he was really excited about them. I presume he has now switched his loyalty to EDPs instead. Local nature recovery strategies are absolutely vital to delivering nature recovery in every inch of England. Amendment 285 makes it clear that all the bodies listed under Clause 59 should be consulted by Natural England. That is good governance.
We are asking for something very modest here: that those who will be most affected by EDPs have a seat at the table and the time to consider what has been asked of them. These are constructive, proportionate and necessary amendments, and I hope the Government will consider them carefully. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 280 is in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for explaining it so succinctly. It is exactly that; in this part of the Bill, there is a whole list of local authorities mentioned as being required to be consulted. I agree with that official from three years ago that local nature recovery strategies are going to be the thing that makes a lot of this happen. My amendment is self-explanatory, and I hope that Ministers will include it on Report.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Coffey ExcerptsThursday 11th September 2025
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (11 Sep 2025)
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 147, but before I come to that, I want to say how much I support what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. We need this jigsaw of plans and ideas to work on the ground.
The advantage of being sweeper behind my noble friend Lord Trenchard and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is that most of what I was going to say has already been said. I just reiterate the key point that we are failing to look after our national treasure of chalk streams. We have only about 280 in this country, which run from west Dorset up to Yorkshire, but those represent 85% of the chalk streams in the world.
Chalk streams are paying the price for being located often in some of the busiest areas of the country and they can be subject to both the direct impacts of development—for example, building next to a chalk stream—and the indirect effects of new development, in terms of additional water requirement and water discharges.
Only 17% of chalk stream water bodies are achieving “high” or “good” status under the water framework. It is clear that further work is needed to protect them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the recent work of Brighton University on the Itchen. One of the interesting things about that research—and I hope the Minister has read it—is the amount of tyre particles that were found. Can the Minister please confirm that any developments and infrastructure, including transport, will not create further pathways for contaminated surface water and road run-off to enter chalk streams and the drains, streams and brooks that feed them? Special status is needed for these globally rare and locally precious treasures to drive investment and ensure protection and restoration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, mentioned the local nature recovery strategies. She is right that those in themselves are not good enough and there are streams in Norfolk and Suffolk that are not included within LNRSs. LNRSs cannot account for a catchment-wide approach as chalk streams often span multiple local areas, so it is vital that local authorities work together if we are going to save our chalk streams, and that is why the spatial development strategy is important to them.
In conclusion, these low-energy, globally important river systems cannot simply be moved and certainly cannot be recreated elsewhere, so off-setting any impact via approaches such as the nature restoration fund is impossible. The practical, sensible solution is to give them greater protection where they are and include them in any spatial development plan. When I was in government, I was very pleased to work with the Minister on chalk streams. We worked well together and successfully. The tables are now turned; it is up to the Minister whether she will work with us.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support several of the amendments and will speak to most of them. Amendment 146, the lead amendment, is, in essence, the right approach. The importance of chalk streams has been mentioned. I used to live near the chalk stream in Hampshire, the River Test, and as a Minister I visited many.
I welcome the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about the importance of local nature recovery strategies and the land use framework. My noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Caithness have gently teased the Minister—often it is easy to say things in opposition and then, all of a sudden, you have to face the realities of government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, asked about the land use framework. A couple of years ago, I wrote quite a substantial LUF. MHCLG—DLUHC at the time—was concerned about the impact it could have on housebuilding, when we were trying to get a combination of food security and the development of homes and the like. The good news is that it was Steve Reed, who was Secretary of State at Defra until a few days ago, who put out this consultation. Now, of course, he is Secretary of State at MHCLG. I hope that, in his new department, he will not put a barrier in the way of the land use framework, and that together with the new Secretary of State for Defra, Emma Reynolds, this can be published as quickly as possible. I am conscious that new Secretaries of State often want to have a look at these things, but I am sure that Emma Reynolds will trust the judgment of Steve Reed and have an excellent land use framework, which should absolutely be incorporated into spatial development strategies.
I will not say more about LNRSs, other than to say they will be one of the most critical things to happen as a consequence of local government. Therefore, it is a no-brainer that they should be an integral part of SDSs.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who tabled the amendment, cannot respond, but I will pick up on that separately. I want to get clarity on permissible activities. I would not want the SDS to start getting into the nitty-gritty of where there are existing rights. For example, there will be challenges around abstraction rights for a lot of landowners and farmers in 2027, when there will be a significant reduction in abstraction. The people putting together the SDS should be aware of that and need to think carefully about how that interplay goes. However, while it should be considered, I am not convinced the SDS should be the way in which permitting starts to happen—though I may have misinterpreted the amendment.
One reason why the Test is the best place in the world to go fishing for various kinds of trout is that it is a chalk stream. It was fishing that got Feargal Sharkey into the whole issue of water. Through my friend Charles Walker, who used to be an MP until the last election, when he retired—it happens to be his birthday today, so happy birthday to Charles—I know that anglers are very protective of those rights and substantially concerned about the water. My noble friend referred to the importance of good eco status. The Environment Agency’s principal measure in assessing eco status is the size of fish—it is a classic measure. There is a reason for that, and, as a consequence, that is why anglers are so involved. I would be nervous if the spatial development strategy started to get involved in aspects of licensing in that regard.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard tabled the related Amendment 355, which is more strategic and will be debated in a later group, but in one fell swoop Amendment 354 would give formal designation and protection status to rivers, which at the moment only 11% of chalk streams have. That is a clever device in order to achieve the outcomes your Lordships would want.
I wish the Minister well in making sure that her new Secretary of State gives a clean bill to what he proposed in his previous role, and that we get the land use framework as a welcome Christmas present, not only for this House but for the country at large.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I make one suggestion to the Minister, if I may. One way of achieving the objective that many of us seek for chalk streams would be to include specific reference to them in footnote 7 to the National Planning Policy Framework. That would carry through very successfully into many other decisions.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, if I may I will start by being grumpy in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others. This is Committee, and it is inappropriate to say, “Before the Minister sits down”. Saying that, as a Back-Bencher, suggests that allowing us to speak again is in some ways a concession on the part of the Minister. In Committee we can speak as many times as we like, whenever we like. That is a right which I do not see much exercised today, but we really should preserve it. On Report we are restricted; Committee is a free-for-all. It is important for getting to the bottom of things that we assert our right as Back-Benchers to speak when we wish to, and do not act as if this is a concession by the Government or Ministers.
Anyway, to turn to my amendment, my object here is to see whether we can make the planning system work better and improve the flow of national planning policy into decisions taken on the ground by imposing a duty of candour on the system. At the bottom end, the duty of candour is a strengthening of the power of officers because it removes from them the pressure to bend their advice to what they think will please the members of their authority, or maybe the public beyond that. It gives them a duty to be straightforward, honest and open about what things actually are. It is a considerable help to an official in dealing with members that they know they have to be clear—that they cannot say things just because they will get it in the neck from members if they do not say what members think they want.
Similarly, it helps members in their dealings with the public if the public know that the members are under a duty of candour to say things as they are, rather than trying to pretend that things are difficult or duck awkward decisions. In addition, operating the system in such a way that everybody knows that it has to be open and truthful, and that what is said is the way things are, is a great help to the public in dealing with change, which is naturally often unwelcome, and understanding how that fits into the development of the country as a whole.
Everybody I have talked to is committed to us having more houses. We want the Government to succeed in their ambitions, but it is often painful when it comes down to individual decisions, as the last group of amendments has demonstrated. There are always reasons not to do something. Having a system that we trust, and really understanding how it works, must be helpful, and having a duty of candour would make a difference to that. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for signing my Amendment 185. This amendment was originally in a separate group but, for the benefit of the Committee, I put it into what I would call the odds and sods group—I am not suggesting that any of the amendments are odd or, indeed, that any noble Lords are sods. Nevertheless, this is about addressing a particular situation where it is right that Members of Parliament should be calm, considered, important consultees on any nationally significant infrastructure projects that are proposed in their constituency. Many constituents fully expect Members of Parliament to have opinions on such matters. I appreciate that, at times, many Members of Parliament will say that they have no say on planning because it is a matter for the council. Well, of course, with NSIPs, it is different: it is a matter for the Secretary of State, who may delegate. It is therefore important that Members of Parliament have, in effect, an automatic right to participate in the examination.
The other thing—this came up for me when I used to be an MP—is that it is not always straightforward when modifications to NSIPs are made once consent has already been granted. That part of the process tends to just fly by with very little awareness but can be hugely significant. There is limited resource for MPs compared to, say, councillors, who can access their council officers in local authorities. For me, this would be a helpful check in both ways: first, being guaranteed not only to be notified of the original application and being able to speak at the various examinations but also to be made fully made of subsequent changes. I am very conscious that noble Lords may suggest that this is a barrier; it is not. It is about empowering the rights of local communities through the inclusion of their Member of Parliament.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 185J, which is on the GDPR, the general data protection regulation, which I am sure we all have to deal with on the internet every day when we make an inquiry on anything. It is around the issue of transparency versus data regulation. As we have talked about before, one of the key things about the planning system is that it has to have public confidence. One of the key ways that it has public confidence is through transparency. When that transparency disappears, it becomes a real issue. This is one of the conflicts that has come out between planning and GDPR.
It really came about in 2017, when Basildon Council—which I do not know well, I have to admit—received a £150,000 fine for disclosures that it made of personal information during a planning application. It was a major case, clearly, as reflected in the fine, but it was due to the failure of the council to redact certain personal information in that planning decision and procedure. The reaction to that from local authorities generally was to go into panic mode and decide that—quite rightly, as far as council tax payers were concerned—they did not want to be seen to be risking public money by making mistakes on procedural issues on planning and by contraventions of the GDPR.
Having done some research on this, as far as I can see, I think that this is the only example or incidence ever of a significant GDPR fine for planning on a local authority. However, I have come across in my local community people who have suffered from local authorities, in terms of planning, particularly in the area of enforcement, going through a process of overredaction or restricted disclosure—in fact, blanket non-disclosure on a number of occasions. This means that transparency is disappearing. People are often unable to find out what is happening in terms of enforcement cases, meaning that community confidence in that procedure and its outcomes is lost. There is also a definite inconsistency between local authorities in how this is applied.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am very supportive of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and co-signed by my noble friend Lord Roborough. I would actually encourage the noble Baroness to retable Amendment 242A, if she is allowed to, because I do not think we will have deliberated on it—I am sure the Public Bill Office can advise—and it will work well, as she says, next week.
On Amendments 185F and 185G, the noble Baroness made a very good point. This is one of my wider frustrations with aspects of people using certain things, certain regulations or “the nature” as an excuse. As the noble Baroness has well laid out, quite often it can be a factor: there are things that can change—rulings and decisions about licensing. The abstraction of water is one example I have used before when talking about the impact—that happened at Sizewell C. Nevertheless, one of my wider points would be that, if you really want to accelerate a lot of infrastructure, do not start planning to build stuff in a place that has already been designated as the most important for nature in this country; find somewhere else, and think it through. One reason why quite a lot of people move to certain places in the country is that they are beautiful, environmental places. I do not want to go over Sizewell C, and I will keep to the point of the regulation, but this is really a way to future-proof and to get a lot of this infrastructure flowing.
There are things that we could get into about which species are the right ones to consider in habitat regulations; there are other debates forming about whether we should look after only things that are really at risk. That does not necessarily work. We have already heard today about the importance of global biodiversity and chalk streams, but I think this is a very useful amendment.
I am glad that we are doing at least part of the debate today, because it will give the Government time over the weekend to think about whether their modest proposals in revising Part 3, which are welcome, really go far enough to help local communities, local developers and local councillors so that we can move forward. By getting rid of some of these unnecessary arguments, we would have the homes and the development that are much desired, and we would still have places, right around our country, that are special for nature and special for our planet.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on Amendment 185F, tabled by her and supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough. I do not need to talk at length, because the noble Baroness has set out excellent arguments for progressing this and other amendments. She said that this is one of the most important amendments in the Bill, and she is right. We are touching on it today in advance of next week, when we will discuss this and similar improvements.
The noble Baroness has set out a simpler solution than the massive bureaucracy created in Part 3. Part 3 and the EDPs are a massive sledgehammer to crack the nut of nutrient neutrality. With the amendments that we will discuss next week in addition to this one, we can offer the Government a simpler solution than the EDP monolith. We need to tackle the problems of nutrient neutrality and will address some of the amendments next week.
Amendment 185F would require local planning authorities to consider compliance with the habitats regulations and to conduct full environmental impact assessments on sites that are proposed as suitable for development. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, let us plan this in advance—do not wait until developers come along to put in a planning application and then discover that they are trying to do it in the wrong place. This is not about adding a new layer of bureaucracy; on the contrary, it is about moving necessary assessment upstream to where it can do the most good.
Too often, local plans identify sites for housing or infrastructure which turn out to be wholly unsuitable when subjected to proper ecological scrutiny. By then, the damage is done: developers are frustrated, communities are confused and valuable habitats are placed at risk. This amendment from the noble Baroness would support local authorities to screen out inappropriate sites early, giving greater certainty to developers and the public. It would also help to ensure that sites allocated in the plan were truly deliverable. It is, in short, a sensible and proportionate proposal, reflecting long-standing principles that plan-making is a stage at which big environmental choices should be made and that doing so reduces conflict and costs later on. I hope the Minister will take the advice of our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. As I said earlier, she is an expert on this matter, no matter how much she may deny being a world expert.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Coffey ExcerptsTuesday 9th September 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-V(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (9 Sep 2025)
Lord Lucas (Con)
I very much support the amendments in this group. I am lucky enough to live in Eastbourne, where Mary Ann Gilbert started a branch of the allotment movement in 1830. I think we have more allotments per head than any other town, and there is still a three-year waiting list. These things need planning in, and that is why I support these amendments. You cannot rely on random happenstance or a generous builder to do it; it has to be part of the way we see and develop our towns and cities, particularly if we are going in for new towns.
This is enormously important for nature. People’s experience of nature is what happens around their homes. If there is not much nature there, they do not grow up with a love for or an interest in it. If they do not grow up with a love for or an interest in it, they end up not wanting to pay for it and are happy to trample on it if there is some supposed benefit of that for humans. Building in a real understanding of nature begins with the design of our towns. That is why these amendments are so important.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas, who has just spoken, is absolutely right that starting with perhaps good intentions but firm foundations is absolutely critical to make sure that we have nature at the heart of every community as we develop the 1.5 million new homes that the Government intend to deliver before the end of this Parliament.
I particularly commend the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. There has rightly been a reference to blue space. I actually came up with the concept in the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. There are a few factors behind that, relevant to what other noble Lords have mentioned today. Perhaps it is about rivers; it is certainly about sustainable drainage and thinking about how the ponds in new estates can be truly made into environmental oases.
One of the big inspirations was when I visited the Canal & River Trust, where we discussed its activities in Birmingham. As we know, there are more canals in Birmingham than there are in the entirety of Venice, yet the interaction between residents there and their canals was minimal. People would often be living in pretty high blocks, without any exposure to nature. There was an opportunity to think about how we develop what you have, and about the fact that, in certain cities—Birmingham not being the best example—there is a complete desert of parks, while there are plenty of other cities that have designed parks in over the years. Instead of relying on an NPPF that can literally be changed at the stroke of a pen by a Minister from one reshuffle to the next, it is vital to make sure this is set firmly in legislative considerations.
Proposed new subsection (b) in Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, would make sure that green spaces are maintained. There is nothing worse than such places not being properly looked after. We see it already with areas not being watered, and so things end up dying, which is not inspiring for anybody.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, referred to social prescribing. I intended to speak to that in later groups, but what he said was right. As has already been pointed out eloquently, the science is there. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, has set this out comprehensively. I first met the noble Baroness when she was director of science at Kew gardens, and we had some wonderful back and forth exchanges.
There are a couple of things worth considering. My noble friend Lady Fookes is right to talk about regulation, but I am worried we end up overregulating and almost missing the point—literally not seeing the wood for the trees. I intend to speak more on that in group 6.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, branched out into considering trees. It would be very helpful to have that paper from the Woodland Trust shared. Communities are about setting roots, but we do not want tree roots literally uprooting homes. That is an important factor for councils to consider. I commend the long-standing policy of Liverpool City Council, which plants lots of trees in planters underground. Then, when the trees mature, the council lifts them out of the ground, takes them off to a park and replants them there, so they are not damaging the infrastructure that has been designed to facilitate the rest of the neighbourhood. It is also vital that trees do not block light or interfere with telecommunications and the like.
Having heard this in both Houses, it is really important that the Government proactively consider how this matter comes back on Report. I know that if it does not go through this time, we will come back again when we get to the next local government Bill about community empowerment. We know from all the protests, rightly, that communities value this sort of infrastructure and want it to be developed. It is about the one thing that most communities agree on around development, which is why it is important that we get amendments appropriately tabled by the Government at the next stage.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I speak to my own Amendment 194 in this group, at the end—or heading towards the end—of what has been an incredibly impassioned debate with very little disagreement about the broad principles in every one of these amendments. It is an extremely good group of amendments. I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for their support for my Amendment 194.
This new clause would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in all new developments. As we have heard so much in this discussion, green spaces are not just an optional extra, they are an essential part of infrastructure. They are an essential part of delivering healthy, sustainable, happy, fulfilled communities. This amendment was originally tabled by my colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, the MP for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that green infrastructure is planned alongside traditional facilities that we think about, such as GPs, transport, and water connections. Development corporations must ensure that green spaces are included and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has just referenced, properly maintained. From private gardens and balconies to community gardens, this is not just about planting trees. This is about creating lasting accessible space for everyone and making sure that our communities do not have to fight for every single square inch of that greenery.
We have already heard much about the findings from Natural England, that we can reduce the need for GP appointments by 28%. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, gave an impassioned and convincing speech, and I can confirm to her that it was the National Institutes of Health which identified that acute hospital patients feel better and leave sooner if they have greenery just outside their window, let alone a hospital garden. So there is direct evidence and we heard much of it from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and I thank her for that.
Given how much we have heard, I will cut out quite a lot of the speech I prepared on this amendment. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested. There is a huge amount of consensus in this group of amendments. It seems that there is potential for us to work together and possibly—and I am looking at whichever Minister is summating for us—getting together with the relevant Ministers and seeing whether we can find some way of ensuring that this is not merely a nice to have but an essential, integral part of infrastructure.
Finally, I refer back to the lovely ducks that were so supportive outside the window of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, when she was very ill. Let us get our ducks in a row. Let us get together and see whether we can drive this forward as a united Chamber.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for the invitation but, looking at the parliamentary programme for next week, I suspect that I am going to be here for about 11 hours a day.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to spending 11-hour days with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on important legislation that this House is considering.
I rise to speak to this because it is absolutely vital that we get going with the building of social housing. There are good examples of where we can be creative in considering this, but the underlying element of what has been put forward in speeches by noble Lords already is absolutely right. When a housing developer makes a commitment, this House, and this Parliament, have to strain every sinew to make sure that councils do not let them off the hook. It matters in terms of local communities and local plans. The whole essence of a large part of this Bill is that a lot of decisions are being removed from elected councillors by this Government. That is when confidence and trust in our local government starts to fade away: when promises made by developers—on housing and other issues, including health and other Section 106 issues—evaporate.
My noble friend Lord Markham has, in effect, set up a housing association in Ealing, being creative with how the financing of that can be done, to make sure of ongoing sustainable homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to the fact that there has been a net change of just 700 homes when it comes to social rent. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham started to refer to the fact that registered social landlords were not taking up some of the homes that are being done. In the east of England, we have the social landlords Flagship pro-actively selling off social rent housing and not replacing it—certainly not locally—but potentially doing some aspects of that elsewhere, many miles away from where that social rented housing is being displaced.
On what my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said about lifetime tenancies, the law was of course changed so that councils should consider shorter-term tenancies, proactively considering the composition and demographics in that local community. Very few councils took that up, and I understand why to some extent, but, as has been pointed out, these are homes that people want to have but they are also precious uses of space. Thinking of the next group, there is a good intention to have design for lifetime. Some other, perhaps cruder, economic policies have come through in the past that have not always been welcomed. But I suggest that the Minister looks back at policy from just a few years ago with the two-pronged “benefits to bricks” approach.
The Government today are spending at least at least £35 billion a year on paying rent through the benefits system. We constantly need to think about where resources are being deployed. While recognising that we desperately need more homes—and we are coming on to land banking later—let us make the most of every single home that we already have today, including social housing, and consider what we can do to hold on to them. Apart from that, I will always continue to defend the right to buy.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, thus far in this debate, we have been thinking in terms of solving the problems that we are discussing by building more houses, but I would like to raise a point that I will describe in a little more detail in a moment: building more houses is, I think, quite the wrong way of approaching the problem.
I am talking, of course, about the national parks and areas of nationally important landscape. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to his time in local government 60 years ago. I cannot go quite so far back down memory lane, but I was involved in the Lake District Special Planning Board 40 years ago. The problem we had then is a problem that still exists—indeed, in a more exacerbated form—despite our efforts to try to address it. The problem was that people who lived and worked in this community were unable to find any accommodation as their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents had before them.
It is not simply a matter of social implications. The kind of people who were, and still are, finding it very hard to find accommodation in—or even, in many instances, quite close to—these kinds of important landscape areas are the very people who are essential for looking after it properly. There is a real problem. If we do not resolve the difficulty in some sensible way, there will be even more problems.
Let me illustrate this. In the hamlet of Chapel Stile, up Langdale—which, as many of your Lordships will know, is one of the most admired, visited and esteemed parts of Britain’s premier national park—approximately 80% of the housing stock is second homes. The one thing you must not do to resolve the problem of housing up Langdale is to build more and more houses, because that would completely destroy the very rationale for the place being so special.
Against this background, I think it important that this relatively niche problem—I use those words advisedly but not disparagingly—is looked at carefully, because it does not lend itself to many of the kinds of solutions that have been canvassed in the context of the problems elsewhere in the country. We do not need more housing stock in the Lake District. What we want is more of the housing stock that exists to be occupied and used as the basis for looking after the national park itself. That in turn is in the interests of everybody else who comes to it and enjoys it, and the rest of the country.
It is not a question of social housing or affordable homes. We have to be much more imaginative about the way we do it. We have to find a way of taking quite a bit of the existing housing stock out of the open market. In my view, you would probably have to use planning covenants to put it into a restricted local marketplace where local people could afford to buy homes, or lease them, and, in turn, commit their activities to looking after the area in question.
I have raised this point on a number of occasions over the years and have never got anywhere with it at all. I know perfectly well why: it will cost quite a bit of money. But these places matter. Widespread degradation through building is something that I do not think any of us condone. Some of your Lordships may have seen in the Sunday papers a description of what the Egyptian Government are proposing to do at Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai, which, in my view, is totally outrageous and a monstrous way to treat a world heritage site.
Many bits of the rural economy feel very let down by housing policy, because it is not addressing the particular problems that they are facing. Many of the solutions that have been canvassed I have no trouble with at all, but they are essentially—not entirely, but essentially—for urban areas. There are different issues and problems in rural areas. As I said, many people there feel let down, and you can see from recent opinion polling that many of them are pretty disillusioned with the existing political classes.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Coffey ExcerptsTuesday 9th September 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-V(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (9 Sep 2025)
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak in support of Amendment 128. I am uncertain of the provenance of this amendment, but it is certainly well aligned with the Government’s agenda. It seeks to extend the provisions of Clause 12 of the Bill, which apply to nationally important infrastructure projects and other projects, notably those sponsored by local authorities. It seeks to limit the time available to make pleas against planning orders, reducing it from six weeks or 42 days to 21 days. I support this part of the amendment, which is entirely reasonable. More significantly, it proposes that an appeal to the High Court under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may not be made without leave of the court.
At an earlier stage of Committee, I spoke in favour of Amendment 52, which sought to limit the scope of judicial reviews that are liable to frustrate nationally important infrastructure projects. The proposal of that amendment is to bring the development orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects into Parliament. After a proposal has passed parliamentary scrutiny, then, by dint of an Act of Parliament, it should become legally incontestable and therefore it should not be subject to the hazards of a judicial review. Parliament must not be overburdened by such legislation; nevertheless, local development orders require greater protection against frivolous legal challenges.
I described the chicanery that obstructed the plans to eliminate a bottleneck on a major trunk road, the A303, where it passes close to Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain. The legal wrangling seemed almost interminable. The first grant of development consent for the bypass in 2020 was quashed by the High Court in July 2021. Then it was given a green light again by the DfT, which reissued the development consent two years later, in July 2023. The project was put on hold again because of another series of judicial reviews which were dismissed by the High Court in February 2024 and by the Court of Appeal in October 2024.
Undeterred by these two defeats, the claimants asked the Supreme Court whether they could appeal again, but on 29 January this year the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on the grounds that the challenge did not raise any arguable points of law. However, this decision was immaterial, since within weeks of taking office last July, the Labour Government scrapped the plans for a two-mile tunnel which would bypass the monument on the grounds that the cost of the project had become unaffordable. The decision to cancel the project was made three and a half years after the development consent had been given and after a very full and detailed examination of all the issues. In this case, it might be said that the campaigners had won not by virtue of the strength of their cause but by dint of legal chicanery and delay. Moreover, the same recourse is available to many other parties who, for various reasons, wish to stand in the way of important development projects.
It is worth noting the circumstances that made the project unaffordable. They were attributable largely to the delays that had been caused by the appeals. Major work was being undertaken to improve the A303 but, by the time the legal issues had been settled, that work had been completed and the contractors had moved on. To call them back in order to complete the project would have entailed inordinate costs in re-establishing the project. Amendment 128 is wholly reasonable and, I think, long overdue, and I strongly commend it to your Lordships.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am really concerned about Amendment 128. The reason why I say that is that in this Bill, at the hands of the Government, we have already had an attack on democracy in terms of substantial decisions being removed from democratically elected councillors, and now it feels as if we are having an attack on communities. The reason why I say that is that six weeks from a determination to bringing about putting in a challenge when you believe that something may have been done unlawfully is already pretty short.
There are a number of factors. A judicial review probably costs between £100,000 and £150,000 just to get the process going, and it can be quite substantial in itself for a community to get that funding together. Normally you would do a pre-action protocol letter that the courts expect the Government—indeed, both sides—to comply with. Quite a lot of that will involve significant extractions of information from the Government. As a consequence, three weeks would end up timing out the opportunity for communities, which are concerned that something is being rammed through, to have a genuine opportunity to challenge it. This and previous Administrations will know that quite often—I will not say all the time, but there have been significant times—the courts have found the Government’s proceedings to be unlawful. That might be frustrating for the Government, but nevertheless there is still an opportunity for communities to do that.
So I am very concerned about halving the time for communities to consider how they might challenge a particular decision. We have seen that in a variety of ways, whether it is about housing, aspects of energy infrastructure or transport. I will not pretend that the Government will not often get frustrated, but nevertheless I think Amendment 128 in particular would still be an unnecessary adjustment. Frankly, although my noble friend Lord Banner is sympathetic to Amendment 128, as he said in his speech, I am delighted that he did not actually put his name to it.
Building on that, we then get into other considerations about going to the Court of Appeal. I have a lot more sympathy with the other amendments that have been put in this group in order not to have never-ending regulatory challenges through the courts. I used to represent Suffolk Coastal, and I know that Sizewell C in particular has had a lot of challenges that seem never ending and somewhat ridiculous, so I have some sympathy for that. However, I also have experience as a Secretary of State, not necessarily on infrastructure but on other judicial matters, where a judge in the High Court has ruled against the Government—despite, by the way, it having been through both Houses of Parliament in determining a particular aspect of legislation—and then initially said, “And you can’t appeal to the Court of Appeal”. There is a process that allows the Government, or indeed anyone, currently to go around that and just say, “That’s a bit ridiculous. You found against us and now, funnily enough, you’re actually accepting that you do not want your decision to be challenged”. That is where I have a bit of concern on where that particular aspect may go.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, happened to refer to the A303. I used to live quite near the A303 and while I am not trying to do a Second Reading speech—I am conscious of the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield—I just want to remind noble Lords of some of the amendments that have already been put to this Bill trying to limit the number of different reasons why a judicial review can be brought on infrastructure project.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
The supposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seems to be that the consideration of a project by those that might oppose it is subsequent to the admission of a development order. In fact, usually the opposition long predates that, and so the limitation that we are proposing is not a denial of the opportunity to consider and to oppose a project.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
What is being proposed is drastically reducing the amount of time if anyone wants to bring a judicial review. I have already mentioned the barriers of raising money, assuming you can raise that. Perhaps this will be a change, but the High Court will not like this. It will absolutely kick off. Right now, Governments really struggle to not do the whole amount of—forgive me, I have forgotten quite the phrase, it is disclosure but there is a particular phrase that goes with candour. But if that is the way and we are going to go with three weeks, then honestly the delays will get worse. Be careful what one wishes for in regard to three weeks versus six weeks. I think this is an unnecessary amendment, whereas I am somewhat supportive of the other amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has tabled.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and my noble friend Lord Banner for their careful thought and experience in tabling these amendments. On Amendment 135D, I recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in seeking to restrict appeals to the Court of Appeal where the High Court has deemed an application to be totally without merit. This is, of course, a delicate balance between ensuring access to justice and preventing the courts from being encumbered by hopeless claims. I am grateful to him for placing this important matter before your Lordships’ Committee.
Similarly, the noble Lord’s Amendments 357, 358 and 360 raise pertinent questions about the commencement provisions of various clauses, particularly in relation to the new measures on planning and legal challenges. It is often the case that commencement by regulation can leave uncertainty. The proposal to provide for an automatic commencement two months after Royal Assent is, at the very least, a reminder of the need for clarity and timeliness in the law. These points merit careful reflection, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I now turn to Amendment 168, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner. This amendment addresses a very practical difficulty—namely, the risk that development consents are lost due to time running out during the course of judicial or statutory reviews. By stopping the clock, the amendment would ensure that the permission does not simply expire while litigation is pending. This is important not only for developers and investors who require certainty but for local communities who deserve clarity about the projects affecting them. Without such a measure, there is a danger that meritless legal challenges might be deployed as a tactic to run down the clock, thereby frustrating legitimate development. I believe my noble friend is right to highlight this problem, and I warmly welcome his amendment.
I conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Banner for their thoughtful contributions. We on these Benches will listen very closely to the Minister’s response on these matters.
Baroness Coffey
“Planning permission for self-build and custom housebuilding(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016 (2016/950) as follows.(2) After Regulation 3 (definition of a serviced plot of land), insert—3A. “(1) For the purposes of section 2A(2) and (5) of the Act (Duty to grant planning permission etc), only the following development permissions may be considered to meet the demand for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding in the planning authority’s area arising in each base period—(a) planning permission (as defined by section 58(1)(b) (granting of planning permission: general) and section 70 (determination of applications: general considerations) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”)) which is—(i) subject to a planning conditions restricting either the whole of or a specified number of units within the proposed development to self-build and custom housebuilding;(ii) subject to an obligation under section 106 of the 1990 Act (planning obligations), restricting either the whole of or a specified number of units within the proposed development to self-build and custom housebuilding;(b) permission in principle (as defined by section 58A of 1990 Act (permission in principle: general), where the description of the proposed development is for self-build and custom housebuilding.(2) For the purposes of this Regulation, self-build and custom housebuilding has the same meaning as in section 1(A1) and (A2) of the Act (Registers of persons seeking to acquire land to build a home).”.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, 10 groups done; 10 to go. I turn to Amendment 135. I am doing this in the name of a friend of mine, Richard Bacon, who used to be the Member of Parliament for South Norfolk. He retired at the last election and is watching proceedings now—I am delighted he is—and he has spent a lot of time on self-build, which is what this amendment is about.
To pay credit to my friend Richard, he had managed to get issues about self-build into primary legislation. It had been commenced, but there are still elements that seem to be holding back this potential of self-build. Recognising, as the Minister said earlier, the words of her latest Secretary of State, to “Build, baby, build”, we should unleash the self-builders, where it is appropriate, right across the country. As my friend has pointed out, this is tenure neutral. There are great examples. Anyone can read his report that was commissioned by the previous Administration. He has written extensively on this, so I do not need to repeat everything he has put in the public domain.
To give a sense, there are good examples of this in the Netherlands, where groups of people have come together. They have actually built high-density and multiple-storey by some housing being particularly desirable—the penthouse may have got more of a price. You see multi-generational homes being built. To some extent—recognising what has been already pointed out in several parts of the debate, not only today, but in earlier consideration of the Bill—self-build is certainly a sector which needs to have the opportunity to at least be given a go. I recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has just said about permitted development rights, with her neighbour building something which sounds rather extraordinary. That said, as someone with a large garden, perhaps that persuaded them that this was a way to reduce the amount of gardening; but that is a different story.
The Bacon review recommended that a range of regulatory reforms be brought forward to support the scaling up of self-build and to help boost much-needed housebuilding across England. I have already referred to the fact that the amendment to the 2015 Act through LURA, which came into force last year, made it clear that only planning permissions that are specifically for self-build can count towards meeting an authority’s statutory duty.
Despite that amendment, there remains considerable uncertainty over what types of permissions should be counted towards the duty imposed on local authorities to permit enough plots of land to meet the demand on their self-build registers. The LURA therefore provided for this new power to allow the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the types of development permissions that can be counted by a relevant authority to comply with its duty to meet demand as defined under Section 2A(2) of the 2015 Act. This has not been taken forward yet by the Government.
Amendment 135 proposes to insert a new provision into the Bill to require the Government to amend the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016 to clarify the types of development permissions that must be counted towards the duty of local authorities to meet their local demand for service plots of land for people to build their own homes. The amendment would have the effect of implementing the provision in Section 123(1)(a) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 that enables the Government to specify regulations on the types of development permissions that can be counted by local authorities to comply with their duty to meet demand under Section 2A(2) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015.
The Government’s plan for change set an ambitious target to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament. They say they are committed to reforming the planning system, that they are pro-growth and that they back SME builders to get Britain building. In May of this year, the former Deputy Prime Minister said that smaller housebuilders
“must be the bedrock of our Plan for Change”
and to get
“working people on the housing ladder”.
She also said that she was committed to making the planning system
“simpler, fairer and more cost effective, so smaller housebuilders can play a crucial role”
in building the homes we need, improving choice and boosting tenure mix on larger sites to improve buildout. To deliver against these objectives, the Government must surely look to operate all possible levers at their disposal, yet so far they have chosen not to bring forward much-needed further regulation to support more people to build their own homes.
The Competition and Markets Authority’s 2024 housebuilding market study report concluded that self-build and custom housebuilding is one of the main models in the UK housing market, with some 15,900 homes completed in 2021-22—admittedly, that was just as we were coming out of the variety of lockdowns. It concluded that, by enabling more alternative, private and non-speculative models, such as self-build and custom housebuilding development, dependence on the speculative housebuilding model can be reduced and market diversity improved, which in turn helps to speed up housing delivery. This could allow for more homes to be absorbed within local markets without housebuilders needing to reduce house prices, thereby speeding up housing delivery.
The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 places a statutory duty on local authorities in England to hold a register of people who want to acquire land to self or custom build in their area, and to grant planning permission for enough plots of land to satisfy that demand. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016 set out that authorities must meet this demand—that is, grant sufficient planning permission within three years. Despite these provisions, the Government’s own data shows that the gap between the supply of SBCH plots and consumer demand continues to fall.
Self-build and custom housebuilding data released by the Minister’s department in February showed that the number of individuals on local registers had risen by 4% to over 64,000 and that group registrations are near to 1,000. Despite this increase, planning permissions have continued to fall, reaching just over 5,000 a couple of years ago—the lowest level since legislation was first introduced in 2016.
A key cause of the decline in supply plots is that many local authorities—including, I am led to believe, Winchester, Uttlesford, Dacorum, Rutland and South Kesteven—refuse planning applications on grounds that they are meeting local demand. Yet, when they are tested, it is often clear that they are counting planning permissions towards their annual targets, when they are plainly not for self-build or custom housing, to avoid releasing more land to meet growing demand. Such practices are frustrating delivery and costing taxpayers and developers many thousands of pounds in fighting planning appeals to prove councils wrong. It is not unusual for planning barristers, consultants and local authority officers to debate at length at appeal whether a council has correctly counted the number of such permissions it has given to meet local demand and for inspectors then to have to interpret the evidence submitted and decide what weight they should give to the arguments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. I welcome her to 10 September.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken—my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Lansley, and also the noble Lord, Lord Best. In response to my noble friend Lord Lansley, I am very conscious that perhaps there is a proper definition that can deal with this, so I will reflect on that and see what I can work through. He is absolutely right in saying that national development management policies are the way forward.
I inferred from what the Minister said that it is early days, and we will see where it goes. There is a group of willing people who want to get on. This is designed to make it as straightforward as possible for people to have homes. I know she supports that outcome, and I hope I can potentially work a little more with her and the noble Lord, Lord Best, in order to make that a reality. On that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Planning decisions: consideration of an EDPIn section 70(2)(aa) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications: general considerations) at end insert—“(ab) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, so far as material to the application,””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when making a planning decision, the local planning authority must take into account any EDP applying to the land question.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 135A may perhaps look a little innocuous, but it is actually critical in considering how Part 3 of the Bill will work. By the way, I did not determine where this appeared in the Bill; that was done by the clerks.
It has arisen due to evidence given by the chief executive of Natural England, who was asked by the Environmental Audit Committee in the House of Commons to address Part 3 of the Bill. I appreciate this is before the Government backtracked and made a number of changes to try and address the significant number of concerns, which have not been fully alleviated, in regard to the potential for environmental damage.
I am very pleased to set out this suggested amendment to the planning Bill, which would, in effect, put into place what was said by the chief executive of Natural England—the body being allocated all this power not only to create but to deliver the increase in biodiversity in compensation for the development the Government want to see.
Marian Spain, when asked about these powers being given to Natural England—it will be tasked with writing, delivering, monitoring and reporting on EDPs—responded by saying that developers will be able to choose not to pay the levy if they do not have the confidence in the relevant EDP, and also that planning authorities can refuse to grant planning permission to developers if they are not convinced that the EDP would work. That is not what is in the Bill today, but the chief executive—the accounting officer—of Natural England has said to Parliament that this is what the Bill is doing. This amendment, in effect, puts that into place.
She specifically said that, in terms of not choosing to pay the levy, there is a risk that developers could not have confidence in the EDPs. This is worrying. It means that, if developers promote a new scheme through the planning system, they will not know whether or where an EDP will land or what environmental features it will cover. They do not actually know if levies will be mandatory or voluntary or how much the levies will be. They will not know whether the local authority considers an existing EDP to be ineffective. Developers would need to navigate the added very real risk that planning permission is refused because a planning authority does not trust that an EDP is being or will be delivered properly.
As a consequence of what the chief executive has said, it seems that the planning authority would need to police the progress and effectiveness of EDPs in their local authority areas. That was not in the Government’s impact assessment and may not be the intention of the Government at all. I say to the Minister that the very person who will deliver exactly what is left out in Part 3 of this Bill is saying that is the case. Frankly, if it is the case, and that is what the chief executive has told Parliament, then this will be exceptionally worse than the status quo for developers.
Developers can already access strategic solutions for nature that are competitively brought forward by a range of actors, including landowners, charities, Natural England itself and private companies. These alternative solutions will be crowded out by EDPs, and we will get to that more substantial debate next week in Part 3. At the same time, there is a risk that planning permissions will be held up because local authorities will not trust that an underfunded, unscientific, non-locally led EDP will actually be delivered.
I have greater concerns about the whole concept of Part 3. However, what I think is good is that, by my amendment, we can put back in exactly what the chief executive of Natural England says this legislation is supposed to do. That is why I am moving this amendment.
Speaking to my noble friend’s amendment on planning information, it is a very straightforward amendment, and I support my noble friend. It is basically saying, “We are looking at biodiversity, we need to know what it is, why don’t we get it all ready and we can share it with the developers, so we can know what the basic part is”. I am sure my noble friend will explain it far more eloquently than I have tried to do in those 15 seconds. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 135F is basically saying, “Look, we are generating a lot of quality biodiversity information within the planning system, but we are not capturing it”.
As a previous Government—this Government are too, I believe—we were committed to restoring biodiversity in this country from a very unfortunate, low level. To do that well, we need really good data. There are a number of potential sources of that data, but the great majority of the quality biodiversity data—that which can absolutely be believed because it has been collected by people who are qualified and has been properly checked and done carefully—is generated by the planning system.
But the majority of the data collected by the planning system never finds itself going anywhere else. We have a system in the country of local environment record centres, where this data should be deposited; it is not. This is what I want the Government to do. I know there are those within the Government who are working in this direction, but they are in Defra not in MHCLG, so what I would like MHCLG to do is to say, “Yes, it is important that we collect this data; we will mandate that”. When it is created as part of the planning system, it should find its way into the national data record. This is not something that would impose huge costs, because the data will almost always be in an easily accessible format. If you are applying for planning permission, and you have done a biological survey, you have to say where you found what. That is basically all that is needed for the environmental record centres. What we need to do, though, is get the data flowing.
The other side of this is—within the limitations of the Bill—my second Amendment 253A is saying that we ought to be using this data much better than we do. We create things and make decisions without accessing the best possible data that we already hold, and we ought not to do that. We ought to be making the best possible informed decisions when it comes to biodiversity; otherwise, we will do stupid things that damage the environment even further. The best possible data—the best possible decisions. That requires that, when we are taking a decision which affects the environment, we go and get the best available data. Again, the planning system is central to that. There ought not to be an application within the planning system which does not use the best data. My amendment asks that we put that right.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that answer by the noble Baroness, but she did not go as far as I hoped on my first amendment. I know that there is a lot of information being gathered as a result of the biodiversity net gain process. I am comforted that the noble Baroness appears to assume this will continue, because it has been a matter of doubt, given the recent consultation. But the problem is not that it is not generated; it is generated, but then nothing happens to it. It is locked up within that particular planning application; it never gets into the national records.
What I would really like to see coming through as planning policy is that where this information is generated, it must find its way into the national database because otherwise we lose it—it is inaccessible. We do not know what was found. We cannot draw on this information to take other decisions; we are depriving ourselves. Having generated this information and people having paid for this information, it then just disappears. That cannot be the right way of doing things. We must have a planning system which contributes to the national understanding of our biodiversity. The information that we gather as part of planning surely must become part of the national biodiversity database. That is something I would really like to pursue with the noble Baroness, if she will allow me to write to her further.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and, indeed, all noble Lords for speaking. I do not want to get into the whole Part 3 debate; we will be debating that next week. I say to my noble friend Lord Fuller that this is based on evidence given to the Environmental Audit Committee on 30 June of this year by the chief executive, Marian Spain, rather than the chairman, Tony Juniper, over a year ago. I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for giving me confidence—it was in the right place, after all—and for providing the clarity. The key point right now is that what the Minister has said tonight contradicts what the chief executive—the accounting officer—of Natural England told Members of Parliament about the effect of the Bill. I am going to read more carefully tomorrow what the Minister has said: I am not suggesting in any way that she is misleading the House either, but I think there is a problem. Putting this amendment in has got the outcome that I would like to see but perhaps not that of the Government. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Coffey ExcerptsThursday 4th September 2025
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (3 Sep 2025)
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 104, but, first, I must declare my interests, as this is the first time I have spoken formally in Committee on this Bill. I am still a farmer and land manager, or at least my family is; I now farm and manage land from the perspective of a retired farmer.
Amendment 104 is very much a probing amendment. I approve of the proposed delegation of planning decisions to a sub-committee or to officers of a local authority. This will give a degree of reliability and constancy in the decision-making process, possibly even a degree of speed, which in the planning system as we currently know it would be in most welcome. The proposed training of planning committees in this context is also welcome. It will, I hope, avoid decision-makers succumbing to parochial interests or, worse still, the views of their immediate social circle, whom they might not want to upset, which I have come across.
Therefore, I was surprised to find national park authorities excluded from these sensible improvements. In my experience, national park authorities are no exception to some of the parochialism and resistance to change that occur elsewhere. If anything, the resistance is greater. Some national park authorities do not have a planning committee, and all planning decisions come before the whole authority, with the inevitable resultant delays and, worse still, greater opportunity for parochial subjectivism.
I would trust trained national park officers to be able to take certain planning decisions in line with both national and locally set policies. Above all, those chief officers have the necessary vision that perceives the national park as being there to benefit both the lives of those who live and work in the park and those of people who visit it. I have always seen national parks as being like a branding that needs an overall vision, which includes everything from transport facilities to better landscape management et al, in order to enhance the lives of the many both inside and outside the park. Without that overall vision, which I believe not everyone who sits on a national park authority committee necessarily has, those national parks will fail to maximise their potential. I just wondered why our national landscapes were excluded from this section of the Bill.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I intend to speak to Amendment 103ZA in my name and to Amendment 104 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who has just spoken. While I intend to reserve my comments more broadly on Clause 51 until group 4, where we will debate whether it stands part, I am astonished that we are in the situation where national park authorities are in effect the only kind of local government that this would not apply to. I say that because no one is directly elected on to a national park authority.
Some of the board members may indeed be elected councillors but, by and large, they are appointed as a proportion and the majority are appointed by the Secretary of State and central government. A great irony of this wider debate is that we are most likely removing ways for locally elected councillors to make determinations, but where the Government have already appointed people, they can carry on. It seems an odd thing in this whole set-up.
I have tabled Amendment 103ZA—as I say, I will get on to the merits of the clause in the next group—because I am concerned that with the pressure of the increasing housing targets that have been imposed on local councils, the pressure about aspects of five-year supply, it will be too easy for officers to simply say they have to go beyond the plan that has already been agreed. As has been set out regularly by Ministers in this debate, the local plan is agreed by local people. It is not really, but at least there is an opportunity for the public to contribute towards that determination and it is then decided and voted on by locally elected councillors, who are therefore accountable to their constituents.
The issue of going beyond the boundary of the local plan is important. I see this happen quite a lot in parts of rural areas where developers take a bit of a chance on trying to keep extending the boundary, including by making housing go beyond the local plan boundary and then trying to say that for economic reasons this should all be approved, even though it has already been through a process. I am concerned about that, and I think officers would be less hesitant to simply brush it aside.
The other issue I am very concerned about is housing density, and I have put my name to an amendment attached to Clause 52 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which will be debated later on in the Bill. One example is part of a town called Felixstowe, in Suffolk, where the previous councils had agreed a pretty ambitious local plan building on greenfield to expand the town in what they perceived to be a controlled way but still making sure that the town was going to be vibrant and sustainable. Within that, they specified a particular housing density for the building of some 2,000 houses. That was to constrain it within the envelope of what was deemed to be land suitable for development. It was about 150 houses per whatever the geographic dimension was to reach 2,000. An application was made for outline planning permission. Developers had indicated that of course they would stick within this housing density, but the officers in their analysis presented to councillors considering the outline planning application anticipated the housing density would really be only about 50 if they took into account the extra bits such as access to nature, sustainable drainage and all the different things. So, there we go—and, by the way, I am pretty sure the officers recommended that they accept that outline planning application, knowing full well that they would not get anywhere near the 2,000 houses that had been allocated to the fields on the outside of Felixstowe.
The consequence of that would be that considerably more land would be needed to build the other houses that were due to be built in that part of the district. My concern is that by not being very specific about housing density—and we will come on to this later—we will end up with a lot more sprawl and issues connected with not having gaps between villages and towns.
The reason I have tabled this amendment is to make sure that, if these regulation-making powers do go through to the Secretary of State, for determinations of planning applications such as that, it really must be down to the elected councillors to be able to determine it—in effect, to go against their own plan that they, or their predecessors, had already voted on to approve. We are already aware of how many decisions are delegated to officers in a routine way that is right, but on these things, where the application is contrary to what had already been agreed in the overall strategic purpose, that must be done by elected councillors, who will be accountable to the wider electorate.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 105 in this group. We are not debating that Clause 51 stand part in this group, but I intend to speak to it regardless, because it should be grouped with this, and it will save me having to make another speech on the same subject in the next group.
I do not object to Clause 51; indeed, I support it. There should be a national scheme of delegation. It is an important mechanism by which some of the planning reform policies being pursued can be reinforced in practice in the decision-making processes in local government and assist in the process of speeding up planning decisions.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I think the Government recognise this both in the later parts of this Bill and indeed in what they have done with offshore wind. They recognise that offshore wind will kill a number of sea-birds and that compensation must be made for that.
What we need in this country is a lot more nature. That will take a good chunk of money. It is ridiculous to have a system that just spaffs that money away. We ought to be taking the opportunity of bats, which are pretty mobile creatures. In nature, bats live in cracks in trees. Trees fall down all the time and the bats just move home. We are worrying about bats in a completely ridiculous way. We are wasting huge sums of money and we must stop.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Clause 51 may look innocuous, but I am concerned that it is removing the effect of democracy. National democracy is imposing its will against the will of the local people. I was reflecting on when in 2013 I was on the Bill Committee for the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, now Act. The House of Commons Committee sat for seven days on a Bill of 28 clauses. This Bill went through the Commons in seven days, with 97 clauses being considered. That is why it is important that this House takes the appropriate time. Interestingly, back then the Lords sat for only five days on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, with the Commons having done a much more thorough job, and that is something for us to think about.
On Clause 51, I was struck by what the Minister said to me on the previous group when I had specifically singled out issues that went against the local plan. The Government’s guide to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on GOV.UK specifically says that controversial decisions should be done by planning committee and that the best way for councillors and local communities to be involved is in the creation of the local plan—I am paraphrasing slightly. Local plans are not created every four years—sometimes it feels as if they take more than four years to create, although they should not—so I was somewhat surprised when the Minister said that planning applications not in line with the local plan are not necessarily always controversial, so we should not worry about them and allow officers to make that decision. I would love to hear some examples of planning applications that are not consistent with the local plan and have not then been controversial.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
Would the noble Baroness accept that even a small number of illegal immigrants in a tiny village can have as much effect as a larger number in an urban area?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
It is reflective of what is proportionate to the local community. My noble friend Lord Framlingham will be aware of the legal judgments of the past few years where some large-scale accommodation sites were deemed unlawful. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough said, the current Government are trying to work this out and balance it as well. It is not a straightforward action, so I will not criticise them for it. However, it is certainly valid to have this debate about whether these hotels need a separate planning class, recognising the decision that was made last week in the Court of Appeal.
Houses in multiple occupation require both planning permission and a licence. I do not want us to get into the situation of having to license hotels. However, HMOs have both because the accommodation is being used in a perhaps non-traditional way compared to its original intention. Therefore, extra conditions are put on by the local council or there is deliberate consideration, recognising the change in impact that the transfer of traditional uses of accommodation to others can have on the local community. Therefore, while I expect that the Government will probably brush this aside, it is important to understand the temperature, but also what we have done in the past to recognise when things have changed significantly, in order to make sure that decisions are made carefully, considerately and competently when addressing this type of situation.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the sheer hypocrisy of those on the Conservative Benches seems to know no bounds. As we have heard, it was in 2020 that this scale and number of hotels being used for asylum seekers began in earnest. It seems that it has taken five years for Members on the Conservative Benches to come to the conclusion that it may have been necessary for the use of these hotels to require planning consent. What on earth has triggered their sudden interest in planning issues for hotels harbouring asylum seekers? I am struggling to think what the issue could be. What I do know—
Baroness Coffey
“Permitted development and demolition: assets of community value(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph B.1 of Part 11 of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (e) insert—“(f) the building is designated as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that buildings which have been designated as assets of community value cannot be demolished through permitted development rights.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 112 regards assets of community value and demolition through permitted development rights. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Carrington of Fulham for signing this amendment. They both informed me that they could not be here at this point but I know that they support the spirit of it. I will also talk to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about assets of cultural value, which is supported by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
This amendment is designed for communities that go to the trouble of putting together an asset of community value. That is a reasonably high bar, by the way. It is not just proving that something has been enjoyed by the community. There is also an element of showing that, if it came up for sale, the community would have the wherewithal to buy that asset. Right now, it is very easy for the original owner, perhaps somewhat frustrated by wanting a change in use for that asset, to demolish it. Suddenly, it evaporates. They do not need any planning permission to get rid of it. There is no protection for the asset of community value.
You may ask, “Would this ever happen?”, but it has happened. I recall a place called Rendlesham in Suffolk, widely known for the story about it having UFOs. It used to be a US airbase and it still has a NATO runway. The US Air Force handed it over to the UK Government, who continued to use it, but over time it was not needed so it was sold to a developer. It is a lovely community and reasonably good for developing more homes and creating a community. The developer put out a wonderful brochure and was selling this vision.
People may be aware that US Air Force facilities, and military facilities generally, tend to have big, ambitious buildings. Even their schools have huge corridors. There was a wonderful sports hall and a wonderful theatre. The selling of this community, right next to the magnificent Rendlesham Forest, although admittedly with a military base still nearby, was part of the mission, and led to it becoming a place where the council thought it was good to grow and, over time, extend its boundary.
I do not know who did the original deal, but the deal was that the developers had to make sure that both the theatre and the sports centre stayed open for at least 10 years. By my recollection, pretty much a day or two after the 10 years were over, the developers closed both facilities. They wanted to get rid of them and convert them into commercial shops and more housing. Understandably, the community was up in arms.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I really enjoyed that debate, not only because it was a trip down memory lane for some, but also because of the support for it—dare I say, apart from the Minister. I am hoping that she might agree to potentially meet me and others who have expressed a view of support.
I genuinely appreciate what the Minister says about making it easier to buy. I guess what I am trying to address, and what other Lords have recognised, is that “If it ain’t there, you can’t buy it”. I hope that perhaps the Government will think again, even if it means modifying another Bill rather than this Bill.
I will simply also say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that I recognise his ambition on extending it further, but just trying to achieve something simple and straightforward would go a long way to reflect the intentions of what the Government and your Lordships have shown by their contributions tonight, that they want communities to be able to have assets they really value. I hope the Government will change their mind in due course. With that, I will withdraw my amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Coffey ExcerptsMonday 1st September 2025
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (1 Sep 2025)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, connections reform is very important if we are to give the grid capacity. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right in wanting to speed things up and to ensure that these connections are not too costly. That matters whether you want more renewable energy in the mix or would prefer—as I would—to continue with a mixed supply, including better and continued use of North Sea oil and gas.
However, the fact is that the grid is not resilient and everything is too slow. We have too many layers of decision-making, too much strategising, too many bureaucratic rules and, therefore, not enough speed and determination. I know that that is behind the Government’s planning reforms. I fear that my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments could also slow things down, but he may be able to reassure me on that. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how we can ensure that these changes will speed things up and get us the reforms that we need, if the economy and the energy economy are to work well in the months and years ahead.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s approach of being specific about what it is that developers and investors should be looking at instead of what the latest designated strategy might be. This approach also makes sure that we do not end up with more reasons for judicial review, when it is left to judges to determine what is the strategy or where there is nuance and so on. My noble friend made points about making that direct link to understanding a moment in time and that the measure has been through the parliamentary aspect of the process, initiated by the Government of course. That simplicity will in fact help the Government in achieving a lot of the aims which they seek.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 185B, and I completely agree with the noble Earl on his amendment. I have tabled amendments on permitted development elsewhere in this Bill. It is a hugely important part of getting planning right. The Government should take some courageous decisions on what delays we do not need. What do we recognise that we have to do and how do we allow people to get on with it? Getting an efficient transmission network is something we absolutely need to do.
Moving a transmission pole may upset someone locally, but it is part of a national need. That it should be delayed, that people should take huge amounts of time on whether it should be here or there or whether an extra prop to a pole should be allowed, is just ridiculous. I am very sorry that we have allowed this to accumulate over the years. I am delighted to find the Liberal Democrats in support of reducing regulation; long may this continue. This is a really constructive way forward.
I have added the idea that we ought to allow a bit more freedom for wind generation. When I grew up, it was common to see agricultural windmills—those galvanised towers with clanking blades—all over the rural landscape. They provided power of a kind, type and price which suited the local conditions.
I remember when land wind turbines were introduced, and we all thought that they would be horrid, would desecrate the landscape and that it would be miserable, but we are used to them now—they are part of everybody’s landscape, just about. If we do not overdo it, I think that we have a reasonable basis for saying that we should experiment on allowing people to put these down for local need to generate electricity where it is needed and in a way that it is needed. It will not get done unless there is a commercial requirement for it, but we should look at freeing up the restrictions that we have placed on people putting up wind turbines and ask what is really needed here. Have we not learned enough to allow us to free this up a bit?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94E, but I start with Amendment 77 and simply say that I completely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We are not talking about the horrific, huge pylons; these are quite simple, and it makes much more sense to make it as straightforward as possible to up the energy locally.
I say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that there already are, I think, permitted development rights for turbines to the level that he suggests. I suggest that the permitted development right is solely for a single turbine, and I note that his amendment refers to “turbines”. I would not want this to be a back door to having significant numbers of wind farms on a variety of land, if he were to press this any further.
The reason my amendment is in this group is that also has to do with permitted development rights, regarding solar. We will debate solar today under other parts of this legislation, but this amendment seeks to try to get permitted development rights for solar on reservoirs. There are certain reservoirs, some very close to London, where sometimes a bit of sailing happens but, by and large, they sit there empty. Important as these reservoirs are for the water supply that we need, this would be quite a straightforward way of allowing for a modest amount of solar extension, which may only be that which is needed for the local facility, or perhaps a little further. I would not suggest that any would have to have an automatic connection to the grid, because that would probably be exceptionally expensive. The point is that, if we are going to increase the amount of renewable energy, why not allow reservoir owners to put this sort of solar development somewhere we are not then displacing agricultural land and where it does not require the huge extensions or connections that we see today right across agricultural land all over the country?
Floating solar is apparently seen as a nascent technology in the solar road map, so has not really been included in this Bill. I am conscious that we have read in the press this summer that there might be a second planning Bill, but I suggest to the Government that they should carpe diem. Why do we not get on and get this sort of permitted development right? Elsewhere in the Bill, I have suggested an easier way to try to include reservoirs and large ponds. In fact, the Secretary of State for Defra, Steve Reed, has been very specific in some of the open meetings that he has had that it needs to be easier for farmers to be able to access reservoirs and have them on their land. From my perspective, this could be a double win.
The other aspect that people may not be aware of with regard to the benefit of floating solar on reservoirs is that it could potentially help boost water security. One of the things with reservoirs is that it is not just about usage and them being drained ineffectively; it is also about evaporation levels, which means that we start to see a significant reduction in how much water is available. By simply having these solar panels, we can have a physical barrier between the water and the sun.
It is suggested that it is possible that such development could boost biodiversity on reservoir sites. Any opportunity that we can take, in a mutually beneficial way, to boost nature as well as energy resilience is something that I would hope that the Government could consider.
I understand that the UK is home to Europe’s largest floating solar farm, on the QEII reservoir, and I know there has been a bit of on and off, literally, about how effective it has been. Nevertheless, it is important that we consider all opportunities to make sure, at very limited or ideally no cost to the bill payer, that we maximise the amount of energy that is directly available to us.
On energy security rolling forward, trying to get more homegrown electricity is key. That is why I hope the Government will look at this carefully and consider the benefits of permitted development rights for floating solar on our reservoirs.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to what my noble friend Lord Swire just said. I think it is fair to say that it was actually the previous Conservative Administration who changed aspects of a policy statement that there be a strong presumption in terms of overhead distribution. I will not pretend otherwise. I did try and fight that at the time, but failed. It is fair to say that the cost comparison has actually fallen considerably. It is still about four or four and a half times the cost of doing it via pylons, but I think there is a lot to be said for what my noble friend has put forward.
I was somewhat relieved by the clarity brought by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that he was not considering this to be compulsory purchase, given some of the issues that I have been contesting for some time. That is what has led to my Amendment 94FA—in the supplementary list—which provides for
“Electrical or communications cables under land in active agricultural use”.
I have shared with your Lordships before that I have quite a lot of experience dealing with energy projects and NSIPs, recognising the concentration of such projects on the Suffolk coast, and that is a theme that I will return to later. One thing that struck me was that, in consideration of getting the cabling underground because these projects were going principally through an AONB—I do not know if it is in legislation, but by default what has happened is that any cabling in an AONB ends up being underground—what was clear was a complete lack of understanding of what was there underground already. In agricultural areas, one thing that is significantly underground and is very sensitive infrastructure, which is not put in by the Government, water companies or the like but is actually put in by local farmers, is underground networks for water. Considering quite how much less water there is, particularly in the east of the country, these are critical in order to make sure that we can continue to have food being grown.
Something that is very important for water and other networks is the production of Christmas trees. Christmas trees are very hungry for water in their development, which takes some time. One thing that came to light in the consideration of the creation of various substations and cabling is the fact that the electricity companies had no clue at all about this important infrastructure that is just below the surface. Of course, there is no doubt that having the cables as close to the surface as possible is definitely an economic interest, but, candidly, it ends up disrupting the agricultural potential for a lot of this land. I do not think there is any chance that Christmas trees can be grown above electricity cables. Unfortunately, Redhouse Barn, a farm that I would recommend, grows a lot of Christmas trees—it supplied No. 10 Downing Street one year—and I know that the family there was concerned, but somewhat understood and accepted that sometimes these things happen, although I hope that the compensation they get for this is a lot more generous than they were initially offered.
Nevertheless, the Government should consider speaking a lot more to the internal drainage boards around the country. We do not have internal drainage boards in every part of this country, but I expect that, where a lot of the energy generation is happening and the initial connections through cabling need to go, there will be. They will have intricate knowledge of exactly what you need to navigate. One way to avoid having to do site-by-site surveys, which we have already been told cost a hell of a lot of money, and to do all this pre-consultation, is simply to make sure that, when cabling is put in place, those trenches go sufficiently deep that we can continue to have agricultural production as well as the benefits of the transmission of electricity.
That is why I hope that the Government, although I expect they will firmly reject my proposals, will at least start to consider what is happening in reality in our productive countryside when we are trying to have this rather complicated map of cabling, pylons and the like, in order to make sure that we continue, as far as possible, to keep farming our land as well as making sure that that land—of course I will give way.
Lord Swire (Con)
Has my noble friend heard about the possibility of growing tomatoes over these cables?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am sure that the heat that my noble friend was about to allude to will make it attractive to certain kinds of rapid acceleration of growth. It is not the only thing that would benefit there, but it is more about trying to neutralise the impact of what seemed to be necessary infrastructure with the ongoing operations rather than disrupting those who are already farming our land for the food that we need for continued food security. With that, I put forward the benefits of my amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I commend the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment and for introducing this group. I will speak to Amendments 79A and 94FA—if your Lordships will pardon the expression—tabled by my noble friends Lord Swire and Lady Coffey and will end with a question for the Minister.
There are environmental and financial reasons for undergrounding these transmission wires. The environmental reasons are mostly because they are wasteful. It is debatable how much they waste, but I think it is between 7% and 10% of the energy that is transmitted, which seems nonsensical. As my noble friend Lord Swire said, they are also unsightly, which in tourist areas is very unwelcome. They are also extremely vulnerable to storm and extreme weather conditions. We have just had the first storm names for the forthcoming season—I do not know whether my niece and god-daughter will be delighted that Storm Amy will be the first one to hit us, but there we go. I remind the Minister that Storm Arwen caused such damage to the north-east of England and North Yorkshire that large swathes of north-east England and North Yorkshire had no electricity for up to 10 days. That is unacceptable.
The second power lines, which I think I referred to at Second Reading, run through the spine of North Yorkshire, from Middlesbrough all the way down to York, where they join the national grid. Only three months prior to those being built, an ethanol pipeline had been laid, tracking more or less the same route through agricultural land that the overhead pylons were following. It makes sense that if you are digging the land up once then at the same time you put the transmission lines there. Underground lines are less vulnerable to storms, extreme weather and extreme frost. In one year, we had temperatures of minus 17 degrees for six days running in North Yorkshire in the winter. Those are the environmental reasons that I put to the Minister.
We are frequently told that we cannot afford to place these transmission wires underground. I remind noble Lords that every single customer is paying, through the standing charge, for the infrastructure. Why do we not have a say, as customers, on the infrastructure that is being used? I give three examples of the latest profits for electricity companies. They are eye-watering and beg the question: why are we told that it is not affordable to place these transmission wires underground? The latest figures I have seen from Octopus Energy are of a 0.7% profit margin, delivering a net profit of £83 million. For OVO Energy, the latest figures I can find are for 2023—I cannot find the figures for 2024, though they are probably available—when OVO Energy announced a pre-tax profit of £1 billion. That is one electricity-generating company alone. For Centrica, there was a £1 billion profit for 2024. Why are we being told that it is unaffordable when there are monstrous profits to which we are all contributing as consumers?
To sum up my short contribution, I strongly support Amendments 79A and 94FA, and argue that there are absolutely no environmental and financial reasons not to underground these transmission wires.
Baroness Coffey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Baroness Coffey extend benefits schemes to energy generation infrastructure and requires them to be in place, including for any infrastructure still being under construction at the time of Royal Assent of this Act.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 82C; I have also tabled a number of other amendments in this group. In essence, this amendment considers bill discounts and community benefits.
I think it is fair to say that the Government have recognised the need for some benefits, but they have not been generous enough, in my view. That is why I also strongly support Amendment 83, tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench, to make sure that we are sufficiently generous. I am convinced that that will go a long way to persuading—or at least giving some comfort to—householders in large parts of our United Kingdom who will suffer some of the consequential impacts of the acceleration of renewable energy involving pylons and similar.
In essence, I am also concerned that we seem to have lost the amount of electricity generation happening around the country. It seemed quite odd to me that people might get compensation for there being a pylon within 500 metres of them, but people living next to the generation of new substations and new nuclear power stations are not, as it stands, intended to receive any community benefit.
One of the successes of the French Government was to try to reduce the electricity bills of people living close to generation. That has long been considered a sensible way forward for a local community. I am not saying that everybody in those local communities wants to be, to use their words, “bought off” by a reduction on their bill, but it would go a considerable way with some of the frustration in the preparation of those huge construction projects as well as being an ongoing reminder that they are living near a nuclear power station. They may not have realised one was going to be built there—or a substation, or the like—when they moved to that area.
Clause 26 enables the establishment of the energy bill discount scheme. I have tabled a couple of amendments, that it should not be “may” but “must”. I am conscious that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has also included “must” in Amendment 86. That matters to give absolute certainty to local communities that this will happen and that we will not have to wait for further consultation, commencements and the like, and that it will actually be done.
It is important that we consider not just nuclear, which I have referred to already—I do not think that I would qualify for any of that, by the way; I do not live too far away from Sizewell C, but nevertheless, there are plenty of people who qualify. We should also consider it for other energy projects, including wind farms and the like, especially recognising the Government’s proposals.
The Government’s proposed discount is only 25% of the £1,000 bill discount that the previous Government suggested, which has already been referred to in Amendment 83. However, it is clear that we need to make sure this gets to the households, so there are parts of this clause which are absolutely right to be included by the Government.
On Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I recall that I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Fallon a long time ago. I think it was back in 2013 that we started discussing what amount of money local communities should get. That reflects quite how long this discussion has been going on for. At one point, it was about business rate revenues: what would be retained, what would be kept by the council and what would be given to bill payers. It is important to make sure that as much of this money goes directly to local people as possible.
In terms of thinking this through, the Ministers may not have the answer today, and I do not expect them to have an answer on every single part of discussions about business rates retentions. However, it would be useful to understand where the Government have ended up on how much of business rates would be retained by local councils for the operation of all these different power plants which are busy being built around the country. I am sure that local government would welcome that clarity. Certainly, if 100% of the business rates of Sizewell C were to be retained in East Suffolk—indeed, by the new unitary authority in due course—they would be very happy indeed. That is not to say that East Suffolk keeps all that money; right now, it participates in pooling. Nevertheless, it is about recognising that this significant infrastructure in a very modest way provides some local community benefit which can be used for a variety of factors. It is for those reasons that generation as well as pylons need to be recognised in any bill discount scheme. I hope that the Government will be generous in that regard.
Forgive me, but there is one other amendment that I have forgotten to speak to. It would make sure that this cost is not borne by other taxpayers or bill payers. This needs to be considered in the cost of the project. We will discuss this more in the Moses Room on Wednesday, but, too often, when it seems that the Government are being very generous about discounts, rebates and similar, it is actually bill payers in other parts of the country who simply pay for that. We need to recognise that we have an electricity system that will of course bring some disruption in certain parts of the country where generation and other aspects of transmission are happening—we all need to pay our energy bills—but, for once, we should see some of the energy companies recognising the significant profits they will be making from those projects and that, for the future, they do not have to rely on bill payers paying for those benefits in the short term. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 85 in my name seeks to explore the extent and purpose of the compensation proposed for new energy infrastructure, particularly with regard to electrical infrastructure that already exists. Can the Minister explain how the clause enhances schemes that currently exist in the form of wayleave arrangements and payments for use of land for pylons, for example? Will the new scheme, for instance, be consistent with current arrangements for compensation?
Clarity about the parameters used to determine those residents who will qualify for compensation for the new infrastructure is important in understanding the scale of the scheme as anticipated by the Government. In a press statement, the Government stated that households within 500 metres of new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure will get electricity bill discounts of up to £2,500 over 10 years, and that this will see rural communities receive hundreds of pounds in their pockets for hosting vital infrastructure. It continues:
“Alongside money off bills, separate new guidance will set out how developers should ensure communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit by funding projects like sports clubs, educational programmes or leisure facilities”.
That press release sets out the principles behind what the Government are proposing for new electricity infrastructure. As I am sure the Minister will know, there are already over 20,000 pre-existing pylons, which have been associated largely with coalfields. Hence, many of the clusters of pylons are close to those sites; in Yorkshire, for example. For those communities at that time, there was an expectation by the state that electricity transmission was for the common good. The question I want an answer to today is: where has that sense of common purpose gone? Why are we not still considering the idea that for major infrastructure projects where the whole nation will benefit communities will need to accept that for the benefit of everybody, as was done in the past?
In their press release, the Government state categorically that it is rural communities that will see huge financial benefit from the scheme. Obviously, I do not have any argument with that, but I question the argument for compensating residents in those communities now when communities with infrastructure constructed in a different generation were not. Can the Minister explain, for example, whether the compensation will be extended to the Yorkshire GREEN scheme, which is upgrading existing infrastructure down the spine of Yorkshire to enable more green infrastructure to be linked to the grid? It is an upgrade of older infrastructure. Will those communities benefit from this scheme?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I accept the noble Earl’s point. I am not fond of “in due course”, as he well knows—he has heard me say that many times. I will endeavour to find out what the timescales are likely to be. It usually depends on the level of responses that have been received and the complexity of dealing with them, but I will respond in due course.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer on the variety of schemes and community benefits, bill discounts and similar. I am disappointed that she does not think that it is necessary to talk about generation. Not all projects are like Sizewell. Not all these potential new projects generate local jobs, although I am sure that the community will be very grateful for the ones that will be generated by Sizewell. Nevertheless, conscious of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all the noble Lords who have spoken in this group, and as has already been said, I attach my name to Amendment 87 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to Amendment 93.
I will seek to add to, rather than repeat, what has already been said, but I just follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in addressing Amendment 88 and agree that I am also not sure about the percentages. I would particularly highlight the ancient woodland, how terribly important and terribly rare that is, and so, as per paragraph (d) in that amendment, there is no way we should be doing anything to damage ancient woodland for energy—it is such a precious resource. Noble Lords have heard me go on before about looking at the trees, but let us also see how incredibly precious the biodiversity in soil in ancient woodland is.
On Amendment 87, I think biomass is now a very dirty word, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rhetorically asked, “What could possibly go wrong?”. Of course, that has already been answered with the single word, “Drax”. The energy think tank Ember said Drax is “the UK’s largest emitter” and that the power
“is more expensive than … gas, it’s more polluting than coal, and more dependent on imports than oil”.
There should be no future biomass at Drax; that is my position and the Green Party’s position. It really is a tragedy that we did not get to that point when we recently had the opportunity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, picked this point up. I signed this amendment, but I am almost tempted towards saying simply that there should be no biomass from forests, because as the noble Baroness asked, what does “waste material” really mean? We are thinking about biodiversity and about organic material that is a resource. If you leave it on the forest floor, it contributes to the generation of soil and provides habitat for a huge variety of organisms. Is that really waste at all? Is there any such thing in a forest? That really is the question. We need to be thinking about having a war on tidiness and the idea that for any sort of planting, we want these nice, neat rows with clean bare soil in between—we need to think about what kind of damage that does.
Particularly in addressing Amendment 93, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a study that was out last year funded by the Forestry Commission. It was entitled Rapid review of evidence on biodiversity in Great Britain’s commercial forests. It found that there is in fact a huge shortage of data and information about what is happening in the biodiversity, specifically in commercial high forests. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the issue of the land use strategy. How can we be making the plans within this Bill, or indeed for the land use strategy, if we do not have the data about the biodiversity, which this study, funded by the Forestry Commission, identified? I also point to another Forestry Commission study from late 2023, which warned of the risk of catastrophic ecosystem collapse in our forests. This was signed—the work of 42 experts—and pointed out all the risks that our forests face from wind, fire, pests and diseases, and it said there are already forests in continental Europe and North America where we have seen this kind of biological collapse. We need to be thinking about making sure that the Forestry Commission is given the statutory duty, which Amendment 93 would give it, to ensure that it looks after biodiversity as well as, of course, the crucial issue of the climate emergency.
It is worth repeating again that we are incredibly forest and woodland-deprived in the UK by international comparisons. We have to look after what is there for human health, for well-being, for the climate and for nature.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I speak particularly to the amendments that I have tabled in this group. It is fair to say that the Forestry Commission is quite an unusual organisation—it is a non-ministerial department for a start. I was the Minister and then the Secretary of State with the relationship with the Forestry Commission and my experience was that, frankly, I used to get somewhat frustrated, thinking that it should get on and plant some trees. It almost seemed very reluctant to just get on and plant trees. The reason it matters—the clue is in the name, but perhaps the organisation literally cannot see the wood for the trees—is that trying to give the extra targets is important for the Forestry Commission to make sure it is on track in doing what it is supposed to do.
One of those aims is to help achieve the 16% woodland cover target by 2050, which we are at risk of missing. The Forestry Commission should have at the forefront of its mind that its role is about trees, woodland and forests. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was concerned about single species, or perhaps only certain species being granted in commercial estates. It is vital that we have mixed forests. One of my concerns was that it seemed like, for any tree that was not a broadleaf, it was almost like it was automatically bad and we should not be touching it. Actually, we need that mix for a combination of factors. There is no question that a broadleaf tree will bring absolutely better biodiversity overall, but so do the pines and, critically, the pines will grow a lot more quickly and contribute far more quickly to issues involving climate and emissions. That is why having a combination tree estate under the UK forestry guidance really matters.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Coffey ExcerptsMonday 1st September 2025
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (1 Sep 2025)
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 94B regarding permission for energy substations on higher quality agricultural land, I will also speak to Amendment 94A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, which according to the Herald is pronounced “drum-lang”. The amendments reflect the concerns that I and my noble friends have about what is happening on higher quality agricultural land, which, as we have heard eloquently described, is critical to food security.
My noble friend’s amendment reflects quite a lot of the concerns expressed in the House of Commons. I am thinking of my right honourable friend Wendy Morton, my honourable friends Sarah Bool and Mike Wood, and a number of other people who have spoken in debates in the House of Commons who are concerned for a couple of reasons about why battery energy storage systems seem to be not exploding —well, some of them are—but certainly expanding.
There is an important point to understand. We have seen, progressively, the previous Administration and this Government trying to get a grip on managing energy production and to get a proper strategy going. Meanwhile, in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, the proposal is that we need about 27 gigawatts by 2030, 29 gigawatts by 2035, and a broader estimate—although the Government have not set a formal target—of 50 gigawatts by 2050. But where are we right now?
Figures from a paper from RenewableUK published in December 2024 suggested that there were 5 gigawatts of total operational capacity and 127 gigawatts in the pipeline. You do not need an A-level in maths to add up and find that that comes to 132 gigawatts. Of those, I think it is fair to say that 40 gigawatts have already been consented, 30 gigawatts are in the planning process and a further 48 gigawatts are being developed to go into the planning system.
My concern and that of my honourable friends and right honourable friends in the other place is that, in our process, we have already approved pretty much all that has been wanted by our energy operator. So why is it that, in effect, we seem to be encouraging even more to come through?
I am conscious that not every application will necessarily produce the outcome that is desired—we have seen that with other things—but, frankly, for those who have got the planning consent, we should make sure that they deliver what they say they are going to do. We should do that instead of, yet again, building up, and potentially blocking, land being used for food production to perhaps become an area for battery energy storage in the future, when we will have already achieved our outcome.
We discussed a lot about safety earlier; the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, spoke to that. He spoke comprehensively, but I point out to him there have been some instances where, for example, chemical interactions meant that hydrofluoric acid was produced. I did my PhD in chemistry a long time ago, but HF is one of the chemicals that I used. I can honestly say that, if you get it on your skin, although you will not realise it for a couple of days, your bones are basically crumbling right inside your skeleton. If you get it in your eyes, it is game over, frankly. On a very serious note, it is fair to say that there are significant risks. While the HSE has been cited as having a framework in place and similar, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, referred to the Defra consultation about bringing these regimes into the EPR. It was published only last week. This is no criticism of the Minister, but what is noteworthy is that it said—I am quoting word for word—that
“it is not the role of the planning system to regulate fire risk and there is limited provision through the planning scheme to ensure that measures are maintained”.
I am sorry, but one of the key features of the planning system is to consider fire and fire risk and the like, so it will be worth the Minister looking at that element again; I am sure his officials will be keen to do so as well. We need to make sure that these things are safe. I shall give way.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am reminded to reprise what the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said earlier about the need to have pre-scrutiny and the fact that a national organisation, the HSE, was the competent body. As my noble friend has been speaking, I have been reminded that it is for local organisations, the local fire authority and the local planning authority to make those determinations. National bodies such as the HSE do not have the capacity or the local knowledge to comment appropriately.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I think that is right. The HSE, on its own website, refers to the fact that it cannot comment on every application and, in effect, needs to be proactively contacted only if there is considered to be a major risk.
I am also conscious that the River Test is considered by my honourable friend Caroline Nokes to be under threat. For people who are interested in these things, I commend the speech of my right honourable friend Sir Alec Shelbrooke, who talked about dendrites. It was a very knowledgeable, well-researched speech about fire risk, including thermal runaway and the like.
Coming back to the fundamental proposal of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, he specifically asked me to talk about safety. There is a concern about overdevelopment and the loss of food for agricultural production. We will keep coming back to this on this side of the House, recognising the importance of food security alongside the other elements of national security.
On the amendment that I have tabled, perhaps I should declare an interest as this is about a subject that I have referred to a few times before: energy substations. Again, I am worried. There is an element here of thinking about where we do energy generation or other aspects of interconnection. Frankly, if the Government think the only way they can get these things done is by ripping apart environmental protection law and reducing food production land, they should not connect at those areas that already have these environmental designations or are key producers of food in this country.
My amendment refers specifically to 1, 2 or 3. I am conscious that the best and most versatile land is traditionally grades 1, 2 and 3a. However, Defra, through Natural England, does not publish where grades 3a and 3b are, because apparently that is too difficult to do, as it requires individual local site surveys on determining whether a particular field is grade 3a or 3b, so for comprehensiveness I have put in grades 1, 2 and 3.
However, as my noble friend Lord Fuller has pointed out, there is an element here about the fact that, frankly, a lot of this stuff was—in effect, with a light touch—reconsidered only in 2010. Fundamental parts of our land have not been assessed in terms of their contribution towards food production or food security for probably the best part of 40 to 50 years. As a consequence, recognising the targets set by the Government and the challenges that we face, I am conscious of the land use framework. Admittedly, I did a draft of that nearly three years ago, and I am sure everyone is frustrated that we still have not seen it yet. One of the challenges is this competing element of what we do with the land that we have.
Let us be straightforward about this: once agricultural land is gone, it is gone for good. I am not blaming farmers or landowners, who, candidly, the policies of the last 12 months have given even more reason to get a secured income on the basis of the value or use of their land. One of the foibles, in a way, of doing things such as leasing out land for solar is that it does not adjust in terms of the agricultural elements of inheritance tax. However, when farmers can get a guaranteed income for a proportion of their land, while other things are so uncertain, I do not blame them for wanting to make that choice.
My honourable friends—apologies, I am still earning about this place; I should have said my noble friends—have eloquently put some of the issues around solar. There definitely has to be a place for solar across our country, but one final point that I want to make on battery energy systems is that we really need to target where they are going to be. There is no point in having batteries in parts of the country that are nowhere near the grid or near where most of the energy is going to be used. That is why I have proposed the amendments I have today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I simply want to agree with Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I prefer it to the amendments from my noble friends Lord Fuller, Lord Forsyth and Lady Coffey, although they all have merit. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Coffey that we may already have enough solar farms under consent already, although I am not sure what the Minister thinks of that.
As the House of Lords, we can take a longer-term view and, unfashionable though it may be, I believe we should protect the highest-quality agricultural land for farming and food and prohibit solar farms on that land. It is of course less costly for the developers, who want flat sites, but that is not a good reason to sacrifice the best land needed for food security.
Government is about balance. Our population is growing. We live in a dangerous world that could one day jeopardise imports of food, and the most productive land should be devoted to growing crops.
Baroness Coffey
“Electricity infrastructure: consentConsent may only be granted for any electricity infrastructure, including generation, transmission through interconnectors, and any associated infrastructure including substations, within a 50 square mile area where the cumulative capacity is less than 10% of the country’s total electricity capacity.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we are in the final stretch, and I will not be at all insulted if people choose to vacate at this stage of proceedings, recognising that we are past the usual hour. But the future of energy infrastructure matters. It matters where it is in the country; it matters for national security. That is why I have tabled Amendment 94C.
It is no secret to those people who have been in this Chamber or the Moses Room when I have talked about energy that I have recognised that part of Suffolk has a huge number of NSIPs relating to energy. I will talk about various issues in the three different groups; I have done this somewhat deliberately to try to make sure that Ministers and officials from each of the different departments really consider what they are signing up to and what is happening with the progress of electricity infrastructure across this country.
I am not in any denial that we need to consider carefully the transition to a different sort of grid. This needs to be considered carefully in recognising what is happening on concentration. In about 10 years’ time, it may have gone down a little, but about 30% of the country’s electricity will be generated in quite a small part of the country or it will act as the host point for interconnection from the continent. That will be concentrated in an area not of 50 square miles, as I referred to in my amendment, but considerably smaller. That is happening through the continuing generation of Sizewell B, the future generation of Sizewell C and interconnectors coming in at various points along the Suffolk coast—interconnectors to the continent and to the offshore wind farms that are already operational and currently being expanded.
One of my concerns—I appreciate that this is another issue of which I never managed to persuade my former colleagues, but I am hoping that the Government will listen—is that it is a huge matter of national security that we are concentrating so much of the energy in this country in a very small part geographically. I will not call that overemphasis a sitting duck, because I am very conscious of all the security that goes into nuclear power stations and the like, but it is an overconcentration. We think about the impact that a breakdown of resilience can have, and it could end up depriving the rest of the country of desperately needed energy.
It is for that reason I genuinely believe that, strategically, the Government should be thinking about spreading our principal electricity generation around the country. I will come to other reasons why I think the cumulation does not help, but it is that sort of threat which we should be considering right now. I am aware of the concerns in continental Europe about the deployment of certain grades of weapons by foreign actors. I am aware of the risk that has to be monitored and assessed, and we should be doing that in this country as well. That is why I genuinely believe the Government should reconsider their accumulation of projects and be far more strategic in where all these different energy sources are being placed in the country.
To that end, I believe that we should be looking to reflect the fact that we have opportunities in different parts of the country where, by the way, the Government already have land—they do not need to acquire more land. Too often, it is the Ministry of Defence refusing to take on some of these projects, because it wants to do various practices and different things like that. At the same time, plenty of agriculture is being sacrificed, but I am conscious we have already had that debate, so I do not want to dwell on it.
It is for those reasons I hoped that, by tabling this simple amendment, DESNZ would consider, with other parts of government, whether it is really treading down the right path in concentrating energy production and whether it should be more strategic in its thinking. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee, in particular the issue of concentration of power supply and potential implications. This amendment would limit the consent for electricity infrastructure within a 50-square mile area where the cumulative capacity is more than 10% of the country’s total. This raises several important questions for the Government. What assessment has been made of the cumulative impacts on a local area already hosting significant infrastructure? Additionally, how will fairness between different regions be measured and maintained? What mechanisms are in place to prevent overconcentration in certain areas at the expense of others, given, as my noble friend mentioned, the potential strategic risks to the country? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, with respect to the Minister—I appreciate the answer he has given me— there is one point that perhaps it would be worthwhile DESNZ genuinely looking at. There is no doubt that there is a small part of Suffolk that will be responsible for more than 10% of the capacity in the future. But I appreciate that is not the remit of the Minister speaking tonight.
Of course I am disappointed. I am concerned. But, recognising the late hour, which is why I have truncated my comments, I will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“GEMA: funding constraints based on planning consentIf an electricity project has not received planning consent, the GEMA must not grant or consider any grant—(a) of Early Construction Funding, or(b) relating to Accelerated Strategic Transmission Investment.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I specifically wanted to speak to the funding of issues such as energy projects. This issue, probably more than anything else—perhaps the fact that the national grid is part-owned by American private equity owners may wind people up a little bit more—is the one that, fundamentally, makes communities around the country, and I have seen it much more locally, consider the planning system, when it comes to energy projects, a complete and utter joke.
It is already decided, regardless of what happens in the planning system, that these projects will go ahead. It does not matter if they do not quite fit the planning law, because a few tweaks could potentially be made. It does not matter what the community thinks. It does not matter what Parliament thinks, because Ofgem has already made the decisions and determinations that these projects can go ahead and money can start being spent on them before planning has even started.
I give your Lordships the example of Norwich to Tilbury. Ofgem came up with its early construction funding in April 2025. Its planning submission was submitted only on Friday. Sea Link, a project that I will continue to fight for as long as I can, had its ECF announcement made. Normally, Ofgem’s policy is that only 20% of the funding can be granted, in effect, through early construction funding. Ofgem has given 48% to the national grid—NGET—to proceed with Sea Link. Planning had to be delayed because there was an error in the planning process, so that got going only last month as well. This is what the people in communities in various parts of the country see. What is the point?
That is my huge frustration: in effect, there is a predetermination that planning applications are going to be made. I am still slightly surprised that people have not been successful in certain aspects of getting this JR-ed at some point. So here we are. We have projects going when they have barely started, or in some cases have not even started, the planning process.
I have proposed this new clause to restore some credibility to planning, to restore some credibility to the idea that it is not just a commercial deal or a done deal. Ofgem should be restrained from granting this sort of funding process until at least the planning document has been submitted and ideally been given consent. For what it is worth, a lot of this kind of scepticism would go away if there was a genuine belief that the planning system meant anything at all.
I am conscious that, to try to get to 2030 on this accelerated timetable, we need to get on with these projects. I have already referred to previous ones where planning processes are still under way when we have already reached the consented capacity for a series of energy projects, and yet they keep coming.
No wonder people are desperate and tabling JRs, or pre-action protocols and the like. They are so frustrated with a machinery that says, “Yeah, we’ll sort of do the basics, but it is done”. This is the reason that I felt particularly strongly and wanted to table Amendment 94D: just to be a voice for people who want to believe that our country respects law and respects that there is not a predetermination. God alone knows how many consultations I went through as a Secretary of State when I was told, “Be very careful, you can’t come to a predetermination in all of this”. Yet Ofgem, of course, gives the game away.
I will not say any more. To be candid, I do not expect a huge response from the Minister. I am not trying to be rude in advance; perhaps I am predetermining what I am expecting to hear. Nevertheless, I am saying this for people right across the country: let us do the right thing; let us make sure that we are not allowing money to be printed for developers who have not even started the actual planning process. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to talk to Amendment 94D, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. This amendment concerns constraints on grants delivered by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. I simply ask the Minister whether he can clarify how the Government intend to ensure that such grants are awarded in a way that is both transparent and consistent across different technologies. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 94D tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to prohibit the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—GEMA—from granting or considering early construction funding or accelerated strategic transmission investment unless planning consent has already been secured.
While I understand that network companies should not be given excessive funding for projects where procurement or construction costs are not yet incurred, I must urge noble Lords to consider the unintended consequences that this amendment would have for our energy infrastructure and our collective ambition to deliver a net zero-ready grid.
Let us be clear: the mechanisms in question, early construction funding and ASTI, are not blank cheques. They are carefully staged investments, including stages designed precisely to support the preparatory work that enables planning consent to be sought in the first place. This includes environmental assessments, route design, stakeholder engagement and technical feasibility studies. These are not luxuries; they are prerequisites for any responsible and successful planning application.
To deny access to funding before planning consent is granted creates a paradox. Planning consent cannot be obtained without preparatory work, and preparatory work cannot be funded without planning consent. This amendment risks trapping vital transmission projects in a bureaucratic cul-de-sac.
We are not debating theoretical infrastructure; we are talking about the backbone of our future clean energy system—projects that will connect offshore wind, solar and other renewables to homes and businesses across the country. These are the arteries of our economy. Delaying them risks not only our clean energy mission and net-zero commitment but the security and affordability of our energy and wider economic growth as grid capacity is needed to power new investments.
Moreover, GEMA already operates under a rigorous framework of accountability and oversight. Funding decisions are not made lightly; they are subject to scrutiny, cost-benefit analysis and alignment with strategic national priorities. To impose a statutory constraint at this stage would not enhance that process but hinder it. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Energy infrastructure projects: publication of environmental principles duty assessmentWhere an energy infrastructure project requires assessment by either—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority,the individual or body making that assessment must publish its assessment of the environmental principles duty in full, including advice provided and considered.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, again, I have split this amendment off from the other consideration of energy infrastructure projects. To cut to the chase, we need to make sure, bearing on some of the debate that we have had earlier about how we are going to achieve joint objectives, not only that we have a fit-for-purpose grid but about how we move the transition along. I have consistently tried to make the case that that cannot be done at the expense of the natural environment.
Arising from the Environment Act 2021 is a duty on Ministers specifically to consider policy in terms of environmental principles, but I think I am right in saying there is also a requirement to consider the genuine impact of projects when a Minister is giving consent to them. One element will be thinking about biodiversity as well as considering the natural capital accounts of the country—on which we do annual balance sheets which are put forward by the Treasury—and a key consideration should be what is happening as a consequence of the environment to any particular project. One of the things that I am afraid is somewhat shrouded in mystery here is that normally there is just the response, “Yes, we have considered this”, and nothing is shared with the country. My amendment is intended to ensure transparency.
I am conscious that the sub judice rule might apply, and there is already a legal case against the Deputy Prime Minister over her Section 20 statement regarding the Bill—I am assuming that, by extension, that applies to the Minister as well. However, it is important that not only Ministers but the wider country understand quite what is happening in this balance. The reason I say that is that primary legislation is already in place where the primary indicator is about the recovery of aspects of nature, particularly thinking of species. As a consequence, transparency is vital, and the OEP has been regularly pushing for a lot more transparency on exactly this sort of information so we have a sense of whether we are going to be anywhere close to hitting the targets that this Parliament has already agreed to in both primary and secondary legislation. On that basis, given the time of the evening, I simply beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing Amendment 94F to the attention of your Lordships. It would ensure that the duty relating to environmental principles was published in full. I ask the Minister: how are the Government going to monitor compliance in relation to environmental principles? As importantly, how will Parliament be kept informed of progress in this area? I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling her amendment and allowing us to ask those questions, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we will return to a lot of this in Part 3 of the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Coffey ExcerptsThursday 17th July 2025
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (17 Jul 2025)
Lord Banner (Con)
I want to say something about what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about the default risk aversion, and how there is a significant risk of that with regulators. There is a lot of merit in those comments. Largely, that stems from the application of the precautionary principle in much of the field of law that we are discussing now. Materially diluting the precautionary principle in a substantial way would have all sorts of troublesome consequences, but, in my judgment, some kind of counterbalance, which is what the proportionality principle is seeking to do, would help temper the effects of that. There is a later amendment in the noble Lord’s name which would seek to modify the precautionary principle in quite a sensible way. But I agree that something needs to be done to ensure that that over-precautionism does not infect the application of these provisions.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my Amendments 10 to 16 are in this group. These are more about Clause 2, so the officials decided to group them together.
On Amendment 8, I respect the former Minister’s experience, and probably frustrations, but, candidly, having represented a part of the country where there are probably more NSIPs than in any other constituency, I am very concerned that trying to make sure that there are enough resources and even officials to sufficiently go through these combinations of NSIPs, which, of course, are all considered separately, is really quite a stretch. I am also conscious of what was mentioned earlier, about the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper that were generated to go with a variety of planning applications.
I remind the Committee that it is Parliament that has agreed to a lot of this legislation. Parliament has agreed for Natural England, for example, to be the regulator and, in effect, the decision-maker on a number of these matters. It is also usually Ministers who have designated many parts of our country to have these special areas of conservation, or whatever variety of designations there are, which bring in the extra challenge. I completely understand the point about the reasonableness test and proportionality—I completely get that—and that is why the last Administration tried to make some changes, particularly to unlock about 160,000 homes, but also placed various duties in terms of thinking about economic growth. So, as I say, I understand why there are concerns about timing but if we are going to adjust that, we need to make sure that the resourcing is there as well.
Clause 2 is all about the parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. I expect that certain elements of the process could be speeded up, but there are key points in here which actually remove accountability to Parliament by the Executive. I had not realised this when I tabled Amendment 13 but I then checked some of the procedures in the Commons, and on Report there, the Liaison Committee—the chair of every single Select Committee in the House of Commons—co-signed Amendment 87 in the other place to remove this so that the Government would have to continue to give a response to Parliament on any resolutions they passed. I find it extraordinary that the Government want to remove that. It is quite a simple thing to lay a Statement, or whatever it is.
The assessment of Minister Pennycook was, “Well, we have a variety of debates; we might ask the Select Committee to look at something”—by the way, he did not refer to the Select Committee in the Lords—“and, yeah, we have these sorts of Statements”. Statements are quite different at the other end, but still, they are not proper debates—they are not proper consideration—and I am concerned about that.
One of my other amendments in this group follows on from something that happened with the first national policy statement on nuclear that I was engaged in. There was a debate in the other House, and I suspect there may have been a debate at this end too. Along the way, something changed in the process. It relied entirely on the Liaison Committee getting a Select Committee to look at something and send it back, so that the Government would then respond to say that, as a consequence of that, they were making all these changes, but it then never came back to the House. There was a process where you could do something once the Secretary of State had laid it, but for Back-Benchers there was no mechanism to get a debate on the final national policy statement—it was impossible. It could have been done in the name of the Government, but it was not done—they were a Conservative Government, so do not worry; I had a pop at them at the time.
I do not understand why, given that the impact of national policy statements is so huge, the Government are going further in removing a key part of parliamentary scrutiny. I genuinely hope that the Government will think again. I would have no problem if the Government had other ways of dealing with the timing but we have to remember—we see it more in this House, where we have a wider range of not just parties but Cross-Benchers, and until this Parliament that has not been the same at the other end—that it is not fair on minority parties, particularly those representing constituencies where such NSIPs are being proposed, to remove their opportunity to stand up and represent their communities on what the future impact might be of a number of national policy statements.
My other amendments are somewhat technical, regarding not wanting the effects to be retrospective and so on. I will not cover every minutia, but that is what they intend to do, and to get some clarity from the Government on what they are planning to do with the timing.
On the wider point, Amendment 16 is where I am trying to pull together some of the threads of what this Bill should be about: improving nature, improving the speed of infrastructure and increasing the number of homes. In its recent report, the Office for Environmental Protection said that it would like the Government to make it standard practice that, when dealing with new policies, they routinely produce, publish and consider assessments within departments. That is necessary, because every Minister is legally required to consider the correlation between their policies and those in the environmental principles policy statement. That is in law. There is no way in this House to do that, apart from through trust, to see how it works together. It matters that we work together on making this happen.
There are frustrations that people might have. I appreciate that there is a legal case at the moment about whether what is in the Bill is compliant and whether it will reduce the impact of environmental law. I am not getting into that. However, one thing Ministers can experience is external bodies issuing legal action. They start off with a pre-action protocol letter. Under that, there is a duty of candour on the Government to release lots of information that the Minister will have considered on whether they were being compliant with the law in how they addressed the matter. That is not available to Parliament. I want to make it available to Parliament. I had a debate with the clerks about whether we should use the words “duty of candour” or similar. In essence, when we are trying to scrutinise not only the role of the Executive but how legislation is being applied, it is fair to this House and the other House to have a basis of information so that if, for whatever reason, the Minister decides, “We’re not going to worry about that bit, but we’re doing that consciously because we believe there’s a greater good under various articles”, we can accept that but be transparent about it.
This comes up in a similar principle later, under planning applications—based, by the way, on something that the chief executive of Natural England said in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place. What I am trying to do is get the cards on the table. Let us make sure the Environment Act 2021 and the targets in primary legislation are not all of a sudden ditched because of the rush to do X, Y and Z without this House or the other House knowing about it, so it can be challenged and potentially revised, and, if necessary, we can come forward with other amendments to legislation to make the Government comply with the law without waiting until whatever deadline it is, only for them to say, sorry, but they have not managed to do it.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The reason I know so much about this and there was a debate on the national networks is that I kicked off a hell of a fuss and the Leader of the House then pledged that the Government, despite it not being in the law, would do these resolutions. My concern is about the fact that so much depends on what the Front Bench decides to do with time. That is why I am concerned about it, but I appreciate what the Minister has said.
Baroness Coffey
Member’s explanatory statement
This is to probe why it is necessary for Government-imposed NSIPs to have no planning consent or public engagement.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
With Amendment 17 I will also debate Amendments 18 to 23 in my name. These have been described as a “redirection”; I am not exactly sure what that means, but there is a theme that I hope will become clear. I thank my noble friends on the Front Bench for adding their names to Amendments 17 and 23.
As the Explanatory Notes and various bits of memoranda make clear, this clause is designed to try to speed up aspects of planning, and I understand that flexibility may be wanted. I was a bit surprised when Minister Pennycook in the other place suggested in Committee, talking about offshore generation, that perhaps the MMO could become the planning authority in that regard. The MMO is simply not big enough to get into that.
The theme through my amendments is the fact that a Secretary of State has some literally very special powers, called special development orders. That is why I have tabled some quite detailed amendments. While the narrative, including in Committee and in various memoranda, has been that it can go to an alternative consenting authority, the reason I have tabled these amendments is that there is an alternative consenting authority: the Secretary of State himself or herself.
Amendment 17 tries to probe why the Bill refers to Section 59. You do not need to go through the NSIP and DCO process because the Secretary of State could, more or less, just authorise this tomorrow, without any public consultation, engagement and all sorts of things. The Secretary of State already has the power to do that. I expect that it is usually used for things such as MoD land, so the reasons may be somewhat related to national security infrastructure and so on, but I am concerned that this hands a heck of a lot of power to the Secretary of State, and we should at least be considering that carefully.
That is particularly true when thinking about nuclear and other energy generation, which my Amendment 23 covers. The amount of land taken by most energy projects is pretty significant, not just land for the station itself or the transmission network but the preparation land. That is why I would like to see a commitment, ideally in law, that this will never apply to where a Secretary of State themselves can, on request, give planning permission to something from a developer.
I turn to another aspect of my amendments. This is a novel process—I think that is the explanation in various memoranda—and it will be done by regulations. Putting in the Bill three months for the Secretary of State to make a particular decision seems reasonable if the whole point of this is that it be done quicker. By the way, that is just considering whether something should go through the DCO process or an alternative consenting authority.
In the debate on the first group, I clumsily mentioned the Minister’s commitment to write. It was actually Minister Pennycook, in the House of Commons Committee where this was considered, who pledged several times in the debate on this clause to write to the Committee. That letter may have been sent to the members of the Committee, but it certainly has never appeared on the Bill website or been deposited in the Libraries of either House. He pledged to give more examples of how this would work in practice. The reason for me probing this today is that we could end up with some kind of Stalinist Secretary of State who is determined to build whatever they like anywhere and everywhere. As it stands, through this amendment and this new clause, we will give them the powers to do that, and I do not think we should. That is why I wanted to look at this clause.
I turn to Article 6 of the convention on human rights. Again, a back-up memorandum says:
“These alternative consenting regimes are likely to be … the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Highways Act 1980, Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Harbours Act 1964”.
But it does not say that it will be only that, which, again, is part of my concern.
So, in a variety of ways, this is probing to see whether we can properly get, in effect, a commitment from the Government on the Floor of this House or through a letter from the Minister—if it is not in legislation—that can candidly be used in a future court case when somebody might want to oppose the Secretary of State doing something so draconian. It would show that it was made clear to this House and this Parliament that that would never happen. So far, none of the back-up memoranda or Explanatory Notes makes that explicit, and that is what I hope to achieve today.
I am particularly concerned about energy projects. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is no longer in his place, but I explained on the previous group that I have extensive experience of trying to handle NSIPs as a Member of Parliament and now as a Peer in this place, and I am still very concerned about my local community and what is happening in that regard. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for explaining this group. That leaves me no need to go through it again, but I am pleased to support her Amendments 17 and 23. I will be brief, but I wanted to say something about both of them, especially Amendment 17. This amendment is vital because it probes the fundamental issue of democratic accountability and local consent. If the government-imposed national significant infrastructure projects can proceed without planning consent or public engagement, we risk undermining public trust by excluding communities from decisions that directly affect them. This also weakens local accountability by sidelining local authorities and stakeholders, and it increases the risks of legal and political challenges, as the lack of consultation may well lead to resistance or even to judicial review.
Probing this issue is essential to ensure that any such powers are used only when they are truly justified—when they are proportionate to the situation and exercised with true transparency. I raised this concern in the opening group today, and it is one on which we really need some clear answers. I ask again, why is it necessary for government-imposed NSIPs to bypass both planning consent and public engagement? How is this consistent with the Government’s continued claims that localism is protected?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. On Amendment 19, I gently say that it would be “within” three months, so ideally it could be within a day—however, I do not want to quibble unduly.
There is definitely concern about what sort of development orders could be in place. The Government are currently publishing in the Bill, and elsewhere, all sorts of things about devolution, and there is still some anxiety about whether local development orders or simplified planning zones could become part of this when they would not necessarily be suitable. Perhaps I will write to the Minister and we can have nice cup of tea and chat further. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 24 and 25, in my name, relate to Clause 4, in which the Government seek to remove certain pre-application requirements. I am concerned about two of these. The first omits the duty to consult and the second omits the duty to consult the local community. These are very significant changes to pre-application requirements that were introduced in the Planning Act 2008. In my experience, pre-application is an extremely helpful part of the process, as it enables information to be shared and discussed by the communities that will be affected and their elected representatives—councillors and Members of Parliament.
The value of a pre-application duty to consult seems to me to be vital, particularly in relation to infrastructure schemes. The opportunity for communities that are affected to understand the proposals and their impact is much reduced by the process that is followed for large-scale infrastructure applications. For example, the process for large-scale infrastructure is set out very well in the Explanatory Notes, which talks about the pre-application process followed by the submission and acceptance of the application, then the pre-examination stage where members of the public can register as interested parties—although that is subject to some change—and then the examination in public. The opportunities for the general public, as opposed to those who feel they are able to take part in an examination in public, are extremely limited. Therefore, the pre-application stage becomes even more important in relation to large-scale infrastructure applications.
In my experience, the importance of the pre-application process is that it can be invaluable to both the developer and the local community. I will refer to an example not of a large-scale infrastructure application but for 400 homes on a site near where I live. There was a pre-application consultation stage with members of the public. The application was for a site that was known to have been used for coal workings, and the official coal board documents did not identify precisely where all the mine shafts were—they actually did not even know how many there were. However, residents whose families had lived in the area for a long time knew where the mine shafts were and shared that local knowledge with the developer. They were also able to share information, which did not seem to exist formally at all, of the shallow tunnelling on the site.
In this instance, the housing developer gained considerably from the pre-application process in knowing where the mine shafts were that would have to be capped off, and knowing where the shallow tunnels for the coal workings were, which could require attention during the construction phase. The local residents benefited because it enabled them to understand and be provided with factual information by the applicant.
In my view, the changes proposed in the Bill to remove the duty to consult with the local community would be totally counterproductive. Members of the community will get information about the proposals which may not be accurate if there is not a pre-application opportunity. I know from experience that, once inaccurate information is shared on social media sites, it is very difficult to counter and to get the actual situation accepted. The climate in which development takes place these days is for the public to believe that the worst is going to happen.
If the pre-application stage for large-scale infrastructure is believed to be too lengthy with too many parts to it, it seems to me that the best way forward would be to retain the principle of pre-application but to reform the process so that it was not so time-consuming and did not delay the construction processes. That is why the pre-application process is absolutely vital. Removing the duty will simply make the process more challenging for the developer and resentment and frustration will grow, both against the development and at the failure of the democratic process. Living in a democracy involves making time for debate and challenge; it is the price we on these Benches are willing to pay. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering degrouped some of her amendments. Because I signed some of them, there is a risk that I might end up duplicating my words in the next debate, but that is not my intention.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to several of my noble friend’s amendments and I agree pretty much with every word she just said. I made my main points in the previous group.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak particularly to my Amendment 46A, which is a good example of trying to knit the Bill together. We are trying to speed up aspects of planning decisions on infrastructure, yet also—I will not go heavily into Part 3—create environmental improvement.
This is quite a simple, straightforward amendment. I am very grateful for the counsel of Alexa Culver, with whom I have been engaging through LinkedIn. She is counsel at RSK and is doing a very good job of seeing how this is coming together. In essence, in the Bill as it stands, Natural England is tasked with creating this environmental delivery plan—I am concerned about certain aspects of Part 3—which will hopefully, to paraphrase, improve the environment. That document will be created and approved by the Secretary of State for Defra to make sure that we see improvements.
Therefore, for me it is exceptionally logical that whenever a Secretary of State in another department makes a decision on NSIPs and considers where the national policy statement has effect, they should also, in effect, consider the environmental delivery plan as it is. Under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State already has to consider national policy statements, marine policy documents if relevant, other aspects regarding local impacts and
“any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are … important”.
That is absolutely critical. In all the changes, particularly in Part 3, the Government are saying that they can have the best of both by doing this. My amendment would make certain that they have to consider it and that it will actually get delivered. That is why I have tabled it at this stage of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on his Amendment 46. On Amendment 46A, I would be very surprised if the Secretary of State did not take account of EDPs. From the provision that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, read out, the Secretary of State clearly has the power to do so.
On Amendment 46, we partly return to the role of regulators. There is a perverse output of regulators making it difficult to achieve net-zero targets, which I find very difficult. Some regulators find it difficult to go wider than the very narrow remit that they seem to work under. One of the questions to the Government is: do they really think it will make a difference? It is easy to make fun of bats or acoustic fish deterrents, but it is fair to ask whether, as a result of this legislation, we will see an end to the ludicrous behaviour of regulators, which has cost so much money, delayed projects by so much time and, as we know, achieved absolutely zilch for conservation or nature preservation. Ultimately, that is the test.
It seems that the regulators do not come under enough challenge on their performance. Somehow, we need to put some mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that the regulators come under the microscope much more on how they behave and that they are held accountable. That is why the amendment is very well judged.
Baroness Coffey
“(4A) In section 104(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) at end insert—“(ba) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates,””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when determining whether planning consent should be granted for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, the Secretary of State must take into account any EDP applying to the land which will be developed.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am not moving Amendment 46A, although I would like to speak to the Minister about this, because I am not overly satisfied and may seek to bring the amendment back on Report.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I do not have a huge amount to add to the comprehensive introduction provided by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but I want to pick up on a few things related to the nuclear industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned the eight years from application to consent for Sizewell C. The Government, of course, have big ambitions for the nuclear rollout. Tomorrow I am chairing a board meeting of Midlands Nuclear—a partnership organisation for nuclear across the Midlands region. We are looking at where we can site nuclear power stations within the Midlands, and at small modular reactors and advanced reactors, all in coherence with the Government’s plans through EN-7—the new national policy statement for a more flexible siting approach for nuclear.
There are big ambitions for nuclear and for the industry, but, given the experience we have had with Hinkley, Sizewell and other large infrastructure, we have to be radical. We have to think of new ideas that are going to help speed infrastructure through the system. That is why the Government should take these suggestions from the noble Lord, Hunt of Kings Heath, very seriously. I note that a lot of the principles in Amendment 52—the noble Lord mentioned the tried and tested process within that—and Amendment 65 are similar to those in a law that is being rolled out in Canada. The Government should consider these amendments very seriously.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I was astonished when I saw Amendment 52, but I will start briefly with Amendment 47. As my noble friend Lord Banner pointed out, this is just about being fair to people. As has been mentioned, effectively not allowing people to have hearings and an opportunity to speak when their livelihoods, homes or whatever it is are being ripped away is difficult.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Coffey ExcerptsThursday 17th July 2025
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (17 Jul 2025)
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly, mainly to declare my registered interests before we get to the meat of Committee. I am a director and beneficial owner of Porter and Verrells, which builds one-off bespoke homes, among other functions. I am a non-executive director of Elixr.Earth, which builds through digital twinning and finance, place-shaping at scale. I am also a non-executive director of Rentplus Homes and a strategic adviser to Inspired Solutions, both of which deliver affordable housing without any recourse to public funds.
My noble friend Lord Fuller would not forgive me if I did not mention that all the worthy things that have been discussed are not functions of the Bill. They are consequential on the Bill being pushed through. The function of the Bill is to regulate between private property ownership and perceived public good or public harm.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be in Committee. I agree with the impact of these clauses in consideration of future judicial decisions. It matters because there has been a trend in aspects of case law that then make other aspects of complying with the law rather complicated, leading to some of the adjustments that the Government are seeking to secure. When we talk about judicial review and what the Government are intending, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has tabled some rather drastic amendments. I am not surprised. Mr Robbie Owen gave evidence in the other House that my noble friend Lord Banner’s review did not go far enough. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe hit the nail on the head. What is going to change?
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is right. At the moment nothing in the Bill ties everything together to make sure that we get more homes built and improve the natural environment. We have to make sure that happens.
In her closing speech at Second Reading, the Minister said that councils have a lot of powers. I would be interested to understand what amendments may come in at this stage to achieve the objectives that the Government say the Bill is trying to achieve. Why are we not seeing certain powers being granted to the Government to speed up housing—not just planning permission but completion? The Town and Country Planning Act allows councils to issue completion notices. As the Whip in the Commons on the Infrastructure Act 2015, I had to deal with four Ministers, so good luck to the Whips here on the Front Bench in co-ordinating all that. The Government took powers there for when councils were being slow. It was not necessarily call-in, but if they were not keeping to timetables, the decisions could be made by Ministers. I do not think that happened very often under the previous Conservative Administration, but here we seem to be going with a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Why are Ministers not using the powers they already have to achieve what they want this to do and instead putting this legislation in place? That is why I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It gives us an opportunity to ask, “What is this Bill going to do? Will it achieve the aims of what is there?”
I make a plea through the Minister for Bill managers to update the parliamentary website with all the different things that they said that they would write on. The Minister in the other place promised on 29 April to write about one of the clauses that we are debating today, but Parliament is still waiting. To my knowledge, no letter has been issued. It is certainly not on the Bill website, and it certainly has not been deposited in the House. That is a further plea about process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
The letter went out yesterday on some of the issues that were raised at the drop-in. The noble Baroness may have missed that in her inbox, but it did go out yesterday.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I appreciate that, and I have not seen it in my inbox, but I am referring to Minister Pennycook making a pledge to write in Committee in the Commons. I am not aware that has ever been issued. It is certainly not available to Members of this House. It would be great, as a general approach, if we could try to make sure that is there.
Overall, this Bill needs to be massively strengthened to make sure—to quote Ronseal—that it “does exactly what it says on the tin”, that we will get the outcome that my noble friend Lady Scott on the Front Bench has put forward in Amendment 3 and that we will get on with making sure more homes are delivered for the people of this country, as well as other aspects of infrastructure that I recognise this country desperately needs.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, we need to move to consider the Statement, as the Minister delivering it must attend Grand Committee for a debate which will commence before this group finishes. While unusual, I therefore beg to move that the debate on this amendment do adjourn, and we will return to it after the Statement.