Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

In a nutshell, these amendments would enable councils to have the flexibility that they need to choose how best to determine planning applications, as we would want democratic institutions to do. Perhaps the Government should look at how developers game the system, which results in slower decision-making than is necessary. Currently, 83% of applications are already decided by officers within local policies and national policy frameworks, and only 17% are deemed necessary to be decided by committee. That is probably the right balance. Let us enable councils to continue to allow their local democracy to thrive and people to have trust in what is going on by having the bright light of a planning committee and a planning report in front of people so that they can see how decisions are made. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, I have to notify the Committee that if Amendments 103ZZA and 103ZZB are agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 103ZA by reasons of pre-emption.

[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.