Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in this first group of amendments, I am delighted that the Government have acceded to the amendment about accessible electric vehicle charging points that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, just spoke to. That is really good news.

Of the other three amendments that we are thinking about, two concern reservoirs—building them and what their impact will be. The first, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about ensuring that the statutory requirements to protect our heritage are considered in full in the planning application for a new reservoir. The other, from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned about whole villages being drowned. Then we have the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is anxious that we build more reservoirs, so we have a bit of a dilemma here.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. All through the debate on this Bill, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been wholeheartedly in support of shoring up the statutory requirements to protect our national heritage. It is unfortunate that the Minister has been unable to accede to the amendment that was passed on Report to provide even greater support for those heritage sites and buildings that may be destroyed to create a reservoir—especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has pointed out, since third parties, even companies based abroad, may now be able to build reservoirs. They may not have such a great concern for our heritage as those of us who live in this country. That is a great shame, and if the noble Lord wanted to move his amendment to a further vote, we on these Benches would support him.

I will wait to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says about her Motion C1 and whether she wishes again to test the opinion of the House on that one.

On the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I thought the Minister gave quite a lot of assurance that the Government are considering making changes to regulations regarding the building of low-hazard reservoirs, which is what the amendment is about. That seemed perfectly acceptable, given that a great deal of thought has to be given to creating reservoirs. As we discovered in Derbyshire when the Toddbrook one failed, volumes of water can be devastating if dams and reservoirs are breached. With those remarks, I look forward to the comments from the Conservative Front Bench.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, before turning to the specifics of the amendments before us, I will restate what has guided our approach throughout the passage of the Bill. We recognise the legislation’s importance to the Government and their desire to see it completed in time for the Budget. From the outset, we on these Benches have worked diligently and constructively, through the usual channels and beyond, to help ensure timely progress. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for acknowledging these efforts, particularly in the light of unhelpful and misleading briefings to the contrary, most recently in the Observer yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

We will listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has to say and see whether any of these issues will be put to a further vote.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Motion F to agree with Lords Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. This was a really important amendment, and I am very glad that it has been dealt with in this way, as has Motion G and Amendment 37 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey on the important issue of assets of community value. I look forward to seeing them put in place in future.

We have felt compelled to bring Motion J1 back to the attention of your Lordships’ House. Although we will not press the matter further, it is important that the concerns are placed clearly on record. We do so because the Government’s previous response did not engage with the substance of the issues at stake.

First, the Government have sidestepped the statutory issue entirely. This amendment would place a clear, unambiguous duty on spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield development and urban densification. That duty matters. Yet the Minister’s response relied almost exclusively on guidance, prospective consultations and future proposals. None of that explains why this responsibility should not sit in primary legislation. As we all know, the system is failing precisely because guidance can be overlooked and too often is. Brownfield opportunities are not ignored because they do not exist; they are ignored because the framework does not require public bodies or developers to pursue them.

Secondly, the Government’s response failed to address the sustainability dimension. This amendment is not simply about land categories. It is about shaping the behaviour of the built environment, supporting mixed, walkable communities, reducing travel distances and aligning development patterns with our environmental and economic goals. None of this featured in the Government’s reply, which focused solely on whether brownfield land is being sufficiently identified rather than on how our planning system directs the form, character and quality of the development. Without statutory underpinning, these wider sustainability objectives will continue to be treated as optional—desirable, certainly, but dispensable when inconvenient.

Let me finally address the Minister’s suggestion that our amendment would heighten the risk of legal challenge and that clarity in the NPPF makes such a duty unnecessary. In effect, the Minister defended the status quo, but legal challenge is a feature of any meaningful statutory change—indeed, of any planning decision. The possibility of challenge is not an argument for inaction; it is inherent in the evolution of any policy. A clearer statutory duty would, over time, reduce conflict by giving decision-makers firmer parameters and greater certainty.

I acknowledge that the Minister wrote over the weekend outlining the Government’s intention. Her letter stated that,

“the revised NPPF will provide even clearer policies to drive decision-making, including on brownfield land”.

We accept the Government saying again today that national policy is the most appropriate route for setting planning decisions, that the proposed changes will mark a step change and that they expect these reforms to meet the objectives of the “brownfield first” principle.

However, if Ministers truly believe that these revisions will drive brownfield development, then they must be willing and able to show evidence of success. The proportion of brownfield used must rise meaningfully as a direct result of these changes. Warm words about future consultations are not enough; they must turn into action. This House must be able to see the data and interrogate it, track progress and hold the Government firmly to account. If Ministers are confident in their claims, they should have no hesitation in committing to return to the House with clear, measurable evidence that these reforms are genuinely delivering a brownfield first approach in practice, not just in rhetoric. Until that proof is forthcoming, our concerns remain.

We live on a small island. Food security is critical in the world we live in. This Bill has taken our agricultural land for energy use and housing. Greenfields produce food for our nation; wheat and potatoes cannot be produced on urban brownfield sites.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate; I will address the points that have been raised during our discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Banner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their endorsement of our position on Motion F. I always hope that when a good idea comes forward, we will not hesitate to accept it; that was a good idea, and we will be moving forward with it.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I very much look forward to the debates we will have on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It is a different approach to assets of community value. It expands the definitions of assets of community value, including sporting and recreational assets, it gives longer for communities to do the work needed to enact this right, and it gives a right to buy approach, which I hope we will have good debates on.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, made a very important point about avoiding the proliferation of thresholds, and I will take that back. I hope he will continue to work with us on that, as he does on other issues.

In relation to the NPPF consultation, I appreciate that delay causes uncertainty. We are hoping to do it by the end of the year. Planning is a dynamic process. When we were having debates with the Housing Minister and some developers, he said that they cannot always be waiting for the next thing to come along. This is the planning Bill at the moment. The NPPF is the NPPF. We want people to get on and build the infrastructure and housing we need. There may be changes in the future, but planning is always going to be dynamic and will have to change as other things change. However, it is important we make sure the NPPF is fit for purpose, and we get this planning Bill through so we can get on and deliver what we need to.

I hope I picked up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on assets of community value in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

On the important point about brownfield sites and contaminated sites made by the noble Baroness, the viability PPG already factors in potential brownfield challenges. The guidance on defining costs notes that brownfield sites may have abnormal costs associated with them. We are continuing to look at this as we go through because there are some sites with high levels of contamination. The noble Baroness may be aware that I visited Stoke-on-Trent recently, which has some sites on former mining areas. They are an issue, and we continue to keep it under review, as she would expect.

Her points about the Minister’s announcement on railways stations make the point that we have been arguing around brownfield sites. For the most part, the land around railway stations can be considered brownfield sites. We want to make sure that we make the most of those sites, which have good transport links and are often essential to the economy of an area. This is why the Minister felt that it was appropriate, in that case, to make that a consideration—that is, where it looked like applications there might be refused, they could be called in. Of course, communities still get the opportunity to have their say in that process.