Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I thank all noble Lords for this wide-ranging, very productive and comprehensive debate. With over 60 contributions made, I am obviously not going to be able to reply in detail to every one. I will do my best; I have tried to put first the things that were talked about the most. If I do not get to some of the questions I will of course reply in writing.

I have been very encouraged to hear the degree of consensus on the need for action and on much of the intent of the Bill, even if there has been some reference to what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to in her characteristically direct way as the bad and the ugly in the Bill. It has been a very good discussion, and I do not think there is any difference of opinion about the need for things to change.

I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his contribution to the Bill, particularly in the critical area of judicial reviews, which we have looked at in great detail; I am grateful for his support in that work. The contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Liddle, from opposite sides of the House, definitely showed why the Bill is so important. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, described it well when he said the Bill is “about the kinds of places we want to build and the kind of country we want to be”. That is a very good way of describing what we are doing here.

I will make a few general points and then turn to some of the specific issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred very powerfully to the housing crisis and the broken model of relying on volume housebuilders to deliver against the housing need which we definitely have. We currently have 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. That is an absolute scandal—we have to deal with these issues.

I was at St Mary’s school in Walthamstow yesterday, where the children are doing a project on homelessness, and I asked them what they would say to the Prime Minister. They said, “Can you tell the Prime Minister to build some more homes that people can afford?” I think that was quite right. I said that I will tell the Prime Minister that, so we will get on with that as quickly as we can.

Since 1990, home ownership for 19 to 29 year-olds has more than halved. Homes cost eight times the annual earnings of an average worker. The number of homes granted planning permission has fallen from 310,000 in 2021 to 235,000 in 2025 Q1. The number of new homes is estimated to drop to around 200,000 this year, and this would be the lowest year for net additional dwellings in England since 2015-16.

Infrastructure costs have increased by 30%—more than GDP per capita—since 2007, and the time it takes to secure planning permission for major economic infrastructure projects has almost doubled in the last decade to more than four years. We are not putting the blame on planning officers or councillors. I pay tribute to all those planning officers across the country who work with this system day in, day out, and to all the councillors who play their part in it as well.

We know that 96% of planning decisions were made by planning officers in the year ending March 2025, and it was that small percentage outside of that which were made by planning committees. Only 20% of planning applications for major development are decided within the 13-week statutory deadline. It is important that we focus now on how we are going to improve this system.

I will comment on the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Grender. On the 700,000 empty homes in this country, once housebuilders have been granted permission for residential development, meeting local housing needs and preferences, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Local planning authorities already have powers to issue completion notices to require a developer to complete its development if it is stalled, and if they fail to do so the planning permission for the development will lapse.

On homes being approved but not yet built, we know that too many developments secure planning permission and then are either stalled or not built out quickly, to the frustration of local planning committees and authorities and their communities. That is why we are proposing to introduce a new statutory build-out reporting framework to ensure that there is greater transparency and accountability about the build-out of new residential development. We are currently consulting on that, but we are determined to make sure that communities do not see empty homes, or homes that are permissioned and are not built, when there is such an enormous need for housing around the country.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Will the Minister accept that in many of the cases where permissions are granted, pre-commencement conditions are not yet met and that is the reason these permissions are not executed or completed? In so many cases it is because of the other statutory consultees: it is not the council; the baton passes from the council to the developers at that stage. They are the hold-up, and they are that break between the issuance of permission and commencement on site, and that is really where much of the government effort needs to be.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand exactly the point the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is making and there are measures in the Bill which will ease that pressure. We are looking at stat cons and how that process works but, overall, we need to make sure that we get a very smooth process, where we speed up the whole application process, the pre-commencement phase and the build-out phase, because that is what will start delivering housing at pace in this country.

Some noble Lords have mentioned the New Towns Taskforce. It will be reporting this summer, and we will also be publishing a comprehensive housing strategy. I cannot say exactly when; I have that Civil Service phrase “in the not too distant future”, which is frustrating, but I hope it will be very soon.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned the very excellent report of the Church housing commission and the Nationwide Foundation. I was very grateful for that piece of work; it has been incredibly helpful in shaping thinking, particularly on social, affordable and specialist housing.

The noble Lord, Lord Patten, and other noble Lords mentioned that planning is not necessarily the block to growth. It is not the only key to growth, but it too often can be a substantial constraint on it. We want to move that forward as quickly as possible.

I was asked for the number of homes we are going to be building and exactly what the plan is over the years. We are working on that plan, particularly for the social and affordable housing. It was going down— I have mentioned the figures already—and it will ramp up to deliver those 1.5 million homes during the course of this Parliament. It is very important that, as we do that, we deliver the kind of homes we want to see, in relation to design and net zero, and that they do not have a detrimental impact on our environment. My noble friends Lord Hunt and Lady Liddell have emphasised skills and investor confidence as further parts of this picture. They are very important, and I will say a little bit more about those in a moment.

The ambition of the Bill is really transformative. We want to mark the next step in the most significant reforms to the planning system in a generation. We are building on urgent action to unlock development, including: our new pro-growth National Planning Policy Framework published in December; ending the de facto ban on onshore wind; a review of the role of stat cons, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller; supporting SME builders; and boosting local authority capacity. I have spoken before about the Government’s action on skills. All of this and the Bill will help deliver our Plan for Change, get 1.5 million safe and decent homes built and fast-track planning decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. We recognise the scale of the challenge. I look forward to working with noble Lords in this House to make sure that the Bill facilitates that scale of ambition.

On the specific issue of the reform of planning committees, many noble Lords have mentioned this, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Coffey, Lady Jones, Lady Miller and Lady Pinnock, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lords, Lord Mawson, Lord Gascoigne, Lord Shipley and Lord Bailey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and probably some others that I did not get round to writing down. This is a very important part of the Bill. Planning committees play a critical role in the planning system, ensuring adequate scrutiny is in place for developments and providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, they are not currently operating as effectively as they could be.

We are not taking local decision-making out of local hands. Those decisions will continue to be vested locally, but we want to engage the public and councillors more at the stage of the local plan, where they can really have an influence on place shaping and can influence what they want to see in their communities, as a number of noble Lords have said.

We will be introducing a national scheme of delegation, which will facilitate faster decision-making, bring greater certainty to stakeholders and applicants and effectively utilise the planning professionals, by doing what they are best at. We are also introducing mandatory training for committee members. We have always had compulsory training for planning members in my local authority— I did not realise that it was not compulsory. We need to make sure we do that to get well-informed decision-making and improve consistency across the country.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the role of AI in planning. I met with the digital team in our department this morning, and it is making great strides forward in planning. This is very exciting: it is not just for digitising the planning system and mapping out all the spatial issues we face in the country, including all the nature mitigation that is needed, but it is also to help with consultation. On the local government consultations we are doing at the moment, we are getting hundreds of responses. If you can digitise the assessment of that, it is really going to help with the planning process, though, of course, it always needs human oversight.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, rightly referred to resources and capacity in the Planning Inspectorate. I reassure noble Lords that consideration is being given to this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to Planning for Real; I remember it very well—just before I became a councillor, I got involved in a Planning for Real exercise. We are hoping to engage and encourage people with those kind of exercises as they draw up their local plans.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke about digital twins and AI, which is another thing I have been very interested in. I know that Singapore has a fabulous way of doing this, and it is very important to planning.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for his contribution on mediation. We are very supportive of that and are looking at it.

Some noble Lords suggested that reforms within our Bill remove democratic control from local people and restrict the input of community voices in the planning process. That is simply not the case. Engagement with communities is, and will remain, the cornerstone of our planning system and a vital step in the design of major infrastructure. We are currently consulting on the proposals for the scheme of delegation, so everybody will have a chance to contribute to that.

I will move on to wider housing and planning issues, including affordable housing. A number of noble Lords raised the issue of social and affordable housing, including the noble Lords, Lord Cameron, Lord Teverson, Lord Best and Lord Evans, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Levitt. This is a vitally important issue. The Government’s manifesto commits us to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. The spending review confirmed £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme. For the first time in recent memory, we will be able to give providers a decade of certainty over the capital funding they will have to build new, more ambitious housing development proposals. In the National Planning Policy Framework, we have asked local councils that, when they draw up their local plans, they assess the need not just for affordable housing, because that is a very difficult definition, but for social housing. That is critical.

On housing quality and design, the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow, Lord Crisp, Lord Shipley, Lord Carlile and Lord Best, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, all raised this issue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for meeting me to discuss this. We need to ensure that new developments are built to a high standard and the importance of good design, promoting the health and well-being of all those who live there. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that architects have not been mentioned perhaps as much as he would have liked, but the NPPF makes clear the importance of well-designed, inclusive and safe places and how this can be achieved through local design policies, design codes and guidance. That includes transport, open spaces, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.

I will move on now, because time is pressing on, to the issues that I think were probably mentioned by most noble Lords: namely, the nature restoration fund and Part 3. If your Lordships do not mind, I will not read out all the names, because we would be here most of the evening.

When it comes to development and nature, the status quo is not working. We need to build on the success of policies such as diversity net gain and ensure that we do everything we can to deliver positive development. By moving to a more strategic approach to discharging obligations, the nature restoration fund will allow us to deliver environmental improvements at greater scale, with greater impact, while unlocking the development this country needs. We are confident that the new model will secure better outcomes for nature, driving meaningful nature recovery and moving us away from a system that is at the moment only treading water.

On the issue of regression, I reassure noble Lords that this new strategic approach will deliver more for nature, not less. That is why we have confirmed in the Bill that our reforms will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection of existing environmental law. Through the NRF model we are moving away from piecemeal interventions and going further than simply offsetting harm, as is required under current legislation. We have been clear that environmental delivery plans will be put in place only where they are able to deliver better outcomes which will leave a lasting legacy of environmental improvement. I will not go into more detail on that now but will set it out in writing, because I know that lots of noble Lords are concerned about it.

On irreplaceable habitats, let me reassure everyone that we consider them to be just that: irreplaceable. The legislation is clear that an EDP can relate to a protected site or a protected species, with these being tightly defined in the legislation. As the Housing Minister made clear in the other place, the Bill does not affect existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the National Planning Policy Framework. While there may be circumstances where an environmental feature is part of both a protected site and an irreplaceable habitat, an EDP will not allow action to be taken that damaged an irreplaceable habitat, as this would by definition be incapable of passing the overall improvement test. I hope that that has provided some reassurance.

I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that green space in urban areas is already part of the planning system through the National Planning Policy Framework. A number of noble Lords commented on the capacity and capability of Natural England, and I will write to noble Lords on that, if that is okay.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about the impact of the NRF on farmers. I know that that is a very important issue, and many in this House very ably represent the interests of farmers, so I welcome the opportunity to flag the opportunities the NRF presents for farming communities. We want to work in partnership with farmers and land managers to deliver conservation measures which will provide opportunities for them to support the delivery of such measures and diversify their business revenues.

I will write to all noble Lords about EDPs and all the other issues relating to Part 3. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that he quoted my words back to me very accurately. I have now been to Poundbury, by the way, and seen the swift bricks in action. We recognise that these are a significant tool, and we have made it clear in the revised NPPF that developments should provide net gains such as that. I recognise why many would want to mandate this through legislation, but we think there is a better way of doing that, so we will be consulting on a new set of national policies, including a requirement for swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings. I hope that that answers the question.

I shall talk briefly about the Gypsy and Traveller housing, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I share their frustrations at how this has been dealt with. As part of the revised National Planning Policy Framework, we have corrected long-standing inconsistencies in the way applications for sites are considered and provided greater clarity. We have revised the definition of Gypsies and Travellers to align with domestic and European law.

I see that I have run out of time. I will not try to cover all the other issues. I have got plenty to say on development corporations, infrastructure and so on, but I will write to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and answer the questions I have been asked, including on rural housing, protection of the green belt and so on.

I reiterate my thanks to your Lordships for your engagement with the Bill to this point and give particular thanks to the opposition spokespeople: I have been there, so I know what that is like, and I am grateful to you.

I look forward to working with all of you during the passage of this important and truly ambitious piece of legislation. My noble friend Lord Hanworth referred to the ambition shown by the post-war Government when reconstructing our country. It was that Government who took the pre-war planning inspiration from garden cities and Ebenezer Howard a step further to create my town and other first-generation new towns, with the boost that gave to the economy. We now have the opportunity to take the next step to clean energy, to use artificial intelligence, to have a new clean energy transport infrastructure and to plan the new homes and communities that a new generation will need. I look forward to working with all of you on that over the next few weeks and months.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Debate on Amendment 3 resumed.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their engagement both at Second Reading and at our subsequent drop-in sessions and meetings. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 1, and my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for Amendments 2 to 7, making minor changes to the amendment. As these amendments all endeavour to insert a purpose clause at the start of the Bill, I will consider them together. I just add, following the debate we had earlier today, that I have some sympathy with those who do not want to have purpose clauses as the first amendment—we had 63 speakers at Second Reading, and we have covered some of the same ground—but I understand the noble Baroness’s wish to have one. I will keep my response to Amendments 1 to 7 short, as the purpose and aims of the Bill were debated very fully at Second Reading.

The Government have been consistently clear about the purpose and aims of this Bill, and I am very pleased that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have identified many of these in their amendments. As outlined at Second Reading and throughout its passage, the Bill is a key component of the Government’s mission and plan for change. It is intended to unblock the planning system and secure the infrastructure we need in this country. We have already delivered significant changes to our planning system through a revised pro-growth National Planning Policy Framework. Combined with these changes, the Bill will help us reach our ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe, decent and affordable homes in England and fast-tracking planning decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament.

The Bill will do this by delivering five key objectives. The first is a faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the focus of our debate today. My noble friend Lord Hunt is quite right to point to the importance of this to achieving growth. He spoke about grid connections. The fact that it can now take longer to get a grid connection than it did to build the whole A1 is a crazy factor of the way planning has blocked some of the growth we need to see. He spoke about the 360,000 pages of planning documents for the Lower Thames Crossing. I can tell him that when we embarked on the major redevelopment of Stevenage town centre, we had a great lorryload of documents turn up for the planning process, so I am very sympathetic to what he said.

The second aim is for a more strategic approach to nature recovery that will unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature. We are clear that this will support nature recovery, and I hope to be able to say a little more about it later this afternoon.

The third aim is to improve certainty and decision-making in the planning system, ensuring that local communities and politicians play their role while maximising the expertise of professional planners. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to steamrolling; this is not steamrolling but engaging communities at the planning stage, when they can have the most influence in the planning process. Local communities and local people can do far more if they influence the plan at local plan stage than when trying to object to a particular application that is in accordance with that local plan.

The fourth aim is unlocking land and securing public value for large-scale investment, and the fifth is introducing effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategy planning. That is an important dimension that sits alongside our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is currently in the other place.

The Bill will also support delivery of the Government’s clean power 2030 target, ensuring clean energy projects can be built as quickly as possible, including through measures that will increase community acceptability, such as a bill discount scheme for those living closest to new electricity transmission infrastructure.

It is in the interest of our country to make our planning system better to ensure prosperity and sustained economic growth. Many noble Lords have spoken about that already in this debate, and I have no doubt that the Bill will help us to achieve this, along with the other package of measures that we have introduced. I am sure these objectives that I have outlined align with the purpose in the noble Baroness’s amendment and lie at the heart of all our current and future decision-making. I do not believe, therefore, that it is necessary to accept the amendment, as the measures within the Bill speak for themselves.

I will cover some of the points made by noble Lords earlier in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about our ambitious target of 1.5 million safe, secure and affordable homes. This is a manifesto pledge, a pledge in our Plan for Change and a firm commitment from this Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned councils being able to determine the need for social homes. I was keen to make this change in the National Planning Policy Framework to encourage councils to identify the number of social homes that they need, as distinguished from affordable homes—the definition of affordable homes is much wider—so that was a good step forward. Our policy on brownfield is that it must be brownfield first. I know she has a number of points to make around flooding and I am sure that we will discuss that later in the Bill’s progress. Her point on food production is well made; there is a Defra land use framework which we are hoping will be published any day now, and I think she will find there is some information in that on food production.

The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, referred to place-making. As someone with a new-town background, I agree with the points he made about the importance of the holistic nature of planning and how that makes for good planning.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, spoke about an overall stated purpose of planning, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised this with me yesterday. I am sure we will consider all of that further during the course of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, rightly pointed to the link between infrastructure delivery and growth, and he makes a very important point. The purpose of the Bill is to make that connection much clearer and to make sure that the planning legislation supports the growth mission.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about some of the things that can slow down planning and some of the things that we hope will speed up planning. We are introducing a whole package here, from the National Planning Policy Framework to the national development management policies recommended by the previous Government and the devolution package. I hope that, taken together, all those things will speed up the process and encourage the growth that we all want to see.

The noble Lord, Lord Porter, spoke about the functions of the Bill. He is not in his place, but he raised the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised with me about the overall objectives of planning, and the noble Lord, Lord Banner, mentioned this as well. I will give that further thought.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, spoke about completion notices. There is a process, as she rightly identified, for completion notices. It might be helpful if I get some more information for her about how those are being used. There is definitely a power for local government to do that already. I hope that the combination of this Bill and other measures we have taken for local authorities to have the planning powers and the funding they need to move this agenda forward will mean that we see what we all want to see from this.

My noble friend Lord Hunt referred to the OBR report and the potential growth that can be unlocked by this Bill. I am sure that we will continue to debate the aims and impacts of the Bill as we make our way through the amendments tabled for debate. In the meantime, I kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I press her on the issue of delays? Saying that the whole package is going to be better and improve things, and therefore growth will come—which we all want—is an ambitious statement, but has any work been done on what the changes will be and what differences they will make? I am on her side and want to try to speed things up, but there seem to be quite a lot of things that are going to slow them down, particularly if we agree to the wrong sort of amendments. Has any academic work been done on this that I could reference? I am not yet clear that we are going to get the speed that we need in the system, particularly on things like the grid.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I asked the same questions myself, because I suspected I was going to be asked them as part of the debate on this Bill. I asked what work had been done, prior to the Bill, on consulting more widely with the sector, the academics involved in this area and a number of other bodies. I would read it all out, but it is a nearly six-page list of all the work that was done prior to the Bill being drafted. I am happy to circulate it to noble Lords, if that would be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, began this group in talking about the tensions that are to be found in creating the balance between getting the critical infrastructure that this country desperately needs and how we go about doing it. He quite rightly reminded the Committee of the escalating costs of particular infrastructure developments and gave the reason that risk aversion leads to piles of paper being produced to make sure that nobody is caught out by any of the challenges to the decisions that have been made.

I agreed with that; that is right. But the national policy statements, which are the foundation stones of planning and infrastructure development in this country, are critical. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is right to point out that any fundamental change to our national policy ought to have proper public accountability through your Lordships’ House and from the other place. She is quite right to do that, because accountability helps the process: it helps to maybe expose weaknesses in what is being proposed and maybe enhance the policy statement itself. In the rush for growth, we ought not to throw out the accountability that is essential in planning and infrastructure development—I think that that thread will run through discussions of the Bill. That is the dilemma and the tension we have: where do we have accountability, how much weight do we give to it and how much weight do we give to the urgent need for development? We are going to have to find our way through that.

Everybody here is, I think, anxious that the country is able to produce particularly critical infrastructure and housing without undue costs and delay. It is how we get there that is the problem. I am on board with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in wanting any changes to national policy statements at least to be brought before the House as affirmative resolutions. With that, I look forward to the Minister weaving her way through these dilemmas.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, a number of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook—whose amendment was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson—seek to amend Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, which set out new expectations for the regular updating of national policy statements and also establish a streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements when select changes are made to them.

Amendment 8 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I thank him for the amount of thought that he has clearly put into improving the Bill—and some very radical thinking, which we will come to in later suggestions, but which is always welcome. His amendment was also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. While I absolutely understand and share the desire to improve the speed and clarity of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects and national policy statements, I believe that the amendment’s wholesale approach could potentially have unintended consequences.

First, the amendment proposes fixed time limits for statutory consultation. In the case of national policy statements, statutory consultation is not typically the cause of delay, unlike development consent orders, where we have removed the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation. For national policy statements, the time taken for statutory consultation varies significantly depending on the complexity of the policy area and the nature of the infrastructure involved. Imposing a uniform time limit risks undermining the quality and thoroughness of consultation, especially for those more complex or contentious sectors and projects. The Government’s own consultation principles make it clear that consultation should be proportionate—I think we will hear that word a lot during our debates—to the potential impacts of the proposal.

Secondly, the amendment attempts to tackle concerns about the timeliness of responses by statutory consultees to national policy statement consultations and requests for further information on development consent order applications. Our experience on national policy statements is that statutory consultees respond adequately and without too much delay. We appreciate that there is evidence of slower responses from statutory consultees on live development consent order applications. However, the idea that statutory consultees should completely lose their right to comment on an NPS if they do not respond within a set timeframe may be a step too far or too rigid.

Statutory consultees such as the Health and Safety Executive play a critical role in safeguarding public welfare. Their input is not optional but essential. Instead of removing their critical role in the process, the Government are actively reforming how they prioritise and resource their work across the planning system. This includes measures in the Bill that enable statutory consultees to fund their services across the broader planning system more sustainably and requires them to have regard to government-issued guidance on their role in the NSIP regime.

For the first time, this provides a statutory mechanism to ensure that consultees engage appropriately and in a timely manner, without compromising the integrity of the process. National policy statements are the cornerstone of the NSIP consenting process. I recognise that the spirit of these amendments is in keeping with wider approaches taken to make the system more productive and streamlined. However, the issues faced by national policy statements manifest themselves differently. In practice, these amendments would have unintended consequences that risk damaging how the NSIP system operates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, and I understand her expertise in these matters. If she still has concerns, I am happy to have another conversation with her.

Amendment 16 would require the environmental principles policy statement to be considered in the development of national policy statements. The environmental principles policy statement is a statutory document that aids policymakers in how to interpret and proportionately apply the five environmental principles. Policymakers are assisted in assessing the environmental impact of policy, but this is not a replication of the environmental impact assessment process. The principles are not rules and do not dictate policy outcomes. Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when developing policy, including NPSs. This is a matter of legal compliance and is embedded in the policy-making process.

Furthermore, national policy statements are also required by statute to be accompanied by an appraisal of sustainability which incorporates the sustainability appraisal as well as the strategic environmental assessment and ensures that environmental considerations are fully integrated. A habitat regulation assessment must be undertaken for a national policy statement to comply with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The preparation of an assessment of sustainability is a comprehensive process and includes an examination of the likely environmental effects of designating a national policy statement and the reasonable alternatives to a national policy statement. It also requires the Government to set out measures to mitigate any significant negative effects identified and any enhancement measures.

The assessment of sustainability is an iterative process done in conjunction with the updating of a national policy statement. For example, I encourage Members to read the assessment of sustainability that was published alongside the National Networks National Policy Statement, which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will already have done. It sets out a clear methodology of all the above and the environmental principles considered when developing the policy and potential alternatives.

I know that has been quite a long explanation, but I felt that the detailed nature of the amendments warranted going into some detail. For those reasons, I do not believe that a separate written assessment within each national policy statement is necessary.

I turn to some of the points raised by other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Hunt referred to the capability and capacity of Natural England. That issue has been raised many times—it was raised in the other place and has been raised again here—and we will come to it when we start to debate Part 3 of the Bill.

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, meant the building safety regulator. I was not quite sure which regulator he was talking about but am happy to answer any questions about that. We have done significant work with the building safety regulator to try to speed up the process. We have increased its resources and changed the chief executive. Things are moving much more quickly already, and the development industry is already seeing a change.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, spoke about the precautionary principle. We have already had discussions about that today. We have to look out for the proportionate use of precautionary principles without going over the top and gold-plating everything, which I am afraid has been too much of a feature of the planning system in the past.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their contribution to the debate. With all that said, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I thought she gave a very comprehensive and helpful response, and obviously I will withdraw my amendment.

It seemed to me that there were a number of threads, but a particular one is the relationship between what the legislation is seeking to achieve, the role of regulators and planners and the interface with the democratic process. The noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock, had some important points to raise here. In the end, we have collectively created—and Parliament is guilty of this—a whole panoply of quangos and regulators, and I suspect that those who have been Ministers are all guilty of that. Some of that seems to be entirely justified; for instance, you want the Office for Nuclear Regulation to be robust and independent. As a Health Minister, far too many years ago, I was part of the team that created independent reconfiguration panels because Ministers were not able to take decisions on the closure of hospitals as it was all too difficult, so sometimes there is a justification for offshoring. But I agree that we have gone too far and that we need to draw a distinction between the independence of regulators in making judgments and our role as parliamentarians and as Ministers in being tough about their performance, which is what lies behind my amendment.

I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, means about the issue, particularly in her patch, where a number of different NCOs go through under different NSIP regimes—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, could talk about cumulative impacts, which I understand—where regulators seem unable to work together, and the box ticking and the judgments they make mean that a collaborative enterprise becomes very difficult. I suspect that is what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was talking about in the East End. He, with a fantastic track record in doing this, has a scheme that is partly about improved NHS primary care provision, with housing attached and maybe even commercial development. We are dealing with a host of different bodies, all of which deal with these things in a compartmentalised way, and somehow we have to get through it.

This is partly about the work that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is doing on the relationship between the proportionate and precautionary principles, and it is also partly about making sure—as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said—that the new system we introduce asks whether EDPs fit with major infrastructure projects.

Parliamentary oversight, in one way or another, is one way we can overcome some of the barriers, and I have later amendments that put forward some ideas about that. If the democratic process can legitimise the speed-up of what we seek to do, that would be a very helpful move forward. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not preceding the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

Amendment 17 would remove the required consent for the construction of or extensions to a generating station for electricity. Can the Minister explain why, in this instance, the government proposal is that it be disapplied from the existing requirements for going through a proper process? It is important to understand the reason. If it is for timeliness, what causes the delays? If it is for reasons of cost, is that related to timeliness? Is there another way to have accountability and public discourse without creating delays and cost pressures? Otherwise, why would we want to disapply the current requirements for consent? Again, there is a thread of accountability running through this: there is a tension, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, between getting things done and accountability for local communities.

With those few comments, I look forward to a detailed answer from the Minister.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling these amendments. As she said, they are probing amendments, and I hope to be able to give her an explanation. She again mentioned the letter that Minister Pennycook promised. I have asked to be informed whether that letter was sent. If it was, I will provide the noble Baroness with a copy, but it would not be usual, I suspect, for copies of letters that were circulated to a committee in the other place to be automatically circulated here. If that letter exists, I will send it to her.

All the amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seek to amend the operation of the redirection process as set out in Clause 3, including the replacement of regulation-making powers with time limits or statutory guidance. I recognise that Amendment 17 is probing, so I will first seek to explain how the redirection process has been designed before addressing some of her concerns head on and then turning to Amendment 23. I apologise if these explanations seem very detailed, but it is important to take the time to explain properly.

The NSIP regime was designed to provide a single route through which to consent all types of large-scale infrastructure schemes. As we know, on occasion this one-size-fits-all approach is not proportionate for specific developments. Clause 3 seeks to address this by creating a new power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction disapplying the requirement for schemes above the NSIP thresholds to seek development consent. Clause 3 sets out the circumstances in which a request for a direction may arise, what a request may contain and the steps the Secretary of State must follow in responding. Crucially, the Secretary of State may direct development out of the NSIP regime only if they consider an alternative consenting route to be appropriate given the particular circumstances of the development in question. Enhancing the flexibility of the planning system in this way should reduce burdens on applicants which are otherwise disproportionate and support the Government’s ambitions to have a streamlined planning system. This level of flexibility already exists under the Planning Act.

Section 35 enables the Secretary of State to direct into the NSIP regime those projects which fall outside of the statutory thresholds but which have none the less requested to follow the process for nationally significant infrastructure schemes. This has been invaluable, as we know, for enabling numerous water schemes to progress.

Clause 3 provides that flexibility but in the other direction. It may be that a transport scheme is located in an area with a supportive local authority and does not require the acquisition of land. Instead of requiring the entire scheme to become an NSIP, an applicant could now request to follow the route that is most appropriate to their project. As the Government’s working paper on proposals to streamline the consenting process for infrastructure acknowledged, the existing thresholds have not kept pace with technological advancements. This has held back projects from coming forward—for example, medium-sized schemes—because the process of obtaining development consent was out of kilter with the relatively straightforward nature of the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for also raising these concerns and for bringing forward her Amendments 41, 43 and 44. I am sure we will work closely on this issue as we proceed through Committee.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Pinnock, Lady Scott of Bybrook—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, spoke to her amendments—and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their amendments to Clauses 4 and 5. I am also grateful to Members across the Committee for the way in which they have engaged with these amendments and what we in government recognise as a significant evolution to the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.

I am sure we all have experiences of the best in consultation—with a developer that not only consults but truly engages with communities over a period of time to get a better development—and those at the opposite end that carry out a half-hearted tick-box exercise and then crack on without changing anything, keeping a laser focus on their bottom line. We want to encourage the former, not the latter.

All the amendments in this group seek, in one way or another, to reverse changes made by the Government in the other place. Those changes will remove the statutory duty for applicants to consult during the preparation of an application for a development consent order. These are significant reforms to the NSIP regime and therefore deserve our attention. It may be helpful to revisit the rationale behind the Government’s decision to amend the Planning Act in this way.

As I outlined in my Written Ministerial Statement on 23 April, the Government are committed to driving economic growth and taking decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects before the end of the Parliament. The level of ambition here is high, as indeed it should be. The UK suffers from outdated and inadequate infrastructure, which is holding us back, not only in economic but in social terms. To deliver new roads, low-carbon energy infrastructure and reservoirs, the UK and its communities need to prosper. We must be open to change, and we are willing to do things differently. I sense a change in public perception on this as well. I think people are beginning to realise that if we want cheaper electricity, and if we want water available for housing and general use, we need to move more quickly to develop the infrastructure we need.

The Government will meet our critical infrastructure commitments only if we take this opportunity to address the inefficiencies that have crept into the NSIP regime over time. One of the most pressing issues is the growing duration of the pre-application phase for projects. In 2021, the average time to secure consent had risen to 4.2 years—up from 2.6 years in 2012. Over this same period, average pre-application timescales doubled. We all recognise that that trend is just not sustainable.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, over the past year, the Government have listened to feedback from the bodies and stakeholders most familiar with the development consent order process. That includes developers and practitioners, legal experts, local authorities, statutory bodies and a range of other interested bodies that play very important roles in the process. Through those discussions, it has become clear that the statutory consultation requirements under the Planning Act, though well intended, are now driving perverse outcomes and unintended consequences.

To answer the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, there are a number of reasons why that is the case, including those that she stated and others. The legislative requirements are too prescriptive; rather than fostering the meaningful dialogue that we all want to see, the process has become overly procedural, encouraging risk aversion, excessive documentation—we have already heard about this—and a reluctance on the part of applicants even to adapt proposals for fear of triggering further rounds of consultation. That has led to confusion for communities and delays for developers.

In responding to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, where there is consultation, an application would normally include key elements of that consultation in the report to the planning body. Although developers have to state their responses to that, even now they do not need to do anything about what the consultation said; they just have to say why they are not doing whatever they have been asked to do. There will often be mitigations in place, but there do not have to be.

Given all these concerns, it is clear that the statutory consultation requirements—uncommon in other planning regimes—are now acting as an absolute brake on progress. The Bill therefore proposes to align the NSIP regime more closely with other planning frameworks by removing these statutory obligations at the pre-application stage. This change is expected to reduce the average time taken to submit applications by around a year and deliver savings of more than £1 billion across the current project pipeline. In the long term, faster delivery will also help reduce household bills.

As set out in my Statement of 23 April, the Government remain firmly committed to a planning system that supports high-quality applications and delivers benefits for both the nation and local communities. We all recognise that the best applications are those shaped through early and constructive engagement. As the Housing Minister emphasised in the other place, we still expect the NSIP regime to operate on a front-loaded basis, with well-developed proposals entering the system and progressing to predictable timescales. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I do not think there is any objection to voluntary pre-consultation if that is what developers choose to do.

Experience from other planning regimes shows that meaningful engagement can and does take place without statutory compulsion, and that developers are best placed to judge how to take a proportionate approach to consult on their applications, which vary in relation to their scale, location and circumstances.

The development consent order process also incentivises high-quality submissions. In order to proceed through examination within statutory timescales, we are confident that developers will continue to engage proactively so that they are well prepared. As well as any consultation and engagement during the early stages of an application’s development, interested parties will still have the opportunity to raise objections, contribute views and present evidence through participation in the examination process.

To support and inform the implementation of these changes, the Government will launch a consultation about guidance later this summer, which will set out that best practice involves developers undertaking consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. This will help to ensure that applications remain robust and responsive to local concerns.

The NSIP regime relies on developers bringing projects forward to deliver national policy and meet the UK need for infrastructure. We know that the industry has responded positively to the removal of the statutory requirement, with many major developers reaffirming their commitment to meaningful engagement. They are committed to exploring new and better ways to engage with communities.

If these amendments were accepted, we would risk undermining the very purpose of the Bill and the will of Members in the other place, who requested this change to deliver lasting and transformative improvements to the NSIP regime. The current system would remain burdened by unnecessary delays, risk-averse behaviours and a lack of clarity for communities. For these reasons, I respectfully urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.

I turn to Clause 5 and the amendments tabled to it. However, given the importance of Clause 5, I hope noble Lords will allow me briefly to set out the intended impact of the clause before turning to the amendments in question. The clause contains important changes which will enable the Government to deliver on the policy intent of the changes through Clause 4, which, as we have discussed today, removes statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but it might be useful for the Committee to know that I had asked for my amendment to be degrouped. I am not sure what has happened here, but it is my intention to move the amendment in its place after Clause 51.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Okay, I will not go into the detail on that amendment now but come back to it. It was originally listed as being in this group. I apologise for the misunderstanding. I would just say to the noble Baroness that I am a big fan of digital twinning, so I look forward to the debate on that subject.

I ask noble Lords who have amendments in this group not to press them and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, first of all, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Bennett, my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their supportive words on my amendments. My noble friend Lady Miller summed it up when she said that it is very important to take the community with you. That is the message to developers. The Minister’s response was: it will be the developers’ decision as to whether they will engage in pre-application consultation. I do not know about other people’s experience of developers, but mine is that if you give them an inch, they will take at least a mile. Not requiring a statutory pre-application consultation will mean that communities do not understand or know the detail or broad-brush approach of a development that, for better or for worse, will have an impact on them.

If the issues that the Minister spelled out very clearly about the delays and costs of pre-application consultations are the problem, as she has stated, then surely the approach should be to reform what is required in a pre-application. I have just had experience of a pre-application process that involved a change to a major highways route of about 15 miles long through the area in which I live. We have had three or possibly four levels of public consultation, and in the end nobody was satisfied because nothing had substantially changed from the first one in which changes were made. The pre-application process should be reformed so that people’s voices are heard, changes are made where appropriate and then there are tweaks as the process goes on.

There is no legitimate reason for not allowing people’s voices to be heard. I feel very strongly about this and no doubt the Minister will hear from me again on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and supported variously by my noble friend Lady Coffey, speak to the important principle of consulting those who will be affected by changes, who are often best placed to provide information about development ahead of time. I appreciated the Minister’s comments on consultation in the previous group. The Government themselves are going to a consultation on providing the optimum guidance for consultation in the future. That is a positive, despite the multiple consultations.

At this stage in our deliberations, it is important to consider what “consultation” means. We are not talking about wreckers or blockers. These Houses of Parliament—indeed, your Lordships’ House itself—are constitutionally tasked with consultation and review. That is what we are doing at this very moment: reviewing the Government’s proposal in detail and providing feedback with the intention of making a proposal better and more workable in practice.

As we have heard, category 1 and 2 persons are definitions that refer to persons with significant interests in affected land. They know, literally, the lay of the land, the conditions, the constraints and the opportunities that could be faced by any development in advance of a project being started. The benefit of the knowledge and experience that these parties have must not be understated. One obvious way to prevent bad development is to promote good consultation.

We are keen to see spades in the ground and development starting to get under way, but there is no point if we get bad developments in the wrong place and where they are not appropriate. We have a duty to deliver, but we also have a duty to deliver responsibly. Removing requirements to consult key parties means that the Government increasingly run the risk of championing bad development.

There is also the question of buy-in. The Government will find that the public do not appreciate being done to, rather than being done with. Does this not strike to the heart of what the Government are trying to do with the Bill? The Government will find that if they do not undertake this policy programme carefully, with close reference to the very people they are intending to exclude from the consultation stage—I note the Minister’s previous comments, which are much appreciated—they will not be thanked for it. Consultation with stakeholders is, as noble Lords who are business-minded will know, an important way to build support, gain approval and deliver projects that work.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 26, 27, 32, 35, 39 and 42 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I am grateful to her for her amendments, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock, for their comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I am afraid that, in this instance, the baby has become so fat that it cannot even get out of the bath, never mind be thrown out.

As I have outlined over the course of this debate, these amendments seek to undo a number of amendments tabled by the Government in the other place to remove the statutory requirement for applicants to consult in the preparation of an application. Given that this significant change was introduced during the Bill’s passage—a point I accept from all noble Lords who have mentioned it—I will outline again the Government’s motivations for making the change.

A particular aspect of concern has been the increasing length of time spent at the pre-application stage, resulting from the way that statutory requirements are being complied with. As outlined, consultation has become a tick-box exercise—the very one I was referring to earlier—that encourages risk aversion and gold-plating. We have therefore concluded that these requirements are now serving to slow schemes down rather than speed them up, and that the consultation taking place is not meaningful to the people involved. It just becomes that tick-box exercise.

In bringing in these changes, we want to speed up the typical period taken to submit applications and further save money in this Parliament’s pipeline of projects. We are committed to sustaining a planning system that encourages high-quality applications and delivers benefits to the nation and local communities. We all know that high-quality applications are those that have been developed through early and meaningful engagement with those impacted, including local authorities, statutory consultees, communities and landowners. Affected individuals will, of course, still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of impacts on them and participate in the process through which applications are examined.

As I have explained, in making this change the Government are clear that this signifies not that consultation and engagement are no longer important but just that the current system is not working well for either developers or communities. Guidance will be forthcoming on how engagement can be undertaken so that applicants can produce high-quality applications. We look forward to engagement on this matter. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about consultation on consultation—he is right—but, in this case, it is necessary.

The Planning Inspectorate will continue to consider whether an application is suitable to proceed to examination and be examined under statutory timeframes. The guidance will outline best practice—to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I cannot give her any absolute detail yet because, as we said, we are consulting on it, but it will outline the best practice, which will involve pre-application engagement. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, will continue to issue advice to applicants under Section 51 of the Act and have regard to the extent to which applicants have had regard to the advice. These changes will provide flexibility so that applicants can undertake engagement in the way they consider best for their proposed development in accordance with that guidance. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks, and to all who spoke. I meant to give a big shout-out to the clerks in the Public Bill Office. I know how hard our Front Bench and the Government Front Bench are working, but I understand that there are only four clerks in the Public Bill Office, who are assisting us with all our amendments, so I am deeply grateful to them for their assistance in this regard.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jamieson for their support. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made a good point about reforming, not removing. Together with the loss of hope value and the new provisions on the compulsory purchase of land that we will come to later, I find it staggering how shabbily treated farmers and landowners are by this Government. I am sure there will be plenty more opportunities to elaborate on those arguments.

I understand that the Government are consulting on the guidance at the moment, but it is regrettable that we are not in possession of the guidance before we are asked to remove Clause 4, or at least to reintroduce the consultation at pre-application stage of category 1 and category 2 persons. It seems profoundly undemocratic—profoundly rude, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—and I will consider whether or not to bring this back at a later stage. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very interesting amendment. In domestic planning applications, and commercial planning applications that are outside the infrastructure process, applications that are refused get a decision notice with a list of the reasons for refusal, which gives the developer the opportunity to review those and resubmit with relevant changes. This goes to the heart of the way the infrastructure application process works, in that we are now going to have a reduction in the pre-application process, and restricted examination in public; consequently, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, says, the only resort will be to judicial review. The whole process for infrastructure applications needs a real rethink, in my view, because the pre-application stage will throw up some of the problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referenced, in terms of what might be the causes of refusal. She is quite right that for big infrastructure applications, reasons ought to be given for a rejection of the proposals.

Again, everyone here is anxious that critical infrastructure gets the go-ahead, but it must be given the go-ahead within the right framework of openness, consultation and listening to communities. At the minute, it seems that some of that framework is being removed and is going to be in the hands of the developers, come what may. I hope the Minister will give us some clues that the Government are going to change the process.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all optimists.

Clause 6 amends the acceptance stage for applications for development consent. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has tabled an amendment to this clause, seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State publishes the reasons for the decision and identifies the relevant statutory or regulatory basis. At the acceptance stage, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, will consider whether an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project should proceed to examination. This test grants acceptance to applications for the country’s largest and most complex schemes on the basis of whether they can be examined within the strict statutory timeframes set out in the Planning Act 2008. Let us not forget that these statutory timeframes are what applicants admire most about the regime. They provide much needed certainty and clarity.

In our Planning Reform Working Paper: Streamlining Infrastructure Consenting published in January, we indicated that applicants often take a risk-averse approach to the acceptance test, as a refusal or a withdrawal can delay projects and harm investor confidence. Applicants will often gold-plate their application by undertaking additional consultation, delaying applications from coming forward. Accordingly, Clause 6 updates the acceptance test, not just to account for the removal of consultation at the pre-application stage but to increase the flexibility of the acceptance stage, so that applicants are more likely to come forward sooner. In doing so, Clause 6 amends the test to be applied from a “satisfactory” standard to “suitable to proceed to examination”. This wording brings the test closer to the objective of this part of the process.

The amendment proposed would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons why an application has been rejected, explaining where it has not complied with new Section 55A (2) and (5). It is rightly intended to increase transparency and to protect developers from arbitrary rejection. The Government fully agree with the intention behind this amendment, which is to prevent arbitrary rejections for applicants. That is in part what has motivated the Government to introduce Section 55A. We want to allow for corrective actions, where needed, to enable acceptance rather than outright rejections or the withdrawal of applications. However, for the reasons I will outline shortly, we do not think this amendment is necessary, as the existing provisions in the Planning Act 2008 and new Section 55A provide sufficient transparency and protection for applicants.

The Government expect that this new provision will be used where an application does not strictly comply with requirements but where the application could quickly address any deficiencies or gaps. For example, regulations under the Planning Act require plans and drawings to be of a specified size and scale, and this includes specific requirements where multiple sheets are provided. Where applications need revision to comply with these or other such requirements, this process will allow for changes to be made easily where an application would previously have been rejected. Subsections (2) and (5) of the new section also require the Secretary of State to inform the applicant of what changes are needed and when these are needed by.

Moreover, the NSIP regime is built around strong principles of transparency and fairness. The Secretary of State will still be required to provide the applicant with the reasons why an application has not been accepted. The Planning Inspectorate routinely provides advice to potential applicants under Section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 before an application is submitted and is required to publish such advice on its website. Therefore, advice to the applicant at the pre-application stage, which can be used to highlight any more significant concerns, is already made publicly available. Given that the Planning Act 2008 and new Section 55A already require an explanation to be provided to applicants for why an application has been rejected, we do not believe that these amendments are required.

The Government have committed to consult on guidance to support consultation and engagement for nationally significant infrastructure projects this summer, as I have already outlined. As part of this consultation, we would very much welcome views on the acceptance of applications and the guidance needed to support the changes in the Bill. In particular, we recognise the importance of ensuring that requests made to applicants to provide additional information are proportionate, and we will ensure that guidance sitting alongside this change makes that clear. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured and, for all these reasons, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Krebs. It is interesting, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Pinnock, that we keep coming back to this issue of prioritisation, hierarchy and the role of regulators. I particularly note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we need to start resolving this issue. I am sure that on this side of the House we shall come back to it as we progress through the Bill, but I want to focus on this amendment.

There is no doubt that we have to address the issue of low-carbon energy and low-carbon infrastructure. It will be essential to hitting our zero-carbon targets and addressing the challenges of climate change. Although we support the efforts to advance clean energy, we must also guard against an unbalanced approach, particularly one that risks compromising the reliability and resilience of our energy systems. Low-carbon generation should not be considered in isolation, as I believe the noble Lord mentioned, or privileged above all other forms of infrastructure. The grid as we know it is undergoing rapid change; the Government’s ambition to rebuild it around renewable sources within just five years is rooted in ideology. Solar and wind are by nature intermittent. They cannot provide the stable backbone that the grid requires.

The stability of our electricity system depends on what is known as inertia, the capacity to resist sudden fluctuations in frequency. This essential property is delivered by turbines in energy-dense technologies such as nuclear, hydro and gas-fired power stations. It is not delivered by wind or solar farms. Without sufficient inertia, we run the risk of system destabilisation, leading to the worst case of failures and blackouts. We need a serious, detailed plan to safeguard the resilience and sovereignty of the UK’s energy supply. That means ensuring a mix of technologies, including those that deliver system stability and resilience, as well as decarbonisation.

On the amendment, we have a number of questions which we hope noble Lords can address. First, it refers to “sustainable development”, a term that invites interpretation. In planning, there is already a well understood definition of sustainable development in relation to planning applications for housing and commercial development, but I do not believe that that is intended here. What precisely is meant here and how is it to be applied in practice? How do we avoid confusion with the existing interpretation of sustainable development?

Secondly, on the list of regulators, why were these specific bodies selected and by what criteria? We welcome collaboration, but it must be clear and consistent.

Finally, there is the matter of the Secretary of State’s powers to prescribe other relevant bodies by regulation. That is a significant authority, and I would be grateful for clarity on how it would be exercised and scrutinised. Although we support the spirit of this amendment, we urge caution and a desire to have a balanced approach.

Briefly, on Amendment 46A tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, she raises an important point, so we will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply. Ensuring that planning consent has considered environmental protections is of course vital and must not be overlooked.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lords, Lords Ravensdale and Lord Krebs, seeks to ensure that in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects for low-carbon energy, relevant authorities such as the Environment Agency should have special regard for the need to contribute to certain government environmental targets when making representations as interested parties under the Planning Act 2008.

The amendment refers specifically to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting; adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts under the Climate Change Act 2008; achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021; and achieving sustainable development. As we have heard throughout the debate today, and at earlier stages of the Bill, it is vital that we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure that we need, not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. As my colleagues in the other place noted, the Bill can deliver a win-win for growth and nature. Developments such as clean energy infrastructure are key to tackling the climate crisis and supporting nature recovery.

To pick up on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, regarding the Corry review, which was important, the review recommended that the Government publish a refreshed set of outcomes and strategic policy statements for regulators, with the aim of restating the Government’s priorities and mandating regulators to use constrained discretion to deliver them. This might answer some of the noble Lord’s questions about this. The Government have accepted this recommendation, one of the nine Corry recommendations being fast-tracked. We are moving quickly to publish the first set of strategic policy statements. I hope that this is helpful.

I thank the noble Lords for their constructive and helpful proposals in this amendment, which seeks to ensure that input from specific statutory consultees is given with the wider context of government targets in mind. The Government agree with the intention behind the amendment. I reassure noble Lords that the Government already have the tools they need to guide public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process.

The national policy statements for energy infrastructure take full account of the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and to ensure that the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. In particular, these national policy statements grant critical national priority status to low-carbon projects. This means that the types of projects that the noble Lord is most concerned with have additional weight in the planning balance. Through the Bill, the Government are introducing a duty on public bodies to have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State in making those representations which are referred to in the noble Lords’ amendment.

The Government will consult later this summer on what guidance about consultation and engagement on the NSIP process should contain, as I have already outlined. As we review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider, alongside government policy in national policy statements, how we can support the intent of this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is reassured and will withdraw the amendment.

On the request from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the definition of sustainability, I will consult further and come back to him.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I was repeating the request from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise. I took the liberty of popping out of the Chamber for five minutes. We will reply on that.

Amendment 46A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, 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 environmental delivery plan applying to the land that will be developed. The Committee will be scrutinising Part 3 of the Bill in a later sitting. I look forward to that, but I am happy to speak to this amendment today.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill creates a new type of plan: an environmental delivery plan—EDP. Within an area defined in an EDP, Natural England will identify the impact that relevant development is expected to have on a defined environmental feature or features. These can be features of protected sites or a protected species. Natural England will then set out a package of conservation measures that will outweigh the impacts of the development on the relevant environmental feature.

This process for developing EDPs and the wider set of safeguards across the NRF will be subject to further discussion under Part 3. However, in respect of this amendment, the crucial point is that once an EDP is approved by the Secretary of State that covers development of the type in question and in the location in question, developers will be able to make a payment through the nature restoration levy, which would discharge the relevant environmental obligation being addressed through the EDP. Where a developer chooses not to utilise an EDP, they will need to address these environmental obligations under the existing system. As a decision for the developer, it would not be necessary to require the Secretary of State, when considering a development consent order, to have regard to an EDP that the developer might choose not to use. In these circumstances, the decision would need to consider whether the application was in line with existing environmental obligations.

Further to this, mandating that the Secretary of State takes account of an EDP removes flexibility for the developer on how to discharge environmental obligations. This could impact on the viability of a scheme and would undermine the Government’s commitment to decide 150 infrastructure planning consents during this Parliament, as well as wider growth objectives. I appreciate that there are still some questions in there about how EDPs will work, but that is not the subject of today’s discussion—we will cover that under Part 3.

Furthermore, while the content of an EDP is not intended to be relevant to the planning merits of a determination, if the Secretary of State determines that an applicable EDP is material, they can have regard to it. That is already the case: under Section 104(2)(d) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must have regard to any other matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision. This could include any relevant EDP. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that response. I will address some of the questions that noble Lords raised. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jameson, about sustainable development, but he mentioned the specific list of bodies. When we started out with this amendment, we had a long list of bodies and agencies that would be considered within the amendment, but we were informed by the Public Bill Office that that would present hybridity concerns, which is why we limited it to the subset that noble Lords can see in the amendment today. The reason we have gone with those is that most of the issues we have had with regulation of large infrastructure have been to do with the Environment Agency and the statutory nature of conservation bodies, but we have given that power for other bodies to be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.

As I said, I thank the Minister. I am very encouraged by what she said. I note that she talked about the strategic priority statements in terms of duties on regulators, but I would note the strength of a statutory duty, which I think is quite important here in pinning down the objectives of regulators. There will be a lot of benefit in doing that within statutes. I look forward to seeing that in further detail, and I would welcome further engagement with the Minister on this point between now and Report. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I cannot support the noble Lord’s Amendment 65. It proposes to establish a critical national development task force. Since coming into office, this Government have established a vast array of new public bodies, quangos, reviews, action plans, strategies and task forces. None has delivered meaningful results. Rather than simply offload crucial decisions that should be undertaken by Ministers to other bodies, the Secretary of State does not need to establish yet another task force to advise. Such a scenario would lead only to more deliberation and delay, where this Bill is intended to speed up the planning process. This amendment is therefore neither necessary nor appropriate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate on a critical issue and aspect of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath deserves a lot of credit for some interesting thinking around how we might unblock some of the serious issues that have been holding up the planning system. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this section of the debate: the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Ravensdale, Lord Jamieson and Lord Banner, whom I also thank for his work in this area, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke about the sclerotic planning system. We all know it is sclerotic. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, argued that that is not because of local government; I have a lot of sympathy with what she says, having spent a lot of time with local government. However, there is no doubt the system is blocked up. There are many reasons for that and I set out in one of my earlier speeches that that is why we require a whole package of measures to unblock the system. We require some new thinking as well, and that is why I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt.

These amendments seek to amend the various routes of appeal and rights to judicial review for both NSIPs and national policy statements, and a new designation of development called critical national infrastructure.

Amendment 47 seeks to remove the requirement for the determination of permission in judicial review cases concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects to be made at an oral hearing. At present, individuals and organisations seeking to challenge these projects have up to three attempts to gain permission from the court: a paper stage, an option to renew at an oral hearing, and, if unsuccessful, an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Each of these attempts can extend the duration of the claim by several weeks—which I think is the positive thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was talking about earlier—but in some cases, by several months. This is why we are making provision in Clause 12 to streamline this process.

As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and many stakeholders who responded to the call for evidence on this matter, the paper permission stage is not efficient with regard to challenges relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects. The majority of claims are refused permission at the paper stage; of these, most go on to renew their case at an oral hearing.

Removing the paper stage will allow any disputed question of permission to go straight to an oral hearing. This will help reduce the overall time it takes for a claim to reach a final decision, limiting the period of uncertainty for developers and local communities. This provision does not mean that all future applications will require a permission hearing as cases can still proceed directly to a substantive hearing if the question of granting permission is not disputed by the parties.

The other provision in Clause 12 will ensure that where a judge in an oral hearing at the High Court deems the case totally without merit—I presume that is a legal phrase because it has capital letters in my notes—it will not be possible to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider. These changes are necessary to prevent meritless claims from holding up projects by exhausting the appeals process and will ensure that legitimate challenges are heard more quickly.

Amendment 48 seeks to amend the Planning Act 2008 to make certain decisions relating to national policy statements exempt from legal challenge. By seeking to remove the right to apply for a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to carry out a review of the relevant national policy statement, the first part of this amendment would undermine the requirement introduced in Clause 1.

Regarding the second part of this amendment, I recognise my noble friend’s intention to facilitate routine changes to national policy statements by making immaterial changes exempt from legal challenge. However, the public’s ability to challenge the lawfulness of government decisions is fundamental to the rule of law, and it is for the court to determine whether a decision has been taken lawfully.

It is for the court to decide whether a legal challenge ought to be considered, and there is already a mechanism for the court to deal with challenges concerning matters which are not likely to have a material impact. Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 requires the High Court to refuse permission for judicial review if it considers it

“highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred”

Amendment 49 seeks to clarify that legal challenges relating to development consent orders made under Section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 must be brought to the High Court. Section 118 stipulates that proceedings must be brought by a claim of judicial review. Details of the judicial review process are set out in Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and in the relevant practice directions. Further guidance can be found in the Administrative Court’s Judicial Review Guide. It is made clear in the relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents that applications for judicial review are to be made to the High Court. I trust that this reassures my noble friend that there is sufficient clarity about the process and that legislative change is not required in this regard.

I thank my noble friend for his Amendments 52 and 65, which I will consider together. As he knows, I agree entirely with the intent behind them. As noble Lords will have heard throughout this debate, it is one of this Government’s central objectives to speed up the consenting process for all major infrastructure projects. The reforms we are making to the NSIP regime through the Bill will help us go further in speeding up the consenting process for all the infrastructure this country needs.

As we have already debated, the current pre-application process is producing counterproductive outcomes and extending pre-application timeframes. That is why we are removing the statutory pre-application consultation requirements. We will issue guidance through the Bill to assist applicants, setting out what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take in relation to a proposed application, in readiness for submitting an actual application.

Doing so will give applicants flexibility in how they consult and engage key bodies, local authorities and individuals about their proposed development, leading to more meaningful and effective pre-application engagement and shorter pre-application timeframes. Through the Bill, we will also enable the Secretary of State to direct certain development out of the NSIP regime, where such development could be considered by an alternative regime that may be more appropriate. This has the potential to expedite the consenting process and deliver infrastructure more quickly.

I appreciate that my noble friend is motivated by a desire to ensure that highly critical and urgent infrastructure projects can progress more quickly. We all want to deliver these schemes as quickly as possible, but we need to make sure we can do so without unnecessary disruption and with sufficient certainty for both applicants and decision-makers. We need to weigh up whether the radical overhaul he proposes is the best way forward, given the changes that we are already making.

As my noble friend knows, a critical national priority status can already be applied to projects and sectors delivering essential infrastructure. Projects with this status are given priority in the planning process, and the CNP policy affects how certain residual impacts are considered in the planning balance. We are starting to see the positive impacts of CNP status on recent NSIP projects; for example, through the energy national policy statements, CNP status is applied to renewable and low-carbon energy projects. With the mandating of regular NPS updates, it will be easier than ever before to consider whether more or different projects should benefit from this status.

My noble friend offers two ways in which a critical status could be applied to projects, and I will speak about both in turn. He suggests introducing a specialist task force to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. This is, in essence, the role that the independent examining authority fulfils under the NSIP regime. Under the Planning Act 2008, a panel of experts is appointed to examine each NSIP application and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on whether a project should be given consent. As setting up a specialist task force would likely draw from the same pool of planning and infrastructure experts, such a proposal risks disruption to the NSIP regime and slowing down the consenting of infrastructure.

Also in this amendment, my noble friend suggests granting deemed consent for critical national development. This is an interesting proposal, but it faces a number of challenges. First, deemed consent cannot be used to consent development that is required to be assessed under the environmental impact assessment and habitats regulations regimes. Most major infrastructure projects are EIA developments and must undergo a full EIA process, including the submission of an environmental statement and an assessment by the relevant authorities. Secondly, further questions would arise around the Government’s compliance with international law, notably the Aarhus convention. This requires signatories to enable concerns about the impacts of a project to be incorporated into the decision-making process. This is what the Planning Act 2008 already enables, through the examination stage and consideration of relevant representations. Failure to account for this is likely to increase the risk of legal challenge and make planning decisions more vulnerable to being overturned by the courts.

I now turn to my noble friend’s amendment that would introduce a power for the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as a critical national priority. Once designated, these projects would follow the normal process for a DCO but then be subject to additional parliamentary approval. A public Bill would be introduced, which given that it affects private interest, would then engage the petitioning process. Once petitions are resolved, the Bill would be fast-tracked through both Houses to Royal Assent. The objective of this process would be to protect the DCO from judicial reviews.

This proposal is, without doubt, interesting and thought-provoking. As we have already debated today, the Government are using the Bill to tackle meritless legal challenges that delay projects and increase costs. We have also demonstrated that we are willing to go further, if necessary, to speed up the planning system and get Britain building.

The amendment touches on complex issues around the role of the courts versus Parliament—as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, indicated—in managing the conflicts that arise between private and public interests on large-scale infrastructure projects. It has enabled us to debate novel solutions to the challenges we face in building the infrastructure we need. The measures in the Bill already make targeted and impactful interventions to the consenting system to ensure greater certainty to investors and applicants, which will speed up the delivery of national infrastructure priorities, including those of critical urgency. For those reasons, and because of the discussions we have already had, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendments.

On the amendment which seeks to repeal Section 150 of the Planning Act 2008, with the aim of reducing post-consent delays to construction, I thank my noble friend for raising this matter. It is indeed something the Government have been considering. When applicants submit their DCO for a nationally significant infrastructure project, Section 150 enables them to include other prescribed necessary secondary consents as well. The intent behind this section was to ensure that the NSIP process could be a one-stop shop, with applicants securing all the permissions they need to build via a single process. This could save them precious time and avoid them having to seek these consents separately after they have secured development consent.

However, Section 150 is drafted so that for certain prescribed consents this may be done only with the permission of the relevant regulatory body. Repealing Section 150 means that securing permission from the relevant consenting body, such as the Environment Agency, would no longer be necessary.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

72: Clause 16, page 22, leave out lines 12 and 13
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting correction which would remove the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” from clause 16. The definition is unnecessary because the term is already defined for the purposes of clause 16 in clause 13(8).

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendment 72 in my name seeks to leave out lines 12 and 13 on page 22 of the Bill, removing the additional definition of “qualifying distribution agreement”. It is a straightforward technical amendment. Its purpose is to tidy up the drafting of the Bill by removing a definition that is no longer required. The term “qualifying distribution agreement” is already defined in Clause 13(8), following other changes made during the passage of the Bill. The amendment will help ensure that the legislation is clear, coherent and free from unnecessary or redundant definitions. It will not alter the substance or effect of the policy but support the overall clarity and workability of the Bill.

I hope that the Committee will support this amendment. I look forward to the debate on the other amendments in this group; I will reserve comment on them until I make my winding-up remarks. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for being so brief and to the point and for allowing me the opportunity to explain the purpose of the other amendments in this group in my name, which are Amendments 73 to 76. Like the Minister, I look forward to hearing from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about grid capacity in his Amendment 79. I remind the Committee of my registered interest as chair of development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire.

My amendments relate to Clause 17, which contains a power to give Ministers the opportunity to designate strategic plans for the purposes of the connection reforms that are taking place in relation to the transmission and distribution networks. I suppose it would be helpful—not least because it will connect to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will raise—for me to remind the House that this process is under way. In effect, it was commenced by the Connections Action Plan under the previous Administration in November 2023. A simple way of expressing it is by saying that there was a lot of commitment to future substantial increases in generating capacity in a range of technologies, which were increasingly forming a queue to book their potential connection to the transmission or distribution networks. However, there was considerable risk related to whether those projects would be delivered on time or at all.

The volume of such commitments made it very clear that a significant proportion of them would not be viable, because there would be an excess of what was required. The numbers varied, but I think the latest figure was something like 714 gigawatts of grid capacity relative to about 500 gigawatts of demand. Instead of the old regime, which can be characterised as “first ready, first connected”—namely, those who were planning to provide capacity simply booked a place in the queue and then, when they were ready, they were given a right to be connected—the intention now is for there to be strategic planning behind the process leading to the net-zero objectives in 2030, which were published under the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan last December.

Since then, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator have been working on this. For the avoidance of doubt, references in Clause 17 to the independent system operator and planner, ISOP, are actually to the National Energy System Operator, or NESO. Ofgem agreed on its methodologies, I think in April, and has now, after consultation, approved the processes. I think that we are in a position—but the Minister can correct me if there is more detail—where we are anticipating, potentially in a matter of weeks, the first allocation of commitments by Ofgem to what is known as Gate 2. As I understand it, Gate 2 means that Ofgem will say that it is committed to these projects and that they will be connected to the transmission or distribution networks when they are ready and because they are needed.

There are two differences with that approach. First, the queue will be straightforward; it will be not just “first ready, first connected” but “first ready, first needed, first connected”. Secondly, the two criteria that Ofgem will apply, in the first instance, will be that there is a clear timetable—with milestones, which, if they are not met, may cause such projects to lose their place in that queue—and that they will be connected when they are needed. There is therefore a direct relationship between the strategic planning for electricity capacity in a range of technologies and the projects that NESO agrees will be brought in to supply the grid at given times in the future.

If I understand it correctly, the present strategic objective is set out in the connections annexe to the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. It sets out a range of technologies, and capacities that are required in those technologies, and then breaks them down by regions across the country. There is therefore a plan to which the alignment should relate. The Explanatory Notes state that the designated strategic plan according to which the National Energy System Operator should work may be, for example, the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, so we can see the relationship with that.

The Explanatory Notes do not say this, but the Delegated Powers Committee’s memorandum from the department did: in addition, the designated plans are intended to include the strategic spatial energy plan intended to be published in 2026. That is in addition to what is in the clean power plan, which has 2030 targets and ranges for its potential capacity requirements through to 2035, and will extend that to 2050 so that there is a longer strategic alignment between the people who are making substantial investments and the commitment on the part of the grid to take that supply into the grid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, which relate to the connections reform provisions within the Bill. These are largely technical and drafting amendments, but they are none the less important to ensure clarity and alignment across the legislation. I agree with many of the issues raised by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Coffey, particularly anything that slows down the grid connections process or adds more cost to the consumer.

Let me start by welcoming Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which, as she stated in her admirably brief opening, makes a simple drafting correction. It removes the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” from Clause 16, as it is already defined in Clause 13(8). This is a helpful tidying up amendment that improves the consistency of the Bill’s language, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing it forward.

Amendments 73 to 76, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, would also serve to improve the clarity and coherence of the Bill, particularly in relation to NESO and its responsibilities. Amendment 73 would ensure that NESO is required to have regard to the strategy and policy statement under Section 165 of the Energy Act 2023, rather than the designated strategic plan. This helps to bring the language of the Bill in line with existing legislation and policy frameworks.

Amendment 74 makes a similar adjustment to Clause 17, ensuring that NESO must have regard to the strategic priorities set out in the strategy and policy statement under the 2023 Act. Amendment 75 then defines “strategic priorities” as those contained in the most recent strategy and policy statement issued under that Act—again reinforcing consistency and legal precision. Amendment 76 replaces references in Clause 17 to “designated strategic plans” with “strategic priorities”, to align terminology with Section 165 of the Energy Act 2023. My noble friend Lord Lansley has put forward a strong case for these changes to the Bill, and they appear to be sensible and constructive amendments.

Finally, Amendment 79, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raises an important issue by highlighting the delays and high costs associated with connecting to the national grid. This amendment addresses a key barrier to energy development and considers the use of local grids as a way of improving efficiency.

This has been a good, thoughtful and short debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is reassuring to hear such a degree of consensus across the House that we all want to deliver the same thing from this—speeding up the connections process. I have expressed my frustration many times before in this House that it can take longer to get a grid connection than it did to build the whole of the A1(M). That is a just a nonsense and we have to move on from it.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Coffey, for their comments.

I am afraid I have to oppose the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I understand how well intentioned they are and I greatly respect his experience in these areas, but they would have significant unintended consequences for the Government’s ability to respond swiftly and effectively to the evolving needs of our energy system.

At the heart of the amendments is a proposal to require that the strategy and policy statement, also known as SPS, designated under Part 5 of the Energy Act 2013 is used for the purpose of prioritising connections to the electricity network. I recognise the helpful attempt by the noble Lord to ensure consistency and clarity with regard to the obligations of Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator, NESO. I also fully recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and do not for a moment suggest that we should seek to avoid that. But we must also be honest about the practical implications of this approach.

The SPS is subject to a rigorous process that is entirely appropriate for a high-level, overarching statement of policy. But it is not designed to accommodate the pace or specificity required to support the complex and fast-moving reforms we are undertaking to unblock and accelerate electricity network connections. We are entering a period of rapid transformation. The grid must decarbonise. New technologies are emerging. Electricity demand is shifting and increasing and the connections process must evolve to keep up.

In that context, the Government must be able to designate timely targeted guidance, potentially in the form of multiple documents, tailored to different parts of the sector, such as generation or demand connections, or technology-specific plans and strategies. Indeed, the Government have already signalled their intention to designate the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and the Industrial Strategy—both existing documents published recently—when the necessary powers are available. These are concrete, strategic documents that will help the industry to plan and invest with confidence, hopefully meeting some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. But these amendments would prevent that. They would limit us to a single document—the SPS—and, in doing so, tie our hands at precisely the moment we need the most flexibility, creating potential delays and preventing the granular and specific strategic direction required for the grid connection process.

There is a further and more fundamental issue. Distribution network operators—DNOs—have no legal obligation to have regard to the SPS. These companies are critical to the delivery of connections reform and are responsible for connecting a significant volume of new generation and storage that will connect directly to the distribution network. They are privately owned and operated and the SPS was never intended to bind them. To attempt to do so now would be not only inappropriate but unworkable.

If we are serious about reforming the connections process—as I believe we are; we have heard that this afternoon—we must ensure that our strategic plans can apply to the full range of actors involved. That means having the ability to designate plans that are fit for purpose, timely and applicable to the right parties. The strategy and policy statement is a high-level strategic document intended to provide Ofgem and NESO with clear direction over the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes for the duration of our term to inform decision-making. In contrast, as I have said, designated plans for the purpose of connections reform may include more granular, tactical guidance. These documents are designed to complement, not conflict with, the SPS.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I would also say that plans are in place and being implemented for the connections to the transmission and distribution system. In November 2023, as the noble Lord mentioned, the Connections Action Plan was published, setting out expectations for the scale and pace of reform. This formed the basis for the National Energy System Operator’s connection reform proposals, which Ofgem have just approved. The broad ambition, on which legislative measures have been based, will see faster electricity network connection dates offered, at both transmission and distribution.

The noble Lord asked me a very specific question around the Gate 2 process. The implementation of current connection reforms is under way, as I said. We are working closely with NESO and Ofgem, and we are anticipating the Gate 2 decisions in the coming weeks; “coming weeks” is one of those expressions that I have got used to as I have been a Minister.

The Bill as drafted is intended to ensure that we have the tools to deliver the energy transition effectively. The measure as drafted strikes the right balance. We believe that it provides a clear mechanism for designating strategic plans while preserving the flexibility —which we know we will need—to respond to a rapidly changing sector. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

I turn now to Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He said that he believes this is the biggest change since the Industrial Revolution in terms of power accessibility. I do not disagree with that statement. Let me begin by stating that we are in full agreement that the current delays arising from the first come, first served approach to grid connections are absolutely no longer tenable; I hope I have made that very clear. For this reason, in December 2024, the Government published the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. This document outlines our plan to work collaboratively with the National Energy System Operator—NESO—and Ofgem to deliver a fundamental overhaul of the connections process.

The objective is to accelerate connection timelines for the most critical projects and to unlock billions of pounds of investment for renewable energy generation. Through the implementation of these reforms, it is estimated that up to £5 billion in unnecessary network reinforcements could be avoided. In turn, this should lead to long-term savings for consumers through lower electricity bills.

The reforms in question have been developed by NESO in close consultation with both industry stakeholders and Ofgem, following all requisite formal procedures, including public consultation. Ofgem has since approved these proposals and implementation is now well under way, as I have already mentioned.

This Bill is intended to support the reforms. Notably, the Bill will confer powers on the Secretary of State to designate strategic plans. These plans must be taken into account by both NESO and distribution network operators when exercising their functions in relation to grid connections.

It is anticipated that the Secretary of State will initially designate the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and the Industrial Strategy, followed in due course by the proposed strategic spatial energy plan. These strategic documents are designed to reflect the needs of the nation’s energy system, including measures to address the inefficiencies of the current grid queue by prioritising projects of greatest national importance. Introducing a new statutory requirement for a further plan would risk delaying this progress and might introduce unwelcome uncertainty for industry participants.

On the matter of local energy grids, we do not consider that there is any regulatory impediment. The necessary infrastructure, including local networks that integrate both generation and demand, is already permissible. Such networks may be developed and operated by distribution network operators or independent network providers, or under private wire arrangements via statutory licence exemptions.

We are also firmly committed to supporting local and community energy initiatives. These play a vital role in the UK’s broader energy landscape and we are determined to ensure that communities continue to benefit directly from the transition to clean energy. We will be discussing more about that later this afternoon.

To that end, Great British Energy will work in partnership with mayoral combined authorities, community energy organisations and the devolved Administrations. This collaboration will include the provision of funding and strategic support, from planning advice to technical guidance, for local community energy stakeholders. I trust this explanation provides sufficient reassurance to noble Lords.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. Is it then the Government’s intention to publish a new strategy and policy statement under the Energy Act? At the moment, legislation requires Ofgem to have regard to what is effectively an out-of-date strategy.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope I picked up that question during my response. I will just check back to make sure that I got the wording right. I think that is the case but I will confirm it to the noble Lord in writing. Still, I think he is correct in his assumption.

I trust that explanation provides a sufficient response for the noble Lord, and I ask him not to press his amendment.

Amendment 72 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group: the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Coffey. Their amendments relate primarily to the bill discount scheme for communities near new and certain significantly upgraded transmission infrastructure, and other community benefit schemes; these are Amendments 82C to 82E, 83, 83A to 83C, 84, 84A to 84C, 85, 86 and 94.

Before I turn to the specific amendments, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I will not cover business rates retention in my response. That is a bit above my pay grade, and I am afraid that she will have to wait, as we all will, for the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement to see whether she intends to make any changes to that. That is the responsibility of the Treasury. As the noble Baroness is very well aware, there is a redistribution mechanism in the business rates retention, which enables those areas that are less able to raise business rates to benefit as much as some of those that are more able to raise business rates. I am afraid that any adjustments to that are not in my remit, so I will not cover that.

I turn first to Amendments 82C, 82E and 83A to 83C, which aim to extend the scope of the financial benefit scheme for people living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near energy generation infrastructure. While I believe that the spirit of these amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is certainly well intended—and the Government are committed to ensuring that communities that host clean energy infrastructure benefit from it, including clean energy generation infrastructure—I must resist these amendments for reasons that I will set out for her.

Clause 26 specifically allows for the creation of a bill discount scheme for those living near new or significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure, with a minded-to position of offering eligible customers a bill discount of £250 per year over 10 years. This ensures that communities living near this infrastructure are recognised for the service they provide the country in hosting the infrastructure and helping to achieve our clean power goals. The clause has been specifically designed to address transmission which, due to its long, linear nature, impacts communities without necessarily providing further benefits, such as local jobs or investment, that other infrastructure probably will bring. If this clause is amended as suggested, it would require further complex and detailed amendments to ensure that it operates effectively for each type of generation infrastructure, delaying the time that it would take for the scheme to be implemented.

However, I can inform noble Lords that the Government have already presented proposals to expand the delivery of community benefits to other forms of clean energy infrastructure. On 21 May, we published a working paper on community benefits and shared ownership of low-carbon energy infrastructure, the responses to which are currently under review. Our proposals would require developers of low-carbon energy generation and energy storage infrastructure to contribute to community benefit funds to support families, businesses and local community groups living near these projects. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, the scheme could help regenerate our coastal and rural communities—for example, via new community facilities, apprenticeships and education schemes—boosting local economies and growth as part of the plan for change.

The paper also sets out how communities could own a stake in renewable energy infrastructure through shared ownership, resulting in profits being reinvested in the community. Through these proposals, we aim to provide communities with consistency and certainty that they will benefit from hosting new generation infrastructure. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts these reasons why these amendments would not be appropriate, is reassured that we are looking into ways to ensure that communities hosting new clean energy-generation infrastructure are properly recognised for the service they are providing to the country, and will agree to withdraw Amendment 82C.

Turning now to Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Offord, which seeks to set the discount amount for the bill discount scheme at £1,000 a year for 10 years for households living within 500 metres of eligible infrastructure, I really sympathise with the noble Lords’ intention to ensure that households closest to the new transmission infrastructure benefit, but I am going to have to resist the amendment, for reasons which I will set out. The Government’s minded-to position is to provide electricity bill discounts of up to £2,500 over a maximum of 10 years for households living within 500 metres of new and significantly upgraded electricity transmission network infrastructure. This proposal provides a balance between ensuring that communities are recognised for the role they play in hosting the infrastructure and limiting the additional cost to electricity bill payers in Great Britain from the scheme.

We are still conducting final analysis on the overall cost of the scheme. On 8 August, we published a consultation on our current proposals for scheme design, and that consultation is open until 26 September. Final analysis will be published in our impact assessment, alongside secondary legislation. The Government consider that the overall level of benefit ought to be set out at that stage, which will still allow for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny once secondary legislation is laid. I hope noble Lords understand our position on this matter. I look forward to working closely with them at the appropriate time on this important detail of the scheme.

I turn to Amendment 84, which seeks to extend the scope of the financial benefit scheme for people living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near onshore wind turbines. I welcome the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment. The Government are committed to ensuring that communities which host clean energy infrastructure benefit from it. Clause 26 allows for the creation of a bill discount scheme for those living near new or significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure, with a minded-to position of offering eligible customers a bill discount of £250 a year over 10 years. This ensures that communities living near this infrastructure are recognised for the service they provide to the country. While it may seem logical to extend this scheme to other infrastructure, such as onshore wind, the clause has been designed specifically to address transmission, which, as I said, due to its long linear nature, impacts communities without providing further benefits, such as local jobs or investment, that other infrastructure can bring. If this clause is amended to include onshore wind, it would require further complex and detailed amendments to make sure that it operates effectively, delaying the time it would take for the scheme to be implemented.

However, I am pleased to inform noble Lords that the Government have already presented proposals to expand the delivery of community benefits to other forms of energy infrastructure, including onshore wind. I spoke already about the paper that was produced on 21 May on the community benefits, and we are reviewing the responses to that. The proposals would require developers of low-carbon energy generation and energy storage infrastructure to contribute to community benefit funds—again, to support families, businesses and local community groups who live near these projects. The scheme could definitely help to regenerate those coastal communities. The paper also set out how communities can own a stake in those. Through these proposals, we aim to provide communities with consistency and certainty. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that we are already looking into ways to ensure that communities living near new onshore wind generation are recognised for their service to the country.

Amendments 82D, 84A and 84B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to establish the financial benefit schemes as detailed in Clause 26. They would also ensure that eligible infrastructure projects constructed prior to Royal Assent to this Bill are included within the scope of the scheme. I acknowledge the intention of the amendments: to ensure that the scheme is not confined to those who live near eligible infrastructure built after the Bill is enacted. I must resist this amendment, for the reasons I will set out.

The aim of Clause 26 is to ensure that households that will live close to new electricity transmission infrastructure are appropriately recognised for their service. The Government understand that many of these projects are planned over the next few years. It is our intention that the scheme will run for a set period of time, and the Government require the flexibility to review the effectiveness of the scheme and determine whether it ought to continue for a longer period or come to an end after a certain date. Amendment 82D would remove that flexibility and result in greater time and monetary costs to bring the scheme to a close. Additionally, Amendments 84A and 84B would expand the financial benefit scheme by including works which have already been completed.

Around twice as much new transmission network infrastructure will be required by 2030 as has been constructed over the past decade. We believe it is only right that this unprecedented increase in the pace of construction is appreciated and that communities are recognised for the service to the country. Extending the scheme to historical infrastructure would be moving away from this purpose. We must also consider the substantial additional cost in extending the scheme in this manner. The increased complexity in identifying many more eligible households, as well as the increase in the number of discounts being paid out, would vastly inflate the cost of the scheme, as well as delay current rollout plans, due to the increased administrative challenges. However, although it would not be appropriate to modify the scheme in the manner that these amendments propose, I am happy to inform noble Lords that the Government are currently finalising details on eligibility for infrastructure where construction has recently commenced, as we recognise that there are projects vital to clean power 2030 that will have begun before the commencement of the scheme outlined in Clause 26.

Amendment 84C seeks to prevent the costs of community benefit schemes being borne by energy bill payers. I understand and appreciate the intention of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to protect consumers from rising energy bills. However, I will again set out the reasons why I have to resist this amendment. One of the Government’s five missions is to make Great Britain a clean energy superpower. This will boost our energy independence and reduce electricity bills. Our electricity network is key to achieving this. As we increase low-carbon and renewable energy generation, we will need to increase the scale of the transmission network at pace to keep up with demand. It will not be possible to deliver secure electricity supply vital to growth and prosperity without a transmission network that can transport it. This financial benefit scheme aims to increase community acceptability of electricity infrastructure and, in doing so, has the potential to reduce opposition and associated planning delays.

The Government’s current intention for the scheme, as outlined in Clause 26, is for the cost to be borne by an obligation on electricity suppliers. However, although they are not mandated to do so, it is expected that suppliers will recoup these costs by passing them on to their customers. For example, the warm home discount scheme is funded via an obligation on energy suppliers that is recouped via energy bills. Using alternatives, such as funding the scheme through Exchequer funding, would not be appropriate, as the bill discount scheme forms part of a broader package which has been developed to improve acceptability of transmission infrastructure, which in turn could help reduce constraint costs, if successful in supporting the accelerated delivery of critical transmission infrastructure. Because of this, the Government believe that it is most appropriate that the scheme should be funded through bills.

Preliminary estimates for the cost of both the bill discount scheme and the community funds guidance are around 80p to £1.50 per year per average household electricity bill, although this estimate is subject to change in our future impact assessment, set to be published alongside secondary legislation. Should this community benefit package, alongside our wider package of reforms, succeed in supporting the accelerated delivery of critical transmission network infrastructure, we could avoid up to £4 billion in constraint payments in 2030, compared with the scenario where delays persist. Those costs will be met by the consumers. This is as outlined in analysis from the National Energy System Operator.

I turn to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We always enjoy hearing the Yorkshire dimension on our Bills in the House. The amendment seeks to expand the financial benefits scheme from households living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near existing transmission network infrastructure. I acknowledge the good intent behind the amendment in recognising communities that have hosted infrastructure for years. However, for reasons that I will set out, I must resist this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. She has mentioned the working paper in relation to several amendments, including mine. I welcome the words that she has given and the direction of travel. However, we have the usual phrase, that “in due course” something will come forward. The Minister may not have the answer to hand, but if there is a possibility of bringing forward those proposals in time for Report in relation to this group of amendments, it would be welcomed across the House.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, the amendments reflect a shared desire across this House to ensure that our forests are designed and managed sustainably and responsibly. As the role of forestry continues to evolve, whether in climate policy, nature recovery or renewable energy, it is right that we scrutinise the balance between economic, ecological and social priorities. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I do not have the hands-on experience of managing forestry that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, does. My mother’s family home was in the middle of Savernake Forest, so it is very close to my heart, and the three elderly uncles who lived there when I was growing up worked in the forest in exactly the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They did active work for the Forestry Commission: the kind of work that the noble Lord was describing.

Clause 28 sets out to amend the Forestry Act 1967 to grant the forestry authorities powers to pursue electricity generation from renewable sources within the public forest estate. Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, seeks to restrict forestry authorities to supplying or using only waste materials in the context of renewable electricity generation from biomass. I completely understand that the intention behind the amendment is to prevent large-scale biomass operations on forest estate and inappropriate harvesting practices in the name of renewable energy, but I suggest that the concern is already addressed in statute by the balancing duty laid out in the Forestry Act 1967.

Clause 28 of the Bill applies the balancing duty specifically to renewable electricity, which means that forestry authorities are required to balance their renewable electricity functions with their forestry responsibilities and the conservation of natural beauty and flora and fauna of special interest. If the noble Lord is concerned that, without his amendment, the Forestry Commission would be able to engage in large-scale deforestation for the purpose of biomass, the Government’s categorical view is that that would not be consistent with the commission’s statutory duties.

Furthermore, I believe that the amendment would have unintended consequences that could constrain routine woodland management practices, including existing operations that contribute to the health of existing woodlands and the sustainable supply of biomass. Forestry authorities are committed to delivering the sustainable management of our forests and meeting the requirements set out in the UK forestry standards. These standards are upheld through processes such as thinning, where selected young trees are removed to enhance the quality and health of the broader woodland area—I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, referred to this. Through that process, all the material produced could be used for biomass. The proposed amendment could have the unintended effect of producing a narrow interpretation of “waste” that could exclude material most suitable for energy generation, such as material produced through the thinning process. This would limit the uses of forest materials and ultimately would be wasteful in itself.

Finally, it is important to note that sustainably sourced biomass can play an important role in our renewable energy systems, in transitioning away from fossil fuels and in meeting our net zero targets. Existing frameworks and duties provide a high bar for the Forestry Commission’s role as manager of the nation’s forests. These existing statutory duties underpin the commission’s current practices, including the sustainable supply of biomass, already operating at a smaller scale, as part of routine and acceptable day-to-day woodland management practices. The Forestry Commission has no plans to engage in the development of large-scale biomass technologies in the forests that it manages. It is for these reasons that I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I will consider Amendments 97A, 87B and 88A together. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendments, which aim to protect the forest estate from adverse impacts as a result of renewable electricity activities. I reiterate that our public forests are a precious national asset providing vital environmental, social and economic benefits, and this legislation will not change that fact.

The noble Baroness mentioned using wood in construction. Just before Recess, I visited an office building just across the Thames from here that was constructed using timber. It is a fantastic building. It looks out onto a small woodland as well, which makes it even better. So that is an important factor.

The forestry authorities’ key statutory duties remain to promote the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, the management of forests and the production and supply of timber and other forest products. The additional revenue stream produced from the sale of electricity from renewable energy developments will enhance their ability to deliver their existing objectives.

Amendments 87A and 87B would require the forestry authorities to replace any woodland lost to renewable electricity development by double, with this being planted as near as possible to the original site. I reassure the noble Baroness that the size of the public forest estate will not reduce as a result of renewable energy developments. The estimated footprint of renewable electricity projects will be relatively small and there will be no net loss of woodland area. Renewable energy installations are successfully integrated into woodlands in many areas of Scotland. Scottish officials explained to mine that, generally speaking, where trees might be felled for, say, access purposes during the construction phase, they can be replanted once the access is no longer required.

It is the Government’s view that the amendment is unnecessary as there is already existing statutory provision to ensure that impact is mitigated in both the Forestry Act and the planning and development process. Therefore, permanent deforestation at concerning scale for the purpose of renewable electricity development would not be consistent with the Forestry Commission’s existing statutory duties.

Furthermore, I believe the amendments could have the unintended effect of limiting the ability to utilise new and potentially more suitable land to create new woodland habitats when undertaking compensatory tree planting. Some locations are less suitable for woodland creation, and replanting woodland as close as possible to the installation may not align with ecological and other environmental and timber-supply priorities.

The amendment may also limit the ability to pursue restoration measures beyond compensatory tree planting that could deliver greater environmental value. The Forestry Commission will ensure that compensatory planting takes place where woodland is permanently lost to renewable energy projects, but the planning process can often identify more effective ways of enhancing ecology and biodiversity. We would not want these alternative approaches to be constrained as a result of this legislation.

Amendment 88A specifically requests that Clause 28(6) is removed completely. The intended effect of this is to prevent regulations being made for purposes beyond those explicitly set out in the Bill. Many examples of the provisions set out in subsection (6) can be found in any large Bill. They are technical provisions that do not affect the fundamental purpose for which regulations can be made. In this case, that fundamental purpose is determined by subsection (5). I reassure the noble Baroness that, if regulations were to be made in reliance on the power in subsection (6) to make, for example, incidental or supplementary provisions, the scope of those regulations could not be broadened in the way that her amendment appears to be concerned about.

Further, the reference in subsection (6) to the ability to make different provisions for different purposes does not mean that any of those purposes can go beyond the general purpose set out in subsection (5). They cannot.

I note for completeness that the Government are currently reviewing subsection (5) in response to recommendations made in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary for the intended effect. Given the existing provisions and the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness is reassured and I hope she will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would place a limit on the amount of the public forest estate that forestry authorities may use for renewable electricity projects. I recognise that our public forests are a national asset and that this amendment has been made in the spirit of protecting them. However, the existing statutory duties and regulatory frameworks will prevent excessive development of the forest estate. The estimated footprint of these renewable electricity projects will be relatively small. There will be no net loss to woodland area or the size of the public forest estate as a result of the renewable electricity projects. Furthermore, any renewable electricity developments will be subject to the relevant planning process and considered against the forestry authorities’ existing statutory balancing duty set out in the Forestry Act 1967.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

The Minister gave a very impressive list of different pieces of statute, guidance and legislation from right across the spectrum that guides the Forestry Commission in its work. I just want to plant the idea in her head that perhaps the time has come for some legislation that consolidates all of those requirements. It is now nearly 60 years since we last had a forestry Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will pass my noble friend’s comments on to the Defra Minister.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, if this was not the House of Lords, I think I would ask for a round of applause for the Minister. That was very concentrated information over about 15 minutes without even a breath, so my congratulations to her.

Clearly, there is another debate that needs to happen. I am absolutely fascinated by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the Forestry Commission is not too strongly into planting trees. That could just explain the fact that we are rather behind on our tree planting targets in this country. I really welcomed the in-depth, practical view of how the Forestry Commission worked from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.

As far as my amendment is concerned, I can see from what the Minister said in answer to one of the other amendments that the role model here may be what is happening in Scotland. I will look at that further and try to understand further what the Government are trying to achieve in terms of the Forestry Commission and renewable energy. I may or may not come back to this on Report, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, Amendment 92 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, Amendment 94A in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Amendment 94B in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These amendments focus on a matter of strategic and national importance: the protection of prime agricultural land in the face of increasing pressure from non-agricultural development, particularly the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure. The arguments have been well made already in this short debate, so I can be brief.

In bringing these amendments, my noble friends rightly highlight the wider context in which we debate this issue. The agricultural sector has been under immense pressure from market volatility, environmental challenges and, regrettably, punitive tax measures such as the family farms tax raid. Against that backdrop, it is more important than ever that we protect our best and most versatile land, not just for farmers but for the long-term food security of our nation. The Government must support an approach that balances the need to scale up renewable energy with the critical need to maintain our ability to feed ourselves.

These amendments make a strong case for preventing the unnecessary loss of high-quality agricultural land. As I and other noble Lords have previously highlighted Committee, some of the largest solar developments are being approved without proper regard for the grade or quality of the land being sacrificed. Every one of the large-scale solar farms approved under NSIP that I have looked at has been materially located on best and most versatile land. That is not just a matter for the farming community; it is a matter of national food security. We cannot create a future in which we can switch on our lights and heat our homes but are unable to feed ourselves. We must not let the pursuit of energy security come at the expense of food security.

As others have highlighted, a disproportionate percentage of our best and most versatile land is going to solar. This is madness when 58% of our farmed land is not in the BMV category and there is also a significant amount of unclassified and unfarmed land that could be used for renewable development. With the Government’s ambition to triple solar capacity by 2030, the pressure on land is only going to intensify. Unless active steps are taken now to guide that development sensibly and strategically, we will continue to see the erosion of our agricultural capacity and, with it, increased dependence on imported food.

These amendments are both timely and necessary. They would ensure that solar and other non-agricultural developments are directed towards less productive land or even non-productive land, leaving our best farmland for the essential job of feeding our population. I urge the Minister to take these amendments seriously and offer clear assurances that under no circumstances will the Secretary of State approve developments that compromise the UK’s food security.

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

My Lords, Amendments 89, 92, 94A and 94B relate to Clause 28 and the protection of agricultural land. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for tabling these amendments. Is that the right pronunciation of Drumlean? I am glad he is not here, because I know he would shout at me if I got it wrong.

Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, seeks to prohibit the construction of ground-mounted solar farms on land of grades 1, 2 and 3A. The Government view food security as national security and champion British farming and environmental protection. All solar projects undergo a rigorous planning process, considering environmental impacts, local community views and any impact on food production. The Government believe that solar generation does not threaten food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mounted solar PV panels covered an estimated 21,200 hectares, which is only around 0.1%—not 1%—of the total land area of the UK. Even in the most ambitious scenarios, only up to 0.4% of UK land will be devoted to solar in 2030.

The Government are in total agreement with the noble Baroness in that we want to get the balance right between protecting fertile agricultural land and facilitating renewable energy. The Government agree that protecting food security should always be a priority. That is why land use and food production are already material considerations in planning. Planning guidance makes it clear that, wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where the development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land. However, we do not believe the accelerated rollout of solar power under present planning arrangements poses a threat to food security.

The government consultation on the land use framework sought feedback on what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. The land use framework, to be published later this year, will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land. It will also lay out how government intends to align the different incentives on land; ensure that joined-up decisions are made at national and local levels; and make accessible and high-quality data available.

As such, we believe that this amendment is not necessary to protect agricultural land. Moreover, a total ban on the use of higher-quality land may have several deleterious consequences. Quite often, a site suitable for solar development will contain soil of varying quality. At the moment, the amount of high-quality land proposed to be developed is examined by planning officers. This is a consideration in planning decisions. Were this amendment to be incorporated into the Bill, large projects could be rejected for the sake of a small area of higher-quality soil that constitutes a small fraction of the overall site.

This amendment would reduce the number of economically viable sites for solar generation, which would increase costs for developers. They may seek to recoup these by placing higher bids in the contracts for difference scheme. That cost is ultimately borne by bill payers. In short, banning all solar development on higher-quality land may endanger the Government’s mission to achieve clean power by 2030, increasing the exposure of British consumers to volatile imported fossil fuels.

I shall touch on the noble Baroness’s point about solar on domestic and non-domestic buildings. Deploying rooftop solar remains a key priority for the Government and we will publish the future homes standard this autumn. The new standard will ensure that solar panels are installed on the vast majority of new-build homes once it comes into force, saving households hundreds of pounds a year on their energy bills. That will support our ambition that the 1.5 million homes we will build over the course of this Parliament will be high-quality, well designed and sustainable.

Additionally, the recently published Solar Roadmap contained several actions for both government and industry to support the deployment of solar PV in the commercial sector. These included unpicking the complex landlord/tenant considerations in the sector by developing and distributing a toolkit for owners and occupiers. The Government set out that rooftop solar on new non-domestic buildings will, where appropriate, play an important role in the future buildings standard, due to be introduced later this year.

The Government have also announced £180 million of funding for Great British Energy to help around 200 schools and 200 NHS sites to install rooftop solar. We expect the first of these installations to be complete by the end of the summer—summer being a flexible concept, so whenever that comes. The Government are assessing the potential to drive the construction of solar canopies on outdoor car parks over a certain size through a call for evidence, which closed on 18 June. We will publish the government response to that consultation. I trust that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with that response and I kindly ask her not to press her amendment.

Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to remove solar projects on high-quality land from the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject. I know that he has spent many years serving in local government and has considerable expertise. However, I hope that he recognises the contradiction in his argument. At the same time as he argues about the very difficult conditions that farmers face in growing food, these are brought about by climate change, but he is using them as arguments not to tackle it by moving to clean energy—so there is a bit of a contradiction in the argument there.

It is vitally important that every project is submitted to the planning process that best suits its impact, scale, and complexity.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The point is that the difficulty that farmers are under may be aggravated by poor weather, either too wet or too cold, but the real problem is that this Government are engaged in a war on the countryside by undermining the finances of every family farm and damaging food production, even with the stuff on bioethanol, taking 1 million tonnes of wheat out of the market. That is the reason why farms are doing so badly—it is not to do with climate change.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord was referring specifically to climate impacts on food growing, which I felt was a bit ironic as we are trying to tackle the climate change that is bringing them about with exactly these measures to use clean energy.

The Government recognise the benefit of returning control over decisions to local planning authorities. As of 31 December 2025, we will double the NSIP threshold for solar projects from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts. However, the Government believe that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher-quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the NSIP process.

The NSIP regime is rigorous. Although the decision is not taken locally, local engagement is still at the heart of the process. Under the current legislative framework, developers taking projects through the NSIP regime are required to undertake community consultation as part of the preparation for the application. This gives communities ample opportunity to feed in their views and shape the project. Currently, the level and quality of community consultation, among other factors, is taken into account by decision-makers. I am glad the noble Lord made a protest about the one that he was subject to; I hope communities will do that if they feel that those consultation processes are not being carried out in good faith.

Moreover, considerations under the NSIP regime include any impact on land use and food production. Planning guidance is clear that poorer-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land, avoiding the use of best and most versatile agricultural land where possible. This is in line with the policy governing decision-making by local planning authorities. Even if there were a marginal gain in public confidence from returning the decision to local authorities, we would not expect the outcomes to change.

This marginal gain must be weighed against the likely costs of this proposal. First, a proper examination of the potential impacts of a large-scale solar farm is a major and lengthy undertaking. Giving this responsibility to local planning departments may place an untenable burden on resources which are already under pressure.

Secondly, it is right that projects of such scale, size or complexity as to be nationally significant should be considered through the NSIP process. These proposals are of strategic importance to the country as a whole, and as such central government is the most appropriate decision-maker. Changing policy to allow decisions about these projects to be taken by local authorities may increase investor uncertainty at a pivotal moment for the Government’s 2030 clean power mission. This may jeopardise our work to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, increase energy security and protect consumers from global price shocks, just at the very time when Members have raised the issue of security.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I am prompted to intervene only because the head of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, nearly seems to be falling off with nodding. The point is that the NSIP regime is combining schemes which, frankly, should normally go through the local planning authority. These are disparate, small, stand-alone schemes which fall under NSIP only because the system is being abused to string them all together quite artificially. There are no capacity constraints in local government planning to do with these smaller schemes; we know where they are and we know the issues. To suggest that stringing together a dozen different small schemes is nationally significant demonstrates the falsehood and the paucity behind the argument that NSIP should be engaged in this manner.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

These are geographical schemes. As I said, we are increasing the size of schemes that will go to NSIP.

Lastly, I am concerned that accepting this amendment would imply that there are some issues on which the NSIP regime is either not competent or not qualified to adjudicate. This is simply not the case. Setting this precedent may reduce public confidence in the NSIP planning system as it applies to other types of infrastructure. It may undermine trust in decisions which have already been taken. For all the reasons I have outlined—although it sounds as though I have not convinced the noble Lord—I hope he will not press his amendment and will continue to work with us on this issue.

Amendment 94A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to prohibit battery developments on best and most versatile agricultural land. The Clean Power 2030 Action Plan set out an expansion of renewable technologies required to achieve the 2030 ambition, including the acceleration of grid-scale battery development from around 5 gigawatts at present to at least 23 to 27 gigawatts by 2030. Grid-scale batteries, which are rapidly falling in cost and increasing in scale, allow the power system to store cheap excess renewable energy and use this, rather than expensive polluting gas, at times of need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Can the Minister not deal with the problem of patches of best-quality land on a site with a classic de minimis rule of, say, 5%? That would still allow us to protect the best land without needless delay and Defra—or the new framework that the Minister mentioned—could easily provide the data for that purpose.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that if the noble Baroness wished to put that forward in the land use framework it would be considered. I always worry about de minimis rules because there will always be the exception to the rule that goes slightly over it, and then you end up with a big problem sorting that out. However, if she wishes to feed that into Defra’s part of the land use framework consultation, I am sure it will take account of it.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her extensive response and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, especially those who have given support. Many interesting points have been raised, and some very worrying statistics. I simply repeat that, especially given the international situation, we really need to think about national food security and resilience. We import 40% of our food and, if we got into a war situation, we would need to grow more than we are at the moment. It seems counterintuitive to be allowing good agricultural land to be used to generate electricity when this can be done elsewhere.

I will not repeat all the points previously made, except to say that we also need the good will of the British people. We need to ensure that local people can have their views heard. I was heartened when the Minister said that there would be community consultation, but too often these consultations are binned and not acted on—people listen and then some other outcome happens. I hope that community consultation in which local people expressed that they really did not want solar farms would be respected and the schemes would be turned down.

I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not address the points about foreign investors leasing this land long term. I imagine that we do not know who they are and we are not checking on who is buying what. I am very disappointed to hear that the Minister is not prepared to recognise the depth of feeling on this issue. I withdraw the amendment now, but hope that we can have further consultations and some movement can be made to address what all of us have tried to say about making sure that prime agricultural land does not have solar farms on it. I reserve the right to bring this back at the next stage of the Bill.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I do not envy the Minister having to respond to this very cogent debate, which at first sight seemed important but not as in-depth as it has turned out to be. We on these Benches strongly support the amendment in my noble friend’s name, and she made a very strong argument for its adoption. Other key points have been made and we have broad agreement with them, dependent on the detail that will come, I guess, from the Minister.

First, on listed building consent, which is currently free—not the project itself but the actual listed building consent—we would support that remaining free of charge for the owners of those listed buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, clearly made the very strong case for its continuation. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a categorical reason for its retention.

Secondly, on enforcement and appeals, it seems to me that the legislation that enables costs of appeals to be made ought to be enforced and enacted, and the money should go to where it belongs—not to the Treasury but to the Planning Inspectorate. Again, that was a strongly made argument with which we have broad agreement.

Finally, the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—which he and I raised during the long debates on the levelling-up Bill—has come back again. He rightly raises the issue, as I did at the time, that councils ought to have a local plan and, without it, the planning system falters or, indeed, often fails. It would be good to hear from the Minister what actions the Government intend to take to encourage and enforce the idea of all councils having a local plan, albeit within the context of further reorganisation of local government, which will put such concentration of energy on to a strategic planning system for local councils in jeopardy.

This has been a really good debate, and we have broad agreement with all the points that have been made.

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

My Lords, that was a very interesting, wide-ranging, detailed and thoughtful debate around many planning matters, including some of the amendments that had been tabled. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. As a planning geek myself, it is never a trouble to listen to these types of discussions. I will answer some specific points, but I would like to make a couple of general comments first.

In introducing her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked for a more radical approach to planning. The noble Lord, Lord Young, set out the radical approach even better than I could myself. I have, of course, heard completely opposing views on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill before us, with one set of people saying that it is too radical and another saying it is not radical enough. I always think that if you get to there, you are probably in about the right place, but your Lordships will be the judge of that.

The Bill is a step in driving forward the infrastructure planning and changes to planning that we want to see in order to get economic growth going, but it is not the only step. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, outlined, as we continue with our planning for new authorities, there will be further change in introducing the strategic plans—that is coming forward in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I look forward to debating those changes with noble Lords in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, also mentioned the investment that is needed in planning. We are very aware of the fact that the cuts to local government funding that we all experienced over a couple of decades have meant that the investment in planning was not always there. We have already put £46 million in to try to improve the investment in planning and the quantity and capacity of planning departments. We will continue to work on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of local plans. We are already making progress on that. The Secretary of State has made it very clear to local authorities that she expects to see local plans in place. You jeopardise the whole process of development in this country when you get an out-of-date local plan, and developers can ride roughshod over local wishes because there is no local plan in place. It is a very important part of the process. The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the issue of how these local plans will be reconstructed when we get new authorities in place. Of course, much of the work will have been done. We will not need to redo all the studies; they can be aggregated into those wider plans. But it is important that those plans will be in place.

To pick up a point that is not in these amendments, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that I am aware of the issue with level 7 apprenticeships in planning. I was very keen on planning apprenticeships and having that route to good quality and more capacity in planning teams. I am discussing that with colleagues in the Department for Education and will comment on that further when I have had more discussions with them.

Turning now to Amendments 94FB and 94 FC, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I understand the importance of ensuring that local planning authorities or the Mayor of London are not burdened with unnecessary obligations, particularly in relation to fee setting. That is why I want to be very clear. The Government’s intention is to pursue a local variation model. The approach will not require local planning authorities or the Mayor of London to set their own fees but instead provides those authorities with the option to vary from a national default planning fee where they consider it necessary to do so to better meet their costs.

However, we believe it is important to retain a flexibility within that power. The inclusion of “or require” preserves the ability to mandate local fee setting should there be a compelling case for it in the future—for example, to improve service delivery or address disparities in performance. Removing that flexibility would risk constraining our future ability to evolve the system. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about how we will monitor planning performance. He will know very well that an extensive planning monitoring regime in already in place, which local authorities have to meet. Keeping an eye on this, as well, will help with that. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that retaining this power in its current form represents a balanced and prudent approach and that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for tabling Amendment 94G. I am entirely in accord with her on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the nature and size of the planning application. In her very clear explanation of her amendment, she rightly highlighted the importance of our SME building sector, which we also saw highlighted, as she will remember, in the report of the Competition and Markets Authority. I share her intent to do all we can to support SMEs. Indeed, it was a local SME builder who helped me kick off my housing development programme when I was a council leader. It was a mutual arrangement—we helped support them and they helped support what we were doing. There can be very good arrangements locally.

However, the Bill already provides a clear and robust framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the proportionality issue. As I just mentioned, the Government intend to introduce a local variation model under which a nationally set default fee, developed through benchmarking and public consultation, will serve as a baseline, as is currently the case with planning fees. To answer the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Neville-Rolfe, this will account for variations in the size and nature of sites.

The model ensures both consistency and transparency in fee setting while allowing local planning authorities the flexibility to depart from the nationally set default fee where circumstances warrant. The Bill requires that any locally set fee must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service—I hope that picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—and that local communities must be consulted on proposed changes. Importantly, the Secretary of State will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate, thereby providing an important safeguard to uphold consistency and equity across the system. I am therefore confident that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve.

On Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I agree that well-resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need, but also for safeguarding those communities from unauthorised or harmful development. We appreciate the intention of the amendment in supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity but, as planning enforcement serves the wider public interest, it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support these services. Allowing planning authorities to raise planning fees to cover enforcement costs could result in disproportionately high fees. We are concerned that that may deter development at a time when we are committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building.

To answer the noble Baroness’s question directly, this was not an oversight in drafting the Bill; we did consider it. More broadly, the Government have, as I have already mentioned, committed to the £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful for the Minister’s response to the amendment. My concern is that it looks as though the Government are going to build on functional flood plains. That is why the role of property resilience measures is so important, and why the enforcement should be included in the fees. So, I hope she will think again.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that and for her long-standing lobbying on flooding issues. We have a group of amendments later today on flooding. I hope that I can pick up some of the questions she has raised under those amendments.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his Amendment 96, which seeks to ensure that guidance to local planning authorities on setting planning fees explicitly advises them to include the costs of essential services, such as archaeology, provided by local authorities. We recognise that, especially in two-tier areas, planning authorities may need to obtain expertise from other authorities to determine applications. Where local authorities choose to set their own fees, they will be expected to take account of the costs incurred in obtaining such contributions and reflect them appropriately in their fee-setting process.

As I have just highlighted, we are currently undertaking a national benchmarking exercise and engaging with local planning authorities to develop a consistent and evidence-based approach to local fee setting. A consultation on the national default fee schedule and the framework for local fee setting will then be published later this year. These matters are best addressed through secondary legislation and detailed guidance, as that provides the flexibility we may need—I can see the noble Lord nodding; he has probably given that answer himself from the Dispatch Box—to respond to evolving practice and local circumstances. That is particularly true in planning, which is such a dynamic area. As such, I do not consider it necessary to place the requirement in primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I apologise to the Committee, as I should have done that earlier.

Under the previous Government, as part of the capacity and capability programme, the planning skills delivery fund was established to support local planning authorities to manage backlogs and strengthen professional expertise. Around £24 million was committed over a two-year period, in recognition that, for far too long, a shortage of skilled planners has represented a barrier to effective development and regeneration and the delivery of sustainable communities. I am pleased that this Government have continued that funding.

It has been clear from the debate that, across all sides of your Lordships’ Committee, there is a shared recognition of the central importance of training, whether, as we have heard, on good design, the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity, the practical application of planning law or, importantly, building healthy communities—as ably argued by my noble friend Lord Moynihan on his Amendment 99AA.

There is broad agreement that both elected members and professional officers must be equipped with the knowledge and confidence to take decisions in the public interest. I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken on and reinforced the value of a well-trained planning system not only for councillors but for planning officers and, indeed, all those who play a formal role in shaping or determining planning applications. Ultimately, if we want a system that is trusted, effective and capable of delivering the homes and infrastructure that our country needs, investment in skills and training must remain at its heart.

I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his Amendment 103. His contribution underlined that training should not be regarded as simply a local requirement but as something that ought to apply consistently across all levels of government, including civil servants and Ministers. That emphasis on alignment between national and local implementation is an important reminder that central government must also hold itself to the same standards that it expects of local authorities. He is also right about the importance of driving up standards in decision-making. I therefore ask the Minister to set out how the Government intend to align central and local government training standards. How will they help bridge the gaps between national policy direction and local implementation?

I also thank and support my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendment 162, which requires local authorities to appoint a chief planning officer to ensure professional leadership. I am sure that the Government can do nothing but support this amendment. If they do, I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks a chief planning officer’s role might be in co-ordinating central government, local authorities and industry stakeholders.

Amendment 99A from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, also raises the important issue of design. In government, we did important work on design, and it was very disappointing when the Government announced the closure of the Office for Place. Well-designed homes that are in keeping with local vernacular are what local residents want and what this country needs, which is why design has such an important role to play in planning. Therefore, can the Minister give the House a clear assurance that the Government still recognise the important role that good design plays in housing delivery? In addition, how will the Government ensure that the future training requirements are properly supported so they are realistic for local planning authorities already under considerable pressures? How can we be confident that training will genuinely enhance decision making, rather than becoming a formality, and how best can consistency across the system be achieved while still respecting the role of autonomy in planning? These are important questions that have been asked in the last hour or so, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Thurlow, Lord Moynihan and Lord Lansley, for their amendments, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this very important debate around training. I agree with what noble Lords have said generally about the importance of training in this area. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Best, Lord Carrington and Lord Banner, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Sater, for their contributions, which are much appreciated.

Before I started working on the Bill, I did not realise that it was not compulsory for members to have training in planning. It has always been compulsory on my local authority, both at county level and Stevenage level, and I was quite shocked to find out that it was not compulsory.

Before I refer to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I did not really recognise his description of rows of box-type construction. Since I became a Minister, I have visited literally dozens of construction sites across the country, from Durham to the Isles of Scilly, and from Greenwich to Northern Ireland. What I have seen is that they do not have this issue. There is certainly not a lack of regard for design, biodiversity or zero carbon. We have a dynamic building industry, overseen in planning terms by local councillors and officers who genuinely want the best for their communities. I have seen some excellent examples. I am sure there are some that are not as excellent as some of the ones I have seen, but this is a very dynamic industry, and it is doing its best to provide homes and communities for people across our country.

I turn to Amendments 99A, 99AA and 100, which seek to ensure that the training of committee members includes climate change, biodiversity, ecological surveying, design and healthy placemaking. I assure noble Lords that the Government believe that all these matters are crucial to good planning, and all feature strongly in the national planning policy framework. To respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on her point about design, the Government are absolutely committed not just to good design in the properties themselves but in placemaking as well. That is set out in the NPPF and in design guides, and we will be publishing our future homes and building standard later this year, which will go further in setting out what we expect. I always had a rule when I was a council leader that I would not build any homes that I would not want to live in myself. I hope to apply the same guidelines as a Minister.

I would expect these matters to feature in any training for planning committee members. For instance, it would be unthinkable for the training not to mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain. The Government believe, however, that it is unnecessary to stipulate all that in the Bill. It is customary to use regulations or guidance to set out details with regard to the implementation of planning law, and the training of planning committee members should not be an exception.

The details for the training are currently under development. We will continue to engage with local government and industry to ensure that the training covers all the basic principles of planning. It would be impractical in primary legislation to provide a complete list of matters that must form part of the training content. This is an area that develops all the time, and we want to make sure we have a mechanism for changing it as things change.

There will be an element of local consideration in this. For example, I think chalk streams were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have chalk streams in my area; they are not right across the country. Everyone should know about them, in my view, and I always talk about them. If you lived in an area where they were present, you might want more training on that aspect.

Furthermore, such a list would have to be kept up to date. That process would take up valuable time in Parliament to amend the Bill. 

Amendment 101 seeks to include National Highways, local highway authorities and integrated transport authorities as local planning authorities to which mandatory training will apply. Although National Highways, local highway authorities and integrated transport authorities are intricately involved with spatial development, they are not local planning authorities and do not have a decision-making role in planning committees, which is the focus of this Government’s training reforms. We therefore do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend the provisions to them.

 Amendment 102 raises important questions about who the training should apply to. The Government introduced mandatory training for members of local planning authorities to improve the decision-making process for the many planning applications that are considered by local planning authorities every year through the planning committees and delegated authority. Many councillors sitting on planning committees are proficient in planning matters, but that is not necessarily the case, nor is it expected to be. Councillors are lay people with busy lives, juggling their councillor duties with other responsibilities. It is important that we get the balance right between training that is necessary for them to be able to take their decision-making properly but also to enable them to make the kind of decisions that make sense to local people. The training is therefore aimed at them so that they better understand the key principles of planning. In doing so, we want to ensure there is a higher level of debate and consistency in decision-making across the country.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly raised the issues of standards. I pay tribute to our planning officers. They face unacceptable behaviour from the public but also, occasionally, regrettably, from councillors. I can reassure the noble Baroness that I am about to embark on a significant piece of work with the code of conduct task force. We will be talking about that more in the early part of next year.

The training is not intended for officers of local planning authorities with responsibility for making or advising on planning decisions, nor any other person to whom decision-making functions are delegated. That is because it can reasonably be expected that all officers who have a formal responsibility for advising on or determining planning decisions are recruited with an emphasis on professional planning qualifications or have extensive planning experience. As we know, they are also able to call in support from experts on key issues where it would not be proportionate for a local authority to have that expertise in house.

On Amendment 103, for similar reasons, the training is not intended for civil servants who make decisions on behalf of Ministers. As noble Lords will be aware, if an applicant appeals or applies directly to the Secretary of State, a planning inspector considers the case. They are planning professionals recruited for their expertise and the Planning Inspectorate provides them with considerable ongoing training.

On the training of Ministers, it is important to highlight that Ministers need, and get, bespoke training and support to fulfil their decisions. They also operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance. It is probably a good soundbite to say that Ministers should also be subject to the same training requirements as a councillor. From a personal point of view, I welcome training. I have had some training, and I am happy to take it on. But I understand that in practice the role is different. We therefore do not intend to extend these mandatory training requirements to Ministers who make planning decisions—for instance, when they call in applications.

Lastly, Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, ably assisted by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Best, seeks to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities either separately or jointly. The noble Lord is quite right to point to the practical approach of local government in some areas in developing joint planning functions to improve their capacity and resilience, and the scope of their work, which can often help with recruitment and retention as well—and the noble Lord also spoke about appointing a suitably qualified chief planning officer.

I share the noble Lord’s ambition of ensuring that all planning decisions are made with professional leadership. I am not convinced that we need to put the chief planning officer role on a statutory footing. We need to consider what a very clear rationale for such a step might be, and I am very cautious about overlegislating as the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to determine the structure of their planning departments. In practice, local planning authorities already have a senior officer who performs a function similar to that of a chief planning officer, but I will continue to reflect on that because as we go through the process of the further changes we are anticipating to the planning system, I think we need to consider it further. I hope to carry on discussions with the noble Lord and others on that. For now, for these reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I have a question. She mentioned that when Ministers—who are lay people, not specialists in this field or professionally qualified in planning—take decisions, they are so advised. I cannot quite get in my mind the distinction between a Minister making a quasi-judicial decision on planning and a councillor or a mayor. None of us has mentioned mayors, but mayors are contained within the provisions of the Bill. Of course, I understand why the Secretary of State might want to resist having to get a qualification, but that is not really answering the point because this is not just about the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government. This is about Secretaries of State and Ministers throughout all the departments of state, including the Treasury, which is setting planning policy and so forth. Can the Minister help me by explaining clearly what the distinction is and why the Government appear to be resisting this so strongly?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I come back to the point I made that if an applicant applies to the Secretary of State, a planning inspector would consider the case and then advise the Minister or the Secretary of State who was taking the decision. Planning inspectors are highly qualified and highly trained. Regarding the training of Ministers, we have access to bespoke training. I have undertaken some training. Because we have to operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance, when we are making decisions we have a different call on us from that in local planning committees.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fuller does not need to keep the Minister on her feet. This being Committee stage, he has the right to speak as many times as he likes.

I encourage the Minister to take further the last sentiments she expressed in the context of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the words spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It is important that we do something to increase the status of planning officials in local government. I have observed the effect that having chief scientific advisers in government departments has had on science and the way it is regarded within ministries. Over time it has had a really salutary effect. Having a chief planner, someone with that name and status, would be a good way of working back, providing status to the planning profession and making sure, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, that we get a collection of people who understand the limits of their knowledge and the advice that they are given and that the public trust them in that regard.

As a small contribution to that, I have tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to try to rescue level 7 apprenticeships. If the Minister was able to have a word in the ear of her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to encourage her to give a positive response to that, that might solve a range of problems, not only for planning but for other professions where level 7 is an important qualification. The point that my noble friend Lord Fuller made about the importance of taking people who have entered the profession at the technician level and upskilling them to professionals is an important part of a healthy society.

Lastly, I associate the qualities of determination and optimism with the Minister, but does she really believe that we will get to Amendment 135? If she is wavering in that belief, it would be a great help to noble Lords, when the Government realise they might fall short, if they could tell us so that those of us who have amendments late in the day might find an opportunity for more time with our families.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

To take the noble Lord’s last point first, my optimism and determination is to get to Amendment 135, but we shall see. I hope I have reassured him on the point about continuing to reflect on the issues around chief planning officers. I think I already responded to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that, so I hope that reassures him.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I am impressed with the advocacy standing behind the amendments in this short group. It has taken a lot longer than I thought it would. It is clear that there is a real concern regarding the crisis in provision in the planning process and the emphasis on training needs. All these amendments should be non-controversial from a political point of view. They are about supporting apprenticeships and training at all levels and improving the positive aesthetic, pride in planning and career opportunities.

I thank the Minister for agreeing, in her very first few words in winding, with all the amendments proposed—if I heard her correctly. Perhaps that was agreement in principle. I am particularly pleased that she does not recognise my reference to street upon street of matchbox lookalike developments. I think we have been travelling in different directions. As a surveyor, I do a great deal of travelling in the car and on trains. I think the objective is the same and, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think we have to make absolutely sure that the massive developments that will arise from the housebuilding targets the Government have announced do not descend to the lowest common denominator of design and appearance.

I am afraid I am nervous about the reference to addressing our concerns across the group by way of regulation and delegated authority. We all know where that sometimes leads. We will doubtless return to the Minister’s comments on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his Amendment 105. We agree that his argument for a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny here has merit.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Scott and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Lansley and Lord Cameron, for their amendments. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Fuller, for their contributions to this discussion. This group of amendments relates to Clause 51 on the national scheme of delegation, which was debated extensively in the other place and during Second Reading in this House.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her recognition of the need to develop greater consistency and equity in the planning process. Of course, the other motivation is to ensure that councillors can focus their attention both on local plans, where they can really make a difference to place-shaping, and on those local applications that genuinely benefit from their input. Having been a councillor for 27 years, sitting on the planning committee listening to a two-hour debate on whether a fence should be four feet high or five feet high, I think there is a good case for focusing attention on what matters.

I turn first to Amendments 103A and 103B. I understand that these are probing amendments to understand the rationale for the Secretary of State’s powers to issue guidance on the national scheme of delegation and composition of planning committees and why they are not subject to the regulatory procedures which can be scrutinised by Parliament rather than setting it out in primary legislation itself. These powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance are auxiliary to the main powers to make regulations about the national scheme of delegation and the composition of planning committees. The regulations will set out the key requirements and the guidance will supplement them.

As many of us know, the planning system is very complex and nuanced, and there are often calls for clear guidance to complement planning regulations. In line with other powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance within the planning system, we do not propose to make this guidance subject to regulatory procedures. However, there is a clear requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on the guidance along with regulations before reissuing it. This enables all stakeholders, including local planning authorities, to comment and feed into the draft guidance.

On Amendment 104 from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, he asked about national parks authorities—which includes the Broads Authority. They are a special class of local planning authority which make planning decisions for their area. Due to the different governance arrangements and the nature of development in these areas, they were deliberately excluded from the national scheme of delegation provisions, which applies only to conventional local planning authorities. Development corporations and Homes England, when acting as the local planning authority, were also excluded for similar reasons. The justification for intervention in the reform of committees includes creating a more consistent approach to applications for housing development and delivering more predictable outcomes in the planning system in order to achieve growth and support the delivery of 1.5 million homes. There is less imperative to intervene in national park authorities, where we do not envisage large-scale housing developments.

Amendment 105 seeks to make regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure, as just commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I am not convinced that this amendment is needed. It is common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure. I also draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report and has not raised any concerns about either this power or the proposed procedure. Of course, this does not mean there will be no further scrutiny of the proposed regulations. We have included a safeguard in the Bill to require the Secretary of State to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals to ensure that they will work effectively in practice.

Just to pick up the point the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made on NDMPs, it is the intention to publish the NDMPs—I am going to say “in due course”; he knows I do not like that expression, but that is where we are—and I will follow up in writing to him about whether these will automatically be delegated. I think that is under consideration, but I will respond to him in writing on that. However, we do hope to publish them as soon as possible.

I will address Amendment 103ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and Amendments 135HZE and 135HZF, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, together as they both deal with the types of application which should go to committee. Taking Amendment 103ZA first, it would require applications for development not included in the local plan, or for a housing density lower than that specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. The Government also want to ensure that the right development happens in the right areas, and our brownfield-first policy is designed to achieve that. However, there are many applications involved in development which do not conform with a local plan. That does not mean they are all controversial—many are not—and therefore I do not believe that they all need to be considered by committee.

Amendments 135HZE and 135HZF from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, deal with whether certain types of applications should go to committee or not. Taking Amendment 135HZE first, as the noble Lord will know, it is very common for there to be valid planning objections to an application. This amendment would give free rein to committee chairs and chief planning officers to take a great many more applications to committee. As such, it would undermine the whole purpose of the national scheme of delegation, and therefore the Government cannot support it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to interrupt. I am slightly curious: the Government trust a planning officer to make a decision on something, but they do not trust them to determine whether there is a genuinely valid objection to an application? I find that slightly curious.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We trust planning officers, but we do not want to undermine that scheme of delegation.

Amendment 135HZF seeks to ensure that any applications by the council itself or any of its employees or councillors where there are no objections do not need to go to committee. While I understand the noble Lord’s reasons for tabling such an amendment, I again think that this is a matter best dealt with in the regulations rather than in the Bill. Indeed, the recent technical consultation on planning committees sought views on the treatment of such applications. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that we will consider his suggestion alongside the formal responses to that consultation.

To conclude, I assure noble Lords once again that Clause 51 is not about taking away local democratic oversight. It is about improving the system to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities and to give them the time to focus their attention where it really matters.

I now turn to a series of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seek to remove the requirement to create regulations needed for the framework for a mandatory national scheme of delegation and would replace this requirement with a power to make statutory guidance. They would also remove the ability for the Secretary of State to control the size and composition of planning committees.

The Government have been very clear: we want to see a national scheme of delegation introduced to ensure greater certainty across the country and to speed up decision-making to support the delivery of 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. I emphasise that these reforms are a real priority for this Government. We need to ensure that the legal framework for the national scheme of delegation is robust and clear, and that is why we need to legislate for it through regulations. Statutory guidance is not sufficient to provide the certainty and consistency that we want to see.

I also disagree that we should not legislate to control the size and composition of planning committees. I fully accept that many planning committees have slimmed down in recent years and are nearer the optimal size for effective engagement and debate. However, there are still too many which are unwieldy, undermining the quality of decision-making. We firmly believe that there remains a strong case to have powers to regulate the committees’ size and composition. With these explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate about the practicalities of planning application decision-making. I thought the most telling point that the Minister made was in her introductory remarks, when she said that the Government want councillors to focus on local plan making. Local plan making is an absolutely vital building block to planning decision-making, because it sets the local policies within the framework of the National Planning Policy Framework, and it sets out and, in theory, agrees sites for development by business, commerce or for housing—or institutions of various sorts.

In my long time as a local councillor, I have taken through, I think, three or four local plan-making processes, and all my experience tells me that it is very difficult to get local people to engage in the theory of site allocation and what it will mean for them. And that is why I have made the case I have today. Yes, local plans are vital and set the foundations for a plan and for place making for an area, but, equally, we need the flexibility within that for local people to have their say. If local people do not have their say, that essential safeguard, that essential safety valve of an open public discussion about an issue which is controversial, will be taken away, to the detriment of local democracy and national democracy.

However, with those points, and thanking everybody who has contributed to the debate, because it has been a good one, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Well, well, my Lords. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments and for notifying us of her intent, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to oppose that Clause 51 stand part. I will turn to the notice of opposition first. I was tempted to dive straight in to the other amendments, but I will come to those in a moment.

Clause 51 will give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a national scheme of delegation for planning decisions. This will set out which planning functions should be decided by officers and which should be decided by planning committees. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to set out requirements around the size and composition of planning committees. I am aware that some view these powers as an erosion of local democracy. I cannot stress enough that this is absolutely not the Government’s intention.

We recognise and value the vital role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions on what and where to build are shaped by their communities, and we know that most committees make fair and well-informed decisions most of the time—there are, of course, exceptions to that rule—but we believe there are issues around the operation of planning committees that we need to address. These include: a lack of clarity and consistency across the country on which applications will be determined by committee; too much time spent considering applications that are compliant with the local plan or considering niche technical details, such as the one-foot fence height difference that I referred to earlier, including post-permission matters that are best dealt with by professional officers; and a lack of transparency of committee decisions and their consequences.

Clause 51 is aimed at tackling these issues and ensuring that planning committees can operate more effectively. It is intended to allow committees to focus on the applications that really need their input and that matter most to their communities. Together with the mandatory training for members under Clause 50, through this clause we want to see the day-to-day operation of a planning committee transformed, with planning committees making informed decisions in the interest of their community. No one who has been in local government for a while—I think most noble Lords in the Chamber today have been—can honestly say that there is no improvement to be made in the performance of planning committees. With councillors focused on the local plan and key planning applications, we think this improvement can be achieved.

I turn to Amendments 135HZB, 135HZC, 135HZD, 360A and 360B. First, I trust that the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings, and I do not intend to do so. The Home Office has a legal obligation to provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation while their application for asylum is being considered. The Government absolutely recognise the obvious and very legitimate concerns that people have about the use of asylum hotels; we have been clear that we will stop the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, and we have already made progress. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, commented, at peak, under the previous Government in 2023, more than 400 hotels were in use. Now just over 200 remain in use, and that number is coming down all the time. That is a reduction of 6,000 people staying in hotels.

You do not need a very long memory to go back to when there were no asylum hotels—I could go back to 2016, when that was the case, but I prefer to go back to my three years of arguing with the previous Government about the use of hotels in my area. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, commented that we should give local communities the agency that they deserve—I think those were her words. Her Government did not listen; they did not listen to communities, local government or representations from those working with asylum seekers, and they did not listen to businesses across this country, such as the international businesses I have in my area that need the hotels for the effective operation of their businesses. Her Government forced asylum hotels on us and left us with the mess to clear up.

In a very powerful contribution to yesterday’s debate, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that it was “astonishing” that an Opposition who passed legislation very effectively but were not effective in solving the problem are now criticising the Government for failing to do in one year what they failed to do in 14.

We will do the job of cleaning up the mess. We will sort it out, but instead of chucking bricks at each other, I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said yesterday. First, a degree of humility from the party opposite would be very welcome—he said that, not me—and we should absolutely work together to solve this complex issue. Complex issues need careful solutions, not knee-jerk reactions to those who seek to use this issue to divide our country. As well as hypocrisy, I sense a bit of opportunism, and I do not think that is the right way to go; we have to work together on this issue. Knee-jerking will impact worst on those who deserve it least.

Another shocking legacy of the last Government is the 165,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. If we do not get a proper solution to hotel closure, the danger is that those children will go further to the back of the queue.

As for the points about the Rwanda scheme, that scheme cost billions and only four volunteers were ever returned. It was a waste of public money. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, again in yesterday’s debate, very powerfully set out some further concerns about Rwanda. It is time we stopped chucking bricks at each other on this key issue and started working together to resolve it.

In my view, this amendment would result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation and prevent us from proceeding in the controlled and orderly way that we want to. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his comments on this—as has been said in the Chamber, he has more planning knowledge than the rest of us put together—but I know he will know that this is a much more complex issue than can be dealt with by one approach. All these different hotels were granted planning permission by different local authorities, they all had different conditions placed on them and local authorities are looking very carefully at their own hotels to see how they might proceed with this.

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we take very seriously the concerns about the use of hotels to house asylum seekers and we are already taking action, but I am afraid that I just cannot support these amendments, which I suspect were laid for a different purpose altogether. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

Finally, on Amendment 346DB tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, I want to start by thanking him for the insight shared; it is good to be reminded that our debates can be incredibly serious but also very spirited, and that is a good thing. This amendment would remove the legal protection afforded to bats under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The noble Lord will of course be aware that, as part of our plan for change, the Government are committed to turning the tide on nature’s decline. This means that we are of course committed to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment. However, we recognise that people can experience issues with the existing system and there will understandably be questions as to the level of protections afforded to bats and other species and how these protections can affect the delivery of homes and infrastructure.

Amendment 346DB would completely remove all bats from the habitats regulations, regardless of their vulnerability. This would risk undermining our ability to deliver on our commitments under international law, which includes protection for bats. The sweeping removal of protection is too blunt, and this issue requires careful consideration and nuance. We will of course continue to explore further options to improve the handling of interactions between bats and development, including through the nature restoration fund—I am sure we will have a very full debate on that when we get to it—and we will establish a new way to manage the interaction between development and protected sites and species.

Although the nature restoration fund will provide another route to address the impact of development on protected species, we are already delivering a suite of measures to practically improve the interactions between bats and development. As well as progressing actions recommended by the landmark Corry review on environmental regulation, which will remove duplication, ambiguity and inconsistency for developers, Natural England is also expanding its earned recognition scheme for bat licences, which provides a streamlined route to licences that saves developers time and money. Under earned recognition, permissions are determined three or four times more quickly than for standard licences. In addition, Natural England is expanding its popular pre-application advice offer, which can expedite planning applications and avoid unexpected surveys or repeat applications. Finally, it is developing a pilot to test quicker and cheaper bat roost survey options so that less is spent on surveys and development can begin sooner.

Having said all that, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will discuss the serious issue of flooding risks. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their hard work and amendments to the Bill, which I shall discuss in further detail in a moment.

Flooding threatens our communities and livelihoods with increasing frequency and severity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned, some 6.3 million properties in England are located in areas at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea or surface water. I am experiencing—and I am sure others have experienced this as local councillors—ever-increasing incidences of flooding on our patches.

Flooding negatively impacts many aspects of people’s lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned some examples, and I can attest to examples in my own area and to seeing people flooded out of their homes two or three times in the space of three or four years. It upsets their health, finances and mental health. Can the Government confirm that protecting communities most at risk of flooding is a priority for them?

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has rightly tabled Amendments 108, 109, 155 and 156 to help ensure that the consideration of flood risk is not overlooked in the planning permission decisions. We support her in her objectives and hope the Government will take this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her Amendments 135B and 135C, on having regard to a development’s impact on the flooding and flood resilience in the broader area. There are, however, concerns regarding the potential scope and practicality of the broader point of assessing the impact on climate resilience.

On Amendment 227A and the incorporation of flood resilience in new buildings, this should be done on a risk-based approach. As we enter the autumn and winter months, it is imperative that the Government are well prepared for the flood risks soon to be faced by millions up and down this country. What procedures do the Government have in place to fulfil their duty of ensuring that strategic flood-risk assessments are up to date? Can the Minister take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that the Government’s flood preparedness is adequate and that Ministers stand ready to implement flood recovery measures rapidly where flooding occurs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Grender, for their amendments on flood risk and resilience in the planning system. I also thank many Members of this Chamber. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I had lots of discussion about flooding during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. I know that lots of Members in this House worked very hard to draw these risks to the attention of the House and the wider public.

I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said about the devastation that it causes. I visited Calderdale—I was doing a peer review there—very shortly after the terrible flooding that the area experienced in 2020. The impact of that was still very live; in fact, some of the shops were still shut because they were still damp. One thing that particularly struck me was that the only way of communicating during that flood, which, from memory, happened over the Christmas period, was to go back to pinning notices on the village noticeboard, because all the infrastructure—IT and everything—had gone down. They could not use phones and could not travel, so they were pinning notices on the old village noticeboard. These are terrible events.

The amendments raise very important issues about how we plan for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in the context of climate change. I can assure all noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, specifically asked me the question—that the Government take these issues very seriously. We are acutely aware of the misery, disruption and costs that arise from flooding, of the increased risk associated with climate change, and of the need to maintain a robust approach to managing these risks. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson: we cannot overestimate the impact not just of flooding itself, which is awful, but of the fear of flooding when people live in properties subject to it. My area is not flood-prone, but we occasionally get flash floods when there is a big storm, which causes water ingress to people’s properties. I remember talking to a constituent about their terrible fear. As soon as it started to rain quite heavily, they would worry that it would happen again. How much worse that must be if you live in a flood-prone area, I can only imagine. It is not just the flooding itself; it is the fear of floods that impacts people.

The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, mentioned the work being done by the Environment Agency. It has commissioned an independent review of property flood resilience. It is not just an untargeted review of this, but a specific review around property flood resilience. The review will seek to identify current gaps and opportunities to grow the property flood resilience market, resulting in a new action plan. That review will report to the Environment Agency and Defra in autumn 2025.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who referred to the investment the Government are putting into flood resilience and maintaining flood defences. She is correct: we are investing £2.65 billion over two years—that is, 2024-25 and 2025-26—to build and maintain defences. That includes an additional £108 million that we are reprioritising into asset maintenance, ensuring that an additional 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored. I repeat that because it shows, I hope, that the Government take these issues seriously.

Amendment 108 proposes a statutory ban on residential development in areas that fall within flood zone 3. Although we fully recognise the importance of directing development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, this amendment would prevent development in large urban areas already protected by robust flood defences. For example, significant parts of Hull and central London lie within flood zone 3 but benefit from engineered flood protection. Under this amendment, development in these areas would be prohibited, even where it can be made safe for its lifetime and does not increase flood risk elsewhere.

The National Planning Policy Framework already includes strong protections which make it clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. I understand the scepticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, about the NPPF, but I do not think that any planning inspector would accept a local plan submitted by a local authority that did not conform with the NPPF in terms of placing houses in flood risk areas, unless significant mitigation measures were put in place to prevent flooding.

Our policy means that new housing and most other forms of development are not appropriate in a functional flood plain where water has to flow or, importantly—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned this—be stored in times of flood. Where development is permitted, it must be demonstrated that it will be safe for its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users.

I turn to Amendment 109, which proposes mandating property flood-resilience measures in all new homes at high risk of flooding, and Amendment 227A, which proposes introducing a requirement for specific flood-resilience features in all new homes. Improving resilience in properties subject to flood risk is an important objective. Reflecting this, the building regulations already support flood-resilient construction in areas at risk of flooding, while ensuring that properties that do not require further flood-resilience measures are not burdened with unnecessary costs. Requiring flood-resilient construction for all new dwellings would be disproportionate, given that many are located outside areas of current or projected flood risk. Designers of new homes may also choose to follow the Construction Industry Research and Information Association code of practice, which includes installing flood-resilient features.

I turn now to Amendments 135B and 135C, which would require local planning authorities to assess both the flood and climate resilience impacts of developments and whether a development could increase flood risk to neighbouring land, alongside introducing an annual reporting duty for the Secretary of State. Assessing the flood risk implications of development, as well as climate mitigation and adaptation more broadly, is already a requirement under the National Planning Policy Framework. The framework is clear that for development to be acceptable it should not increase flood risk elsewhere and should be safe for its lifetime if located in an area where flood risk exists.

Similarly, Amendment 155 seeks to place other aspects of national flood risk policy on a statutory basis—namely, the sequential and exception tests. We can agree about the importance of these policies, but it is important that policy on complex issues such as flood risk is capable of being adjusted as new evidence and issues arise. As I mentioned—I will mention it again—the National Planning Policy Framework plays a powerful role in the planning system. Both plan makers and planning decisions must have regard to it. It is not guidance in the usual sense of the word; it is a very clear part of the statutory planning process. These amendments would not only replicate this but introduce unhelpful inflexibility in our ability to keep policy under review.

The proposed reporting requirement set out in Amendment 135C would also impose a significant reporting obligation on the Government. Local planning authorities are already responsible for ensuring compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action if necessary.

Finally, Amendment 156 on strategic flood risk assessment maps would require local authorities to ensure that their maps are based on the most up-to-date data from the Environment Agency. This is already expected practice. Local authorities are required to use the latest available data when preparing strategic flood risk assessments, and the Environment Agency regularly updates its flood-mapping tools. Mandating updates in statute could impose administrative and financial burdens, particularly for smaller authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for these amendments. They are aligned with the shared principle of fairness where development will impact existing communities and infrastructure. In this case, they speak of the need to ensure that businesses already existing in an area do not suffer as a result of the development. I absolutely agree that it is often music businesses or noisy businesses that cause these discussions, and they should be protected: they were there first and everybody should put up with them, in my opinion. They should not suffer as a result of any further development or have unreasonable restrictions placed on them, as I have seen in the past, which does not seem fair. Does the Minister believe that the agent of change principle should have a statutory weight on it, rather than being solely in the NPPF? I think that is the important issue here.

Moreover, Amendment 111 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering touches on the role of local government as the arbitrator between the business and the developer. This highlights an important issue as we seek to balance the need for social stability with the growth that the Chancellor is promising, and I think these issues will come forward more and more in the future, so we need to get this sorted.

There is no denying that we need more housing—that is clear—but development must always go hand in hand with local economic needs. Without that balance, we risk creating a dormitory town, stripped of social fabric and disconnected from opportunity. How will the Government ensure that local authorities across England are supported to strike this essential balance?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments. I share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to ensure that new developments do not place unreasonable restrictions on existing businesses and are integrated effectively into their surroundings, and the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just made that live music venues are the things that make our communities vibrant and alive. We have just had our fantastic Old Town Live festival in Stevenage, in a series of music venues right along our high street; they are the things that bring people together and make it a good place to live.

The agent of change principle is already embedded in the National Planning Policy Framework. I reiterate my comments earlier that, although the National Planning Policy Framework is not a statutory document in itself, it forms part of the statutory planning process. The Government are clear that where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on a new development in its vicinity, the applicant or agent of change is responsible for providing suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.

Local planning authorities can also use planning conditions to make developments acceptable by addressing specific concerns, such as environmental impacts from noise pollution—for instance, by the use of engineering to reduce noise at source, or the use of noise insulation to mitigate the impact of noise on residents. Where they receive complaints, local authorities are obliged to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate. This allows them to consider a variety of factors in determining whether a complaint constitutes a nuisance in the eyes of the law. Additionally, local licensing authorities can incorporate the agent of change principle into their statement of licensing policy if they consider it useful to do so. This is at their discretion, as they are best placed to understand their own local context.

I understand the desire to embed these principles into law, but we believe this to be unnecessary given the provisions that already exist. It also risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments. We will continue considering how the agent of change principle can be better implemented within the planning system through national planning policy reform. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the support I have received from those who have spoken, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lady Scott.

The Minister is missing the point. Each of those who spoke explained how the NPPF is not working because it is not on a statutory basis, and that the integration and harmony we would like to see between residential properties and businesses is being harmed by this. The very fact that one of the venues that Ed Sheeran sang at early in his career has since closed, along with the other examples we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, shows the importance of this.

I again ask the Minister whether she would be minded to have a meeting before Report with those who have expressed an interest in this area today, because I really believe that we need to progress this and put it on a statutory footing. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 112 and 185H in the names of my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. At the heart of this debate lies the recognition that housing is not merely the business of bricks and mortar, nor simply the provision of shelter; it is about the creation of places where people may live, thrive and belong; it is about communities, places to call home.

Cultural values matter profoundly. They matter both in housing and community building. When we lose the local pub, the music venue—as we have heard—the sports club or the community hall, we do not simply lose a building; we strip away the places in which people meet, share experiences and forge common bonds. These are the lifeblood of our neighbourhoods.

Assets of community value are often deeply rooted in local history and identity, as we have heard many times this afternoon. Protecting them is a necessity for living in communities and a gift to future generations. In government, we invested in the community and cultural assets through the levelling up fund, which the Government have since scrapped. But we, as a party, will continue to champion our cultural assets in opposition.

Amendment 112, in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, has the benefit of simplicity. This is a straightforward change in law that could save many important community assets. Amendment 185H is a little bit more complicated. If the Government were to accept the principle of this amendment, we hope that Ministers would be able to flesh out a little more detail on their intentions in the Bill. We do not want a need for delegated powers and then it goes into the ether.

If we are to build not only houses but homes, not only developments but communities, then these questions to the Minister are of no small importance.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for tabling these amendments which relate to the assets of community value scheme, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Freyberg, the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for contributing to the debate. This is an important scheme to enable communities to identify local assets that are important to them and to protect them for future community use. I am grateful for the commitment of noble Lords to ensuring that the scheme provides robust protections for a broad range of community assets, including cultural assets.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for mentioning the Cavern Club. Some of us are heading up to Liverpool in a couple of weeks’ time, and I am sure I will renew my acquaintance with the Cavern Club. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about a relationship between culture and locality—if there was ever an iconic one, it is that relationship between Liverpool and the Cavern Club.

Amendment 112 would add assets of community value to those buildings that are excepted from the demolition permitted development right. This would mean the owner of a listed asset would need to submit a planning application if they wished to demolish it. Concert halls, live music venues and theatres are already excluded from the demolition permitted development right. In addition, the Secretary of State and local planning authorities have the power to remove certain permitted development rights more widely in their area, through the making of an Article 4 direction, provided there is justification for the direction’s purpose and intent. I trust that the explanation provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 185H would create a separate assets of cultural value category that would operate in a similar way to the existing assets of community value scheme. However, it would specifically protect arts and cultural spaces that are of importance to the community or foster specialist cultural skills. This would enable community bodies and other bodies to nominate cultural assets, and if a listed asset is put up for sale, provide a set period for this body to put in a bid to purchase the asset to maintain it for cultural purposes. The cultural value of the asset would also be a material consideration in planning decisions.

Noble Lords will be aware the Government have recently introduced the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which contains new provisions to give communities a right to buy valued community assets. Through this change, we have amended the current assets of community value scheme to ensure that it is as strong as possible at protecting locally important assets. This includes updating the assets of community value definition to help bring more assets into scope of the policy, including those that support the economy of a community and those that were historically of importance to the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 113, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, which raises an important and thought-provoking issue that merits the attention of your Lordships’ Committee and the Government’s consideration.

Amendment 113 concerns the use of termite-resistant wood in new-build homes. My noble friend Lord Lucas draws attention to the risks that they pose. Although historically more common in warmer climates, they may become prevalent here as our own climate changes and, as he mentioned, as they inevitably move further northwards from France. The damage that termites can inflict on timber structures is both severe and costly. In regions where infestations have taken hold, the consequences for home owners, insurers and local authorities have been profound. As temperatures rise, it is only prudent to consider the resilience of our housing stock to such emerging risks.

While I will not take a definitive position on the amendment, I commend my noble friend for raising these matters. They speak to the broader challenge of building homes that are not only fit for purpose today but resilient to the demands of tomorrow. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how the Government intend to engage on this important issue.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 113. He is right that I was not intimately acquainted with the procedure of termites in France. However, I do now know far more about the house longhorn beetle than I have ever known, and I will continue to look at this issue.

The noble Lord may have been in the Chamber on Monday when we were discussing wood being used in construction. I mentioned an office development I visited, which is just across the river from Parliament, and which makes extensive use of wood in its construction. We will see more of that; wood is a good building material and developments such as that are good uses of wood. It is therefore very important that we take these matters extremely seriously.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to prevent planning authorities from granting planning permission for new-build homes if timber construction products specified at planning stages are not termite resistant. Fortunately for us, termites are not endemic to the UK. Even though an infestation was recorded in the 1990s, that was subject to a successful eradication programme.

While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention, the Building Regulations, rather than the planning system, are the appropriate way of establishing minimum legal requirements in the design of new building work. The sanitary arrangements we have in place to regulate timber imports allow us to remain vigilant. The Government take the view that mandating termite resistance in any wood used for construction materials in new-build homes would be a disproportionate measure, leading to an increased cost for developers and consumers, and adding to local planning authority burdens. However, if a threat were to emerge, guidance on timber products for new development and suitable wood treatments could be included in Approved Document A, which accompanies the Building Regulations for structure.

I hope I have given some reassurance to the noble Lord; nevertheless, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for that reply, even though I had hoped for something more positive. I did take out of that, given the caution that the Minister expressed about raising costs for housebuilders, that the rumours of a change to the landfill tax are probably erroneous. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 114, 118 and 119, tabled, respectively, by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and introduced so ably by their deputies—sorry, substitutes. These amendments seek to improve the quality and accountability of consultation within the planning system. Amendment 114 seeks to make the Gardens Trust a statutory consultee for developments affecting historic parks and gardens. These are not just green spaces; they are vital heritage assets, and their protection should be part of the planning process.

Amendment 118 seeks to require pre-application consultation with the emergency services where developments may affect their operations. Too often, the fire and ambulance services are brought in too late, after issues arise, not before.

Finally, Amendment 119 addresses a more systemic issue: the need for meaningful consultation with communities. It would require the Secretary of State to consider how developers have engaged with local people before accepting applications for development consent. The message is clear: consultation should be early, serious and able to influence outcomes. It should not be just a tick-box exercise.

The role of a statutory consultee is important in the planning process, and it is right that appropriate bodies are consulted. However, it is also important that their responses are timely and pragmatic and do not unduly delay the planning process. Expanding the list of consultees may be justified but we must at all times have an eye on the risks of delay and overburdensome rules in the planning system, too.

Ultimately, these amendments are about restoring public confidence. When people feel genuinely listened to, development is not only more likely to succeed but more likely to be supported. Relationship building is intrinsic to successful planning. This helps everyone: communities, planners and developers alike. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who tabled these important amendments and their two substitutes for speaking to them. I thank all noble Lords for their patience in a very long Thursday Bill session; I am grateful to them all.

Amendments 114 and 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to designate the Gardens Trust and the emergency services as statutory consultees within the planning system. I begin by acknowledging the contributions these organisations already make across a range of functions. When you have been involved in planning, you know how important that expert advice is on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to make sure that we end up with good decision-making.

However, on 26 January the Chancellor announced a pause in the introduction of new statutory consultees, pending a broader review of the current framework. The Housing Minister subsequently issued a Written Ministerial Statement on 10 March, setting out the Government’s intention to reform the system to ensure that statutory consultees can provide timely and expert advice that supports high-quality development. The Government will be consulting on those proposed reforms shortly.

The Statement also set out our intention to consult on the impact of removing certain statutory consultees, including the Gardens Trust. This reflects a desire to streamline processes and address duplication, as Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher-graded parks and gardens. This is a consultation only, and no decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts.

The Government also intend to consult on their approach to the introduction of new statutory consultees, recognising that risks and responsibilities of course evolve over time. This consultation will reflect the fact that there must be a high bar to creating new statutory consultees if we are to avoid exacerbating current issues of uncertainty, bureaucracy and delay. We should be requiring consultation on a case-by-case basis only if it is not possible to address matters strategically. Input is often effectively secured through local plans, including engagement with the emergency services, such as designing out crime; and where case-by-case engagement is warranted, local authorities already have the discretion to consult these bodies on a non-statutory basis.

Furthermore, in considering potential additions to the list of statutory consultees, it is essential that the roles of existing statutory consultees should not be duplicated, and that functions already addressed through other regimes, such as building regulations, should not be duplicated either. The fire and rescue service, for instance, already must be consulted on relevant plans as part of the building safety regulations, while the Building Safety Regulator oversees and approves work for high-risk buildings. Meanwhile, the Health and Safety Executive operates a hazardous substance licensing regime and is a statutory consultee on development applications which may be impacted by this.

Finally, although we deeply value the insights provided by a wide range of organisations during public consultations, statutory consultee status carries with it a legal obligation to respond within prescribed timeframes. That is a very significant responsibility, and sometimes even existing consultees—sometimes even upper-tier councils if you are in a district council—face challenges in meeting the requirements. For this reason, we believe the threshold for granting such status must remain appropriately high.

As I have set out, we intend to consult on these matters soon. If decisions are taken to introduce new statutory consultees, this can be done through secondary legislation under existing powers.

Amendment 119 proposes that the Secretary of State consider how community consultation has been carried out when deciding whether an NSIP application should be accepted for examination. It suggests specifically that the Secretary of State must consider whether the application has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during the early phases, obtained relevant information about the locality, and enabled appropriate mitigation through consultation.

We agree that engaging communities can support applicants to improve their applications by enabling them to identify issues important to the local community, to understand the likely impacts of the scheme, and to consider potential mitigations. However, as we have seen over our time debating these clauses, we know that the existing statutory tests related to consultation do not achieve that in a proportionate way.

We know this because evidence shows that existing statutory pre-application consultation requirements, the scale and specificity of which have been unique to the NSIP regime, have led to unintended consequences. Developers, keen to avoid risk, produce overly complex documentation aimed more at legal compliance than genuine engagement. They are reluctant to adapt their plans in response to feedback, fearing that they will need to reconsult if they do so, which slows down delivery and drives up costs—which in turn frustrates the UK’s ability to plan and deliver essential infrastructure.

I remind the Committee that, since 2013, the pre-application stage has doubled in length. Our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament by reducing delays across projects. That is why we have proposed removing statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage, including the adequacy of consultation test in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. Instead, we are introducing a clearer, more practical acceptance test: is the application suitable to proceed to examination?

This new test allows the Secretary of State to make a balanced judgment about the quality of the application and recognises that the NSIP planning process is a continuum from pre-application through to decision. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that the changes that the Government are proposing do not undermine the importance of consultation and engagement on applications, as my honourable friend Matthew Pennycook made clear in his ministerial Statement on 23 April. Applications are unlikely to be of sufficient quality to be granted consent if meaningful engagement has not been undertaken on them.

Instead of statutory requirements, the Government have now issued a consultation on guidance which will seek to help applicants understand what good engagement looks like. That consultation is open until 27 October, and we are looking forward to receiving responses. The Planning Inspectorate’s advice will also continue to emphasise the value of early issue resolution. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is satisfied with the comments of the Minister. In relation to the Gardens Trust becoming a statutory consultee, I note that there is a review of the whole process and, indeed, of the individual components within that, and that if it is going to be possible to have a new statutory consultee, secondary legislation could take care of that. At the same time, I also noticed a certain reluctance to be enthusiastic about this amendment. We will hope for the best, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Taken together, these amendments open up practical questions of provision, maintenance, strategy and delivery. I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to respond and whether they see merit in drawing these strands together into a more coherent approach to green and blue infrastructure.

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

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I just take a moment to thank my noble friend Lord Khan for all the work he did while he was a Minister in our department. I am afraid that I will not step on the toes of the great Lancashire-Yorkshire debate, but it was true to say that my noble friend’s unfailing good humour and his ability to convene and effect collaboration, even across barriers of faith and religion that are deeply historic in nature, gave him what I think bordered on a superpower, which was great. He did so much work on the faith and communities aspect of our department’s work, as well as on elections. I especially commend his work during the passage of the Holocaust Memorial Act, which was very difficult to navigate. He dealt exceptionally well with the work on that Act. I hope that he will continue to use the networks he has built and developed, because, in a time when there are forces trying to divide us—we see that every day—we need more Lord Khans to bring us all together. I pay tribute to the work he did in that respect. I will of course continue to work with him, but he is a loss to our department.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Wilson—very briefly, because I know he will hate me doing it—for stepping in at very short notice to support me with some of the work on the Bill.

I want to thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments relating to the provision of green and blue spaces. Of course, as we drive forward—your Lordships will have heard my new Secretary of State urging us to “build, baby, build”—it is important that we maintain the aspects that have been raised in a very interesting and important discussion this afternoon.

There is a growing body of evidence illustrating the crucial role that green space plays in supporting healthy and inclusive communities, and we recognise the importance of providing these alongside new homes. I want to pay tribute to the Members of this House who have contributed to the evidence base in this regard, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who was also kind enough to give me a copy of her book, and very thorough and insightful it is too. I am very grateful to all Members of this House who contribute to this evidence base. That is why existing policy and provisions already in the Bill are intended to achieve just that.

I turn first to Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who I know has a passion for protecting green spaces and ensuring that local people can use their voices to shape development in their own areas. National planning policy plays a powerful role in the planning process, as it must be taken into account both in the plan-making process and in determining individual applications.

The National Planning Policy Framework—I am sure we will talk about this lots during the Bill—requires local plans to make sufficient provision for green infrastructure and to be based on up-to-date assessments of the need for open space; it is not an optional extra or just an encouragement to do it. The designation of land as local green space also allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them.

We will of course have national development management policies coming forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me whether they would vary between urban and rural sites in terms of provision and what they specify about provision; I will take that back because it is a key point. We expect in due course—that phrase that we all love so well—to have further revisions to the NPPF. Additionally, new major housing developments on land released from the green belt must be accompanied by accessible green spaces. The green infrastructure framework, published by Natural England, supports local planners, developers and communities to plan for high-quality and multifunctional green spaces.

These policy provisions provide a strong basis for securing green spaces alongside new developments. However, they also allow local planning authorities to take pragmatic approaches where necessary, which rigid legal requirements would prevent. Local planning authorities can use planning obligations and conditions to secure the long-term stewardship of green spaces, and we have heard a bit about that this afternoon. As local government funding was cut, that was a disincentive to local authorities to provide green spaces, but we continue to work with them to urge securing that through planning obligations and conditions so that it covers the long-term maintenance of these spaces as well as their initial provision. We recognise that there are too many examples of poor maintenance or of residents left facing excessive charges. We will consult this year on arrangements for maintaining communal facilities as part of ending the injustice of the fleecehold estates that we unfortunately have so many examples of around the country.

On Amendments 138, 138B and 149, I acknowledge the intent to ensure that green spaces, green and blue infrastructure, community gardens and allotments, and even ducks—I greatly appreciated that point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—are all given consideration at strategic level. The National Planning Policy Framework, which new spatial development strategies are required to have regard to, sets out that development plans should aim to achieve healthy places which promote social interaction and healthy lives: for example, through the provision of green infrastructure. I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned social interaction around allotments. Having been a councillor for many years, I can say that sometimes that social interaction on allotments is not quite as positive as we might want it to be, but I absolutely take his point.

Furthermore, where strategic planning authorities consider such spaces to be of strategic importance to the area, they are already able to set policies which reflect this. New Section 12D(4)(c) states that a spatial development strategy can specify or describe infrastructure relating to

“promoting or improving the … social or environmental well-being of that area”,

which we expect could include community gardens, allotments and green spaces. Equally, policies in relation to allotments and community garden land could be included within the terms of new Section 12D(1), which covers policies in relation to the development and use of land.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, we need to keep the contents of spatial development strategies high-level to allow for local planning authorities to set more detailed policies and site allocations through their local plans. The way that we are shaping the planning system, as I mentioned in previous sessions on the Bill, will, I hope, allow local councillors to spend more time thinking about local plans. We believe that policies to secure open space in specific developments are better set at local level, where the needs and opportunities in each area can be considered.

I turn to Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. These amendments would place duties on development corporations in respect of the provision and maintenance of green and blue infrastructure. I thank the noble Baronesses for acknowledging the important role that development corporations have in the delivery of housing and other infrastructure, including those green and blue provisions. As a lifetime resident of Britain’s first new town, built under a development corporation, I know that what always surprises people about my town is how green it is. They think it will be an urban jungle; it certainly is not that. In terms of blue infrastructure, the wonderful facility we have of 120 acres of parkland, including four lakes, in the middle of the town is, without a doubt, the most popular asset our town has. I really take on board that people truly value these spaces.

Development corporations are crucial to growing the economy and delivering much-needed housing. Large-scale development and regeneration projects must go hand in hand with green and blue infrastructure. We do not want to see just houses, we want to see thriving communities, and we know just how many benefits those provisions can bring to individuals’ mental and physical well-being, social interactions and, importantly, the climate and wildlife. That is why it is crucial that development corporations take forward the provision and stewardship of green and blue space.

It is worth highlighting that development corporations are already subject to the same provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework that underpin requirements to plan for and provide open space elsewhere. Where development corporations take on local authority planning powers, their planning policies and decisions need to be informed by the National Planning Policy Framework. Although some development corporations do not take on those powers, delivery of the property projects co-ordinated by those development corporations will also ultimately be subject to the provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework.

I have already set out the role and benefits of the framework in relation to green infrastructure, but it is also worth underlining its role in relation to plan making. The framework specifies that plans should set an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about evidence, and he makes a key and important point there, because fundamental to local plan production and to the future strategic plan production will be that evidence base—it really is critical. Any local councillor who has sat through a public inquiry on their local plan will know that that is inspected in great detail by the Planning Inspectorate, and the evidence base is absolutely key.

The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into consideration when preparing the development plan. We have seen this work very well in practice. For example, in Ebbsfleet, the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has a strong track record of providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year is aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces. I think this kind of model is what we are looking for with development corporations. I therefore believe that up-to-date local plan coverage will ensure that green space, such as community gardens, play areas and allotments, is planned for the right level and reflects local need.

I am not entirely convinced that it would help if the freedoms that local authorities currently have to shape the green, blue and brown space in the way that best suits their communities were removed. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about empowering communities, while the direction of travel of the amendments could be that we impose conditions on them from national government. I am not sure that that is entirely helpful. I am sure that this dialogue will continue as we go through the Bill, and I am happy to have conversations—some Members have asked for meetings and I am happy to have those conversations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, for his very practical suggestion of talking to Treasury colleagues about the Green Book supplementary guidance on well-being. I hope that the Treasury has a focus on well-being, because if it does not, we are all in trouble. I will take that back to the Treasury.

For all those reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I accept completely the relevance of local input and that we must not tie people’s hands. But given that the supply of allotments is far less than the demand for it, does the Minister agree with me that there needs to be a slightly firmer approach —I suggested a metric, perhaps that is too aggressive, but at least some sort of norms in planning policy as to the quantity of allotment area to be given for a given amount of population? Without that, I am worried that this is going to be just like affordable housing, which is in the next group, which, as soon as planning permission is given, is haggled down to the minimum that the developer can get away with. I hope that we can be a bit firmer on this; otherwise, we are back to good intentions again.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will take back the points that the noble Lord makes. The important thing not to lose in all this is that different solutions apply to different places. If I might give a brief example—this is about green space, not allotments—one development which I was responsible for literally backs on to the park with all the lakes that I was talking about earlier. As it happens, there is green space in it as well, so as you walk out of your house you are in a 120-acre lake park, and you might not need so much space in the development itself. All these local issues have to be very strongly considered. Where there are waiting lists for allotments, you may want to make more provision than elsewhere, but I will take back the point about whether some strengthening of the wording may be necessary.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, it really was an honour to take part in a debate of this nature. The theme of inequity came through so strongly, and the fact that we have in this House the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who have done research into these issues, points to a very strong road map to where we should be going collectively towards Report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, we could coalesce around something.

I say to the Minister that we do not want to clash with the Government’s wish to empower local authorities to do the best by their communities and what their communities want, but it was the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who said that good intentions are not enough, and she is absolutely right. Incidentally, she has done so much in this House through her All-Party Gardening and Horticulture Group to introduce us to all sorts of things, and I put on record my thanks to her for that. We need to coalesce around something to put this firmly in the Bill. For all the reasons that other noble Lords have given, good intentions are not enough, and the NPPF, however it is beefed up, is still pretty vague.

The Minister can assume from everything that everybody has said that this will be coming back on Report, and I hope we can have some conversations between now and then to find something better than just good intentions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group raise important questions about the definition of affordable housing and how far the Government’s current proposals will deliver against the need that is obviously widely recognised. The term itself is much used yet too often detached from the realities faced by families across the country. These amendments draw attention to the gap that can arise between policy definition and practical affordability, and they raise the question of how local circumstances are to be given proper weight.

In addition, there is the matter of delivery, as we have heard. What is the expected scale of provision for social rent in the year ahead, and how does that compare with the assessed levels of need? Every independent analyst points to social rent as the tenure under the greatest pressure. The amendments, in their different ways, put that issue squarely before the House and before Ministers.

We welcome the affordable housing 10-year plan and the money that has been invested in it, but the money is back-loaded into future government spending reviews, so it is by no means certain when we will get it. That money is required now.

As we have heard, we have also had the precedent of earlier legislation, including the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, in which Parliament accepted the principle that local plans must take account of housing need. That is not just one tenure of housing but all tenures, whether private, social, affordable, housing for young people or for older people. Under that Act, local authorities are required to look at the needs in their area and to have plans to deliver those housing tenures. Those figures should be subject to scrutiny by local communities through the consultation for the local plan. How does the Bill intend to carry that principle forward? Is it going to enact that part of the levelling-up Act, or does it have other plans of its own?

The amendments collectively press for clarity, accountability and ambition on affordable housing delivery. We need to deliver the homes people need, and I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to explain what steps the Government are taking to deliver that number of affordable and social rented homes over this Parliament. I hardly need remind your Lordships’ House that the Government are also well behind in the delivery of their manifesto commitment to provide the 1.5 million homes that we all urgently need.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on social and affordable housing. As Members of this House will know, I personally and the Government are very supportive of the intent of the amendments in this group, which is to increase the delivery of affordable and social housing. Noble Lords will already be aware that this Government have committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent. As other Peers have indicated, we allocated £39 billion over the course of this Parliament to social and affordable housing, the biggest amount for generations, and we have indicated that 60% of that should be for social housing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, spoke powerfully about the crisis we faced when we came into office and frankly—and I have said it before—169,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation is a shameful record. We will tackle that. We are working on it immediately and doing everything we can to address it. The investment made at the Spring Statement, which was the £39 billion, follows the £800 million new in-year funding which has been made available for the affordable homes programme 2021 to 2026 that will support the delivery of up to 7,800 new homes, more than half of them social rent homes. That is significantly up on the £700 million that was mentioned.

Furthermore, we have announced changes to allow councils to retain 100% of receipts generated by right-to-buy sales. This is not a one-off. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, spoke about the net gain in housing and there are other issues we need to address, including right to buy. We recently consulted on wider reforms to right to buy; that consultation has closed. We also consulted on a long-term rent settlement that would allow rents to increase above inflation each year for five years from 2026. That consultation has closed, and we are looking at responses from the sector to deal with that. It is our intention to give long-term rent settlements so that registered providers can have the certainty they need to invest in housing.

Amendment 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to set out a minimum proportion of social rent provision on new developments and require any affordable housing requirements to be fully implemented on them. I thank the noble Lord, as ever, for being such a passionate advocate for affordable housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned the definition of affordable homes. It is now specific in the NPPF that authorities should separately set out social housing need in their local plan and not just use that broad term of “affordable housing”, which was never very satisfactory.

The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that we need to significantly increase the number of affordable homes built each year, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We will continue to take steps to deliver a planning system that supports this. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned that the target has not yet been achieved. We need to lay the foundations for this. We need the funding that we have put in to deliver social housing. We also need this planning Bill to go through to free up the planning system so that we move it forward quickly. I know our new Secretary of State will be very focused on that: I have already spoken to him today about it.

We will continue to take the steps we need to deliver the planning system that supports this, but I do not believe this amendment goes quite in the direction that we need to go. Our revised National Planning Policy Framework provides greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit particular housing needs. The framework makes it clear that local authorities should, when producing their local plan, assess the need for affordable housing and homes for social rent and then plan to meet those needs. This includes setting out the amount and type of affordable housing that should be secured on new developments.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned viability guidance. We are reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure the system works to optimise developer contributions, allowing negotiation only where that is genuinely necessary. We will produce this guidance later this year, so I look forward to discussing that with noble Lords. We must also acknowledge that there are times where flexibility is necessary to ensure sites can commence when there is a change in circumstances, such as a change in the economic situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the CMA report which resulted in a fine of £100 million to the major developers. We need to carefully consider—and we have talked about it before in your Lordships’ House—how to make sure that that does not just get recirculated to develop further profits for the same developers that caused the problem in the first place; that is, those that were fined. We have already allocated a package of support for SME builders and I hope the very significant sum allocated in the affordable homes programme and other funds that may come forward will help to support local jobs, training, apprenticeships, supply chains and those SME builders. It is very important that we all focus on that as well.

Consequently, we must aim to balance strengthening the developer contribution system with retaining the necessary degree of flexibility, allowing negotiation and renegotiation to take place but only where it is genuinely justified. Planning obligations entered into under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are legally binding and enforceable. A local planning authority may take enforcement action against any breach of a planning obligation contained within a Section 106 agreement, including any breach of the affordable housing commitment. We will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing as we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making later this year.

Amendments 141, 150A and 151, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, seek to ensure that a majority of any affordable housing specified or described by a strategic planning authority in its spatial development strategy is housing for social rent as defined in paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023. The wording of the Bill gives strategic planning authorities the flexibility to plan for a broad range of affordable housing types, allowing them to respond to the specific needs of their areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, rightly mentioned nationally important landscapes. In this new planning Bill, they retain their very strong protections. We are very interested in—and have talked a lot about—the rural exception sites and, where housing is necessary, working with local areas to determine where that housing should go and potentially have local lettings plans to go with them. The Government have already put forward some strong measures, particularly on empty homes but also on second homes in terms of council tax measures and so on, that can be taken.

Insisting that spatial development strategies must specify or describe a certain amount of one type of affordable housing could prevent authorities including other important forms of affordable housing when setting out the amount or distribution of such housing that they consider to be strategically important to their area. This could significantly reduce the variety and volume of affordable housing delivered.

I turn now to Amendment 137, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This would require a spatial development strategy to have regard to the need to meet a specific target for new social homes each year. New Section 12D(5)(b) already enables a spatial development strategy to outline an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other type of housing—social housing, certainly—that the authority deems strategically important for its area.

Amendment 171 asks the Government to commit to update guidance in relation to affordable housing. I am in full agreement that we have to ensure affordable housing is genuinely affordable to local people and addresses local needs. That is why we have made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit housing need in their areas. In addition, we have committed that new investment to succeed the current affordable homes programme will have a particular focus on delivering social rent—that is the 60% I referred to earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to net new homes. Delivery of new homes is only one element of that; so are changes to right-to-buy provisions which the Government have already outlined. Planning policy already supports many of the aims of this amendment, requiring local planning authorities to assess the range of affordable housing needs in their area and set out the types of affordable housing to be prioritised.

On a couple of other points, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, reminded us that there are economic benefits to providing social housing. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the Benefits to Bricks campaign. It is very important as we look to reduce the benefits bill that that £30 billion—or £35 billion, as I think she cited—often used to house someone in expensive accommodation that does not meet their needs, is much better focused on delivering social housing where we can ensure that it meets the needs of those who live there.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the amendments on shared ownership from the noble Lord, Lord Young. They are part of the Renters’ Rights Bill, and we have had very useful meetings with the noble Lord. No doubt that will come back to us when the Bill comes back from ping-pong. We have already made a clear commitment to consider further steps to support social and affordable housing as part of our intent to produce a set of national policies for decision-making in 2025. It is as part of these changes that the content and timing of further updates to guidance are best considered. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this important group of amendments relates to the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods, the role of planning in promoting well-being, and the standards and accuracy of housing development. I thank the noble Lords who tabled these amendments; their recognition of the need to place health and well-being at the heart of housing policy and planning is both welcome and timely. In doing so, I wish to express our appreciation of the sentiment behind the amendments, and the desire to ensure that development is not just about numbers and units delivered, but about the quality of life of those who will live in them.

I note the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Taken together, these seek to integrate health and well-being considerations into housing and planning through duties on authorities’ reporting requirements and potential enforcement provisions. The link between housing and public health is well recognised but, as with many such proposals, the issue is one of balancing aspirations with the demands of regulation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has also brought forward a thoughtful proposal: Amendment 124 on advertising. This raises an important issue of public health and the role of advertising. The noble Baroness mentioned gambling advertising, but I would also add that for junk food, particularly in areas close to schools, for instance.

Amendment 132 on the disclosure of environmental performance in marketing materials and Amendment 227, clarifying local authority enforcement powers, raise important questions about consumer protection and transparency. We look forward to the Government’s reply.

I wish to recognise the valuable contribution of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and speak to his Amendment 138A. As he often emphasises, creating space for sport and physical activity can deliver wide-ranging benefits, not only for an individual’s fitness, but for community cohesion and long-term public health. His amendment would add the promotion of health and well-being to the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies. This raises an important and thought-provoking point, and we look forward with interest to the Government’s response.

Lastly, I return to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. We have already underlined the importance of respecting local vernacular and design in planning and development. The spirit of her Amendment 185SA is, I believe, a constructive one: namely, that there should be a preferred approach to the consideration of architectural style grounding in sound plan-making principles, and framed by an appropriate, locally distinctive context for building design. Where that is fitting, such an approach ensures that development is not only functional but reflective of the character and heritage of the community it serves.

That is why the previous Conservative Government set up the Office for Place: to ensure that good design was part of building. Unfortunately, this current Labour Government have closed the office. We should not just be building units; we must build homes that are well designed and form part of successful communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how this Government will ensure good design.

Across this group of amendments, there is a unifying theme: that housing should not merely be about shelter, but about creating places that sustain life, health and community—whether through high standards, clearer duties, better design or fairer advertising. These amendments challenge us to raise our ambition, but ambition must be tempered with practicality. The central question is how we embed these principles in a way that is workable, proportionate and does not risk unintended consequences for housing delivery, affordability or local discretion. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government intend to respond to these important proposals, and how they will ensure that the planning system and housing policy place health and the well-being of people and communities at their heart.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments tabled in this grouping. We have had a very useful and interesting debate on this topic this evening. I am very grateful to the noble Lords who put forward amendments, who have deep expertise and are great advocates on the issue of health, housing and communities. That is greatly appreciated.

The Government agree that the quality of our homes, and the wider environment around them, are intrinsically linked to the creation of healthy communities. Taken together, planning policy, guidance and building regulations tackle these important matters and collectively promote the creation of healthy communities and homes for the people who reside there. It may be helpful if I quickly outline some of these provisions at the outset to show the interaction between the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, the National Model Design Code, building regulations and the Future Homes Standard—that sounds more like a PhD essay than a quick intervention, but I will do my best—in collectively promoting healthy homes and communities.

First, the NPPF has the goal of achieving sustainable development at its heart, which includes supporting a strong, vibrant and healthy community, and ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations. I am not sure about the 70 years that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about, but we will do our best. The framework sets out that development plans should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which promote social interaction, and enable healthy lives, through both promoting good health and preventing ill-health, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs and reduce health inequalities. That is all set out in the National Planning Policy Framework; it is very clear what is expected.

The framework also recognises the importance of open space, sports and recreation facilities in supporting the health and well-being of communities. It is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need for these spaces and facilities, and seek opportunities for new provision. Further considerations on healthy and safe communities are also set out in Planning Practice Guidance, which supports the implementation of the NPPF in practice.

Secondly, the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code are part of the suite of Planning Practice Guidance. They illustrate how well-designed, healthy, inclusive, social and green places can be achieved. They provide detailed advice on creating safe, inclusive and accessible homes, buildings and public spaces, prioritising walking and cycling, and green space and biodiversity in new development that promotes activity and social interaction.

All new homes delivered under permitted development rights are required to meet the nationally described space standards and provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. While under the permitted development right that allows for commercial buildings, such as shops and offices, to change use to homes, local authorities can consider the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers during the decision-making process. All new homes, whether delivered through a permitted development right or following a planning application, are required to meet building regulations and fire safety requirements.

Lastly, building regulations set out the minimum legal performance standards that all new homes must meet to ensure that they protect people’s safety, health and welfare. We continue to review and strengthen these standards. For example, this autumn the Government will publish the Future Homes Standard, which will increase the energy efficiency requirements in building regulations. New homes will be equipped with low-carbon heating and, in most cases, solar panels, making them fit for the future, comfortable for occupants, and affordable to heat. At the same time, we will publish our response to the call for evidence on the new overheating requirement, which has been in effect since June 2022. This requires that new homes are designed to minimise overheating and thus remain resilient as our climate changes.

Amendment 123 is on health and well-being in development plans. Amendments 138A, 185SC, 185SD and 185SF are on ensuring adequate provision for spaces and facilities for sport and physical activity and making sure they are appropriately considered in the planning system and in new spatial development strategies. The provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework I have outlined mean that these matters will already be taken into account. Within Clause 52, new Section 12D(1) enables spatial development strategies to include policies relating to access to green space, active travel, and sports and physical activity facilities, providing that they are of strategic importance to the area.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is in the other place at the moment. Clause 43 of that Bill is a general duty which applies to all the duties that combined authorities have to have regard to—the need to improve health inequalities between people living in their area. It is not a specific planning duty, and we believe that in the case of planning we should deal with those matters through the National Planning Policy Framework.

Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to include environmental impact and public health as additional considerations to take into account in regulating advertisements. The advertisement consent regime is designed to ensure that outdoor advertisements are in the right locations. It is a light-touch system concerned with only two issues: the impact of the advertisement on amenity and public safety. Amenity includes oral and visual amenity and relevant factors such as the general characteristics of the locality. Public safety is largely concerned with the transport network: for example, distractions to road users or safety on railway lines. The content of advertisements is subject to a separate regulatory system—I know the noble Baroness is aware of this—which is overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority. To widen the scope of matters which can be considered through the advertisement consent regime, particularly in relation to public health, is likely to bring the focus more on to the content of the advertisement. If that were the case it would create an overlap between the two regulatory regimes where at present there is a clear distinction, which would risk causing uncertainty and confusion. Therefore, while I understand what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, we think the current scope of the advertisement consent regime remains appropriate.

Amendments 132 and 185D would introduce a purpose of planning and provide that anyone exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with that purpose. I must reiterate that the pursuit of sustainable development is at the heart of what the planning system seeks to achieve. Reflecting this, it is a principle which is woven through our National Planning Policy Framework, from the overarching objectives which it sets, through to the specific policies for achieving them. For example, the national planning policy sets out how to plan for good design, sustainable modes of transport, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses, essential community services and facilities, and the vital role of open space, green infrastructure and play in supporting health and well-being and recreation. It is clear that local plans should meet identified needs and seek opportunities for new provision. It also supports a transition to a low-carbon future and promotes renewable and low-carbon energy, and requires plans to take a proactive approach to climate change. These are all important principles, and we should not underestimate the role of the National Planning Policy Framework in translating these into practice. But I wish to resist these amendments, not just because they would impose significant burdens on any individual or body exercising a planning function in order to gauge compliance, but as inevitably these provisions will become a focus for challenges to plans and decisions.

Amendment 185SA seeks to introduce a code of practice for design. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Levitt on her well-deserved promotion to the Front Bench and thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for speaking to her amendment—I suspect he may have a few more occasions when he has to say, “Yes, Minister”, but I do not want to interfere with that part of his life. I agree with my noble friend that we have a role to play in setting clear expectations for design and placemaking to support local authorities to demand better through the planning system, and a responsibility to ensure that they have the tools necessary to do this. I thank her very much for meeting with me to discuss this. As I have mentioned, the National Planning Policy Framework already emphasises that the creation of high-quality and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what planning and development should achieve. The framework is supplemented by national design guidance. I gather from this amendment that my noble friend believes we could go further, and that is exactly what we intend to do. We are consulting on national policies for decision-making, including on design, later in 2025, and we are also in the process of updating national design guidance and will publish this later this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I specifically address the issue of artificial turf, about which there is rising public concern. Perhaps the Minister could write to me later about whether the Government are taking a look at that, given the level of public concern.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

It appeared from what the Minister said that a key factor weighing in the Government’s mind against the purpose of planning is the risk of legal challenges. For my part, I think that that fear is probably overblown. The purpose would only be something that would have to be taken into account. Once it was taken into account, any decision that was rational would not be liable for judicial review. I invite the Government to reflect on that. Obviously, I am very happy to help in any way I can on that issue.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and am happy to reflect on any issues raised in Committee. If he wants further discussions on it, I am happy to have those.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, this has been another good, if lengthy, debate, which I thought mixed very well the principles and the practical. A lot of very practical points came up, such as those about the financial impact of activity from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; the very practical proposals from my noble friend Lord Carlile about the design principles; and some very important points from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, about the links between health and planning and whether those are actually brought together, anatomising the various ways in which it does not look as if they are.

I have listened very carefully to the Minister, and I will look at what she has to say about how the proposals that I and others have been putting forward cut across what is already happening in the various proposals from the Government. If I may, when I have done that, I might wish to come back to talk to her before Report to discuss those particular issues.

I shall resist the temptation to ask one last question. With all that panoply of action that the Government are taking, what happens if the result we all want is not delivered? How do we secure the actual delivery? But I am not going to ask that question at this point, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for bringing these matters to the attention of the Committee. Permitted development rights are a significant area of policy as they play a crucial role in both the supply and the quality of new homes. It is important not only for the delivery of more housing but also for ensuring that those homes meet the needs of the communities in which they are built. The rules which govern permitted development therefore deserve careful consideration and the contributions made in today’s debate have highlighted the balance that must be struck between delivering more homes and protections for local communities and ensuring quality homes.

My noble friend Lord Lucas has raised a point of particular frustration for many homeowners in his Amendment 185A, and this reads across to other areas of government policy. I know owners of heritage properties and homes in conservation areas face particular challenges with increasing the energy efficiency of their home, and my noble friend is right to put this challenge to Ministers. I also note that the Government have announced that as of 2030 all private landlords will be required to meet a higher standard in their properties, with energy performance certificates of C or equivalent, up from the current level of E. Given the fact that many heritage and listed properties, including those in conservation areas, are often not permitted to instal double glazing—I refer to my comments in the previous group—can the Minister confirm that the new EPC requirement will not apply to listed and heritage properties? We look forward to hearing the Government’s view on these amendments and to understanding how they propose to address the concerns that have been raised.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before I address the amendments in this group, I want to correct an error that I made earlier when I was responding to the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has kindly pointed out my error. When I said the £39 billion allocated for social and affordable housing was for this Parliament, it is in fact a 10-year pledge of funding. I want to make sure that is corrected in Hansard.

All the amendments in this group tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to amend permitted development rights. Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the general permitted development order, generally following public consultation. This ensures that the views of the public are taken into account, including those that would benefit from or otherwise be impacted by the rights created or removed. We will continue to keep permitted development rights under review and I am grateful for the views that have been put forward by noble Lords in this regard.

Amendment 134 seeks to revoke the nationally set permitted development rights that deliver new homes through a change of use or by extending upwards and that allow dwelling houses to change use to a small house in multiple occupation and vice versa. The sustainable solution to the housing crisis is to accelerate the delivery of affordable, safe and decent purpose-built housing. I understand the intent of these amendments, with which I have a deal of sympathy. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill will know, we are in a housing crisis and these permitted development rights have provided over 113,000 new homes in the last nine years. Permitted development rights are subject to prior approval by the local planning authority to allow for local consideration of specific planning matters. We acknowledge the concerns that exist about the quality of some of the residential units created through permitted development rights, particularly those created from commercial-to-residential conversions. We have all seen booklets with pictures of horrendous examples of those conversions and I would not want to advocate that type of practice.

All new homes delivered under permitted development rights are now required to meet nationally described space standards and provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. All new homes, whether delivered through permitted development rights or following a planning application, are required to meet building regulations.

We all know that small houses in multiple occupation can play an important part in providing low-cost accommodation. The permitted development right for a change of use from a dwelling house to a small house in multiple occupation helps to provide flexibility. The permitted development aspect of that can be removed by making an Article 4 direction where the local planning authority considers it necessary and in line with national planning policy. The amendment would make it harder to create new homes from existing buildings at a time of acute housing need. I have not seen the letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to and I look forward to receiving that. But, for all the reasons that I have explained, I hope she will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 135 and 135H. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I think I am in the middle of building one of these self-build houses—I know I am, but I do not think of myself as a self-builder because I am not out there with bricks and mortar. More seriously, the complexity involved and time it takes for an individual who wants to convert their own little two-bedroom cottage to get through the planning system is unbelievable—it probably took me two and a half years. That is not acceptable and it does put people off, I am sure.

On Amendment 135, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, modern housing delivery, particularly self-build and custom housebuilding, is important because it can add to supply. It can provide homes that better meet local or individual needs, and it can encourage innovation. Too often, as I have said, individuals face barriers in accessing land or securing timely permission. Will the Minister set out how the Government intend to make the existing right to self-build more effective and ensure that local authorities bring forward and encourage more sites to be built out in this way?

Amendment 135H, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, addresses modular and off-site construction, where homes are manufactured to a set design and then assembled on site. When I was a Minister, I spoke many times on this, and I know that these methods can improve speed, quality and sustainability, yet planning delays can hold them back. Will the Minister please set out how the Government will support modern methods of construction in the planning system and whether they will streamline processes to encourage their wider use? Critical to making modular and off-site construction companies successful, and helping them survive, is that they need a pipeline of contractors putting in contracts. How do the Government propose to support the sector on this issue? It is a critical sector for building out these 1.5 million houses as quickly as possible and for them to be sustainable into the future. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for these amendments. By the way, I hope it is not the nephew of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is building the structure next door to the garden of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 135 seeks to restrict the types of development permission that may be counted by relevant authorities in meeting their duty to grant development permission for self-build and custom housebuilding under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 to those set out in the new clause. The Government recognise that self and custom-build housing can play an important role as part of measures to diversify the market and support SMEs to ensure we can deliver the homes we need and support home ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his thoughtful ongoing contribution to our debate on this Bill. His amendment raises some significant questions about how biodiversity information is gathered, shared and used within the planning system.

This sparked a few questions that we wish to ask the Minister. First, can she clarify how the Government see the balance between requiring robust biodiversity data and avoiding unnecessary burdens on applicants—particularly smaller developers or individuals making household applications? Secondly, what consideration has been given to the readiness and capacity of local environmental record centres or other organisations to provide such information, should regulations of this kind be introduced? Thirdly, has consideration been given that this be addressed as part of the spatial development strategy or local plan? Lastly, how do the Government propose to ensure consistency and standardisation in biodiversity data collected so that it meaningfully informs local and national policy in the future?

Amendment 135, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that environmental delivery plans relevant to the land in question are considered when making planning decisions. This seems to be an eminently sensible and pragmatic measure that joins up the EDP process with planning decision-making. However, this amendment also raises the important point that I raised at Second Reading: the chicken and egg question. How can you develop an EDP without knowing what the spatial development strategy is that it is seeking to mitigate? Conversely, do you need an EDP to make a spatial development strategy deliverable? It would seem sensible that they are done in parallel. If so, why would an EDP not be part of the spatial development strategy? Can the Minister please provide a clearer answer than at Second Reading?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for their amendments in this group. There will be a very full debate on the wider issues around EDPs, the role of Natural England and so on next week. I will answer the specific points today and, in view of the hour, we will leave the wider discussions until next week.

Amendment 135A seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan is taken into account by a planning decision-maker when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. Although it is crucial that EDPs are fully integrated into the wider planning system, I assure the noble Baroness that how EDPs work in practice means that the amendment is not necessary. Where a developer makes a payment into an EDP, the making of that payment discharges the relevant environmental obligation. This means that the planning decision-maker will not need to consider the specific environmental obligation covered by the EDP when deciding on an application.

To respond to the points about the differences that came forward after we had met with the environmental NGOs, and the response of the OEP, the government amendments make changes explicit in the Bill which were only implicit. We met with noble Lords to discuss this.

Amendment 135F seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about the biodiversity information required for applications for planning permission and enable specific bodies providing this information to applicants to charge for it. The Government agree it is critical that developers reduce and mitigate their impacts on biodiversity. We also agree that to achieve this, robust biodiversity information should be provided with planning applications where habitats and wildlife are affected by development proposals. However, I am not convinced that we need further powers to achieve this or that we should specify precisely where and how such information needs to be sourced.

Since 2024, subject to certain exceptions, biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in biodiversity value. As part of this framework, developers are now required to provide a baseline assessment of pre-development biodiversity value of the site using the statutory biodiversity metric published by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Natural England provides considerable guidance and support to developers and local planning authorities on the use of this metric. The biggest infrastructure developers will also be required to do so from May 2026 when BNG is extended to nationally significant infrastructure projects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, ensuring that planning meetings can be held when they are needed and that they are accessible is of real importance. Equally, the clarity of outcome is critical, and the transparency. Applicants, the public and those participating need to see that proposals have been properly considered with clarity of decision-making, otherwise confidence in the system will be undermined. I therefore ask the Minister what consideration has been given to how these provisions will operate in practice. Linked to this issue, what safeguards can the Government provide to ensure that the decisions reached in local planning meetings are both transparent and understood by all? I hope the Minister can reassure your Lordships’ House on these points.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady McIntosh, for the amendments relating to planning authority meetings. Amendment 135E would require councils to stream their planning meetings online, to publish records of those meetings and to allow members of the public to speak at them via online participation.

I have to say “well remembered” to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the levelling-up Bill—I think all of us who worked on that Bill deserve a badge to say that we survived. I indeed supported this issue, and the Government are committed to legislating to allow councils to meet remotely in response to our consultation. We are working with sector representatives such as the Local Government Association and others to clarify how this would work in practice, including how to ensure that existing rules around meetings are applied appropriately to remote and hybrid meetings without undermining democratic accountability or procedural integrity. We want to get this right and that might mean taking a little longer to work through the detail of the proposal to make sure that the changes are legally robust, practically workable and aligned with the expectation of both local authorities and the public.

We are committed to ending this micromanagement of local councils from Whitehall. Decisions about how councils run their day-to-day affairs should be taken locally. We do not think it is appropriate at the moment to make streaming meetings compulsory, as this amendment proposes. Councils can already stream their meetings online and can, if they wish, make arrangements to hear representations from the public online. Indeed, many councils already do this. The Government encourage councils to consider how they can make local democracy accessible to their residents, and that includes for reasons of disability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out. Streaming meetings may be a helpful step to make local decision-making more transparent. However, making that a locally operational decision and not because of a diktat is important.

Amendment 135HZA would allow planning committees and subcommittees to meet remotely or in hybrid form in circumstances to be specified in regulations. Outdated legislation has the implied effect of requiring all local authorities to hold their meetings in one physical location only. This was confirmed by a court case several years ago. As I mentioned earlier, all local authorities are independent bodies with their own democratic mandate, and as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has raised several times in this House in recent years, they should be able to decide how they want to organise their own meetings and Parliament should not stand in their way. That is why the Government have committed to allowing councils to make decisions themselves about whether to hold their meetings in person, to do them fully online, or to have a hybrid form.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Have the Government looked at any legal opinion as to whether a planning meeting is different from any other council meeting because it is quasi-judicial?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is exactly the detailed work that we are doing now with the Local Government Association and with other advisers to make sure that we get all the regulations right so that we do not breach any legal duty that councils have as we go through this process. We think this choice should apply to all council meetings and not just planning committees or planning authorities. We do not think there should be conditions attached to the decision. We trust that local authorities will make arrangements that work for them and for their residents, but we need to carry out the further work that I have referred to in order to bring this forward. However, I am very committed to moving it onwards, but we do not believe that the amendments are necessary and I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 135E.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I was quite positive about the Minister’s response because I feel that if the work that she outlined is happening, and I understand why she said it may take a little longer, I think that will give good councils—which are a little bit fearful of doing this, but need that extra guidance—confidence to go ahead and give it a try. However, we all know that there is a group of councils which, let us just say, give rise to concern within the department for not completing their local plans. We know there are issues in council meetings that are reported every week in the planning newsletter that comes out. I think they will be allowed to drag their heels and will continue to cause concern.

I also had a wry smile when the Minister said that the Government did not want to give diktats, because they are certainly not averse to giving them in other areas. I thank the Minister for her positivity on the subject and let us hope that more and more councils do start to do this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this group of amendments, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. On these Benches, we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that Gypsy and Traveller communities have access to appropriate accommodation. However, we do not believe—to put it bluntly—that these amendments are the right way forward. Local authorities already have duties under existing planning and housing law to assess accommodation needs across their communities, including those of Gypsies and Travellers.

To impose further statutory duties of the kind envisaged in these amendments risks unnecessary duplication and centralisation, adding bureaucracy without improving outcomes. We believe that the better course is to ensure that the current framework is properly enforced, rather than creating new and overlapping obligations. For that reason, we cannot offer our support to these amendments; nevertheless, we look forward to the Minister’s reply.

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

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 145, 173, 174, 175 and 176, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is a passionate advocate for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites. I was very happy to discuss this with her yesterday during the debate on Awaab’s law. We have had many meetings on the subject, which I welcome.

I completely agree with the need to ensure sufficient provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to make the distinction between show people and Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. I believe that local authorities can already make a distinction in planning terms between the two. If that is not right, I will correct that in writing. Therefore, local authorities have the ability to do that.

Amendment 145 requires the spatial development strategy to specify an amount or distribution of Traveller sites. However, under new Section 12D(5), the Bill would already allow for spatial development strategies to specify or describe housing needs for Gypsies and Travellers, provided that the strategic planning authority considers the issue to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. The new clause refers to

“any other kind of housing”

the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be part of its strategic consideration.

Amendments 173, 174, 175 and 176 seek to introduce measures into the Bill that would require an assessment of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs to inform local plans and development strategies. The amendment is unnecessary as there is an existing duty, in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of those people residing in, or resorting to, districts with respect to the provision of caravan sites or houseboats. This provision covers Gypsies and Travellers.

Furthermore, planning policy is already clear that local planning authorities should use a robust evidence base to establish Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs and to inform the preparation of local plans and planning decisions. In doing so, they should pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with both settled and Traveller communities and should work collaboratively with neighbouring planning authorities.

We have also committed to a further review of planning policy for Traveller sites this year, as part of which any further changes, including the need for guidance on the assessment of needs, will be considered. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that we will not be sleepwalking into these; they will be evidence based after clear consultation with all relevant bodies, including the communities themselves. As housing legislation, planning policy and the Bill already adequately support the provision of Traveller sites, I therefore ask my noble friend not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support, as well as for the support given by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe to an amendment covering the principles of this group that was taken very late at night on a previous day in Committee.

I commend the actions taken by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in his own local authority, but, sadly, the evidence I have seen does not confirm what he says about assessment of needs and accommodation provision working well over the whole country.

I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for stepping up for the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, to express the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his welcome reminder of the very similar position of show people.

My noble friend the Minister has shown her usual welcome sympathy for the problems that we have been debating. I am grateful for her comprehensive answers and the glimmer of hope she extends to finding solutions. I know that she knows that I intend to pursue those solutions. I look forward to our further meetings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much hope that, when considering how to implement what I hope will be agreement with these amendments, the Government pay close attention to the need to gather much better data than they have at the moment. The financial strictures on the Environment Agency over the last couple of decades have meant that its water quality monitoring is a long way short of what it should be.

I take this opportunity to praise my brother, Tim Palmer, for what he and other farmers on the River Wylye in Wiltshire have done to create their own farmer-owned laboratory to monitor water quality and to take action which has considerably improved it.

There is a lot that can be done, but you cannot take decisions on how things are going to affect rivers unless you are collecting good data, and that is not happening at the moment. If the Government work with farmers to collect better data, they will find that they get better results from this and other aspects of their environmental policy.

The other aspect I want to raise is this. Please can we end the snobbish definition of chalk streams that seems to have crept in during the last Government? I put in a plea for the Lottbridge Sewer, which is Eastbourne’s chalk stream. These little chalk streams that occur in odd places around the hill and the escarpment are important parts of the natural tapestry of life. They need protection just as much as the Test or Itchen. The definition of a chalk stream should be water type and water quality, not whether or not I can catch a big trout in it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As ever in your Lordships’ Committee, it has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments. I thank noble Lords for tabling amendments on the important topics of the protection of rivers, wildlife and animal welfare.

I will pick up a couple of general points. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned the Environment Agency’s dataset assessment. I will reply to him in writing, if that is okay, because I do not have the latest update.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said that I had said there was a chalk stream in Stevenage. I hope I did not say that, because that would not be accurate. There is a chalk stream just outside Stevenage, in the village of Aston, in East Hertfordshire. I think I remember commenting that I visited there with Feargal Sharkey a few months before the election. We had an interesting discussion with Mr Sharkey about chalk streams. It is not technically in Stevenage—it is just outside our borough.

Amendments 146, 147 and 148 all seek to add new requirements on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection of rivers and streams, notably chalk streams. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I am not responsible for the definition of “chalk stream”, but I am sure it is not just to do with how big the trout are that you can catch in them; there is a much more scientific method of defining chalk streams. I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to restoring and protecting chalk streams. They are a source of national pride. As one of Britain’s most nature-rich habitats, they support some of our rarest wildlife, from chalk salmon to trout, and are home to beloved and endangered species. There are just 260 chalk streams in the world and, as one noble Lord commented, 85% of them are in this country, which we can all be proud of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 185M, which proposes a vital duty to ensure due consideration of neighbourhood plans. I am delighted that, in discussions on the Bill, we are spending time considering the importance of neighbourhood plans, because they represent the heart and soul of local communities’ aspirations for their areas. They are often painstakingly developed by local people, often without much in the way of expert advice, and the plans reflect the needs, the character and the priorities they want for their areas. However, without adequate statutory backing, these plans risk being marginalised by larger-scale development decisions.

If adopted, Amendment 185M would achieve two important outcomes. The first would be that a planning authority, including the Secretary of State, would have to give due consideration to any neighbourhood plan or, indeed, any draft neighbourhood plan when making a decision on an application for planning consent. If that happens, the voices of local residents, as expressed through their neighbourhood plans, will not just be there but be factored into major development decisions. Maybe that is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and others in this group of amendments.

The other outcome of the amendment would be that the Secretary of State would permit a variation to a neighbourhood plan only if the variation were clearly justifiable and unlikely to compromise the overall intention of the neighbourhood plan that has been proposed in a clear manner. The amendment would safeguard the integrity of neighbourhood plans, preventing arbitrary or poorly considered alterations that could undermine their community-driven objectives.

I suppose that, in the end, it depends how we look at planning. We have had two analogies today: a planning hierarchy from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a pyramid from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and I wonder whether using those images makes us think that the important bit is the apex. I would use a different analogy: our road system. The big NPPF, strategic plans and local plans are like major roads and motorways, but what gets us from one place to another are local lanes and byways—and that is the neighbourhood plans. Those are the ones that matter to people. Once we start thinking of pyramids and hierarchies, I think we tend to think that the top of the pyramid is the important bit, but actually it is the foundations. I have probably said what I need to say about that.

I am in broad agreement with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We went through all of them during the passage of the Levelling-up and Whatever Bill, now an Act. It is important that public bodies are made to assist with plan-making. If you do not, where does that end? The issue that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is trying to get us to think about is that frequently, in my experience, local people engage in planning only when it comes to a practical application on the table for a planning decision on a housing site, a commercial development or whatever it is.

Unfortunately, my starting point is that as a local councillor I often have to say to people that a housing site is already in the local plan and therefore the principle of development has been determined. Often, they will say, “Well, where was our say in this?” I will go through what I and others tried to engage with them and let them know what the proposals were. The difficulty that people often find is that this is a theoretical plan at a strategic level with great big sort of proposals for transport infrastructure, commercial development or housing. It is theoretical, as is local planning, even when it is allocation of sites. People often struggle to engage at that level. In this era of thinking about the creation of strategic planning and local authority local plans, we need to think very carefully about how that information is transmitted to the public.

Amendments in an earlier group on this Bill, probably two or three days ago, were about digital modelling. I think that would bring to life for people land-use planning and the allocation of sites. So that is my only difficulty with the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

The collective impact of all these amendments would create a more integrated and responsive planning system. If we want to put local communities at the heart of engaging with and taking part in responsible decision-making about what happens where they live, neighbourhood planning must be at the heart of that, because it enables proper democratic participation in making decisions about their area for their future. I hope that the Minister will give that a positive nod.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group concern the interaction between spatial development strategies, local plans and the neighbourhood planning system. I absolutely take the point that this must be a coherent system. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the scars on our backs from local plan delivery, we in Stevenage found ourselves in the crazy situation of having had three years of consultation on our local plan and a three-week public inquiry, which is quite unusual, and then having the plan held up for 452 days on a holding direction. That is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about; we have to get over these delays and glitches in the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am just seeking clarity. As the Minister knows, many of us in local government bear the scars from changes. The implication of her response is that, in practical terms, someone would not be going to regulation 18 stage in a local plan until they were very clear about what the spatial development strategy was going to be. That potentially means that you end up having a cascade of plans that are entirely dependent on the spatial development strategy, and that will delay local plans and, potentially, neighbourhood plans.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope I made it clear that, as an SDS is in preparation, the evidence base and policies being used will become apparent. It is the collaboration between the different elements of the plan-making process that is critical here. Suggesting that we might hold up the provision of a plan is not correct. Regulation 18 stage is a quite an early stage and we do not want to weaken the production of the SDS, given the time it would take to produce the next local plan to be consistent with the SDS. So the evidence for the SDS will be very clear and, if there is good collaboration between all parts of the system, they should not need to wait for the SDS to be finalised even before or after they get to regulation 18 stage. I hope that is clear. If the noble Lord wants to talk about that some more, I am happy to do so.

Amendment 154, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would create a power for neighbourhood planning groups to produce neighbourhood priority statements. As the noble Lord knows, provision for these was one of many measures first included in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. We are mindful of the scale of reform to the planning system with which we are asking local authorities to engage. Later in the year, we intend to set out the detail of our reforms to the system of local plans, and we are wary of introducing further complexity into the new system before it has been allowed to become established. If we were to do so, we would risk undermining both the local plan reforms and the neighbourhood priorities statements, with overstretched planning authorities potentially failing to give statements the consideration they would deserve. For this reason, the Government’s current priority for the neighbourhood planning system is maintaining the existing rights for communities in the new context of strategic and reformed local plans—that is what I was talking about just now. We will consider whether there is a need for reform to neighbourhood planning, including whether to commence the relevant provisions in Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, once our wider reforms have taken effect.

Amendments 161 and 163 propose to amend the power to require assistance with certain plan-making in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and to commence the power in Section 98 which makes provision regarding the contents of neighbourhood plans. The noble Lord will, I hope, be pleased to hear that, so far as spatial development strategies are concerned, we are entirely in agreement. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Bill gives effect to his proposal to add spatial development strategies to the list of plans where assistance can be required.

When it comes to neighbourhood plans, I am afraid I must disappoint the noble Lord. This power was not designed for neighbourhood plans. It is intended to cover plan-making at far greater geographic scale and to obtain assistance on issues with which no voluntary neighbourhood planning group could be expected to grapple, no matter the extent of the assistance. His point about provisions for support to neighbourhood governance in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is noted, but I believe they are intended for a much wider remit than planning—no doubt we will debate what that might be during the course of that Bill. Neighbourhood plans are not supposed to be local plans in miniature, and they should not be treated as such.

As far as commencement of Sections 98 and 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act are concerned, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that these provisions will be commenced alongside our wider reforms, which we think will allow all the legislative changes to be viewed in the round, rather than having to be pieced together over time.

I turn next to Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am grateful to him, as always, for his constructive engagement and for all his amendments, including this one. He raised important concerns at Second Reading around the potential for neighbourhood plans to conflict with national policy, especially in relation to development on grey-belt land. I assure the Committee that neighbourhood plans cannot be used to prevent housing development and they cannot designate grey-belt land, nor can they unilaterally ignore national policy.

The test of “have regard to” is a well-established one—I hesitate to discuss this with a lawyer of such eminence as the noble Lord—across planning and beyond. It requires serious consideration of the policy and its objectives, and a rational basis for any departure. The starting point for any such test, including in neighbourhood planning, is that the regard should normally see the policy being followed. This point, among others, should be rigorously tested by the examiner during the public examination of a neighbourhood plan. We think this is the right balance. National policy is designed to be flexible. It must be, because local circumstances and needs vary widely, and so it is important that flexibility is maintained.

Amendment 185M, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to insert a requirement into the development consent order process for a Secretary of State to consider neighbourhood plans when making a decision on a nationally significant project, and to allow her to limit variations to neighbourhood plans—that should be “him”, sorry; this was obviously a note written before the change of the Secretary of State. While I agree it is essential that neighbourhood plans inform the Government’s decision-making on these projects, this amendment is not necessary to deliver that outcome.

As the Housing Minister said in the other place, the DCO process has been designed to enable timely decisions to be taken on nationally significant infrastructure projects, taking account of national need and priority, as well as local impacts. Neighbourhood plans give communities the ability to shape and direct development and the use of land at a local level, and play an important role in the planning system. For NSIP applications, national policy statements are the primary policy framework; they set out the need for NSIPs, guidance for promoters and assessment criteria, and guidance for decision-making.

The Planning Act 2008 process provides ample opportunities for input from local communities and local authorities, which I know is the noble Baroness’s key concern. As part of the decision-making process, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters considered both important and relevant; this can include matters of local significance. Local communities can make representations as part of the examination process, which can address whether proposals comply with or otherwise impact on issues of concern set out in relevant neighbourhood plans. Local authorities are fully engaged in the DCO process and are invited to submit local impact reports setting out the potential impacts of the project on the local area. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the local impact report in deciding an application.

As a matter of law, the Secretary of State must decide any application for a development consent order in accordance with any relevant national policy statement, except to the extent that any limited statutory exemption applies. Where there is no relevant national policy statement in effect, the Secretary of State must have regard to specified matters, including the local impact report and any other matters which the Secretary of State considers both important and relevant to the decision. These safeguards, which are already embedded in the statutory process, are sufficient to ensure that Secretaries of State take account of existing development plans, including neighbourhood plans, as appropriate. Where there is a relevant national policy statement in effect, this amendment could serve to frustrate the clear legal requirement on the Secretary of State to determine an application in accordance with the NPS.

This amendment would add another unnecessary requirement to the DCO process, which is contradictory to the Government’s ambitions of streamlining the planning system and the DCO decision-making process. Furthermore, the Secretary of State currently has no role in approving neighbourhood plans. It would therefore not be appropriate to enable him to make variations to them, as this is, rightly, a decision for communities. For these reasons, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I invite the Minister and her government colleagues to consider, if in my Amendment 167 a requirement for consistency with the NPPF is considered to be too onerous in relation to neighbourhood plans, a middle ground of general conformity. That language was used back in the days of regional spatial strategies; local development plans had to be in “general conformity” with RSSs. It is an established formula that has been considered by the courts already, and it is a stronger direction than “have regard to” but with at least a degree of more minor flex.

I fear that the Minister and her government colleagues overestimate the rigour of the neighbourhood plan examination process. This is not done by independent planning inspectors; it tends to be done by consultants who are in the business of examining neighbourhood plans, so they have a degree of incentive to sign them off. It tends not to involve an oral hearing, being done on paper, and tends to give neighbourhood planning authorities a very wide margin of appreciation in practice. It is a lot easier for neighbourhood plans to depart from national policy in practice than it may appear to be on paper. That is my experience, and I encourage the Government to consider that midway ground between now and Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. I will take it back and reply to him in writing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I start by thanking the Minister for her reply. I reiterate what my noble friend said earlier: it appears that she has had regard to our comments but her response is not consistent with our proposals, and hence I am disappointed with that response. We will take some time carefully to consider these areas of disagreement. Our focus will be on how the planning system can deliver the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised, and how these can be quality homes that people need and that are part of communities and serve them.

Amendments 154, 161 and 163, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, concern the benefits of a neighbourhood priority statement. I completely agree with his comments: producing a neighbourhood plan can be quite onerous, but coming up with a statement of priorities can be done much more readily and be very helpful.

We on these Benches continue to believe that the Government should move swiftly to commence large swathes of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023; that has long been a consistent position on this side of the House, and it remains so today. In fact, if many of those provisions had been brought to fruition, we may not have been debating so much in this Chamber over the past week, and in coming weeks. The Act took bold steps forward, covering a wide range of reforms from completion through to plan-making. Yet, despite that ambition, many of the core delivery mechanisms already on the statute book through the 2023 Act have not been commenced or only partially so. Increasingly, sector voices are critical of the Government for seeking to legislate through new planning Bills, rather than simply using the powers they already hold. Can the Minister set out clearly for the Committee which areas of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act the Government are willing to commence in this Parliament?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I wrote to the noble Lord during the course of a previous Bill to set out which provisions would be implemented, with rough dates for when they would come forward. I hope he has received that letter.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I will review my correspondence; I may have missed it, but I will double-check. I apologise if that is the case.

As I acknowledged earlier, Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner covers similar ground to my own amendments. We are grateful for my noble friend’s contribution and for his determination to drive forward housebuilding and ensure consistency across the planning system. We will continue to lean on his wisdom on these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that everybody would be in favour of this. I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling Amendment 166 and bringing this important issue before the House. The principle of proportionality deserves to stand alone in this debate, for it goes directly to the heart of the speed, efficiency and accuracy of our planning system.

As ever, my noble friend has presented the case with his customary clarity and intellectual weight; I thank him for that. He has shown that this principle is not only desirable, but essential. His amendment would embed proportionality firmly within the planning process, giving decision-makers, applicants, consultees and indeed the courts confidence that less can sometimes be more. It would allow for decision-making that is sharper in focus and public participation that is clearer and more effective.

I accept that this is a technically complicated clause, but it is also a vital one. At its core, it states that the information and evidence required to determine any planning application should be proportionate to the real issues at stake, taking into account decisions already made at the plan-making stage and recognising where issues could be dealt with later, whether through planning conditions, obligations or other forms of regulation. It is important to be clear about what this amendment would not do. It would not dilute or weaken the responsibility of local planning authorities to justify their decisions, particularly when refusing or withholding planning permission. Rather, it would ensure that planning does not become mired in an endless accumulation of unnecessary reports, assessments and duplications that add little value but cause delay and frustration.

That is why this apparently technical definition is in fact deeply needed reform. It would be a practical safeguard against a system that too often risks becoming paralysed by its own complexity. If we are serious about unblocking progress and enabling the timely delivery of new homes—1.5 million in the next three and a half or four years—and, with them, the wider infrastructure and investment our communities require, principles such as this must be at the heart of a modern planning system. The Government would do well to accept this amendment. In doing so, they would signal that they are not just merely managing a process but are serious about reforming it, serious about tackling the barriers that hold us back and serious about delivering the homes and the growth that this country so urgently needs.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendment 166, regarding proportionality in the planning system, ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I thank him for bringing it forward. It seeks

“to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that”

in the planning system

“less can be more”.

We agree with this sentiment. If we are to meet the 1.5 million homes target, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has just outlined, the planning system needs to operate more effectively and with greater certainty. Of course, the problem here is that although the noble Lord described it as reality and pragmatism, unfortunately one man or woman’s reality and pragmatism will be somebody else’s dystopian nightmare, so we have to be a bit careful about how we move forward.

We all know that planning has got much more complex and litigious, which has led many local planning authorities to take a precautionary approach when preparing local plans and dealing with planning applications. This is why we too want to see a more proportionate approach to planning. However—and this is where, unfortunately, we disagree with the noble Lord—we feel that introducing a new statutory principle of proportionality across all of planning is not the way to achieve this. This itself would introduce a new legal test, which risks more opportunities for legal challenge and grounds for disagreements—points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. Instead, we believe it is better to promote proportionality through national planning policy and by looking at specific opportunities to streamline procedures through regulatory reform.

The Bill already includes important reforms to achieve this, including the nationally significant infrastructure projects reforms and the creation of the nature restoration fund. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, issues concerning SME builders and how to support them are under very serious consideration, including the large package of financial support that the Government have already announced, and we will continue to consider what more might be done in that regard. We are also doing much more alongside the Bill—for example, scaling back the role of statutory consultees through our review of those bodies, and examining whether there should be a new medium development category where policy and regulatory requirements would be more proportionate, as we recently set out in our site thresholds working paper. For all the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her comments. It is encouraging that we share the overall objective of proportionate, streamlined decision-making, even if we part company, for now, on how to achieve it.

I would like to come back on a couple of points. On legal risk, the first point made by the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Pinnock, was about the definition—would there be ambiguity regarding what the principle means? I suggest not. It is set out in terms in subparagraph (5), with the ability of the Secretary of State to promote statutory guidance. It may be that the language can be improved, but I encourage the Government to continue the helpful discussions we have had outside this Chamber on whether that risk might be reduced.

In any case, given that the interpretive duty in the principle of proportionality is to interpret all planning laws in a proportionate, pragmatic way, the overall net effect of this amendment would in fact be to reduce legal risk. Because in any judicial review context, if somebody came along arguing for a particularly restrictive, over-precautionary interpretation, the court would have, in neon lights, messaging from Parliament that the court should take a less onerous, less prescriptive approach, which is bound to reduce the overall success rate of judicial reviews in the planning context. So, I suggest that, overall, this would reduce rather than increase legal risk. The stress test of that is the LPDF, which represents SMEs—those developers who would be particularly affected by increased legal costs were they to arise. Its emphatic view—in fact, this is the amendment, of all those before the Committee, it is most emphatic on—is that the amendment would be helpful. So, I will pursue it on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for bringing to our attention the practical implications of the Hillside judgment within Amendment 169 today. These are complex issues, but his amendment shines a clear light on the risks to developers and local authorities alike, and the potential chilling effect on much-needed projects. It is precisely at moments like these that the Government should lean on the wisdom and experience of noble Lords who understand the realities of these issues on the ground.

We have had the benefit of meeting my noble friend Lord Banner privately to discuss these matters in detail. That conversation was extremely valuable in setting out the issues so clearly, and we are grateful for his time and expertise. We will continue to work with him to ensure that these concerns are properly addressed. I very much hope the Minister will give a positive and constructive reply and that the concerns raised today will be fully taken into account.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the great benefits of being in your Lordships’ House is that every day is a school day and you learn something new. I had no idea there was anything like a reverse declaration of interests, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, just made, in saying that he is going to lose out if this amendment is taken into account.

This is a highly technical amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, for his explanations of the background to the case and for setting it in a context which made it a little easier to understand. I am grateful for the amendments around the Hillside Supreme Court judgment.

Amendments 169 and 185SB are technical but important amendments about overlapping consents. Amendment 169 seeks to address the implications of the Hillside judgment in relation to overlapping planning permissions. It seeks in particular to enable the carrying out of a development under an initial permission when an overlapping permission has been implemented, making it physically impossible for the first permission to be carried out.

Amendment 185SB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, focuses on overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders. The Government recognise that the Hillside judgment and subsequent court decisions have caused concerns across the development sector, and the noble Lord was kind enough to send me some of the articles that have been written since, setting out which problems they are causing. It has made it more challenging to use the practice of drop-in permissions to deal with changes in development proposals for plots on large-scale residential and commercial development in response to changing circumstances. There have been concerns about the implications for the implementation of development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects when planning permissions have been used to deal with minor variations.

We want to ensure that large-scale developments, where they need to change, can secure the necessary consents to deal with these changes effectively and proportionately. Unfortunately, we are not persuaded that Amendment 169 is the solution to Hillside for overlapping planning permissions. It is too broad in scope, and we must be absolutely sure that it would not undermine the integrity of the planning system. The long-standing principle that Hillside endorsed—that it is unlawful to carry out a development when another permission makes it physically impossible to carry it out—is a sound one. Decisions are made on the merits of the entire development proposal, and this amendment would allow developers to pick and choose what parts of an approved development they wanted to implement when they had a choice.

Similarly, we need to consider carefully the implications of legislating to deal with overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders in general terms. While I understand the desire for certainty, there is more flexibility through a development consent order to deal with the overlap with planning permissions.

That said, I emphasise again that, as a Government committed to ensuring that the planning system supports growth, we are keen to ensure that the right development can be consented and implemented quickly. We want to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to deal with change to large-scale developments. Clause 11 already provides a framework for a more streamlined and proportionate process to change development consent orders, but we also want to look at how the framework can be improved for planning permissions. We would welcome further discussions with your Lordships and the wider sector on this matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for pointing out issues around Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. I need to revisit our correspondence to refresh my mind on what we said about that, but his point about restoring the law to the Pilkington principle is noted and I am sure we will come back to this.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendment 227F and for his continued commitment to energy security and net-zero objectives. This amendment seeks to create a statutory timeframe of 10 weeks for decisions to be made on compulsory purchase orders made under the Electricity Act 1989. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030 and it is clear that rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. We recognise the importance of providing all parties with a clear understanding of likely timelines to support project planning and investment decisions but do not consider the imposition of statutory deadlines for processing applications to be the best way to achieve this.

The process required for a CPO varies depending on the features of each case, which means that different types of case require different timescales. Guidance from MHCLG already includes indicative timings for the determination of CPOs in England. These range from four to 24 weeks, depending on the case and the process required. Using shorter deadlines to speed up a process is like passing a law that outlaws any delay in your journey up the motorway. That might sound appealing—especially if, like me, you have to travel on the M25 quite regularly—but, if something needs to be done more quickly, one must first find out what things are causing it to take the time that it takes and then address those issues. Otherwise, one is simply legislating in a way that says: “Do it faster”.

I know that, as a former Minister in DESNZ responsible for planning decisions, my noble friend will recognise that what is really needed are system reforms and simplifications, a more efficient digital case handling system and more capacity. I am delighted to confirm that the Government are already delivering on all three of these things. We are treating the disease, not just the symptom.

I have listened carefully to all the arguments put forward today and can assure noble Lords that we share the aim of ensuring that all processes for CPOs proceed as expeditiously as possible. I hope, for these reasons, that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. I am relieved to know that, if I get hit by a bus on the way home today—which is very unlikely, given the strikes—my legacy to this House will be the concept of a reverse declaration of interest.

It seems that there is unanimity across the Committee that the Hillside judgment generates a cause for a legislative solution. It also appears to be common ground that new Section 73B, if and when it is enacted pursuant to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, would not be a panacea. It may help in some cases—probably about one-third, but no more than that, so there is a need to go further.

Where we part is on the drafting and what the right-worded solution is. I am very much not wedded to the wording of my amendment; it is really there as a challenge in the hope that, collectively, we can come up with something that carries the overall consent of this House. I look forward to working with the Minister and my noble friend Lady Scott to find a form of words that will achieve the solution that we need. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Yes—maybe we need a review of the Committee stage of this Bill.

I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his amendment and agree with the spirit of his proposals. Greater transparency is positive, and most good authorities would have that information readily available. I can say that, for my own council, I could phone up and get a spreadsheet of exactly how much each development has contributed in my ward.

As an ex-chairman of the LGA, I just want to say something in defence of councils and the fact that there is a considerable sum, so to speak, sitting on the balance books. As an ex-leader, I know how difficult it is to get these big projects over the line. Even a good secondary school can cost £25 million or £30 million; you will be reliant on four or five different Section 106 payments for that, you will be waiting for grants, and you will have to get the land. These things can take three, four, five or six years. To go on to the topic of bypasses, that is an entirely different timescale. We should look not just at the quantum of money but at how difficult it is to pull these sums together and get things going.

I come to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, where I think that review might even address some of these timescale issues. The noble Baroness has raised a number of important issues, particularly around the delivery of infrastructure promised through development agreements, the use and protection of land set aside for community purposes and the broader question of how the public might benefit when land values increase sharply. I hope that the Government will reflect seriously on the principles raised and, in that spirit, I want to put a few questions to the Minister, which I hope she might be able to respond to today; if not, perhaps she could come back at a later time.

First, what assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of existing mechanisms, principally Section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, in ensuring that local communities receive the schools, highways, GP surgeries and other facilities promised? Too often, we hear of permissions granted on the basis that there will be improved infrastructure and then, over time, it is slowly whittled away and we find new housing without that infrastructure and communities having to cope with more traffic on the roads, more crowded GP surgeries, schools with portakabins and so forth. If residents see new developments going up without the infrastructure that they were promised, they will lose confidence in the planning system and will therefore fight every single development, which some of us do find. We need reforms that get trust back in the system.

Secondly, does the Minister agree that there is a risk that infrastructure commitments can in practice be watered down or renegotiated, leaving communities without these services?

Thirdly, on land value capture more broadly, does the Minister believe that the current system allows sufficient benefit from rising land values to be shared with the wider public, or does she see scope for reform, as envisaged in Amendment 218?

Fourthly, will the Government commit to reviewing international examples of land value capture—for instance, models used in parts of Europe or Asia—to see whether there are lessons that might be drawn for a UK context?

Finally, how do the Government intend to balance the need to secure fair contributions for infrastructure and community benefit while ensuring that development remains viable and attractive to investors? I appreciate that these are difficult issues, but it is important that we resolve them.

Moving on, Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raises a really important issue. We have a housing crisis and we need to look at all solutions that may resolve it. I commend her for once again placing the needs of young people at the centre of our deliberations. The question before us is a delicate but important one. It concerns whether planning authorities should be permitted to approve high-quality transitional accommodation for young people leaving supported housing or at the risk of homelessness in circumstances where our national space standards would otherwise disallow such provision. The case for doing so is strong. The housing crisis is not abstract; it is a real matter facing the young of today. Too many of them find themselves renting late into life, sofa surfing or returning to the parental home, not through choice but because there are no realistic alternatives. At precisely the stage in life when young people should be gaining independence, putting down roots, building families and contributing to the wider economy, instead they face barriers at every turn.

We are all familiar with the macroeconomic challenges of house prices that have outpaced wages, a lack of genuinely affordable starter homes and, in certain parts of the country, rents which are, frankly, extortionate. That is why the noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of stepping-stone accommodation, a flexible transitional model that can bridge the gap between institutional supported housing and permanent independence.

But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of the amendment, but I sound a note of caution. Our space standards were developed for a good reason. They exist to prevent the return of poor-quality housing, of rabbit-hutch flats, of homes that compromise health, dignity and long-term liveability. If we are to disapply such standards in certain cases, we must do so with clear safeguards in place. So, I urge that, if this amendment is taken forward, it is accompanied by precise definitions, strict planning guidance and a rigorous framework, to ensure that genuine transitional high-quality schemes can benefit from the flexibilities proposed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this group relating to community infrastructure, land value capture and space standards for stepping-stone accommodation.

I turn first to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which would impose new reporting requirements on local planning authorities and introduce new mechanisms to ensure that works funded through developer contributions are delivered. The stories about the delivery of Section 106 and CIL are legendary. My two favourite examples were a bus stop delivered in an area that did not have a bus route, which was wonderful, and a playground that had not been built to safety standards that would ever allow it to be opened, so it never opened—it got closed again before it even opened. We get some nonsense stories like this, and I accept that that is not acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I would be very interested to know whether the Minister has the figure—if not, she could let us know later—but I think the National Audit Office said 17% of local authorities had not submitted their infrastructure funding statements. I wondered if she had any update on that and perhaps would let us know how many have failed to disclose.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Lord predicts, I do not have the figure in front of me, but I will write to noble Lords and confirm what it is.

Amendment 185L seeks to deal with instances in which community infrastructure secured through Section 106 cannot be delivered as originally intended. In our view, this amendment risks unintended consequences which could hinder, rather than facilitate, sustainable development. I emphasise that local planning authorities can already take enforcement action if a developer fails to deliver on the obligations they have committed to in a Section 106 agreement, including failure to deliver community infrastructure where relevant. This may include a local planning authority entering the land to complete the works and then seeking to recover the costs or applying to the court for an injunction to prevent further construction or occupation of dwellings. This amendment would prevent the modification of planning obligations even where a change of circumstances means that the community infrastructure in question can no longer be delivered by the developer.

As I have set out, the Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions, including Section 106 planning obligations. To deliver on this commitment, we are taking a number of steps, including reviewing planning practice guidance on viability. However, we must have flexibility where necessary to ensure that development, where there are genuine changes in circumstance, can continue to come forward. We must also think carefully about the demands we are placing on local planning authorities, which may not have the capacity or resources to take on responsibility for delivery in the way this amendment proposes.

Amendments 185K and 220 focus on the development consent order process and strategic development schemes and seek to achieve the same outcome. The clauses proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would place a legal requirement on developers to deliver on commitments made to provide specified local infrastructure as part of their projects.

First, I want to express my sympathy with the spirit behind this proposal. We all agree that communities must be able to secure the infrastructure they need, especially when new development brings added pressure on local services and existing infrastructure, including schools, nurseries and GP surgeries. In particular, I acknowledge that the concerns that may be driving the amendment relate to the impact of temporary workers or additional traffic on local communities caused by large-scale infrastructure projects, which can remain under construction for significant periods of time.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the problem with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is that the viability of affordable housing changes all the time? Because there is a link between the viability of residential housing and community facilities, that amendment could lock in the development in a restrictive way—for instance, it might not allow off-site commutation of funding to fund other projects.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the noble Lord’s point, and it is of course important that we get the balance right between the delivery of the infrastructure as set out and having flexibility, so that when circumstances change, this can change too.

The amendments seek to focus on the issue by ensuring that commitments to delivering local infrastructure need to reduce the impact of a large-scale scheme. In responding, I have assumed that the reference to strategic development schemes is intended to relate to spatial development strategies, which are introduced through this Bill. These strategies, along with local development plans, set out infrastructure needs but are not applications and do not have developments attached to them. I agree strongly with the noble Baroness, and when it comes to large-scale new developments, the Government agree that delivering local infrastructure is crucial. If a project approved through a development consent order creates a need for local infrastructure such as roads, schools or drainage works, those needs can be addressed in two ways.

First, development consent order requirements, which are similar to planning conditions on planning permissions issued under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, control how and when the development is carried out, and may require the approval of subsequent details by the local planning authority. These can be used in cases where changes to local infrastructure are needed to make development acceptable in planning terms. For example, if a developer is providing a relief road to mitigate an identified impact on local infrastructure as a result of constructing a large-scale infrastructure project, the necessary works can be detailed in the requirements. Relevant requirements may mandate subsequent plans—which outline proposed design, works phasing and traffic management—to be submitted to the highways authority, and these plans would then need to be approved and adhered to when implementing the development consent order.

Secondly, local infrastructure can be secured through development consent order obligations. These legal agreements can be used to require the payment of money as contributions towards the provision of local infrastructure, or to secure commitments to delivering that infrastructure. An obligation can be used to ensure that impacts on local infrastructure are properly taken into account and to mitigate identified adverse effects. The Secretary of State may take into account development consent obligations that meet the relevant legal and policy tests when deciding whether to grant development consent for the project. Once an obligation is enforced, it becomes legally binding and runs with the land, even if the land changes hands. A local planning authority has a range of enforcement options available to it if developers or the owners of the land, subject to the development consent obligation, do not fulfil their legal commitments.

While we fully support the goal of ensuring communities get the infrastructure they need, we believe the existing system already provides the right tools through legal requirements where appropriate, and these clauses would not add clarity or effectiveness to that process. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his series of questions. I will check in Hansard which ones I answered. If there are any I did not answer, I will reply to him in writing. However, for all the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 218 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of land value capture, including consideration of the merits of alternative methods of land value capture, within six months of Royal Assent to the Bill, and to report on the findings to Parliament.

I thank the noble Baronesses for raising this amendment. It is critically important that local planning authorities can capture a proportion of the land value uplift that often occurs when planning permission is granted in order to deliver affordable housing and the infrastructure needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. Local planning authorities currently use the well-established and effective mechanisms of Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening this system, and we have chosen not to implement alternative proposals for land value capture provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, such as the infrastructure levy.

The Government have already made important progress in delivering against this commitment. For example, through the revised National Planning Policy Framework, published on 12 December last year, the Government introduced new “golden rules” for major development involving the provision of housing on land within or released from the green belt. Our “golden rules” aim to deliver higher levels of affordable housing alongside necessary infrastructure and accessible green space.

Through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently in the other place, we are also legislating to give mayors of strategic authorities the power to raise a mayoral CIL alongside the requirement to have a spatial development strategy in place, enabling them to raise revenue for strategic growth-supporting infrastructure where this is balanced with viability. The department has provided evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee inquiry into land value capture, and we very much look forward to engaging with the findings and recommendations of that inquiry in due course.

Amendment 184, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to exempt local planning authorities from applying the nationally described space standards on planning applications concerning the delivery of “stepping stone” accommodation. I also thank Centrepoint for its continuing and proactive support regarding the housing crisis among young people, and for its work on the Bill.

As helpfully set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in her explanatory note, the thrust of this amendment is to promote accommodation for young people who are leaving supported housing or who are at risk of homelessness. I have delivered similar schemes to the ones she described through our housing first scheme in Stevenage, including some for young people with learning disabilities, which was a remarkable experience. It was a small development, but it was life-changing for those young people. The community they formed in that housing development was wonderful to see, so I do not need any convincing of the reasons for delivering schemes such as these.

I give my support to the principle of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and agree that regulation should not unnecessarily get in the way of providing safe and secure housing for our most vulnerable, particularly vulnerable young people. However, I hope I can reassure her that the amendment is not needed.

The purpose of the space standards is to provide guidance on the minimum area of new dwellings across all types of tenures, based on the number of bedrooms and bedspaces. The nationally described space standards are not set out in legislation, and they are not mandatory. It is at the discretion of local planning authorities to choose to adopt the space standards through their local planning policies where there is an identified need for additional technical requirements. As set out in planning practice guidance, when establishing a clear need for adopting the space standards locally, they must assess the impact on local viability and housing supply.

By law, planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Each application is judged on its own individual merit, and the weight given to these considerations is a matter for the local planning authority as the usual decision-taker in the first instance.

What constitutes a material consideration is very widely defined and it is for the planning decision-maker to determine what is a relevant consideration, based on the circumstances of a particular case. We feel this is best for local areas to determine on a case-by-case basis, rather than being dictated by central government. For example, if the local planning authority considers that the need for a particular housing tenure—such as “stepping stone” housing—would, when considering all relevant material considerations, outweigh the policy requirement to have that housing meet the optional space standards adopted in its local plan, it may grant planning permission. In short, the current planning framework—

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I absolutely understand what the Minister is saying but, given the actual experience—four years for planning permission—could we explore together a way of giving this a shove up the agenda and in some way make it a little better? It definitely feels as though there is a wall there that we need to shove a digger through. The Minister says it is there in legislation, but it is clearly not happening in practice.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to do that. As I explained, I fully understand the intention behind the amendment. I hope my explanations have reassured noble Lords sufficiently and I kindly ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am genuinely always grateful when the Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, as well as to all those who spoke in this group. It has been a good, illuminating discussion, and I like the ambition of my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Jackson and my noble friend—I will call her that—Lady Andrews, my fellow committee member. I cannot remember what she subsequently said, but I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, called this an odds and sods group, but it did have two key components.

I liked that, at the beginning, it felt as though we had rediscovered the 2010 rose garden treaty, when the Lib Dem-Tory alliance was going strong—though my noble friend Lord Jackson should not worry. We are hand in glove on Amendments 220 and 170 and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lord Banner was very good. I wholeheartedly support it; you have people with real experience who understand the complexities of the issue but, for those who need it most, it is worth trying to find a way to make it possible, and a load of work has been done on this already.

I think we should explore my amendment. I accept that some will say that it should be bolder and some that it should be weaker. I am afraid that I am not sure what the position of my Front Bench was—it is not the first time I have had that problem. I know that local authorities deliver and are under pressure, but 20 years is a very long time. As my noble friend Lord Banner said, it seems odd that, during this period, local people do not even know what is happening in their area. As I said, I know that there are infrastructure funding statements but, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, when 17% of them are not even being delivered we cannot say that the system is working. There must be some way that we can work together to find something to give the system a little nudge and remind and show people that there is some benefit beyond what is being put through development. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough would shift the process for habitats regulations assessment from the level of individual planning applications to the local plan stage or, in the case of Amendment 185G, the spatial development strategy. I appreciate this amendment. It is in line with comments I made earlier about EDPs, which should be part of the spatial development strategy, rather than separate. The whole point is moving things upstream and doing them once for the whole area rather than having to have multiple assessments with each planning application. We had comments earlier about the sheer bureaucracy and the difficulty of some of these planning applications. My noble friend Lord Fuller is not in his place, but he made a point about smaller applications being burdened with large amounts of paperwork that could be done as part of the local plan.

The intention is clear: it is to guide developers more effectively towards sites most appropriate for development and to speed up and simplify the subsequent application process. That is a constructive alternative approach to how we currently handle habitats assessments, and it merits serious consideration.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, have the Government assessed the benefits of carrying out work earlier in the process? If not, will they commit to doing so? Secondly, how can the Government ensure that local authorities have the capacity to do that and that duplication is avoided?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Young for her amendments on habitats regulations assessments. Amendment 185F seeks to ensure that local plans are in compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and that the local authority preparing the plan carries out full environmental impact assessments when proposing sites for development. It is important that the environmental impacts of a local plan are properly assessed as part of their preparation, arrangements for which are set out in existing legislation.

All local plans are already required to undertake a habitats regulations assessment where they have the potential for impacts on a site or species protected under the regulations. In addition, all local plans are required to carry out an assessment incorporating the requirements of a strategic environmental assessment where a local plan will result in likely significant effects on the environment. This obligation is for a strategic environmental assessment rather than an environmental impact assessment, as the latter requires in-depth information about a specific development proposal—information that will not generally be available at the plan-making stage. However, any development that comes forward subsequent to the plan’s adoption that, due to its size, nature or location, is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will require an environmental impact assessment. With this reassurance about the way that environmental impacts are considered during plan preparation and in support of its implementation, I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

In Amendment 185G, my noble friend raises an important issue about how habitats regulations requirements will apply to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Bill already applies the assessment requirements under the habitats regulations to spatial development strategies. This means that strategic planning authorities will be required to carry out habitats regulations assessments where necessary, bringing new spatial development strategies in line with the spatial development strategy for London. The proposed amendment would require full assessment of specific sites allocated within spatial development strategies, yet the Bill expressly does not allow them to allocate specific sites. It will therefore not be possible for strategic planning authorities to undertake habitats regulations assessments for specific sites as part of SDS preparation. This would need to happen, where needed, later in the planning process.

Amendment 242A would limit the scope of environmental delivery plans to a narrow list of environmental impacts on protected sites: namely, nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I share my noble friend’s desire to ensure that EDPs are used only where they can be shown to deliver for the environment. This is why the Government sought to clarify their position in the recent government amendments, which highlight that the Secretary of State could make an EDP only where the conservation measures materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature. That ensures that EDPs could be brought forward only to address issues that would benefit from a strategic approach and would deliver an environmental uplift that goes beyond the status quo position required under the current system.

With the assurance that an EDP would be made only where it would deliver that environmental uplift, we feel it is right to allow EDPs to be brought forward to address the range of environmental impacts set out in the Bill. Limiting types of environmental impacts that EDPs can address would remove the ability for EDPs to respond to other environmental impacts that may result from development, where a strategic approach could deliver in line with the overall improvement test, especially to protected species. With that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the Opposition Front Bench for their support for my amendments. The Minister has expressed concerns that environmental impact assessments can happen only when there is a specific site concerned. I have some detailed working papers that I can provide to Ministers, and talk them through, showing how that could be bridged to do the maximum amount of work on a preparatory basis at local plan level before any final touches were applied when a site was up for proposal. Perhaps I could share those next week.

On the overall improvement test, the reality is that it is probably possible to demonstrate—although I have not had time tonight—that the process of overall improvement and the issues that would be most amenable to that are going to be the things that can be resolved only on a strategic basis at landscape scale. We are arguing from two ends of the same spectrum, really: the Government are saying that EDPs apply to everything but that they have to meet these tests, which would actually restrict the things that EDPs could be used for, while I am arguing that we probably know right now what the restrictions would be, so why not put those in the Bill? I am sure we will come to resolve some of these issues when we have the real run at these points next week.

My message is simple. Let us make sure we are focusing on the real blockages. Let us recognise that Part 3 has flaws. Let us take my three simple steps, with some of the elaboration that I have promised. Let us reduce conflict, reduce costs and speed development. But at the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his amendments on AI infrastructure and community energy projects. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue of the water and power required by data centres. Before I respond, I should say that we need to be very proud of our AI in this country. We have the third largest AI market in the world. The AI sector was valued at £72 billion in 2024 and is projected to be worth over £800 billion by 2035. Over £44 billion of investment has been announced for data centres in the UK since July 2024, which is a very good record, but of course the noble Earl raises some very important issues that run alongside this.

Turning first to Amendment 185N, noble Lords will be aware that we had an in-depth discussion in Committee last week on overheating and climate change, and I appreciate the intent behind this amendment of considering this matter in the context of emerging AI technologies. During my time as a Minister—and until last week I had responsibility for AI in my department; it has moved on now—I had the chance to see some of the real opportunities that AI presents. It has the potential to transform our public services, secure growth and raise living standards, and not least to support our colleagues in planning in order to help them move things on much more quickly. It is this Government’s ambition to harness it for the good of our country, which is why we are actively monitoring the data centre sector and published the first government Estimate of Data Centre Capacity in May 2025, which includes measures indicating energy use.

Some data centre applications will have the option of being consented through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. Officials from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are in the process of developing a national policy statement to guide this process, which will also be treated, importantly, as a materially significant consideration in the local authority-led planning process. This statement will include an assessment of the sustainability of the sector, and we are aiming for publication in 2026. The Government have also, as the noble Earl mentioned, established the AI Energy Council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DESNZ, to provide expert insight into the energy needs of AI and the role of AI in an efficient and sustainable energy system. To do this, the council has established a sustainability working group which will explore options to accelerate the development of low-carbon energy solutions to power AI, tools to reduce carbon emissions from AI, and metrics to support energy efficiency.

Amendment 185P is focused on the water use of AI infrastructure. The Government are committed to reducing the use of public water supply by 20% by 2037-38, with a 9% interim target for non-household reduction by 31 March 2038. As part of this commitment, Defra is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Business and Trade and the Environment Agency to determine how water efficiency and demand in data centres can be improved. Data centres use a variety of cooling systems, with only a small proportion using entirely water-based ones. Water-cooled data centres can use water very intensively, as has already been highlighted, particularly at times of peak demand, such as hotter periods. In summer 2025, the Environment Agency conducted a survey with the data centre sector, through techUK, the trade association for data centres, to gain a better understanding of current water needs. As set out, the Government are developing a national policy statement to guide data centre planning applications, and the water efficiency of data centres will form part of this assessment, including options for water reuse and non-potable water systems.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked me about the use of agricultural land for data centres. The MPPF is, and the future land use framework will be, very clear that grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land should be protected and used only where there is no alternative. That is already set out in planning policy.

Amendment 185R, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require planning authorities to consider and support the inclusion of community energy projects in new developments. I agree with the noble Earl that renewable energy generation in households—we have already had a discussion on this—is a vital approach to help cut bills for families, boost our national energy security and deliver the clean energy mission. On the practicalities of increasing renewable energy generation in new developments, I am pleased to say that my department is working very closely with DESNZ on the future homes standard. The future homes standard will include renewable electricity generation on the majority of new homes through routes like rooftop solar. I therefore consider this amendment to be unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, there is a lot of opportunity in the context of this Bill to mandate that new towns be preferred as sites for data centres, because the excess heat can be used in the district heating scheme.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes an important point about reusing the energy created by data centres, which we are exploring. It is very important that the new towns task force has a chance to do its work. They will be subject to the planning process, just like all other applicants, when they put them forward. But, as I said, we are aiming to protect grades 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land, and I hope that other areas come forward to site the data centres. They are very important; we cannot do without them, that is for sure, so we need to consider very carefully where they might be sited, and the land use framework will give us a good indication about that.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, it was right to bring these amendments forward; they are important considerations on the future of AI and community energy. I thank all those who have spoken and broadly supported the amendments—the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the Conservative Front Bench—and the Minister for the detailed response I have received to the issues I raised. I welcome the fact that a national policy statement will be forthcoming; it is needed, and I look forward to seeing that.

The bit that is still slightly missing on AI is embedding the idea of energy efficiency in the planning system and making sure that we hold these big tech companies to account, because it is very easy for them to consume energy, and that causes a lot of problems for us as we transition to clean power. If the Government allow them to build data centres, they need a system to get access to those data centres to drive energy efficiency. I was trying to create a mechanism to do that with these amendments. My mechanism might not be the right one, but there is a conversation to be had about being able to use the power of AI to redesign the energy network according to how we best plug in renewables, for example, to drive energy efficiencies. I will leave that as a problem for all of us to think about going forward.

I also welcome the commitment and work from the Government on community energy; they added it as one the objectives of the Great British Energy Act and are coming forward with further guidance on that. I very much welcome the efforts being made to ensure that communities can not only generate power but benefit from it. That is essential to ensure that the public’s support stays with all of us who support the transition and that the next wave of energy is not done “to people” but “for people”, so that they get to benefit from the transition in the longer term. I look forward to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

186: Clause 93, page 122, line 26, after “(1B)” insert “(as inserted by section 171(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting change that would be helpful because subsection (1B), referred to in the clause, is not yet in force and therefore is not yet shown on legislation.gov.uk.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 187, 200, 201, 202 and 203, which relate to the relationship between development corporations.

Development corporations are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. As we continue to deliver the many homes that this country desperately needs, we expect the number of development corporations to increase in the coming years. Different types of development corporations have been created in law to respond to the circumstances of that time. This has created ambiguities within the current legislative framework so that multiple development corporations could be created within the same locality. This risks creating confusion and delaying the speed of delivery for key strategic projects, which can be unhelpful and frustrating for all.

As the intention of our reforms in this Bill is to create a clearer, more flexible and robust development corporation legislative framework, I believe that these amendments are necessary. This is because they will set out the relationship between different types of development corporations by aligning their boundaries and removing any doubt over decision-making. These amendments will create a backstop so that, for example, if, following consultation, a centrally led development corporation had an overlap with a mayoral development corporation or a locally led development corporation, the overlapping part would automatically become part of the government-led area. The same would apply for a mayoral development corporation, which would have the same power over a locally led development corporation.

I hope that noble Lords understand why the amendments are necessary. Before I respond to the other amendments in this group, it would be helpful to listen to noble Lords’ views, so I shall reserve any comment on them until I wind up. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 206A, 351ZA and 362 in this group, which also relate to mayoral development corporations. I am supportive of what the Minister is proposing in Amendment 186 and the related amendments. It is helpful to see that there is an established hierarchy between development corporations so that, if the Government establish a development corporation, it trumps a mayoral development corporation, in effect, while a mayoral development corporation trumps a locally led development corporation. However, my amendments raise an additional—and, I hope, helpful—issue.

Before I come on to that, let me say this: the underlying purpose of the development corporations in Part 4 of this Bill is to give mayors, through such corporations, the scope to engage in not just regeneration but development. So mayoral development corporations can be the vehicle for significant new settlements, both as urban extensions and in new sites. That is helpful, too.

Of course, what we do not have in this hierarchy of development corporations is the availability of local authorities to propose locally led development corporations on the same basis as the Government and mayors can do. That was in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but has not yet, with the exception of one of the accountability measures at the back of the section, been brought into force. Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, as I understand it, it is not the Government’s intention to bring into force the further provisions of that Act on locally led development corporations. For the avoidance of doubt, if I am wrong about that, I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us so in her response to this debate.

Members who were attentive to the running list of amendments will recall that I tabled Amendments 204 and 205 back in July. Their purpose is to give other mayors access to the same powers to establish—I should say “propose”, since the Government establish them—mayoral development corporations as are available to the Mayor of London under the Localism Act. This is not to say that mayors do not have any such powers. However, since the Localism Act, they have generally been established under statutory instruments. Some of those have given mayors similar powers to those of the Mayor of London, but there are often gaps; the time pressures on these debates does not permit me the pleasure of examining precisely which gaps have been identified and for which mayors, but that does not matter. The point is that my Amendments 204 and 205 had the objective of giving mayors—all mayors—the same powers as are available to the London mayor.

I then found, when the Government published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the other place, that Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill provided for other mayors to have the same powers as the London mayor. It struck me that, under those circumstances, there was no merit in my continuing to push Amendments 204 and 205, so I withdrew them. It further struck me that, if we provide for other mayors to have those powers under the English devolution Bill, it will run to a slower timetable than this Bill.

Therefore, Amendment 206A, which would bring into the Bill the new schedule proposed in Amendment 351ZA, is drafted in the same terms, substantially, as the Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It would have the same effect—to give mayors generally the same powers as the London mayor—but it would do so in this Bill. Instead of waiting until some time next year—a time to be determined—and given that this is the Government’s number one legislative priority and that we are going to debate into the night if we have to, we can be confident that the provision would reach the statute book this year.

Based on the past experience of the unwillingness of Ministers to bring provisions of Bills that we have passed into force, Amendment 362 requires that the provision be brought into force within two months after the passing of this Bill. Therefore, we would be looking at all mayors having the powers by the early part of next year. This is important and relevant because we are already beyond the point at which the New Towns Taskforce said that it would publish its recommendations, including sites for new towns. It said in its interim report that it would publish the final report and recommendations in the summer; it is definitely now no longer the summer. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it will do so shortly, as there is a degree of planning blight associated with their not being published. There is benefit to delivering on the objective to build more homes if we publish them sooner rather than later.

I hope that this Bill will secure Royal Assent this year—ideally, by the end of November—and that, by the end of January, with the inclusion of Amendment 206A and the proposed new schedule, the mayors will have access to those powers by the end of January.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, having listened very carefully to the debate so far, I think the next best step would be to hear from the Minister, but I want to express some support for Amendment 362 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and Amendment 195A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I hope the Minister will provide clarity on those when she replies.

On 3 April, guidance was issued by the Government to clarify the legislation, scrutiny and governance of mayoral development corporations in combined authorities and combined county authorities. I am pleased that steps have been taken to incorporate the recommendations of the Tees Valley Review, published over 18 months ago, to clarify the regulations for the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the South Tees Development Corporation. It is important to ensure that there is absolute clarity about oversight, reserved matters, consent and stranded liabilities, and I welcome the Government’s firm intention to do so.

However, it has puzzled me that the words “risk” and “risk management” do not appear in the guidance published in April. There is also nothing about capacity building; that point was raised a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. It is very important that development corporations have the capacity to fulfil the expectations of the Government.

There is an issue, which we may come to in the next group of amendments, about where the development corporations will get their income from. I look forward to that discussion. I am concerned about how the mayoral development corporations will be structured to ensure that full risk analysis takes place on the decision-making for what will be major capital infrastructure investment. Overview and scrutiny are overview and scrutiny: scrutiny is scrutiny of a decision, and overview is overview of how decisions are being made. Risk and risk analysis come at the start of a decision to invest money, so this is not just about overview and scrutiny; it is about preventing risky investments.

When the Minister replies, will she explain who is going to pick up the bill if risk is not properly considered at the right point in the decision-making process? At the moment, I suspect that the bill will be carried by council tax payers in the area concerned and I would like that point to be clarified, because I do not think that a system based on the council tax payer being the body of last resort to make up a loss would be appropriate. I very much hope to hear the Minister’s views on those matters.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start with the notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, opposing Clause 93 standing part. I welcome the opportunity to explain the intentions behind this clause. Clause 93 clarifies and extends areas for development and the remit of development corporation models. It includes changes to legislation that would extend the remit of mayoral development corporations, so that they can deliver regeneration and new town development rather than just regeneration. It also allows that separate parcels of land can be designated as one new town area, overseen by one new town development corporation.

The current framework is outdated and not fit for purpose. Each development corporation model was developed to address a specific circumstance at the time of its introduction. This poses a significant risk to the effective delivery of the development corporations. For example, mayoral development corporations can be used only for regeneration projects, as the model was developed initially for London but then widened out to areas outside London, including rural areas. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will enable strategic authorities to create more mayoral development corporations, so it is even more important to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose.

Amendment 195A aims to remove the power permitting new town development corporations

“to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.

I reassure the noble Baroness that this is not a new addition to the new town development corporation framework. This provision is already written into primary legislation underpinning new town development corporations, as well as urban development corporation models. The changes to the infrastructure provision include listing specific functions and bringing them in line with mayoral development corporations, with the addition of heat pumps, which have been added to the list of infrastructure that can be delivered by all models.

As development corporations are used to respond to the specific needs of developments or regeneration schemes, it is important that the legislation offers this level of flexibility so that they can be tailored accordingly. We all want to see large-scale developments and infrastructure projects that will support housing and economic growth, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure without compromising existing provisions. It would be a step backwards if we were to take the power away from new town development corporations and instead provide only a list of infrastructure, as some developments may require new technologies. Decisions to establish development corporations and the powers each will have will be made via regulations. Their oversight will be carefully designed and subject to statutory consultation.

Amendments 351ZA and 362, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I welcome his proposal. It is vital that we empower local leaders to transform underused sites to create thriving communities tailored to local needs. For this purpose, mayoral development corporations should be part of every mayor’s toolkit. However, we believe these amendments are unnecessary. The changes the noble Lord is proposing are already being made through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill introduced on 10 July 2025. Given its scope, that Bill is the most appropriate vehicle for these changes. I take the noble Lord’s point about delay, but I am not under the impression that there is going to be any grass growing under the feet of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think that is going to get moved on at pace and I hope that it will be appropriate for the changes that we are talking about.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Since we have in this Bill Part 4 relating to development corporations, I fail to see why it is not the appropriate place to legislate for mayoral development corporations, rather than the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think the evidence points to completely the opposite conclusion to the one the Minister just used.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think it sits alongside other measures in that Bill. That is why it has been put into the EDCE Bill rather than this Bill.

Amendment 362 would commence provisions in relation to the development corporations within two months of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill passing. I welcome the noble Lord’s enthusiasm in wanting the changes to be implemented quickly, and I share his passion for that. We recognise that they are important measures, creating a clear, flexible and robust development corporation legislative framework to unlock more housing across the country, co-ordinating that with infrastructure and transport to support sustained economic growth. We also want the changes to come into force as soon as practically possible. However—and I would say this—there is further legislative work and guidance to ensure that development corporations are set up for success. It takes a significant amount of time to establish a development corporation, including essential preparatory and scoping work. We do not envisage that this will cause any delays to those interested in setting up a mayoral development corporation, but I do not think the progress of the other Bill is going to hold things up unnecessarily either.

It might be helpful if I cover some issues around how this is going to work. We know that development corporations are a vital tool for delivering large-scale, complex property developments, particularly where the risk—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned risk—is too great for private sector delivery alone. To encourage the use of development corporations and reduce the risk of challenge, there should be clarity around their remit and functions.

Decisions to designate and grant powers to development corporations must be made by regulations. They are subject to statutory consultation, and they must be made with careful consideration of all the issues of oversight that we have heard about. The department consulted on oversight regulations for locally led urban development corporations last year, and the Government’s response is expected later this calendar year—I hope it does not run out before “later” arrives. Locally led urban development corporations cannot be set up before provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 are commenced.

In relation to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about South Tees, the Government have issued a response to the independent review of the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks joint venture, which included clarifying the available measures to strengthen the oversight for mayoral development corporations. On 3 April 2025, guidance was published which clarified legislation and scrutiny of mayoral development corporations. I hope that that gives an adequate response to his question.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Can the Minister explain who the funder of last resort is when a loss is delivered by a mayoral development corporation? Is it the council tax payer for the geographical area of the development corporation, the combined authority or the Government? To put it another way, who makes up, pays for, a loss if a development corporation makes one?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Of course, we all hope there will not be a loss, but we must always have provision in place for that. I know that there is ongoing discussion with Sir Michael Lyons and others in the taskforce about how the financial details and programme work, so it is probably best if I reply to noble Lords in writing on that issue.

In relation to the points about capacity, which were very well made, again, discussions are going on with Sir Michael Lyons about how we make all this happen. We have already allocated £46 million to planning, but we will continue to have those discussions with the taskforce about what the delivery mechanisms are to be. That said, I hope that the noble Lord has had some reassurance and that he will agree not to press his amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, in respect of my noble friend’s Amendment 195A, and reading the words in the Bill, I would be really interested in the Minister helping me understand what places limits on the last words on page 123 of the Bill. Would it be open to a development corporation, for instance, to do an Ireland and say that any business moving its headquarters to the area of the development corporation would pay half the tax rate current in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is not my understanding that there will be fiscal devolution powers in that way, but I will take that back and write to the noble Lord if I am wrong.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I understood from what the Minister was saying that it is the Government’s intention to bring all of Section 172 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act relating to locally led new towns into force. Am I correct in that? I got the impression that that is the Government’s intention, but it was not quite explicit.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that the powers in the Act relating to locally led development corporations will be brought into force, but I have committed to write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, with a full explanation. I will circulate that letter when I have published it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Minister also mentioned the money that has been put aside by the Government to support further planning, skills training et cetera. Did she say that that could be used also by development corporations? I had the understanding that it was for local government and not for development corporations.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry if I misled the noble Baroness. I meant to say that the Government recognise the issue around planning capacity. We have already allocated that £46 million for local government, and we must have the discussions with Sir Michael Lyons that recognise that we need to make sure that the capacity is there to deal with new town development corporations as well.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Can the Minister tell us when we can expect to see the report of the New Towns Taskforce?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

In the autumn.

Amendment 186 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

187: After Clause 93, insert the following new Clause—
“Relationship between different types of development corporation(1) The New Towns Act 1981 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5).(2) In section 1 (designation of areas), after subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) An order under this section may designate an area of land that includes any area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under— (a) section 1ZB(2) (designation of locally-led new town in England),(b) section 134(1B) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of locally-led urban development area), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(3ZB) On the coming into force of an order that makes provision as mentioned in subsection (3ZA), the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(3ZC) Where the Secretary of State makes an order that contains provision as mentioned in subsection (3ZA), the Secretary of State may also make regulations—(a) amending any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) providing for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the new town;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, providing for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area;(d) making consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(3ZD) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3ZC), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the new town (see also section 9B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”(3) In section 1ZA (local authority proposal for designation of locally-led new town in England, as inserted by section 172(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A proposal area must not include any area of land that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(a) section 1 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State),(b) section 134(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(See also section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC), section 197(2B) and (2C) of the Localism Act 2011 and section 134(1E) and (1F) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.)”(4) In section 1ZB (designation of locally-led new town in England, as inserted by section 172(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), in subsection (2)—(a) for “may” substitute “must”;(b) omit from “if” to the end.(5) In section 77 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (2A), after “section” insert “1(3ZC) or”;(b) in subsection (3C), after “order” insert “or regulations”.(6) The Localism Act 2011 is amended as set out in subsections (7) to (9).(7) In section 197 (designation of Mayoral development areas)—(a) in subsection (1), for “any” substitute “an”; (b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) An area of land designated under subsection (1)—(a) may include any area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area of land that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under—(i) section 1ZB(2) of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of locally-led new town in England), or(ii) section 134(1B) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of locally-led urban development area);(b) may not include any area that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(i) section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State), or(ii) section 134(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State).(See also section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC) of the New Towns Act 1981 and section 134(1E) and (1F) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.)(2B) Where the Mayor designates an area as mentioned in subsection (2A)(a), the Secretary of State must make regulations providing that the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(2C) The regulations may also—(a) amend any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) provide for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the Mayoral development area;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, provide for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area.(2D) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under this section, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the Mayoral development area (see also section 218 (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”(8) In section 218 (transfer schemes: general provisions, in the definition of “transfer scheme” in subsection (1), after “section” insert “197(2D),”.(9) In section 235 (orders and regulations)—(a) in subsection (7), after paragraph (j) insert—“(ja) regulations under section 197;”;(b) in subsection (14), after “52” insert “or regulations under section 197”.(10) The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as set out in subsections (11) to (13).(11) In section 134 (urban development areas)—(a) in subsection (1B) (as inserted by section 171(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “may” substitute “must”;(ii) omit paragraph (b) (and the “and” immediately before it);(b) after subsection (1C) (inserted by section 93) insert— “(1D) An order under subsection (1) may designate any area of land that includes an area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under—(a) subsection (1B) (designation of locally-led urban development area),(b) section 1ZB(2) of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of locally-led new town in England), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(1E) On the coming into force of an order that makes provision as mentioned in subsection (1D), the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(1F) Where the Secretary of State makes an order that contains provision as mentioned in subsection (1D), the Secretary of State may also by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) amend any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) provide for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the urban development area;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, provide for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area;(d) make consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(1G) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (1F), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the urban development area (see also section 140B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”;(c) in subsection (4), after “(1B)” insert “or regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1F)”;(d) in subsection (4A), after “(1B)” insert “or regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1F)”.(12) In section 134A (local authority proposal for designation of locally-led urban development area in England, as inserted by section 171(3) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A proposal area must not include any area of land that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(a) section 134(1) (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State),(b) section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(See also section 134(1E) and (1F), section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC) of the New Towns Act 1981 and section 197(2B) and (2C) of the Localism Act 2011.)”(13) In section 171 (interpretation), in the definition of “urban development area”, after “it” insert “by virtue of subsection (1E) of that section or”.” Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would clarify the relationship between different types of development corporation so that any area of overlap in proposed new corporations will be resolved in favour of the higher-tier authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 188, 190 and 192 would add to the objectives of development corporations, such that all development corporations would be obliged to aim to contribute to the funding and financing of development proposals, with the option of using financial instruments such as bonds and debts to achieve this objective.

In addition to my earlier comments about how there are still further discussions to take place in relation to financing, I should have mentioned that resource funding will be available for the costs associated with running a development corporation. There are capital grant programmes as well, such as the national housing delivery fund and the social and affordable housing programme. Development corporations will be able to enter joint ventures and land agreements to obtain private capital. They will also be able to obtain further capital financing through loans and equity from the national housing bank and the national wealth fund. I thought it was important to clarify all that.

It is vital that development corporations, as well as the developments they co-ordinate and deliver, are properly financed. I therefore welcome the intent of the noble Lord’s amendments. They should not, however, be brought forward for two main reasons.

First, the amendments would unnecessarily constrain the use of development corporations. This Bill seeks to ensure that the development corporation legislative framework is clear, flexible and robust. Importantly, development corporations are used to address different types of development challenges depending on the nature of the project, including planning, land assembly and convening private sector investment. Development corporations need not directly fund development to be successful, as, for example, is the case for the Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation. Requiring that all development corporations fund or finance development would unnecessarily constrain the use of development corporations, rendering the model unnecessarily inflexible.

Secondly, development corporations are able to borrow more affordably from central government. The existing legislation provides that both new town development corporations and urban development corporations can borrow directly from central government, irrespective of whether they are centrally or locally led. A mayoral development corporation can also borrow indirectly via its oversight authority, including from the Public Works Loan Board. If, instead, development corporations were to issue bonds or raise debt directly to fund development, this would likely be at a higher interest rate and less affordable than if they borrowed from government.

Amendment 197 relates to the technical area of compulsory purchase compensation. This seeks to amend the New Towns Act 1981 to allow new town development corporations to use their compulsory purchase powers under that Act to acquire land for large-scale housing and transport schemes without paying hope value compensation or needing to justify a direction in the public interest. This amendment would also ensure that land purchased under these powers would not count against departmental expenditure limits.

While I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment and the aims it seeks to achieve, I am not able to support it. Compensation for the compulsory purchase of land is calculated on the basis of the value of the land if it was sold on the open market where no development is being proposed. The assessment of the open market value of land includes value attributed to the prospect of planning permission being granted for development other than for development which has planning permission. I think that is the term described as hope value.

Compulsorily purchasing land raises questions of common-law fairness and engages the European Convention on Human Rights. Any reforms to compulsory purchase compensation rules must be made in accordance with the convention. To respond to this constraint, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 introduced the power to allow development corporations, when making CPOs under the New Towns Act 1981 to facilitate affordable housing provision, to seek directions for the non-payment of hope value from compensation providing there is justification in the public interest. The power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 allows a fair balance test to be conducted in each case between the public and private interests in making a direction and ensures compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The proposed amendment is a blanket, non-discretionary approach to removing hope value. The Government do not consider they have sufficient evidence to be confident that the amendment is consistent with ECHR rights, because it is not clear that the public benefit of removing hope value in these situations would outweigh the impact on the individual landowners affected by the proposed measure in all cases.

Under proposed new subsection (2B) in the amendment, land purchases would create an asset that does not have a direct financial return. Allowing development corporation land purchases to be excluded from departmental expenditure limits could significantly increase levels of public sector borrowing. The Government are committed to ensuring economic stability and sustainable levels of public debt through their fiscal rules. I therefore cannot support this change.

For these reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, as part of my research for this series of amendments, I looked at the New Towns Act and I note that it is 80 years since the Minister’s home town of Stevenage was seeded, so to speak; it is now time to bring things up to date. At that time, central government had the power and the finance to get these things off the ground, but things have moved on and we need some more creative thinking. There are wider sources of capital and finance in the world and more players want to participate.

I do not accept that my amendment would arbitrarily constrain the development corporations in pursuance of financing their quite weighty objectives, many of which are enumerated in the next clause, Clause 95. It would not constrain them, but would give them a choice: an option—not a compulsion—to widen the pool of finance should they wish.

The Minister in her winding suggested that powers exist to borrow from central government. She referred specifically to the Public Works Loan Board. Anybody who knows anything about the Public Works Loan Board knows that, as a result of some rather ill-advised advances, it is now capped. I believe the sum is at £90 million; I cannot remember exactly, but that does not matter. The fact is that it is thus far and no further. The Minister asserts that the Public Works Loan Board is always cheaper than others. We know that not to be the case. As the example of the Municipal Bonds Agency demonstrated, there was a well of capital for international markets willing to invest in local infrastructure projects at lower rates than the councils were able to borrow from the PWLB—had the headroom existed. So the premise not only that central government is the only route but that any other routes would be more expensive is demonstrably false.

That is further the case if, as in the example I gave earlier, a landowner may wish to cede some of his land to the development corporations as part of the red line, in kind rather than in cash, it is possible that there would be no coupon to be paid at all. The interest—the return—would come long-term as the development proceeded.

So I do not accept that this is a constraining amendment. I take from what the Minister said that is its highly likely that the consequence of not accepting this option is that, first of all, capital may be constrained, it is possible the development corporations may pay more, and the opportunity to assemble land in a creative manner may be taken away. Clearly, we are in Committee; perhaps we ought to engage on this between now and Report. I fear that the Minister’s brief is labouring under a false premise. I think we can say that this can be resolved, and should be if the promise of development corporations is to be fulfilled. I beg leave to withdraw.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I do not think I said that PWLB was the only source of funding for development corporations. I did mention that they will be able to enter into joint ventures and land agreements to obtain private capital and use the National Housing Bank and the National Wealth Fund.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

200: Clause 96, page 127, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities between the corporation and the relevant transport authority to which the regulations relate (see also section 9B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 96, leaving out lines 33 to 38 of page 127.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas highlight and reaffirm the importance of local news publishers. Increasingly, these are online, but not always. Some areas still have quite successful newspapers that have print runs, sometimes daily but now often weekly, but this differs in local areas, so I think that local authorities are best placed to decide what medium they use for advertising all things planning.

On this side of the Committee, we support the existence of local news publishers across the United Kingdom. As we have heard, they serve as an important conduit between local people and their authorities and are crucial for upholding community engagement and local democracy, values which I hope all noble Lords will join me in supporting. Indeed, the importance of local news publishers is even more significant when we consider it in context of important planning and development decisions. Local people are those most affected by such decisions and it is important that their voices are heard and meaningfully listened to. Local news publishers play a vital role in making sure both that local people are represented and that the relevant information is disseminated to them. I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and I look forward to hearing how they will be addressed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling these interesting amendments, which relate to the publicity of notices on compulsory purchase orders. I cannot help thinking that there is a solution to this, but perhaps not exactly this one. We have to have a think about this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I support local news publications. I am one of the sad local government geeks who always turns straight to the public notices, not just because I want to see what my own council is doing—now that I am not there anymore—but because I want to see what the next-door councils are doing as well.

Local newspapers are an important part of the way that information is shared, but they also play an important role in supporting democracy, communicating with our residents and being a signpost to all kinds of events that are going on locally. I know that they have been through a very tough time recently. In my area, if we did not have the paper edition of the newspaper, we would probably not have an online paper either—the paper is produced online but also produced as a paper copy. It is not delivered anymore but you can pick it up in a supermarket, so it is an important part of our local life.

The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper that notices of making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain quality and readership criteria, including possessing at least one director legally resident in the United Kingdom, employing at least one journalist not funded or operated by a government, political party or legislative institution, being subject to a code of ethical standards and demonstrating strong connections to the locality in which they operate.

The legislation currently requires acquiring authorities to publish notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. The Government consider that the requirement to publish notices in newspapers is an important part of the CPO process. Acquiring authorities are already motivated to ensure that notices are well publicised, because that helps them to avoid legal challenge.

However, these amendments would constrain and place unnecessary burdens on acquiring authorities when attempting to comply with the requirement to publish notices. The amendments would make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process, increase the potential risk of legal challenges, which would result in additional costs, and delay decision-making and the delivery of benefits in the public interest. The amendments would therefore complicate and delay the CPO process further, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives.

It would be helpful if the notices could be published in a bigger font. I believe that the noble Baroness said that it is usually size 6, but it is more like size 2 in my local newspaper. Something I find helpful is taking a picture of them on my phone and then expanding that.

For all the reasons I have given, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I understand what the Minister said about the quality criteria I put in the amendment. I included them for discussion.

However, I do not understand her willingness to restrict the publication of these notices to 1881-style newspapers. Why? Surely the purpose of publishing these notices is that they get noticed. Therefore, the Government should say that they will create a website on which all such notices will be placed, and people will know to go there to find them. They could be sorted by locality or whatever. It would cost a few hundred thousand pounds a year, rather than the £50 million a year we are paying at the moment. They would all be available there, and people would know where to go. What they are currently doing is paying £50 million for people to have to pay even more to buy the newspaper, just to see the public notices page.

Local newspapers used to be vibrant, argumentative and full of interesting journalists. Now, you are lucky if they have one journalist. Mostly, they include just reprinted press announcements and syndicated competitions. If these notices are meant to get into the press where people will notice them randomly, they need to be much more widely distributed. Alternatively, if they should be publicly available, so that the people who know that they are of interest can find them, they should be on a government website. The Government are paying a lot of money for no value with the current system.

I would be interested to know—if not now then in writing—whether the Government’s intention is that notices are to be published so that interested people can find them, or whether it is more important that people can find the notices at random. If it is the former, I will bring back an amendment on Report to seek to create a government website instead of the newspaper requirement. If it is the latter, I will try to table a simplified version of this amendment. I would be happy to receive an answer in writing. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the principle behind this amendment is an important one and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, deserve careful consideration. It is a sensitive matter, particularly where an individual’s poor health or other infirmities are concerned, and we will want to look at this area closely. More broadly, we are concerned about the extensive nature of this section of the Bill, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for bringing us this amendment on compulsory purchase compensation rules. The amendment would ensure that home owners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO.

Under the current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with an improvement notice, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments is excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. This Bill amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. However, where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be entitled to compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation or other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. The provision introduced by this Bill will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring sub-standard properties back into use as housing and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.

The amendment would ensure that, where an owner can show that they did not deliberately allow their property—subject to an improvement notice or order—to fall into disrepair or to remain derelict and that it was the result of ill health, other infirmity or a lack of financial resources, they can still make a claim for a home loss payment. We believe that it is for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the Land Compensation Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the property owner. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for both the supportive remarks from the Opposition Front Bench and the considered response from the Government. I would like to think about that—in particular, the wider implications of what is being proposed—more closely. On that basis, although I reserve the right to return on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 211. I support what my noble friend Lord Roborough said on it, and indeed what my noble friend Lord Sandhurst said on his amendment.

I was a chartered surveyor back in 1976 when development land tax was introduced, and I recall the disastrous effect it had on the market for land becoming available for development. There is no doubt that clauses such as those we have in the Bill will have the same deleterious effect on the natural process of buying and selling land and encouraging landowners to provide land for development and therefore fulfil some of the housing needs of this country.

It seems to me quite wrong to get rid of hope value in the way that the Government are doing. It is not, in the words of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, a fair deal. It is unjust. I too remember the Crichel Down case, which my noble friend mentioned. In fact, I remember talking to Lord Nugent of Guildford, the Minister who resigned over the affair. That shows how old I am now, but it reinforces my dislike of the chances of the land not being returned to the original owner. That is the purport of Amendment 211. I wish my noble friend Lord Nugent was still alive and in his place, because he would be able to give an erudite summary of the difficult problems. I hope that the Government will think again on this issue.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. Amendments 209B and 209C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to amend Clause 105 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for compulsory purchase orders to be confirmed with directions for the non-payment of hope value compensation where justified in the public interest. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities. The amendments seek to introduce a change so that CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value.

While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we had a very interesting debate on this subject twice in last week’s Committee—I am afraid we are not able to support these amendments. The non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and carefully justified in the public interest.

Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits to be facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the public benefits and the justification for lower compensation for landowners are likely to be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities. The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered are clearly less identifiable.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his Amendment 210. This seeks to repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest for certain types of schemes. The amendment also seeks to remove Clause 105 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing, and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient. The amendment would remove the power, which was introduced, as he rightly said, by the last Government under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It allows authorities to take forward certain types of schemes by compulsory purchase, and to pay reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. To support the delivery of housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans can be delayed by heightened expectations of land values by landowners. This can result in the delivery of benefits to the public through the building of homes, transport links and schools being more costly, and significant amounts of developable land remaining unused.

The Government are committed to improving land assembly, speeding up site delivery and delivering development for the benefit of communities. We also remain committed to ensuring that landowners are awarded fair compensation where compulsory purchase powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.

Amendment 211, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. I thank him for his amendment. As noble Lords will be aware, we will discuss the nature restoration fund and the role and powers granted to Natural England in more detail later this afternoon. To successfully deliver this new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to implement the conservation measures required. We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted, especially trying to acquire that land by agreement. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including authorisation by the Secretary of State. The landowner will receive compensation in line with the existing approach.

Requiring Natural England to return land in the circumstances set out in the amendment would undermine the rationale for allowing Natural England to have these powers in the first place. Some conservation measures will require Natural England to acquire land, whether by agreement or, where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, through compulsory purchase. Having this range of options provides certainty that conservation measures can be delivered. It is fundamental to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the overall improvement test will be met.

In line with the safeguards provided in the Bill, if land were required to be returned as envisaged by this amendment, this could lead to the environmental delivery plan needing to be amended because conservation measures would no longer be delivering as intended. That would reduce the amount of development that the EDP would cover; increase cost to developers; or trigger the need to revoke the EDP, requiring the Secretary of State to consider appropriate remedial action to ensure that the impact of development is addressed in line with the overall improvement test.

I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the hearts of many noble Lords. However, I trust that the Committee can recognise the need for these targeted powers, to ensure that the nature recovery fund delivers the much-needed win-win for nature and development. In a meeting with Natural England and a number of noble Lords who are here today, Natural England said that it had used the power only three times ever. I do not anticipate it doing this all the time.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

In relation to Amendment 211, can the Minister indicate whether a CPO would happen only once a landowner or farmer had been offered a contract to carry out the EDP works themselves—after they had been offered the option of doing the work that Natural England was intending to do on that land under its CPO ownership?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Lord that reassurance this afternoon. I am sure that he will understand that that is not included in the Bill at the moment—he may want to consider something on that later—but I understand the reason that he is saying it. We have, however, said very clearly that there will be the possibility for the private sector to contribute to EDPs. We are encouraging our colleagues in Natural England to develop that further.

Amendment 325, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Hodgson, would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is in use for the grazing of animals or is high-quality agricultural land. As I have just set out, there is an extremely high bar for the compulsory purchase powers under the NRF, with the Secretary of State having to approve any use of these powers. As I said in my response to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, there is a clear need to ensure that CPO is available, albeit with this very high bar. The use or future use of land will of course be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State, and I set out earlier this afternoon the consideration in both the land-use framework and the NPPF that land in other use must be considered before resorting to agricultural land. The Secretary of State will take that into consideration when considering whether to allow the CPO, and will ensure that sensible choices are made that align with the Government’s wider objectives, not least in respect of food security, which is a discussion we have had many times in your Lordships’ House. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Amendment 227G, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, relates to the use of compulsory purchase powers and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. It seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a report assessing whether the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights are adequately protected in the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities.

The power to compulsorily acquire a person’s land is a draconian power which engages the ECHR and raises questions of common-law fairness; I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred to that himself. A fundamental principle of the compulsory purchase process is that the confirming authority should be sure that the purposes for which a compulsory purchase power is proposed justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. Acquiring authorities must demonstrate to the confirming authority that such an interference is so justified. When making their decision on whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for each individual CPO, the confirming authority must always give consideration to the provisions of Article 1 and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the ECHR and the impact of the proposed CPO on the individuals affected.

The compulsory purchase process also enables the exchange of written representations and the holding of inquiries and hearings into objections conducted by an independent inspector, reporting to the Secretary of State, whose decision is subject to legal challenge to uphold the rights enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR. When justifying their CPOs, the Government guidance on compulsory purchase is clear that acquiring authorities should address the potential harm to private rights and how the impacts on human rights from the respective order have been considered. The compulsory purchase process already provides protections to the rights of individuals affected by compulsory purchase and, for these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very detailed response to this group of amendments, but I am rather disappointed that the Government did not feel able to add a public recreational use to land that is to be disregarded for hope value by acquiring authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on Amendment 213 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which probes the potential impacts of the Bill on rights of way, including those currently unrecorded and due to be extinguished at the end of 2030. He raises an important and timely point. The matter of unrecorded rights of way has long been a subject of interest and concern, particularly among landowners, local authorities and the walking public. The 2026 cut-off date originally proposed under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, later extended to 31 December 2030, was intended to provide certainty and finality. This amendment, while probing in nature, rightly encourages the Government to clarify how the provisions of the Bill will interact with that approaching deadline, particularly with the ongoing digitisation and modernisation of the definitive map process and how planning reforms may affect local authority resourcing for such work.

While there are undoubtedly historic rights of way that are not currently identified, mapped and protected, given the effort that has been put into doing so by various organisations perhaps one might assume that those long-unused rights of way are defunct. Rights of way were created through constant use establishing those rights. Surely if they are no longer used and are forgotten, their original purpose and right is gone. Rights of way were rarely established through leisure use, but were commonly the way that travel and commerce was conducted in this country. It is unhelpful to planning and infrastructure delivery, as well as to farmers and land managers, that claims can be brought at any time and can consume considerable time and resource to resist. I encourage the Government to stick to the existing deadline.

Amendment 213 prompts a worthwhile discussion. I think the idea of a review in six months is worth considering to ensure that our rights of way are properly protected. I thank my noble friend for raising the matter, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his amendment, which seeks to probe the effects of the Bill on rights of way, including unrecorded rights of way. I thank him for his kind comments about Lord Rosser; we still miss him very much, so I am grateful.

As we heard, the Government announced on Boxing Day 2024 their intention to repeal the cut-off date of 1 January 2031 for recording historic rights of way. This means that paths used by walkers, cyclists and equestrians can continue to be officially recorded after this date and will not be lost to the public. This is a significant step in preserving access to well-used but often unrecorded paths across England, many of which have been in place, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, for hundreds of years.

Local highway authorities have statutory duties to record and maintain public rights of way, allowing them to be accessed and enjoyed by the public. They must also have a rights of way improvement plan which explains how improvements will be made to public rights of way, preserving them and providing a better experience for users. Given the statutory duty placed on local authorities to maintain and protect public rights of way, an additional review is not necessary.

A thorough and meaningful review would also not be possible within six months of publication of the Act. Local authorities are already handling a significant volume of unrecorded rights of way registrations, and the requirement to conduct a review would result in further delays to this process. In addition, the repeal of the cut-off date means that historic public rights of way can still be officially recorded, so will not be lost but can continue to be enjoyed by the public.

I will pick up a couple of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I will check whether the working party is still in place; I do not know the answer to that. I hope it is, because working parties like that help us to shape government policy. On the question of why we should not use this Bill for the repeal, I suspect that a deal of consultation would have to be carried out, and that is probably why it is not in this Bill, but I will respond in writing to him on that point.

For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow; I say to my noble friend Lord Roborough that the reality is that unrecorded does not mean unused. I mentioned that over 3,000 miles of footpath in Cornwall and about 2,700 in Herefordshire are used but unrecorded, so he is not quite right to say that if they are unrecorded they are unused. There are certainly some that have not been recorded that are unused, and I understand the force of his point. But I do not think it gets to the nub of the matter to say that, because they have not been recorded, they must be unused.

I am also grateful to the Minister for her reaffirming the intention to bring forward legislation that will enable this cut-off debt to be removed for ever. I am sorry she cannot find a way to put it into the Bill, on the grounds that it will be gratifying to have a conclusion to this as soon as possible. But two-thirds of a loaf is better than no bread, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 214 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and thank him for bringing forward what is, I believe, a thoughtful and timely intervention. The amendment seeks to ensure that the Government provide annual updates on agricultural land lost as a result of the Bill, along with any consequent risks to the UK’s food and water security.

We have heard, both in and beyond this Chamber, growing concern about the pressures being placed on agricultural land—particularly the cumulative effect of development, including infrastructure and renewable energy projects, on land that has long supported our domestic food production. This is not an abstract concern. Recent debates around the siting of solar farms on high-grade best and most versatile agricultural land have brought this issue into sharp relief. Although renewable energy is vital for our long-term sustainability, it must not come at the cost of food security.

Food security is a strategic national interest. The experience of recent global shocks, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, has reminded us just how important it is to maintain a strong, resilient domestic food supply. Once high-quality agricultural land is lost to development, it is not recovered. We must therefore be careful stewards of this finite resource, particularly the best and most versatile land, as my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out.

My noble friend’s amendment rightly presses the Government to monitor and report on these risks with due seriousness. The principle of ensuring that we do not undermine our food and water security through planning reforms is one that I believe all sides of this House can support. If I may provide some reassurances to my noble friends, global food production has grown at 0.7% on average per annum for decades, in line with global population growth. That is on stable acres, with lost acres in some regions of the world balanced by other regions, such as Brazil. Acres of land that are lost in this country to development are most likely being replaced by the Cerrado, and possibly even rainforest, being cleared in Brazil. There is a serious leakage issue when we lose our agricultural land. On that, I highlight my register of interests, including as a shareholder of SLC Agrícola in Brazil.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment and to hearing how the Government intend to safeguard these critical national interests as the Bill progresses. I also support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the land use framework.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report

“detailing the total area … of any land that has been taken out of food production as a result of the provisions of this Act”,

as well as an assessment of any increase in risk to the water and food security of the UK.

As noble Lords know, the measures in this Bill provide changes to the existing planning process to speed up housebuilding and infrastructure delivery. In other words, they are levers within an existing planning system. It is therefore impossible to measure whether any land use change from development is as a result of specific measures in the Bill. Furthermore, the Government already publish regular reports on land use change and food security. These include: statistics on land use change from agricultural land to residential use every three years; a report by Natural England on agricultural land take to development over the period 2013 to 2022, following previous reviews undertaken by Defra; annual analysis on agricultural land use change through the annual June survey of agriculture and horticulture; statutory annual analysis of agricultural statistics through Agriculture in the United Kingdom; and statutory analysis of statistical data relating to food security in the UK at least every three years. The Government therefore already have legal requirements to report regularly on matters relevant to food security in the UK.

To address the concern driving this amendment, I reassure noble Lords once again that the Government are clear that food security is national security. We absolutely understand that point, made powerfully by noble Lords during this debate. In July, Defra published the good food cycle as part of the UK food strategy. It outlined the development of work on sustainable, resilient domestic production of food. There are planning policy measures in place to ensure that non-agricultural land is encouraged over agricultural land.

As I have mentioned a couple of times already today, the National Planning Policy Framework also safeguards the best and most versatile land, which is land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.

Furthermore, on the point made by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government consulted on land use in England from January to April this year. The responses are informing the preparation of the land use framework, which will be published later this year. It will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land.

The Government do not believe that new water resources infrastructure, such as new strategic reservoirs or local catchment solutions, will threaten food security. Of course, a successful agricultural sector depends on access to secure water supplies, and the National Farmers’ Union and farmers are working with the Environment Agency and water companies to help us develop water resources.

The Government also do not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar generation poses a threat to food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mount solar PV panels covered only around 0.1% of the total land area of the UK. The Solar Roadmap also sets out how much land we estimate could be taken up by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in the most ambitious—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

The Minister has said “the Government do not believe” three times now. Would it not be a good idea to check whether or not their belief was true? She also said something really frightening. She said, “Because this Act is in addition to other things, it is impossible to see what its effect would be”. What kind of legislation can it be to put before the House when the Government cannot tell what its effect is, nor are prepared to measure what its effect is when it takes place? I find this very difficult to understand.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I set out for the noble Lord all the measurements already taken, in respect of the take of agricultural land. That is an important part of the system. As regards solar generation, the Solar Roadmap sets out how much land we estimate could be taken by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in ambitious scenarios, we expect only up to 0.4% of total UK land to be occupied. Solar farms can operate alongside farming activities but, to answer noble Lords’ points about the provision of solar on non-domestic buildings, we will be setting that out shortly, as we have done already for domestic buildings. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Bellingham about the importance of audit, my noble friend Lord Fuller—I am sure that this amendment could be improved with a bit expertise and a sharp pencil—and my noble friend Lord Deben. Building on his question about water, Southern Water is making plans to introduce 40 billion litres in summer months from next year, because we do not have enough water. My noble friend’s points about water are absolutely on the button and, of course, he was right to say that the Minister’s speech—and I absolutely know that she means well—was aspirational; it was what we hope to do.

I say only that until we are able to get our arms around the whole of this issue, join the dots, look at it, think about it and explain it to the British people, we are going to have a very difficult time. It is not a party-political issue. It is an issue for our society. Earlier this summer, I published a booklet called Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. I got the help of the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, and his Common Good Foundation, a centre-left think tank, and I got nine experts without any political background. What they concluded, absolutely, was that the way we are handling this, in silos, is completely hopeless. Each silo may be reporting brilliantly about what is happening in its silo, but no one is joining the dots together, and this is beginning to seep into society.

Up until now, this has been a fringe effort on the extreme left and the extreme right, seeking to make trouble. If noble Lords have a moment, they should look at today’s Times and Trevor Phillips’ article. He says this about yesterday’s march:

“The usual suspects, left and right, who always show up at events like this, took the opportunity to throw bottles at police … But for the most part, the 150,000 people who showed up to march the mile or so from Waterloo, across Lambeth Bridge and past the Palace of Westminster to Whitehall, were unaware of any commotion. Only the hard core stayed to hear Robinson’s peroration. This was not an angry, activist crowd. And therein lies the danger to our democracy. When ordinary people are ready to brave the first cold weekend of the autumn at the behest of a serial convict and self-confessed fraudster, something is very rotten in the state of Britain. These are the people you meet at the country pub with their dogs, or in a queue for drinks at half-time”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this important group of amendments about planning consents and compulsory purchase. I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 217, so convincingly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It seeks to ensure that acquiring authorities and those acting on their behalf adhere to the normal code of conveyancing practice—the same principles that would apply in a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is a sensible and pragmatic proposal. Compulsory purchase is, by its nature, an intrusive power and must always be exercised with care, transparency and fairness. Ensuring that conveyancing practice aligns with what would be expected in an open market transaction will help to build trust and minimise disputes between landowners and acquiring authorities. It is essential that landowners do not continue to be disadvantaged and mistreated through the CPO process, as the noble Lord described.

Amendment 219 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, proposes a new clause that would make land subject to automatic consideration for compulsory purchase under the Housing Act 1985 where permission for a development of 100 homes or more has not been acted on within the relevant period. She touches on an interesting and widely debated issue: the problem of land banking—if I may use that term—and delays in delivering housing once planning permission has been granted. Her amendment raises the question of how we might create stronger incentives to build out permissions in a timely manner, particularly where housing need is acute.

Before considering supporting this amendment, we would need to understand how widespread this practice, as the noble Baroness describes, really is. The figure of 1.2 million homes consented but unbuilt is bandied around. However, how many of these developments are unviable due to the Section 106 costs, community infrastructure levies and biodiversity net gain costs that are put on them? How many of these homes are stalled in negotiations around the details of implementing those consents? How many are stalled due to other issues outside developer or landowner control? I am not convinced that land banking is necessarily such a widespread issue as she contends, but I am very willing to listen to evidence. I would be grateful to the Minister for any information she can share with us.

It is worth bearing in mind that housebuilders are businesses: they have obligations to their staff and their shareholders, and they need to have a build programme that ensures they know they can employ their staff over a multi-year period and develop profits which allow returns to shareholders. The shareholders are often pension funds and other such institutional investors in this country. The principle of housebuilders making profits is important. Where a developer does have more short-term supply ready to build on its balance sheet, in most cases it will be because it is building out sites in markets that can absorb only a certain number of units each year without undermining prices to the detriment of the local community. Housebuilders also generally have a 15% return on capital employment commitment to their shareholders. That means that if they are holding land off the market, they need to be very confident that they are making more than 15% per annum doing that, otherwise they are letting their shareholders down. The financial incentives for land banking are not clear.

I would be most interested to hear if the Minister can identify what land banking is really happening in this country, where developers or landowners are holding on to consented land that could be built on right now without impacting on local housing prices. I very much look forward to her reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for putting his name to the amendment and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for ably moving it. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their participation in this interesting debate, which has raised some key issues.

Amendment 217 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a new statutory code of practice for all acquiring authorities when exercising compulsory purchase powers for planning and development purposes. The statutory code of practice would be enforceable by a mechanism set out in regulations required to be published by the Government, and there would be penalties for non-compliance.

I reassure noble Lords that the Government understand the concerns behind the amendment. We recognise that compulsory purchase proposals can lead to periods of uncertainty and anxiety for those involved, whether that is prior to, during or after the making of a CPO. However, the Government consider the proposed code of practice to be unnecessary. First, government guidance, last updated in January this year, states that acquiring authorities should undertake early engagement with landowners and identify what measures can be taken to mitigate the impacts of their schemes. Where this is not done, CPOs are at risk of failing.

Secondly, when making and confirming CPOs, both acquiring and confirming authorities should be sure that the purposes for which the CPO is made justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. As we have already discussed, particular consideration should be given to the provisions of Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the convention.

In addition, acquiring authorities should consider the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 when making a CPO and have regard to the needs of meeting the aims of that Act. The Health and Safety Executive has also publicly stated that employers have a duty to protect the health not only of their staff but of other people—for example, stakeholders and those who they do business with or otherwise impact, such as landowners. This principle would apply to acquiring authorities undertaking CPOs.

Furthermore, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to, has published the professional standards expected of its members involved in the valuation of compulsory purchase compensation. These standards lay out the ethical conduct and competence expected of RICS members.

I will comment on a couple of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He raised some issues and some terrible examples of things that can go wrong. On recourse, if it is a local authority that is the acquiring agency, the appellant can appeal to the monitoring officer. Landowners can challenge a CPO in court and can make referrals to the Upper Tribunal.

The noble Lord asked that they be paid promptly, and I agree with him on that point. As regards ensuring the prompt payment of compensation, a person who is entitled to compulsory purchase compensation may request an advance payment of that compensation. If an advance payment is requested, the acquiring authority is obliged to make the payment once it has begun implementing the CPO: either 90% of the agreed total compensation sum or 90% of the acquiring authority’s estimate of the total compensation payable. I hope that is some reassurance for him. This amendment would add duplication and complexity to the CPO process, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives of making the process more efficient to deliver benefits in the public interest more quickly.

Amendment 219 seeks to ensure that there is an automatic compelling public interest case for the compulsory purchase of land where permission has not begun within an applicable period for developments of 100 houses or more. I reassure the House, as I stated when debating the topic of land banking last week, that I fully agree with the objective of improving the build-out rate of residential development. The Government are committed to making sure that planning permissions are translated into homes, and developers must do all they can to deliver.

However, I believe that the amendment would be disproportionate and might have a chilling effect on development, as developers and landowners might be unwilling to make planning applications if they risk losing their land if the planning permission is not implemented, for any reason. Instead, as I set out earlier this week, we published in May an important working paper on speeding up build-out, which sets out a more proportionate, effective and comprehensive approach. This includes better transparency of build-out rates; new powers for local authorities to decline to determine applications from developers who have built out slowly; a stronger emphasis on mixed-use tenures; and the exploration of a potential delayed-homes penalty. Of course, that would be a last resort, but it would be useful to have it in the toolbox.

I want to highlight in particular that the working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to acquire land through a power to conditionally confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this in the public interest. We are now analysing the responses to the working paper and we will set out our next steps in due course. However, I again emphasise that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the build-out of the housing development we all want to see. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling Amendments 221 and 223 regarding the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which is an important piece of legislation providing a legal framework to resolve disputes between property owners concerning shared walls.

Amendment 221 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the party wall Act and clarify whether it is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether it needs amending to update its position in planning and development processes. We should all recognise the importance in amending previous legislation so that it is consistent with current law and practice. I therefore hope that the Government take this amendment seriously.

Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that the structural integrity of homes is protected by requiring the permission of neighbouring property owners who may be affected by the development rights conferred by this Act. This amendment clearly aims to uphold people’s existing property rights and their structural integrity. This is an important principle which I look forward to the Government addressing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for her amendments relating to party walls and for meeting with me to help me understand the issues that she has faced relating to this.

Amendment 221 seeks to create a legal duty to review the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. The party wall Act provides a framework for preventing or resolving disputes between neighbours relating to party walls, party structures, boundary walls and excavations near buildings. While I have no objection in principle to reviewing legislation, it has been the view of successive Governments since the late 1990s that the party wall Act does, indeed, deliver what it was intended to do. It creates a framework for communication and agreement between adjoining property owners when work needs to be carried out to a shared structure, while the Building Regulations establish the minimum legal standards and functional requirements in new building work.

The party wall Act already requires that the owner of a building carrying out work under the Act must serve any adjoining property owner a party structure notice stating: the name and address of the building owner proposing the work; the nature and particulars of the proposed work, including, in cases where the building owner proposes to construct special foundations, plans, sections and details of construction of the special foundations together with reasonable particulars of the loads to be carried thereby; and the date on which the proposed work will begin.

Amendment 223 seeks to create a legal duty for building owners to gain permission from the adjoining property to carry out any works under the party wall Act. As I mentioned, the party wall Act provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, to protect neighbouring buildings from the impact of building works and hold those completing works accountable for any negative impact. Ensuring structural compliance when undertaking work is already regulated under Structure: Approved Document A of the Building Regulations. Any development work must comply with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. Amending the party wall Act will therefore have no regulatory effect on the structural safety of buildings beyond what is already regulated for. The party wall Act should therefore continue to provide a robust framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, party structures and excavations near neighbouring buildings.

I accept that there are occasions when things go wrong and I am very happy to continue the dialogue with the noble Baroness, but for all the reasons I have set out, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am slightly mystified by the phrase that the Act provides a robust framework for resolving disputes. As somebody who has had party wall notices served on me, I do not see any mechanism for resolving disputes except that the developer can actually just do the work—there is no mechanism for the adjoining owner to object and stop the work, so I do not think it actually does resolve disputes. I hear what she says about structural compliance. Often, people carrying out the development get a building inspector from outside the council, and there is no requirement for them to speak to the adjoining owner, even when they ask whether the work has been carried out correctly, because they say that they are not their client; it is the developer who is the client. So, I query some of those statements and I very much hope that there can be a review of this Act. I would be delighted to continue the conversation with the Minister, and on those grounds, I withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

In answer to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it was not my noble friend Lord Grabiner and I who described the situation as a mess. Those were the words of Lady Rose herself in the Supreme Court. I would not presume to suggest that the Supreme Court judgment was a mess.

While I am on my feet, I am grateful for the opportunity to mention that my noble friend Lord O’Donnell is here but was not here at the beginning of the debate. He tells me that he very much supports this amendment and would wish to be included in any meeting, if the Minister will grant one. He is a main committee member at the Wimbledon club. He strongly supports the amendment but cannot speak because he was not here at the beginning of the debate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for their amendments related to land purchasing, and the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick, who have contributed to the debate.

Amendment 227C seeks to ensure that, when approaching landowners to buy or lease their land in connection with a proposed development, developers declare their interest in purchasing adjacent land and confirm whether purchasing that land is being done in connection with a nationally significant infrastructure project for development consent via the Planning Act 2008. While I appreciate the intent behind this amendment—to increase transparency and discourage speculative land banking, which none of us wants to see—I respectfully argue that it is neither appropriate nor necessary within the framework of the Bill.

Purchasing land in relation to developments, particularly those that relate to nationally significant infrastructure projects, can often be sensitive in nature and thus require confidential discussions between parties to ensure that the most appropriate and proportionate outcome is achieved for all. Requiring developers to disclose whether they are in talks with other landowners could inadvertently breach confidentiality agreements, potentially jeopardising progress on the development of projects.

Furthermore, within the Planning Act 2008 guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land, there is government guidance on where purchasing land is required in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects. This encourages developers to enter into early discissions with people who could be affected by land acquisition as a result of an NSIP. The Government stand by this guidance and seek to build on those principles without complicating negotiations with additional burdens on developers.

Lastly, where land is being purchased in connection with an NSIP, applicants are required to produce and keep up to date a book of reference, which is submitted with the application for development consent. This is a crucial document that is available for the public to view once an application has been submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State and outlines all land and interests in the land associated with the application. This includes land and interests in land that may be affected by the development, including through compulsory acquisition, temporary possession or interests being suspended or extinguished. This document, therefore, provides a clear and transparent account of all land and interests in land proposed to be affected by an NSIP.

With that, I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful proposal. However, in the light of the sensitivities noted, the guidance published, and the existing requirements of the Planning Act 2008, we do not consider that this amendment is necessary.

I turn to Amendment 227E. I hesitate to take on the combined ranks of the eminent noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for raising this important matter related to the disposal of land by local authorities and extinguishing the trust under which the land is held for public enjoyment, whereby it is preserved for recreational use and cannot be repurposed without following statutory procedures. The Government agree with the intent behind this amendment.

Open and green spaces and public parks are an essential part of local social infrastructure. They are one of the main reasons why people feel proud of their local area. They provide places for social connection, support health and well-being, increase community engagement and volunteering and help people to connect with nature, and can be a strong foundation for social capital.

We acknowledge that not all open spaces continue to serve their original recreational purpose. In fact, when they become neglected, they can cease to be an asset and become a burden for local authorities and communities. That is why there is a long-established procedure under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to allow for the disposal of open land held in trust.

If the procedure is followed, the land can be disposed of free from the trust provisions. Local authorities must advertise the intention to dispose of the land for two weeks in a local newspaper and consider any objections to the proposed disposal. Purchasers of land from local authorities can already protect themselves from acquiring land that they cannot develop because of a statutory trust by considering with their legal advisers whether the correct procedures have been followed, or raising appropriate pre-contract inquiries with the local authority prior to acquisition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The Minister is suggesting that the Government are going to change the law on this. Can she give us any indication of the timescale when we might see legislation—an amendment to some primary Act of Parliament?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I would be very loath to do that because, whenever you start looking into legal matters, in particular, it is always more complex than you anticipated. With the will to help make this make sense, I hope that we will be able to bring our combined forces together and get some resolution to the issue. But, for the reasons I set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered response. I am disappointed in her response to my amendment, because I think that, although I understand her point about confidentiality, there may be ways of communicating when landowners are approached, whether it is just an isolated approach or whether it is part of a larger project. I hope that there may be more thought about this.

I am sure that other noble Lords will have been heartened by the Minister’s response to Amendment 227E when she said that there will be further conversations to find a way to resolve this. I very much hope that further consideration will be given to the whole transparency issue, which might be brought back on Report. With that, I withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I will very briefly speak to my Amendment 237. I apologise to the Committee; I had not realised just how similar my amendment was to the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and to which my noble friend has just spoken. My noble friend made all the arguments that I was going to make. I absolutely agree there is a risk here, and I think the Committee wants further reassurance. It is a real worry to lots of people that this damage can be done before mitigation measures are put in place. Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is probably better worded than my own, so I will likely not press my amendment between now and Report. These are important issues, and we seek further reassurance on these matters. Without that, I am sure that an amendment doing this will come up on Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to conservation measures and their implementation. They seek to add provisions on a range of matters related to the design and implementation of conservation measures. The Bill as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments we have tabled in Committee, already require or enable these matters to be addressed in an EDP. I therefore trust that, in discussing these amendments, I can assure the Committee that the existing provisions, bolstered by the proposed government amendments, already require or enable consideration of the points raised.

Amendment 234, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, seeks to require that an EDP start date must be within six months of the date of any planning permission granted in reliance of that EDP. Development cannot rely on an EDP until the EDP is in place, and so planning permission could not be granted in reliance on an EDP without that EDP having been made by the Secretary of State. As the EDP will always be in place before planning consent can be granted in reliance on the EDP, I trust the noble Earl can be assured on this point.

As part of the package of government amendments, we will also now require EDPs to set out the anticipated sequencing of the implementation of conservation measures, with specific reference to the timing of development coming forward. This will provide additional assurance that EDPs will not lead to open-ended or irreversible impacts from development. This would include detail as to whether and which conservation measures must be in place in advance of development coming forward, ensuring that no irreversible harm could occur to an environmental feature. This would form part of the Secretary of State’s assessment of whether an EDP would pass the overall improvement test. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, proposes a requirement that the end date of an EDP must be appropriate to the conservation measures proposed, and that the EDP must include a review date. The end date of an EDP cannot be more than 10 years from the date it comes into force. This is to ensure that there is clarity that the overall improvement will be achieved no later than 10 years after the EDP is put in place. However, there is nothing to prevent an earlier end date being specified for an EDP where that would be appropriate either for the type of development or the environmental feature.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

If we are to build public confidence in this framework, the results must be visible and robust. This is not merely about regulatory compliance. These amendments seek to ensure the delivery of lasting improvements to our natural environment.

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

My Lords, this group includes government amendments to the overall improvement test that are part of our comprehensive package of amendments to ensure that everyone can have confidence that the nature restoration fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature that are at the heart of this model and which I know that many noble Lords fully support. The Government have always been clear that the overall improvement test is one of the key environmental safeguards in the new system. As such, it is vital that there is confidence in its operation.

Our amendments remove any risk of ambiguity about the test’s operation by making it clear that the Secretary of State can approve an EDP only where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This provides further assurance for communities and developers that measures will not only be delivered but that they will lead to a material improvement for the relevant environmental feature. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the government amendments as being “cleverly written”. I thank her for those comments on behalf of our civil servants. I am very grateful for the intellectual capacity of our civil servants.

To further support communities and to assist the Secretary of State when deciding whether to approve an EDP, government Amendment 256B adds a requirement for Natural England to set out its view on how the conservation measures will enable the EDP to pass the overall improvement test. The amendments also make a series of minor legislative fixes that are necessary for the correct operation of the legislation following the substantive government amendments. These are important clarifications that put beyond doubt how the overall improvement test will operate.

Turning to the non-government amendments, I welcome the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about the importance of providing clarity in the planning system. That benefits not only developers but the communities and planners who have to operate the system. Many of the non-government amendments relate to the overall improvement test; for example, seeking to insert words such as “significant” to increase the amount by which the positive impacts of conservation measures must outweigh the negative impacts of development.

I suggest to noble Lords that a material improvement, as required by the government amendment, is more appropriate. It captures the need to secure improvement without putting an undue burden on the developer to contribute significantly more than their fair share to address the impact of development. Similarly, replacing the word “outweigh” with “demonstrate a net gain”, as proposed by Amendment 288, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, risks drawing comparisons to a different and unrelated planning policy, the biodiversity net gain policy.

Amendment 289, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to specify whether an EDP relies on back-up conservation measures that are not expected to be used to pass the overall improvement test. I seek to assure the noble Lord that EDPs will always need to be capable of passing the test without relying on back-up measures, as back-up measures are, by definition, those that are not expected to be needed. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord agrees that these amendments demonstrate the Government’s commitment to getting this right. We hope that, with these amendments, stakeholders and parliamentarians will work with the Government as we shift our focus to on-the-ground delivery—driving nature recovery, while supporting the delivery of the homes and infra- structure that we need.

Amendment 285AA, tabled by noble friend Lady Young, would amend the overall improvement test and remove the consideration of the Secretary of State from the test. The overall improvement test is inherently forward-looking, given that an EDP may be in place for up to 10 years in order to deliver the necessary conservation measures to secure the required improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature. When deciding on whether to make an EDP, the Secretary of State will have before them: the EDP itself, for which the best available scientific evidence is used; the view of Natural England as to whether the conservation measures are sufficient to meet the overall improvement test; and the responses from the public consultation. Armed with this information and with the power to request further information, the Secretary of State will be able to make a reasoned decision as to whether to make an EDP. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, that that process already includes consultation. Consultation is part of the EDP process.

We note that none of us has a crystal ball—it would be lovely if we did, as then we could probably go 80 years ahead. That is why the Bill includes a number of safeguards to ensure that the overall improvement test will be met. I know that this will have been touched on previously, but it is worth restating the important role that ongoing monitoring will play in ensuring conservation measures perform as expected and, if they do not, the Government’s amendment requires that back-up conservation measures will be deployed. If, despite all these safeguards, the EDP falls short of the expected outcome, it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to take forward any remedial action to make sure that the overall improvement is delivered.

It is also worth highlighting the government amendments requiring Natural England to set out the proposed sequencing of measures against the scale of development under the EDP. As well as the clarification brought, both Natural England and the Secretary of State will deploy the best available scientific evidence throughout the EDP process. Removing the consideration of the Secretary of State from the overall improvement test, as proposed by this amendment, would require EDPs to replicate the site-by-site approach, which simply is not appropriate or necessary under this new strategic model with the aforementioned safeguards in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to the comments about the Secretary of State this morning. He is quite right to say that it is not specified in the Bill. I do not believe that any Bill ever specifies which Secretary of State, because—as we all know—things can change. We hope that, by providing some clarity to the Committee this morning, this will help Members’ understanding of where we are. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend feels able not to press her amendment.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to which he spoke with incredible clarity and briefness, for which I thank him. The amendments propose to replace the overall improvement test with an evidence-based improvement test, as well as introducing further requirements connected to this revised test. The Government are in complete agreement with the noble Lord, but the quality of evidence is paramount when the Secretary of State is considering whether an EDP should be made. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord welcomes the government amendments, as I think that they speak to what is at the heart of his amendments.

As I have set out, the government amendments to the overall improvement test remove any risk of ambiguity by making it clear that the Secretary of State can approve an EDP only where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. The Secretary of State would be required to take into account that best scientific evidence when undertaking all activities related to Part 3, including when considering the overall improvement test.

However, it must be recognised that the Secretary of State will make their determination before any EDP is in effect and conservation measures are in place. While EDPs will be based on the best available scientific evidence, there is an acknowledged need to consider the as yet unknown impact of these measures. This is inherent in taking the strategic, longer-term approach and it is why we have included provision for back-up measures to be deployed if monitoring shows that the primary conservation measures are failing to deliver as expected. This provision provides assurance that, were the primary conservation measures not to perform as expected, further measures would be deployed to ensure that the EDP met the overall improvement test.

With these amendments, we are confident that the overall improvement test is fit for purpose, so would not want to amend the test in the way proposed by these amendments. In addition, the associated amendment requiring the Secretary of State to carry out further consultation risks adding further process because, as I said, those bodies will already have had an opportunity to express their views. Moreover, Natural England is required to include in the EDP its views as to how the measures proposed enable the EDP to meet the overall improvement test. With these explanations, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

Amendment 290, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would amend the overall improvement test and reintroduce much of the existing habitats regulations. It might be helpful to quote from the letter. I know that it only went out this morning. My noble friend Lady Hayman and I tried to get it out earlier, but your Lordships know how these things work. I repeat these paragraphs from the letter:

“We recognise that many Noble Lords have expressed concerns related to the application of the NRF model to irreplaceable habitats and rare species. We wish to be absolutely clear that both the intent and legal effect of the overall improvement test, and associated safeguards, is to prevent the inappropriate use of EDPs where an environmental feature would suffer irreversible harm or harm that could not be outweighed by the EDP end date. This means that an EDP could not allow action to be taken that resulted in loss or irreparable harm to an irreplaceable habitat, as this would by definition be incapable of passing the overall improvement test.


We also note that the National Planning Policy Framework … includes a strong presumption against permitting development which would harm irreplaceable habitats. These protections in the NPPF are not changing.”


Before turning to the individual elements of the amendment, I remind noble Lords that the current system is, at best, maintaining an unacceptable environmental status quo. That is why we are proposing the NRF, which provides an alternative way to discharge environmental obligations that moves us from simply offsetting impact to actually improving the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature. In providing an alternative, the NRF must establish a new framework for decision-making that aligns with this strategic, outcomes-focused approach. This framework has been the subject of much debate, but we are confident that, with the proposed government amendments, this will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we all so desperately need. Reintroducing elements of the existing system to this new model fails to recognise the necessary shift in approach to secure better outcomes. We will, of course, discuss the mitigation hierarchy at length in subsequent groupings, so I hope that, with those explanations and the discussion still to come, the noble Baroness is content not to press her amendment.

Amendment 291, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, would allow the Secretary of State to withhold approval from an EDP for reasons of public interest. I am happy to be able to reassure the noble Lords that there is nothing to compel the Secretary of State to approve an EDP and it will therefore be within their power to reject an EDP for any reason, including for reasons of public interest, as expressed in this amendment. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lords feel able not to press their amendment.

I move to Amendment 264, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which would introduce three tests that an EDP must specify and meet to avoid legal challenge. The first test relates to appropriate consultation; the Bill already contains specific measures governing consultation, so the amendment would apply to the pre-consultation period required by the noble Lord’s previous amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

All the amendments in this group are basically trying to answer the question: what would success look like, and how do we measure it? I guess it is the old consultants’ cliché, I guess. The point I was concerned about was not just a financial audit but measuring the performance of EDPs. Environmental change is fantastically difficult and subjective to measure, so is there a commitment to use external third-party expertise to evaluate their success, or will Natural England mark its own homework?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As if by magic, I have the answer for who audits Natural England, so I can answer the noble Lord’s question. The accounts of Natural England are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. It is the National Audit Office, so I hope that is helpful.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

That is helpful, and I am sure that it will look deeply into the financial performance, but I am worried about how the actual performance of the EDP will be measured.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was just coming to that. The performance of EDPs will be monitored in the ways that have been set out. There will be oversight from the department and a process for monitoring the EDPs. It might be helpful if, between Committee and Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I can set out exactly how that process will work, and we will aim to do that.

The noble Baroness Coffey talked about the environmental principles policy statement, and I can confirm that the Bill must have regard to that statement, in line with the Environment Act 2021. With all those comments, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder if I might just ask the Minister, after her helpful and interesting points, about the back-up conservation measures that are included in the EDP but are not expected to be needed. That being the case, can we have conversations about the calculation of the cost of the EDP, the amount of the levy, how the levy and the liabilities for the levy are to be determined and when they are to be paid? Can we talk about how that applies to back-up conservation measures? Clearly, developers do not want to be in a position of paying them, or expecting that they have to, then finding that they do not have to pay them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. When a developer opts for an EDP, there will be a clear statement of the costs. But I think it would be useful to have a conversation between now and Report, so I am very happy to do that.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the full reply that the noble Baroness has given. Can I ask her just to lift the lid a little bit on the timing of the public consultation? How long a time are the Government thinking of between the Secretary of State receiving an EDP and confirming or denying the EDP? How long is that public consultation going to be?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Earl will be aware, there are standard timings for government consultations, so we would employ those principles as set out in the government regulations for all consultations. If the noble Earl is not familiar with those, I can certainly send him the details.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their responses on this. I thank them also for continuing to have an open door. I think that the whole Committee is conveying a huge ambition to work with the Government to get this over the line. I still have concerns that “material improvement” will be interpreted by some as a low common denominator, but we will go away, study the letter received this morning and the words used today, and I hope continue to meet between now and Report. I think that what a lot of Members who have spoken just now are trying to get towards is practical measures that can provide a level of specificity so there is clarity, so that examples that I raised in my opening speech—of much-promised and not-delivered measures—do not occur again. That is what we are striving to achieve here. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

249A: Clause 55, page 92, line 23, leave out “the”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be a drafting correction so that subsection (6) refers to “the environmental impact of development” which is the defined term in subsection (8).

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the regulation-making powers governing the nature of the restoration levy. The powers provide the framework for how the levy will operate and how it will be used to unlock development and deliver nature restoration. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, that we have a whole group on CPO powers, group 9, so I am sure we will have further discussions about that then. The substance of the levy will be governed by secondary legislation, which will be laid under the affirmative procedure following Royal Assent. It is worth highlighting that, as well as receiving scrutiny from Parliament, the relevant charging schedule will form part of the consultation on each EDP, and, to reiterate, the use of an EDP will be a choice for developers.

Turning to Amendments 256 and 313, tabled by the noble Lord, Blencathra, the Government have designed the nature restoration fund to work on a cost-recovery basis, with actions required to deliver EDPs funded by the developers who use the EDP. The framework of powers ensures that the levy can be designed to achieve this aim, and that all appropriate costs can be met through the levy. This follows the polluter pays principle, as the EDP will address the negative impact from development, so it is right that these costs be met through the levy. Given the range of matters that may need to be addressed through an EDP, there may be circumstances where the acquisition of land is required. Where this is the case, it is only right that this cost be recovered through the levy, rather than through public funds, whether the land is acquired by agreement or through compulsory purchase.

While I recognise the concern around the use of compulsory purchase, these are important powers to ensure sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, land can be acquired for delivering conservation measures. This again highlights the importance of consultation on each EDP to ensure proper scrutiny before the EDP is considered by the Secretary of State.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt again, and I appreciate that other amendments deal with this, but the very simple principle is that if you are buying somebody’s land, you should pay a fair market price for it, surely.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct, and there are provisions for that in the process.

Turning to Amendment 307, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, I note that he is a non-native species of Surrey; I hope he is not an invasive species of Surrey. His amendment would limit what administrative expenses could be included within a charging schedule to those included in Section 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. These powers were drafted long before the NRF and extend solely to charging for providing a service and for licences. Natural England’s role in the NRF is wider than simply providing a service. It will be drafting EDPs, conducting surveys and analysis to work out the most appropriate conservation measures, and consulting on them and presenting them to the Secretary of State. It will subsequently have administration costs as part of implementation, such as contracts with service providers and administration of levy collection. Many noble Lords have also referred to the need for a proper scientific basis, and it will be important that it be able to deliver that scientific evidence.

As mentioned previously the Government’s objective is for the NRF and Natural England’s role in delivering it to operate on a cost-recovery basis, which would not be possible if we were to accept this amendment. To ensure value for money for the taxpayer, it is important that Natural England can recover all appropriate costs as part of the levy.

I turn to Amendment 308A from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. We agree with the noble Lord. The Government are clear that money from nature restoration levies will be used to deliver the EDP and secure the necessary conservation measures. While Natural England will be the organisation drafting EDPs on behalf of the Secretary of State, it will not always be best placed to deliver the conservation measures, so we will work with other bodies when securing those measures. We will set out a procurement strategy in due course that will speak to the issues the noble Lord is driving at through his amendment.

When Natural England works with or through partners it will remain bound by the provision in Clause 71 to

“spend money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy on conservation measures that relate to the environmental feature in relation to which the levy is charged”.

Money used in this way cannot simply be used for other purposes. For that reason, Clause 71 still requires that this money be monitored and accounted for. On the basis that there is always a link between the levy and the delivery of conservation measures, regardless of whether Natural England is the body delivering them, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 309, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government have tabled an amendment making it explicit that Natural England can only deliver network measures—measures that do not directly address the impact on a protected site but improve the same feature elsewhere—where it considers that they will make a greater contribution to the improvement of the environmental feature in question than measures that address the impact of development locally.

Under these proposals, Natural England will be required to state how it reached this conclusion with reference to the best available scientific evidence. Crucially, network measures could never be used where to do so would result in the loss of an irreplaceable habitat, as this would inherently not pass the overall improvement test. More generally, the amendment would limit actions within the boundary of a local planning authority that may not align with the ecological boundary of, or environmental impact on, a protected site. I trust that this speaks to the substance of Amendment 309, given that the Government’s amendment provides an ecological lock on the use of these measures by requiring Natural England to pay regard to the need to protect the overall coherence of the relevant site network.

Amendment 310, also from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations covering all the matters listed within Clause 71(3). There are many indispensable elements to the levy regulations that will be brought forward to ensure that this legislation can operate effectively. However, framing the power as a “may” rather than a “must” provides the Secretary of State with discretion when deciding whether it is necessary to bring forward specific requirements in regulations.

I turn to Amendment 312 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The Government agree that transparency is vital throughout the EDP process. That is why the Bill already includes reporting requirements at the midpoint and endpoint of an EDP that will include information about the cost of conservation measures. In addition, Natural England will be required to publish annual reports across the NRF that will include a summary of Natural England’s accounts, with information about the total amount of levy received and the amount spent on conservation measures each year. Through this process, we are confident that there will be an adequate level of transparency in respect of both costings and expenditure.

I turn to Amendments 314 and 315, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Blencathra. As I set out previously, removing Natural England’s ability to recover administrative expenses would require the Government or Natural England—and as a result, the taxpayer—to shoulder the cost of creating EDPs and any administrative costs of implementing them. Similarly, removing Natural England’s ability to include previous expenses would directly impact this and remove the Government’s ability to forward conservation fund measures to Natural England, which would then recover the money through the levy when development proposals come forward before repaying the Government. Furthermore, limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure would restrict its flexibility to secure the most appropriate conservation measures and plan for unforeseen circumstances. Allowing these costs to be included within a charging schedule will ensure the long-term viability of the nature restoration fund and provide greater certainty that environmental outcomes will be achieved.

In a similar vein to previous amendments, Amendment 301A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would require that money accepted through the nature restoration levy be classified as additional to the core funding of Defra or Natural England. I can assure the noble Lord that the legislation is clear that the nature restoration levy is provided to Natural England to deliver on the EDP and cannot be used for purposes outside the EDP. As part of this, and to ensure transparency, regulations may require Natural England to account separately for any money received through the nature restoration levy that would prevent this from being merged with central budgets.

Although the levy can be used by Natural England for administrative expenses in connection with an EDP, this must, as the drafting suggests, be in connection with an EDP. This might cover the costs of drafting and implementing a specific EDP, or a proportion of the cost of setting up a digital platform for the NRF generally, but the nature restoration levy would not affect the core budget of either Natural England or Defra, which remains a matter for the Government. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel comfortable to withdraw his amendment.

On Amendment 307A, the nature restoration fund is being established to support development, so it is vital that the nature restoration levy does not undermine the economic viability of development while still being able to secure sufficient funding to deliver the necessary conservation measures to meet the overall improvement test. There is no legislative requirement to include contingency in the levy, as framed by this amendment. However, it is important that the regulations allow for circumstances where it may be necessary or prudent to include a precautionary buffer to support the delivery of conservation measures, whether through back-up conservation measures or simply because the primary conservation measures may cost more than originally anticipated.

Crucially, a draft charging schedule will include details of how the levy has been calculated. If a contingency were included in the charging schedule, this would form part of the draft EDP, which will be subject to consultation before being considered by the Secretary of State. While I am confident that the nature restoration levy will be set at a fair price that supports development, the use of EDPs will remain voluntary in all but the most exceptional circumstances. A developer is therefore free to use the existing system if they do not think the EDP or the levy is appropriate. Developers will have full clarity on what they are paying—

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I thank the Minister for explaining those points, but I just want to clarify something. I think that we were both at the same meeting where I challenged Natural England on this, and it assured me that there would be a contingency. For a large project, I think it is perfectly sensible to have a contingency, but when I questioned what would happen to the contingency, or indeed any unspent funds, after of meeting the required level of environmental reparation, I was assured, to my astonishment, that it would not be handed back as excess but would spend it on some more good environmental stuff, above and beyond what was anticipated for the levy. That is a sleight of hand, if I can put it in those terms, to use money that was not needed for the purpose for which it was provided for another purpose. Perhaps, at best, there is a difference in understanding between the department and Natural England, which it would be helpful to clarify.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point; I will attempt to clarify that for him. There are potentially significant complexities and legal and financial liabilities introduced by requiring the return of the money with interest to developers. Given that developers will have already received the benefit they paid for, it would be more proportionate, and better for nature, for Natural England to use any excess funds to the benefit of the environmental feature. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The noble Lord and I are starting to repeat ourselves, so perhaps we can talk about it outside. However, that is not the reply that the Minister has given me.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am happy to continue the conversation on this, but I would reiterate that it is up to the developer whether they enter into an EDP. They will have a charging schedule set out before them and, if they feel the contingency is too great, they can argue it or not take part in the EDP.

On Amendment 309A, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Young, I reassure my noble friend that the intention of her amendment is already captured. I agree that it is crucial that Natural England ensures the effective delivery of conservation measures, which is why Clause 55 sets out that the conservation measures in an EDP

“are to be taken by, or on behalf of, Natural England … to … address the environmental impact of development”,

as well as

“contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the identified environmental feature”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

256A: Clause 57, page 93, line 5, leave out “the conservation measures are considered” and insert “Natural England considers the conservation measures to be”
Member's explanatory statement
This would be a minor drafting change to align the style of paragraph (a) of clause 57(2) with that of paragraph (aa) (as inserted by my another of my amendments to clause 57) and paragraph (b).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

258B: Clause 57, page 93, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) Where an EDP includes conservation measures of the type mentioned in section 55(4) (network conservation measures), it must state how, in the opinion of Natural England, the measures comply with the requirement in section 55(4A) (network measure to make a greater contribution to improvement of conservation status of the feature than onsite measure).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that, where an EDP includes network conservation measures, it must state how Natural England considers that these meet the requirement in section 55(4A) (inserted by my amendment to clause 55 at page 92 line 12) that they are more effective than onsite measures.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

260A: Clause 57, page 93, line 19, leave out “58(2) and (3)” and insert “(General duties when exercising functions relating to EDPs)(3) and (4)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment leaving out clause 58 and my amendment inserting a new clause before clause 88.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

262A: Clause 57, page 93, line 24, leave out from first “the” to end of line 27 and insert “EDP (see section 76(4) and (5)).”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 76 inserting a new subsection (4).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

278A: Clause 59, page 94, line 28, at end insert—
“(A1) When Natural England decides to prepare an EDP, it must— (a) notify the Secretary of State of that decision, and (b) publish the notification given to the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment leaving out clause 58.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

286A: Clause 60, page 96, line 4, leave out “conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to” and insert “effect of the conservation measures will materially”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make changes to strengthen the overall improvement test, which the Secretary of State must consider before making an EDP.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group relates to the powers in Part 3 for Natural England to make a compulsory purchase for purposes connected with the taking of conservation measures. The Government have taken a cautious approach in respect of compulsory purchase powers, but it is clear that this needs to be available to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure that conservation measures are delivered. However, the Government recognise the need for such powers to be tightly constrained, and I am confident that, when considered alongside existing safeguards, the proposed amendments are not necessary.

I turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, which seek to require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order in two different scenarios. The first is when Natural England uses these powers to purchase a piece of land and the Secretary of State later decides not to make the EDP in question. I can assure the noble Lords that this will never happen, as Natural England cannot make a compulsory purchase before the EDP has been made.

The second scenario is when an EDP is revoked. Where an EDP is revoked, any land secured through compulsory purchase may still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Requiring land to be returned automatically would risk removing a crucial way of delivering remedial measures and potentially damaging the relevant environmental feature.

Where land has been compulsorily purchased and is not needed, and it would genuinely be surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply. The land would be offered back to the former owner, their successor or sitting tenants at market value, provided that the land has not materially changed and none of the exceptions under the rules applied. These rules are well-established, as we discussed in a debate the other day, so I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.

Moving to Amendment 323, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I assure the noble Lords that the subject of their amendment is already addressed in the Bill. CPO powers may be used only in connection with the taking of conservation measures, as defined in the legislation. Amendment 324 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is part of a private dwelling. I would first like to assure noble Lords that this type of land is incredibly unlikely to meet the high bar for compulsory purchase or to be approved by the Secretary of State. The use, or future use, of land will be taken into account by the Secretary of State when approving the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight, and noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act 1998. I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned that himself.

Finally, Amendment 352 would extend the compulsory purchase powers to Crown land. The CPO powers in the Bill are there to provide assurance that land can be acquired where necessary to ensure that an EDP can deliver the necessary conservation measures. Extending these powers to cover Crown land is unnecessary. To put it simply, if Natural England were to require Crown land for a conservation measure, that would be resolved between Natural England and the relevant authority. I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this short debate and previous debates covering other amendments relating to CPOs have been a clear demonstration of just how emotive compulsory purchase is. Handing these powers to Natural England almost unfettered is surely a step too far. I am grateful to the Minister for trying to reassure the Committee, but the comments about going back at market value are exactly the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted: if that market value has changed dramatically between when the CPO happened and when it was decided to return it, that would seem rather unfair. A requirement to buy the land back at the same price would be fine.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

295A: Clause 62, page 97, line 19, at end insert—
“(5A) A report under subsection (1)(a) (midpoint report) must also include an assessment of whether the EDP is likely to pass the overall improvement test.(5B) A report under subsection (1)(b) (final report) must also include—(a) an assessment of whether the EDP has passed the overall improvement test, and(b) if the assessment is that the EDP has not passed the test, the extent to which the conservation measures have failed to outweigh the negative effect of the EDP development as mentioned in section 60(4).(5C) A report under subsection (2) (revocation report) must also include—(a) an assessment of whether the EDP would be likely to pass the overall improvement test if it were not being revoked, but reading section 60 as if—(i) the reference in subsection (4) to the conservation measures were a reference to the conservation measures that have been or will be taken despite the EDP’s revocation (but not including any measures taken by way of remedial action under section (Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked)(4));(ii) the reference in subsection (5) to the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply were a reference to all of the development in respect of which a developer has paid or will pay the nature restoration levy despite the EDP’s revocation;(b) if the assessment is that the EDP would be unlikely to pass the test, the extent to which those conservation measures are likely to fail to outweigh the negative effect of that development.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to include more detail in its reports about the effect of any conservation measures that have been implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

295B: Clause 63, page 97, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) Where Natural England requests, or the Secretary of State is minded to make, an amendment to an EDP that—(a) increases the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply, as specified under section 54(5),(b) changes the development area to include a new area to which the EDP does not currently apply, or(c) adds new conservation measures that are of a kind not currently included in the EDP,the Secretary of State must direct Natural England to consult on the EDP as proposed to be amended.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult when an amendment is proposed to an EDP which would increase the maximum amount of development covered by the EDP, include new places in the development area or add new types of conservation measures.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

296A: Clause 64, page 99, line 5, leave out subsections (6) to (8)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

298ZA: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked(1) This section applies where a report under section 62(1)(b) or (2) (report at end or on revocation of EDP) contains an assessment that the EDP has not passed, or would be unlikely to pass, the overall improvement test (see section 62(5B) and (5C)).(2) The Secretary of State must take such action (“remedial action”) as the Secretary of State considers proportionate for the purpose of seeking to materially outweigh the negative effect on the conservation status of the identified environmental feature that is (or is likely to be) caused by the environmental impact (as identified in the EDP in accordance with section 55(1)(b)) of any development in respect of which a developer has paid or will pay the nature restoration levy.(3) In deciding whether remedial action is proportionate, the Secretary of State must take into account—(a) the extent of the negative effect on the conservation status of the identified environmental feature,(b) the extent to which the remedial action would remedy that negative effect, and(c) the cost of the remedial action.(4) Remedial action may include—(a) taking (or continuing to take) any conservation measures included in the EDP, or directing another public authority to take (or continue to take) such measures;(b) taking, or directing another public authority to take, any other measures to improve the conservation status of the identified environmental feature.(5) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the report mentioned in subsection (1) is published, publish a statement setting out—(a) the remedial action that the Secretary of State intends to take, and(b) the effect that the remedial action is expected to have on the identified environmental feature.(6) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the statement mentioned in subsection (5) is published, publish a report setting out—(a) the extent to which the remedial action has remedied the negative effect mentioned in subsection (2), and(b) whether the remedial action has had its expected effect, as set out in the statement under subsection (5)(b).(7) If any measures taken by way of remedial action have not been fully implemented by the time the report mentioned in subsection (6) is published—(a) that report must set out when the measures are expected to be fully implemented, and(b) the Secretary of State must publish a further report, containing the information required under subsection (6)(a) and (b), before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the measures are fully implemented.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to take remedial action in any case where an EDP ends (not only in cases of revocation) and its conservation measures have been assessed not to have been effective. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of the remedial action that will be taken and to report on it when it has been taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I note that, in Clause 69, there is a provision that the regulations may require or permit Natural England to integrate the process—that is the levy process—

“to the extent and in the manner specified by the regulations, with processes undertaken for other statutory purposes”.

Are we in that territory? Are we in the territory where a community infrastructure levy, environmental delivery plan levy or the nature restoration levy could be part of the same process?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not sure they would be the same process, but I think that refers to the fact that some of the same processes—for example, the appeal process—might be similar to the process being used for the levy for the EDP. That is what that reference is to, but if it is any different to that or more complex, because the way that the noble Lord described it would be a much more complex integration of both processes, I will confirm to him.

The noble Lord also referred to the viability assessment and the way that developers do this. In my quite lengthy experience of planning, I have found that developers are pretty masterful in developing their viability assessments. In the early days of this, they will want to look at how EDPs and the charging regimes around them are being framed. Most developers are quite competent at working up a viability assessment to take into account some of the new things that come along. The guidance point is an important one. We will always aim to assist those who are involved in this process with guidance, so I would anticipate that there will be guidance forthcoming. With this explanation, I hope that noble Lords will be content not to press their amendments.

Finally, Amendment 306A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seeks to allow the nature restoration levy regulations to impose the liability to pay into the nature restoration fund where the impact of the development cannot be fully dealt with through the mitigation hierarchy. The levy regulations will already allow for differential rates to be charged based on the varying impact of development. It follows that development that is having a greater impact on the environmental feature will be charged a higher levy rate. Where a developer chooses to use the existing system, they would need to address the impact of development through that approach. However, should a developer subsequently decide that they wish to use an EDP, they could still make a commitment to pay the levy prior to the planning application being determined. As such, the legislation can already accommodate the circumstances envisaged by the amendment, so I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before my noble friend replies, can I just ask the Minister if—perhaps not now, but at some point before Report—she could just go back to the question on Clause 66 regarding the circumstances in which an EDP makes the levy mandatory and explain what kind of circumstances are anticipated?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not answer his question, which was quite clear. I think the issue of mandatory EDPs was put in as a precaution, but he is right—it would be useful to have some examples of where that might be necessary. We will come back to that between Committee and Report, so that we are all clear on the kinds of circumstances where a mandatory EDP may be put in place. It is important that we all understand that.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this short debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his comments clarifying my question about financial viability. I remain not completely clear. The letter this morning was helpful, but it would be helpful if, when the Minister responds to the questions raised in this debate, she could say whether the actual cost of contributing to the NRL will be available prior to Section 106 being available. The Minister has much greater experience than I do on how developers act in these ways, but it would be reassuring to know that there is no excuse for reopening affordable housing contributions in Section 106 based on unexpected costs of the NRL.

I thought the Minister’s response about the proportionate nature of the application of the nature restoration levy very helpful, and I will go away and read her comments. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

318A: Clause 76, page 108, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) monitoring EDPs.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would move the requirement on Natural England to monitor EDPs (currently in clause 57(7)) into clause 76.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

320A: Clause 76, page 109, line 1, at end insert—
“(4) In monitoring an EDP, Natural England must take sufficient measures to monitor—(a) the effectiveness of the conservation measures that have been implemented, and(b) the effects of the EDP in general.(5) In deciding how to monitor an EDP, Natural England must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide more detail about exactly how Natural England must monitor its EDPs. It would also move the provision about guidance from clause 57 into clause 76.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for their excellent amendments—excellent because I was a co-signatory. These amendments seek to ensure consistency in treatment between statutory undertakers and private individual land managers as regards the powers of entry to be exercised by Natural England.

Frankly, this was an unwelcome addition to the Bill in the other place, giving Natural England even greater powers than already envisaged. I have referred before, or my noble friend has, to Natural England being turned into an authoritarian empire. This is part of what I was referring to. These amendments would require that at least 21 days’ notice be given to both sets of parties by Natural England to enter and survey or investigate any land covered by this part of the Bill. This appears to be the least amount of respect that private landowners should be entitled to. There are major issues around biosecurity—the risk that entrants to land carry on animal disease or predatory species. Given Natural England’s activities across the country, there is a considerable and real risk involved in their entry.

Farms may also have livestock that pose some risk to visitors and need to be kept away from roads and public rights of way, but for the behaviour of which they remain liable. Giving the additional time would allow landowners and Natural England to consider the risks around the entry and sensible precautions that can be taken and warnings given.

We in the Conservative Party have always strongly believed in both equal treatment before the law and the importance of public and private land ownership. These are principles we will always continue to support and are rights that we believe all should have access to. I therefore welcome Amendments 321 and 322, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss them in further detail.

I hope that those who drafted this law did not take the view—we have no evidence that they did—that, “The public sector is good and can be trusted but private ownership is bad and cannot be trusted, so let us go in and speak to them straightaway”. As an aside, I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that if inspectors arrived at the farm of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and wanted to see it immediately, if it meant she could no longer travel on a ghastly Avanti train with me I can understand why she would happily ask them to come in straightaway.

However, I trust that the Government will take these amendments seriously and I agree with the underlying principles. I await the Government’s response to them with anticipation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to disturb the travelling arrangements of noble Lords who live in Cumbria. Amendments 321 and 322, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would extend the written notice period required before Natural England could demand admission to land. This is currently set at 21 days for statutory undertakers and at least 24 hours in other cases.

Although we agree it is important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions in the Bill are consistent with powers of entry in similar legislation. In aligning with other legislation, we are reducing the risk of confusion for landowners but also recognising the justified difference in treatment regarding statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and so may require additional preparation to protect public safety and to prevent disruption.

However, noble Lords have made some very good points and we will consider this further. It is also worth highlighting the additional safeguards in the Bill, such as ensuring that these powers cannot be used to gain access to private residences—I believe it says “residences” not “dwellings”, so I hope that covers the point about gardens that the noble Earl made. These safeguards further ensure that the powers cannot be used in any other manner other than for carrying out functions under this part of the Bill.

The noble Earl made a very good point about a second or subsequent visit. We do need to consider that further. He also raised the point about notice in writing. He is right to point to the fact that this could be an actual letter—a physical letter—or it could be an email; it could probably not be social media, because that would not be an appropriate way of communicating directly with the person concerned.

With that, and a commitment to discuss this further, I hope that, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I think that is the most positive reply we have had from the Government in 48, 58, 68 hours. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that. I feel she understands the point that my noble friend Lord Blencathra and I are after: fairness. I was involved as a surveyor in giving notices to people, and there are circumstances when 24 hours is required, but this is not emergency legislation. There should be no need for Natural England, if it is doing its job properly, not to be able to give a decent length of notice and treat people in a civilised manner. I am very grateful to her and look forward to hearing from her shortly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage)]

322A: Clause 82, page 112, line 36, leave out “revoked EDP” and insert “remedial action”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

325A: Clause 84, page 115, line 3, leave out “revoked EDP” and insert “remedial action”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

325C: Clause 85, page 115, line 26, leave out paragraph (d)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the need for an annual report on EDPs to include an assessment of the effectiveness of all EDPs in force, which is considered no longer necessary in view of the changes made by my amendment to clause 62.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 342 seeks to add weight to the Government’s newly introduced national standards for sustainable drainage systems, making the right to communicate with the public sewer conditional on having applied the standards first. This creates a direct incentive for developers to follow the Government’s guidance and to take the standards seriously. I hope that the Government take this amendment seriously as one possible way of enforcing the national standards for sustainable drainage systems.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling these amendments and for her thorough introduction. I meant the other day to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to take our very good wishes for a speedy recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who I hope is recovering quickly. I am sorry that I did not do that before.

Effective implementation of SUDS, including adoption and maintenance, can reduce the impact of new developments on sewers by adding up to 87%, creating headroom for additional developments where they may not be possible with only conventional drainage. I have previously shared with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, some of the outstanding schemes that I have seen in Sussex and with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in Cambridge. The responsible developers make provision for the ongoing maintenance of these schemes. We need to see sustainable drainage in more developments, to designs that cope with changing climatic conditions, deliver wider water infrastructure benefits and help to tackle our water pollution problems. We have already taken steps to improve the delivery of SUDS through the planning system. The update to the NPPF, published on 12 December, expanded the requirement to provide SUDS to all development with drainage implications. I restate that, although the NPPF is not a statutory document in itself, it is part of the statutory planning system.

Sewerage undertakers have the ability to refuse a connection where it appears to them that it would prejudice their network or not meet their reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to a sewerage system. The Independent Water Commission, chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe, is reviewing the water sector regulatory system in England and Wales. The UK and Welsh Governments will consider the report, including whether it has implications for the right to connect. That report should be factored in before considering any potential legislative changes to Section 106. Regardless, the Government are strongly committed to requiring standardised sustainable drainage systems, or SUDS, in new developments and are considering how best to implement our ambitions.

The Government published updated non-statutory national standards for SUDS in June 2025, which were welcomed by stakeholders as a positive step. We intend to consult on the national planning policy related to decision-making later this year, including policies on flood risk and SUDS. I will take back the noble Baroness’s point about run-off, because it would be useful to consider that at the same time. Also this year, we will consult on ending freehold estates, which will include options to reduce the prevalence of private management arrangements for community assets including SUDS. For this reason, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to all who have spoken and those who have supported the amendment: the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who echoed my concerns about why the original legislation was not implemented; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for reminding the House about the “slow the flow” scheme, particularly the Pickering pilot scheme that I was closely associated with; and my noble friend Lady Coffey for pointing out the reason for the blockage and delay. It is like, “We are going to do it, but just not yet”. There is a degree of urgency and let us bear in mind that, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the Front Bench pointed out, if your house was built on a flood plain since 2009, you cannot be insured, or the only insurance that you can get is probably so cripplingly expensive that you cannot afford it.

For a host of reasons, I believe that the time is now. I was told during the passage of the levelling-up Act that we would have to wait for a different opportunity. The time is now, so I will revert to this at a future stage of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I did not say overall; I said in some regions.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have had figures bandied around about solar. The total figure covered at the moment is 0.1%, and the total figure for the energy plan, which goes up to 2030, is 0.8%.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

And I repeat: it is 8% in some regions—not in all regions, and not the overall figure for the United Kingdom land space.

The Secretary of State’s need for wind and solar seems to have blinded him to the mounting costs and spatial limitations they could impose. A 24/7 digital economy, data centres and artificial intelligence are not served by intermittent power. They need reliable baseload, and that means nuclear. France, Finland and Sweden—nations with some of the cheapest, cleanest electricity in Europe—all rely on nuclear. The truth is this: nuclear is not the problem; our system is. As we embrace more advanced nuclear technologies, we must try and fix it now in this Bill.

The current regulatory regime puts documentation above the national interest. It pretends that a legal checkbox exercise is the same as protecting the environment. It is not. By making it near impossible to build a handful of nuclear stations on tightly controlled sites, we are instead forcing ourselves to cover more of the countryside with wind turbines and solar panels. Of course, we all care deeply about the environment. Our national love of the countryside and of our natural heritage runs deep. But a planning system that blocks low-carbon, low-footprint, clean energy is self-defeating. It turns environmental regulation into a tool of environmental harm.

Cheap abundant nuclear is not a fantasy; it is our route to energy sovereignty, to lower bills and to powering a modern, prosperous Britain. If we are serious about delivering the infrastructure that will enable growth, attract investment, support heavy industry and safeguard our national interest, then we need to be bold enough to cut through the red tape that is holding us back. Britain stands on the cusp of a new industrial renaissance, but we cannot reach it with the planning system stuck in the past—particularly as we embrace the new, small and advanced nuclear technologies. These amendments are a crucial step towards a future that is energy secure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I wanted to speak briefly on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made on regulatory alignment. I like regulatory alignment in principle, provided it meets the right level of agreed regulation. I am fairly certain with everything I read that British regulators are perhaps over-nitpicking and over-fussy here, and are causing delays at Hinkley Point by double- and triple-checking the welding. I am also fairly certain with what I read that American regulators are—I would not say sloppy—much more relaxed.

If regulatory alignment comes about from British regulation experts talking to American regulation experts and reaching agreement, I can live with that. What I could not live with is a political agreement on regulatory alignment. I admire the way that President Trump goes around the world fighting for American interests, and stuffs everybody else provided that American interests come first. My worry here would be that, at some point, he may offer a deal saying, “Okay, Britain, you want no tariffs on steel and whisky? I can go along with that, provided you accept American terms on regulatory alignment for our nuclear reactors”. It is the political deal that worries me, not any regulatory alignment brought about by experts. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer that or comment on it; I merely flag it. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, nodding, and I am glad that we agree on this point.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not get drawn into the geopolitical issues of international trade on the planning Bill, but I will address the points in the amendment.

The Government shares the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, who moved his amendment, to make nuclear development faster and more cost effective, and the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for SMRs. My noble friend Lady Hayman mentioned AMRs as well, which are important. Quite simply, we cannot grow the economy in the way that we want to without rapidly tackling the clean energy issue on all fronts, including nuclear. That is about not only clean energy but providing us with energy security and lower energy prices, which will help not only businesses in our country but households as well. It is important that we get on with that.

I fear that the solutions proposed in this amendment—I appreciate that it is a probing amendment—would potentially invite problems of their own, and risk undoing the growth we have seen in public support for new nuclear. I look first at allowing the Secretary of State to disregard environmental impact assessment requirements, where doing so would

“secure the provision of the generating station in an economic, efficient, proportionate and timely manner”.

We should remember that environmental assessments include not just impacts on wildlife but also take account of the impact on communities—noise, air quality, human health, and so on.

An application for a new nuclear power station will include proposals for mitigation measures designed to limit or remove any significant adverse environmental effects that it would have. This amendment could remove any requirements for those mitigation measures, which simply means that the significant impacts would not be managed. Like the noble Lord, we recognise that environmental assessment is in need of reform, which is why we are already carefully considering how to bring forward environmental outcome reports that will allow us to ensure that EIA is proportionate and to reduce the risk that these assessments are used to unduly delay development coming forward.

Allowing the Secretary of State to exempt nuclear power station projects both from the habs regulations and from any requirement to pay into an EDP could leave our most important protected sites and species at risk of irreparable harm. Simply providing for these regulations to be disregarded is probably the wrong approach and risks removing the need for even the most common-sense consideration of environmental impacts and actions to address these.

As I hope I have already set out to noble Lords in these debates, the nature restoration fund will allow developers to discharge their environmental obligations around protected sites and species more quickly and with greater impact, accelerating the delivery of infrastructure at the same time as improving the environment.

The planning regime must support new nuclear, so we have introduced a transformative draft national policy statement on nuclear energy. It is important, therefore, that both this policy statement and the overarching national policy statement for energy are considered when deciding applications for new nuclear power stations. This amendment would remove the centrality of these national policy statements in determining applications for those power stations, which would only slow down and confuse the decision-making process. The habitats regulations must be applied sensibly, which is why the overarching national policy statement for energy has already introduced the concept of critical national priority projects. This creates a presumption that the importance of low-carbon energy infrastructure is such that it is capable of amounting to imperative reasons for overriding public interest. We recognise that we need to go further and the nuclear regulatory framework—my noble friend Lord Hunt, referred to it, I believe—must avoid increasing costs where possible. We have therefore launched the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, which will report later this year.

The Government remain firmly of the view that, when it comes to development and the environment, we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both infrastructure delivery and nature recovery stall. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, will be able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered and rather encouraging response, and indeed all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for reminding the Committee about the exciting progress towards regulatory alignment between the US and the UK on nuclear matters. I join him in encouraging the Government to investigate bringing forward helpful legislative changes on Report in the light of recent research. For now, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

346E: Before Clause 88, insert the following new Clause—
“General duties when exercising functions relating to EDPs(1) This section applies where—(a) Natural England or the Secretary of State is exercising any functions in relation to the preparation, amendment or revocation of an EDP, or(b) the Secretary of State is considering whether to take, or is taking, remedial action under section (Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked).(2) Natural England or the Secretary of State must take account of the best available scientific evidence.(3) Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to—(a) the development plan for the development area,(b) the current environmental improvement plan,(c) any Environment Act strategies, and(d) any other strategies or plans,so far as Natural England or the Secretary of State considers them to be relevant.(4) Where an EDP specifies as the development area an area that includes waters adjacent to England (see section 54(2)(b)), Natural England or the Secretary of State must also have regard to—(a) any marine plan,(b) the marine policy statement, and(c) the UK marine strategy,so far as Natural England or the Secretary of State considers them to be relevant.(5) Where an EDP includes as an identified environmental feature a protected feature of a protected site, Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to any conservation objectives of the site that relate to the feature, so far as Natural England or the Secretary of State considers them to be relevant.(6) Where an EDP includes as an identified environmental feature a protected species, Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to achieve favourable conservation status for that species in their natural range.(7) Subsection (8) applies where—(a) an EDP includes as an identified environmental feature a protected feature of a protected site, and(b) the EDP includes conservation measures of the type mentioned in section 55(4) (network conservation measures).(8) Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect the overall coherence of each relevant site network of which the protected site forms a part, so far as it relates to the protected feature.(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about other things that must be done by Natural England when exercising functions in relation to the preparation, amendment or revocation of an EDP.(10) In this section—“current environmental improvement plan” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021 (see section 8 of that Act);“development plan” has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004;“Environment Act strategy” means a strategy prepared under any of the following provisions of the Environment Act 2021— (a) section 104 (local nature recovery strategies);(b) section 109 (species conservation strategies);(c) section 110 (protected site strategies);“marine plan” has the meaning given in section 51(3) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;“marine policy statement” has the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 44 of that Act);“relevant site network” means—(a) the national site network within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations 2017 (see regulation 3 of those Regulations);(b) the national Ramsar site series within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations 2017 (see regulation 3 of those Regulations);(c) the network referred to in section 123(2) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (marine protected area network).“the UK marine strategy” means the strategy developed under the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1627).”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 58 sets out matters to which Natural England must have regard when preparing an EDP. This amendment would extend that duty to the exercise of other functions relating to an EDP (e.g. amendment and revocation) by both Natural England and the Secretary of State. It would also add in additional matters to which Natural England and the Secretary of State must have regard when exercising functions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

349A: Schedule 6, page 173, line 1, after “(1)” insert “—
(a) after the definition of “marine area” insert—““the national Ramsar site series” means all the wetlands in the United Kingdom that have been designated under paragraph 1 of article 2 of the Ramsar Convention for inclusion in the list of wetlands of international importance referred to in that article;”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be a drafting correction to insert a definition of “the national Ramsar site series” into the Habitats Regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for Amendment 356A and for highlighting the merits of consolidating our planning legislation. As someone who has been on the sticky end of it for a number of years, I can absolutely see his point.

My noble friend is not the first to consider this. Indeed, the existing legislative framework provides the Government with sufficient powers to consolidate the planning legislation at an appropriate time. Specifically, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, Section 132 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides the Secretary of State with broad and flexible powers to make regulations that amend, repeal or otherwise modify a wide range of planning-related statutes.

While we have no immediate plans to consolidate planning legislation in England, we will keep this under review, as we recognise that consolidating planning legislation could offer some benefits. Since the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the legislative framework has undergone numerous amendments, and consolidation may help to streamline and simplify the system. However, a comprehensive consolidation needs to be weighed against the risks of uncertainty and disruption, particularly at a time when the Government are prioritising targeted planning reform to drive economic growth.

Any move towards consolidation would also require substantial resources, so we would need to be confident that it has clear benefits. At this stage, we believe that targeted reform is the best way forward, but we are live to the possibilities that consolidation offers. I hope that my noble friend and other Peers with an interest in planning will continue to work with us. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, first, that the person to whom she referred has not in fact advised me on this amendment. Secondly, she should not fear the amendment; I realise that it is a Henry VIII provision, but all it would allow us to do is have pre-consolidation amendments. We could not use it, for instance, to create a special pathway for nuclear developments in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, suggested. I hope I can reassure her on that.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. Clearly, she and her department recognise that, for people in the field, this can be very complex, so everything we can do to make it as straightforward as possible is to be desired. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

359: Clause 110, page 151, line 43, leave out paragraph (x) and insert—
“(x) section 46(1), (4) and (5) come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;(xa) section 46(2) and (3) come into force—(i) in relation to applications made to the Secretary of State, on the day on which the first relevant regulations made by the Secretary of State come into force;(ii) in relation to applications made to the Scottish Ministers, on the day on which the first relevant regulations made by the Scottish Ministers come into force;(iii) in relation to applications made to the Welsh Ministers, on the day on which the first relevant regulations made by the Welsh Ministers come into force;and in this paragraph “relevant regulations” means regulations under paragraph 9A of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964 (inserted by section 46(4));”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would adjust the commencement of clause 46 so that the repeal of existing fee-charging powers takes effect in each of England, Scotland and Wales only when new fees regulations come into force in the area concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are nearly there. I thank all noble Lords from across the House for their contributions to the Bill. Over long and often intricate debates, sometimes stretching well into the night, your Lordships have engaged with candour, with insight and with seriousness befitting the weight of these issues. The cross-party spirit of scrutiny and the diligence shown in Committee has, I believe, genuinely strengthened our deliberations.

Amendment 361, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is sound and reasonable. I shall not detain the Committee with another extended rehearsal of why Part 3 is, in our view, both damaging and unnecessary. But let me be clear: despite the Government’s determination to plough ahead with this part of the Bill, the opposition to it will only crystallise further on Report. Part 3 needs to go. At the very least, there must be an independent oversight of its administration. Without that, the concerns raised in Committee will only deepen.

The two thoughtful amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe are practical and considered proposals that go right to the heart of the issues we have debated throughout Committee. Amendment 363 would ensure that the Secretary of State updates all national policy statements before the Act can be commenced. This is vital; out-of-date national policy statements do not provide the clarity or certainty required for developers, planners or communities.

Meanwhile, Amendment 364 would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes an analysis of how each section of the Bill will affect the speed of the planning process and construction before any provisions are commenced. If the central purpose of the Bill is, as Ministers insist, to accelerate planning and speed up delivery, it is only fair to ask how it will achieve that objective in practice. Will it, for example, make any real progress towards the former Deputy Prime Minister’s target of 1.5 million new homes, a promise which, under this Government, looks ever more distant as housebuilding rates continue to decline?

I conclude by returning to the point that I made at the start of Committee. This Bill does not go far enough. It makes adjustments to processes, to roles, to fees and to training. But it leaves untouched the fundamental framework of planning—the very framework that needs serious, bold reform if we are to unlock the scale of housebuilding that this country so urgently requires. We now hear rumours of a second planning Bill to come. If that is true, what your Lordships’ House has been asked to consider is not reform but merely a prelude.

The Government have missed an opportunity with this Bill. They had the chance to set a clear vision for the planning system that delivers for communities, supports growth and tackles the housing crisis head on. Instead, they have brought forward a piecemeal piece of legislation more about tinkering at the edges than about grasping the real challenge. The Government have chosen to use up their remaining political capital on Part 3 rather than building more homes, and the Minister will soon realise that she and her department have wasted their energy on this Bill.

I repeat my thanks to all the staff in the House: the doorkeepers, the technical staff and Hansard have all had to work very hard on nights when we have sat late on this Bill, and I thank them very much for that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the amendment, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee debates and the meetings we have held around the Committee stage of the Bill. We have apparently spent 60 hours in the Chamber debating the Bill and covered 650 amendments. Noble Lords’ knowledge and experience have helped us to shape this important new approach to planning, growth and the environment, which has been especially valuable.

I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople who have shown great stamina and fortitude, which has been really greatly appreciated. I also thank all the outside bodies who have contributed to our debates in the House. I especially thank all the officials who have worked on the Bill. The processes in the House of Lords mean that our officials often have to work at very short notice on putting together papers for Front-Benchers. I also thank the staff of the House, who have worked often very long hours on the Bill.

I also give my personal thanks to my fellow Front-Bench government spokespeople, the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Wilson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who have supported me so ably on the Front Bench during Committee. I am extremely grateful to them for their support.

This final group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, relates to the commencement of the legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her support and encouragement of the growth agenda that the Bill is aimed at promoting. As we have made clear throughout Committee, our Planning and Infrastructure Bill will play a key role in unlocking economic growth, and we must progress to implementation as swiftly as possible to start reaping the benefits of these measures and getting shovels in the ground—including shovels operated by SME builders. My noble friend Lord Livermore yesterday quoted the fact that this Bill has already been assessed to be making a great contribution to the economic growth we all want to see.

On Amendment 363, while I commend the intent of bring all national policy statements up to date, we must resist this amendment because the clauses in the Bill already address this through the introduction of a requirement for all NPSs to be reviewed and updated at least every five years. These clauses include transitional requirements, the most stringent of which require the NPSs which were designated more than five years before the date when the clauses came into force and have not been amended, to be brought up to date within a two-year period. Delaying the commencement of the rest of the Act until such a time as all NPSs have been updated is therefore unreasonable and would have a detrimental impact on the objectives of the Bill, stalling delivery and growth in our country.

Amendment 253 also seeks to have all remaining sections of the Bill come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. Commencement regulations under this amendment are to be subject to a negative resolution. The commencement of each section of the Bill has been carefully considered with regard to the specific issue and relevant circumstances to determine whether that provision should come into force on the day the Act is passed, or a set period beginning with the day on which the Act is passed, or on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. This bespoke consideration should not be displaced by a blanket rule requiring commencement regulations, and I do not believe there is any reasonable basis for requiring all commencement regulations to be subject to the negative procedure rather than the generally standard procedure of commencement regulations not being subject to any procedure.

Amendment 364 would require the Secretary of State to publish analysis regarding the impact of each section of the Bill on the speed of the planning process before we can commence any of its provisions. I appreciate the noble Baroness’ intentions behind this amendment, and we are aligned in that we want the Bill to have as big an impact as possible in unlocking growth and accelerating development across the country. However, we have already published a full impact assessment on the Bill, including analysis of how each measure will impact on the planning system. As I mentioned earlier, this analysis showed that the economy could be boosted by up to £7.5 billion over the next decade by this pro-growth legislation, and we should not look to delay the implementation of these clauses and the reaping of the Bill’s benefits across the planning system.

We are confident that the Bill will streamline and turbocharge planning processes. For example, our analysis of the Bill’s reforms to the pre-application stage of the NSIP regime shows that these changes could reduce the typical time projects spend in pre-application by up to 12 months. This is a dramatic acceleration of the current system and of delivery of major economic infrastructure and demonstrates clearly how the Bill will get Britain building again. With these reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.