Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Commons consider a more streamlined process of Parliamentary scrutiny is more appropriate to apply to an amendment of a national policy statement which reflects relevant published government policy, changes to (or the coming into force of) relevant legislation, a change to a published document referred to in a national policy statement or a relevant decision in court proceedings.

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

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D, E and E1, which are grouped together. It is a great pleasure to bring the Planning and Infrastructure Bill back to the House of Lords to consider amendments and reasons from the other place.

A number of further commitments were made last week, which, where relevant, I will repeat today. I will first discuss amendments that relate to the provision of infrastructure in this country. Before doing so, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussions between Report and today’s ping-pong.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has tabled an amendment that would reinstate the requirement for the Government to respond to any resolutions of Parliament, or Select Committee recommendations, when making certain material changes to a national policy statement. This amendment risks undermining a core aim of the Bill: to keep national policy statements up to date swiftly and effectively. The reflective amendment procedure is not a shortcut to avoid scrutiny; it is a practical tool, accompanied by commitments to work with Select Committees, to ensure that NPSs can be updated without undue delay to reflect published government policy, legislative updates, a court decision or a change to a published document referred to in the statement.

National policy statements are the backbone of the NSIP regime. They unlock billions in private investment, create jobs and drive sustainable growth. If they fall out of date, projects can stall, costs can rise and confidence in the system is eroded.

As noble Lords know, Clause 1 already guarantees robust oversight by requiring all NPSs to be reviewed at least every five years, with the oldest NPSs required to be updated within two years of the clause coming into effect. We expect that updates to the five NPSs in this transitional category will undergo full parliamentary scrutiny, and Select Committees will play a central role. But where changes relate to specific types of updates, such as reflecting government policy and aligning with legislation or court rulings, the reflective amendment route ensures that the process is proportionate while maintaining accountability.

To address concerns raised in both Houses, the Government have made clear commitments. We will notify the relevant Select Committee at the start of any consultation. We will lay a Statement in Parliament explaining how the changes meet the statutory definition. Ministers will make themselves available to give evidence during that period. If a Select Committee publishes a report during the consultation period, the Government will take its recommendations into account. These safeguards ensure transparency and respect for Parliament. The chair of the Commons Liaison Committee has already said she is reassured that the Select Committee corridor will be treated with the respect it deserves.

Let me emphasise that this procedure will only apply to changes that reflect published policy, legislative amendments or court decisions. Even then, Parliament retains the ultimate safeguard. The draft NPS must be laid for 21 sitting days before it can take effect. This is a balanced, proportionate approach. It keeps the NPSs current, supports infrastructure delivery and preserves Parliament’s ultimate authority, ensuring that oversight remains robust and meaningful.

Amendments 2A and 3 seek to insert additional requirements relating to heritage consents and community engagement for reservoir NSIP applications. I greatly respect the concerns about the impact of reservoir NSIPs on communities and heritage, so ably explained in the course of our debates by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, recalling villages in Northumbria, the Lake District and Wales that were submerged for projects such as Rutland Water and Kielder Water. While these reservoirs provide vital water and local pride, they came at great cost. Securing safeguards for heritage and for communities is essential when considering major infrastructure projects. Heritage underpins our tourism and economy and is irreplaceable. It must be managed effectively through our planning system.

The historic cases I mentioned arose before today’s planning framework. We now have the Planning Act 2008 and a suite of supporting secondary legislation and guidance which ensures the thorough evaluation of nationally significant infrastructure projects and their impacts.

Section 33 of the Planning Act removes the need for separate consents to be obtained for works affecting listed buildings or monuments, instead creating a unified consent in the development consent order if granted. A number of protections, including in legislation, are embedded in that consenting process. These ensure that the NSIP process does not represent a dilution of heritage protections, while ensuring the regime is a one-stop shop for consent.

First and foremost, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving heritage assets when deciding applications. The Secretary of State must comply with the obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations. Decisions must also be made in accordance with the national policy statements, subject to limited exceptions. The water resources NPS applies to dams and reservoirs and contains dedicated policy on the historic environment, requiring weight to be given to conservation and recognising that heritage assets cannot be replaced.

This NPS defines heritage assets and explains that some have a level of significance that justifies official designation. This explicitly includes world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, and conservation areas.

Applicants are also required, where applicable, to include information about heritage impacts when they submit their applications for development consent. Where an environmental impact assessment is required, they must assess impacts as part of this. But it is not solely applicants and the Secretary of State who are responsible for consideration of heritage. Historic England is a statutory body required to be notified by the applicant of a decision to accept an application for examination. Statutory bodies are given the opportunity to make a relevant representation. If they do so, they are classified as “interested parties” and would be engaged, with opportunities to provide views to the examining authority, during the NSIP examination process.

I am confident that the NSIP system provides numerous sufficient protections for the heritage assets of this country. However, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House today, and as such, I am happy to commit to review the “historic environment” section of the water NPS to consider both the advice provided to the applicant and required considerations of the Secretary of State. Given the numerous additional protections and commitments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is sufficiently reassured and that he will not insist on his Amendment 2.

On the impact of reservoirs on communities, before we get to the substance of the amendment, I want to briefly note that it is legally flawed. The amendment misconstrues the process for a dam or reservoir project entering the NSIP regime; most of the time such projects automatically enter the NSIP regime as a Section 14(1)(m) project when the criteria set out in Section 27 of the Planning Act are met.

I none the less want to emphasise that the voices and contributions of people living in affected areas are vital to the effective delivery of projects and the legitimacy of the NSIP system. Following changes proposed to pre-application consultation through the Bill, the Government will publish new guidance setting clear expectations on engagement with those affected in the NSIP application process.

Let me be clear: at the forefront of this guidance will be an expectation that engagement is undertaken early, when voices can and do make a real difference to projects. This should be offered in a variety of ways, including in person, to be accessible and allow affected persons to share their views about the development and the impact it will have.

NSIP applicants have a responsibility towards those affected by their proposals and should be present and visible to local communities to ensure accountability to them during the development and examination of applications. The requirement for an applicant to publicise a proposed application is preserved in the Planning Act 2008. The Act continues to ensure that people are notified during pre-application. Those affected persons will be notified if an application is accepted for examination.

Opportunities to be heard do not stop there. Statutory provisions guarantee participation throughout the process. Local authorities are invited to produce local impact reports, bringing forward local knowledge and setting out impacts of the development, which the Secretary of State must have regard to in deciding the application. The system also provides opportunities for individuals to participate, both through making a relevant and/or written representation and making oral representations at hearings. Those whose land is being acquired have an automatic right to request a hearing and have their voice heard.

While these amendments raise important points, the existing framework already provides strong protections. Nevertheless, to provide further assurances, and in recognition of the importance of the issues raised, the Government will commit to bring forward the next water NPS update to consider community engagement for reservoir and dam projects.

The Secretary of State will consider how best to reflect expectations around early and effective engagement with impacted residents, particularly where projects may involve significant demolition or disruption, to ensure that local communities and impacted individuals’ voices are heard. This will include consultation with stakeholders on whether greater policy guidance is required to ensure that our planning system remains rigorous, responsive and inclusive. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and that she will agree to no longer insist on her amendment.

Amendments 31A and 31B relate to accessible charging and seek to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points. I say a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his constructive engagement, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their contributions on this matter. The Government tabled an amendment in lieu which includes some changes that go slightly further than the original amendment. Reflecting the feedback from industry and other stakeholders, the Government’s amendment ensures that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points. They also ensure that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering accessible charge points. The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 already gives the Government powers to require the sharing of accessibility data, so we have not included this.

This amendment applies to Great Britain. The Northern Irish Ministers did not wish for this amendment, which relates to a transferred matter, to extend to them. They are able to bring forward their own legislation. The UK Government will work with Northern Ireland and wishes to minimise divergence of standards across the United Kingdom. I appreciated the very interesting debate that we had in this House, led by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and hope that this meets all the noble Lord’s concerns on this issue.

Turning finally to Amendment 32, the Government recognise the impact that water stress has on communities, including farmers and sports clubs, as well as the role that low-hazard reservoirs can play in mitigating such issues. I recognise the wider point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that urgent action is required. The Government will respond to the Cunliffe recommendations in full via a White Paper that will be published later this year. It will outline the Government’s vision for the future of the water sector, marking the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Defra Science Search website. Updated data will be published following consultation and decisions on the details of proposed reforms.

I am happy to confirm that the Housing Minister committed in the other place to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Minister went further, committing to provide clarity to farmers about when the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs can be used. This would be achieved by updating the relevant planning practice guidance. Providing further information and clarity about precisely when this permitted development right can be relied on, and what conditions and limitations apply, will support the amendment’s aim of enabling farmers to construct these reservoirs.

We support the objective of this amendment. Of the two actions proposed, the first action has already been completed. The Government have committed to deliver the second within the timeframe set out in the original amendment. We have also gone further and committed to clarifying guidance on the permitted development right that supports the construction of on-farm reservoirs. I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, feels able not to insist on her amendment. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Before I sit down, I reiterate that quite a few of our amendments would have delivered the much-needed homes and infrastructure that are the purpose of the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am grateful for their engagement on the important matters that have been the subject of this group. I will address noble Lords’ points individually.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I refer to all the protections I set out earlier as part of the Government’s reassurance that we take very seriously the conservation of heritage buildings. He asked me about timeframes. It was the intention that the water NPS would not be done until 2030 but I am prepared to commit to him that we will bring it forward to 2026 so that we can make sure that this is addressed quickly to give clarity to all those concerned. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord, and that that protection, and the bringing forward of the review to next year, will enable him not to press his amendment.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, I very much appreciate the long-standing expertise and commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to addressing some of the pressing water management issues that have been around for decades. I understand her impatience about the time it has taken to deal with some of them. On the urgency, I draw her attention to the fact that the Cunliffe review was completed this year, and the Government have already undertaken to produce a water White Paper by the end of the year, so we are not hanging around in dealing with this. Once the appropriate consultation on the White Paper has been done, we will bring forward legislation in a water Bill to deal with it. I hope that that lets the noble Baroness know that the Government do not want these issues to continue to hang around for decades. We want to deal with this issue; we take it seriously. I know that my colleagues in Defra deal with it daily.

The NPS for water resources infrastructure, designated in September 2023 and amended in 2025, sets out the need for and the Government’s policies for all nationally significant water resources infrastructure projects—that is, large reservoirs and transfer schemes. It explains that the need for the infrastructure is set out in water company statutory water resources management plans and explains the assessment principles that any DCO application for qualifying water resources projects must satisfy. For projects that fall under the NSIP regime, automatically or by direction, and within the NPS’s scope, the Secretary of State must determine the application in accordance with the NPS. It is important that NPSs are in place as quickly as possible so that we can determine applications in accordance with them, unless there are prescribed compelling reasons not to do so. The policy therefore ensures that long-term water supply resilience and national infrastructure are embedded in the consenting framework.

On the reservoirs the noble Baroness was referring to, we will get that into the planning practice guidance as soon as is practicable. I am happy to work with her on that as we move forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised the issue of local impact statements. He is quite right to say that, as part of the Planning Act 2008, relevant local authorities will be invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of proposed developments on the authority’s area. The Government are considering responses to our recent consultation on guidance on and engagement with NSIPs. This includes guidance to local authorities on local impact reports. We will carefully consider what the guidance can say to address concerns about the heritage impact issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Water White Paper will be this calendar year—I hope before Parliament breaks for recess, but I do not want to commit my Defra colleagues further than they have given me licence to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised issues concerning reservoirs. The national policy statement would protect those reservoirs and make sure that we have an obligation to do so. As I have explained many times, although the national policy statements are not in themselves the matter of primary legislation, because they have to change and be adaptable to circumstances, they do carry the full weight of the planning system in legal terms. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that that protection is in place.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. She is completely right: we need to get this Bill through so that we can start on the infrastructure projects and the housebuilding that we need. As the Minister responsible for these issues in this House, the human reality she talks about and the disruption faced by communities is absolutely not lost on me. As we go through the process of strengthening the guidance and bringing forward an early review of the NPS on water, we will take full account of the need to ensure that communities are protected in the way she so admirably championed throughout consideration of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will consider not pressing their amendments.

Motion A agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A.

2A: Line 45, leave out subsections (7) and (8)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because the Commons consider that it would create a duplicative process and cause unnecessary delay.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B in lieu.

31A: Page 60, line 27, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Accessibility of public charging or refuelling points
In section 10 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection) at the end insert—
“(5) Regulations may impose requirements in connection with the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points in England, Wales and Scotland, such as requirements relating to—
(a) the design of the point,
(b) the location, placement or surroundings of the point, and
(c) the provision of assistance in using the point.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may prescribe requirements by reference to technical standards or specifications published by a person specified in the regulations (including standards or specifications as amended from time to time).
(7) Regulations under subsection (5) may impose requirements on any person, including—
(a) persons making, supplying, importing, operating or installing public charging or refuelling points;
(b) the owners or occupiers of land on which public charging or refuelling points are situated.
(8) Regulations under subsection (5) may not impose requirements on owners or occupiers of domestic premises.””

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 32, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 32A.

32A: Because the Commons do not consider it necessary to have a legislative requirement to publish the information required by the amendment relating to low hazard reservoirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can reassure the noble Baroness that we propose to introduce a new hazard classification system with four hazard classes. The assessment of hazard class would take into account dam height, reservoir volume and likely numbers of people downstream. Safety management practices would be tailored to each hazard class so that the lowest hazard class would have minimum requirements—less than the current ones, which I hope is reassuring to her—and the highest hazard class would have more than the current requirements. I hope it is reassuring that we want to make this easier for farmers, not harder.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

When is that classification coming in?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I shall write to the noble Baroness on that point.

Motion E1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.

33A: Because the Commons consider that requiring these regulations to be made by affirmative procedure would not be an appropriate use of Parliamentary time.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as well as moving Motion F, I will also speak to Motions G, J and J1, with the permission of the House.

I will begin with Amendment 33, which was from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which sought to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on this very important issue. Having reflected on our useful discussions in previous debates and subsequent correspondence and having heard the strength of feeling in the House on this point, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that the Government agree with the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will therefore use the next opportunity in the other place to bring forward an amendment which will seek to give effect to the intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation are subject to the affirmative procedure. This, alongside the further safeguard built into the legislation which places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before they come into effect, should ensure an appropriate amount of scrutiny and engagement ahead of the implementation of the national scheme of delegation. I very much saw the noble Lord’s point about the first set of regulations coming forward, and I hope he is reassured on that point.

Amendment 37, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, exempted assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her very constructive engagement on this issue. We agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them though the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently under consideration by this House—we have not had its First Reading yet, but it will be imminent. If we agree where someone wants to demolish an asset of community value, it is only right they should have to submit a planning application so that the full planning merits can be considered. That is why the Government committed in the other place to consult on this proposal at the earliest opportunity. As mentioned in the debate in the other place, Parliament has granted the Secretary of State powers to make permitted development rights through secondary legislation. As such, the Government feel we should follow the proper route to amending these through important consultation. We hope these commitments reassure the noble Baroness, and we look forward to a consultation on the matter shortly. I hope the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to look at the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. There are significantly greater powers over community assets in that Bill than currently exist, and I hope that will reassure her of our intent in this matter.

Amendment 39 was on brownfield land and sustainable development. I completely agree with Peers on the need to prioritise and fully utilise brownfield land. I want to be explicit and assure Peers that the Government already have a brownfield-first approach to development—a principle that successive Governments have adhered to. That is why the Government updated the National Planning Policy Framework last year to further strengthen policy support for development on brownfield land. It currently states:

“Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.


We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include “large areas of hardstanding”, bringing more brownfield land into scope and limiting the need to look at other types of land. Of course, it is also the case that, as well as prioritising brownfield development, the existing NPPF already provides protections for non-brownfield land—such as protected landscapes, green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty—alongside guiding developments away from, for example, using the best and most versatile agricultural land where possible—I know that was a matter of great concern to noble Lords.

Last year, the Government published a Brownfield Passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. This included exploring the role of national policy in setting minimum density expectations for certain types of locations to support intensification in the right places. But we are committed to going even further to embed the brownfield-first policy into our planning system, which is why I can commit to consulting on a revised framework later this year that will set out a more rules-based approach to planning, including ensuring that brownfield land is the first port of call for development. In that consultation, we will put forward proposals that help prioritise brownfield land for development, set clear expectations for where development can take place and make best use of existing infrastructure to grow and densify our towns and cities and to support sustainable development. Our proposals will explicitly encourage mayors and local authorities to accommodate more development on brownfield land and specifically relate this to spatial development strategies.

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned that policy changes alone are not strong enough. I make it clear that the NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework—and all the points I have made previously on the priority use of brownfield land—is a material consideration in planning decisions. All strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, this is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.

Our newly revised NPPF, which we will consult on before the end of the year, will provide even clearer policies to drive more certain decision-making, including on brownfield development. Our changes will signal a step change and make clear our ambitions to drive forward brownfield development. We expect changes to meet the objectives of the brownfield-first principle. Our proposals will provide a crucial opportunity to test our approach and consider evidence from the sector to ensure that policies are robust and impactful.

We also know that policies can take time to feed through the planning system, and we will continue to keep policy and associated guidance under review. As such, legislative changes are not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that may not support effective delivery, or that sometimes may not allow for local circumstances to be taken into account.

I fear that the amendment would have become a charter for those who may seek to thwart development and the preparation of SDSs. First, the amendment would bite into SDSs. These are higher-level frameworks with the key aim of planning for medium-term to long-term housing and other development needs, aligning infrastructure provision to support that development. SDSs should of course take a brownfield-first approach, which, as I have mentioned, is already enshrined in a national policy framework that will go even further to prioritise brownfield land.

The other aspects of this amendment would create a legislative requirement for increasing densities and reducing travel distances. These are problematic in not allowing for the consideration of local issues—for example, the character of an area, the settlement patterns or the presence of important heritage assets. Consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at local level. As noble Lords know, brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable for development. A policy approach allows us to trust local planning authorities to arrive at appropriate judgments on the suitability of brownfield sites, having weighed up a balance of considerations. I am afraid that having such legislation, alongside creating overly rigid requirements, would serve only to open up SDSs to the increased risk of legal challenges on potentially very local issues that are not the aim or purpose of strategic development strategies. This may slow them down in providing the homes and infrastructure that our communities need.

Therefore, with the strong assurances I have made and the commitments to further strengthen the approach to brownfield land, I hope noble Lords will see the Government’s clear commitment on this and agree with the Motion not to insist. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, first, I remind noble Lords of my registered interest as chair of the development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank the Minister warmly for her engagement and that of her officials with Amendment 33 and for the Government’s support for it, giving this House the opportunity to examine on an affirmative procedure the first use of the national scheme of delegation. I shall not reiterate, as noble Lords have heard it in Committee and on Report, my view of the importance of the national scheme of delegation and, indeed, some issues about how it is to be used and structured. It is not simply a case of how important it is; there are still outstanding issues on the structure of the national scheme of delegation.

I am immensely grateful to the Minister that the Government are going to look that we insist on Amendment 33. I apologise for my poor drafting. Noble Lords know that I try hard on these matters, but I neglected to note that, if it became an affirmative resolution, the structure of the Town and Country Planning Act already provides that other regulations beyond the first use are automatically regarded as negative procedure. There will be further amendment to remedy that when the other place finishes its examination.

While I am standing up, I want to say that I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lady Scott about the scrutiny that we have afforded to this legislation. She and I—and, indeed, the Minister—went all the way through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. We spent 23 days in examination of that Bill, and we have spent only 16 days on this one, so to that extent we have rushed it through. I thoroughly support Motion F.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Motion G

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A.

37A: Because the Commons consider that measures in respect of permitted development rights should be taken forward through secondary legislation.

Motion G agreed.

Motion H

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 38A.

38A: Because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate for chalk stream protection to be dealt with by spatial development strategies.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak also to Motions H1, K and K1. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for their amendments in lieu relating to chalk streams and environmental delivery plans.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for tabling Lords Amendment 38B. I also thank him for his letter, which I received today; I hope to respond to him in my remarks from the Dispatch Box. His amendment moves away from the wide-ranging amendment that he previously sought to add to the Bill, which was not workable. This amendment seeks to introduce guidance for how strategic planning authorities must take into account the need to define, protect and enhance chalk streams through spatial development strategies. I recognise and appreciate the positive intent of the amendment, and I emphasise once again that the Government are absolutely determined to restore and improve the nation’s chalk streams. I should highlight that any provisions in regulations made by statutory instrument are legislative requirements, rather than guidance; this amendment refers to both terms.

We set out in the other place that we do not believe that legislation requiring spatial development strategies is the best place to protect these vital ecosystems. Furthermore, new legislation on this specific matter would duplicate existing policy on the issue—policy that we have already committed to update with specific reference to chalk streams. Strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s-length bodies, such as the Environment Agency, that have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas; those are the two main issues that affect the viability of chalk streams. The spatial development strategies will be high-level frameworks for housing, growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites.

Importantly, spatial development strategies will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. As locally led spatial exercises, those local nature recovery strategies will—drawing on river basin management plans—be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them. Local nature recovery strategies, which include important chalk streams in Wiltshire, Berkshire and Norfolk, are already doing this. We want to build on these welcome efforts. I can, therefore, make it clear today that, in responding to this amendment in the other place, the Government committed to amend statutory guidance to encourage chalk streams to be featured prominently in local nature recovery strategies going forward.

On the planning system, which is obviously the focus of this Bill, it remains the Government’s view that the conservation of chalk streams is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy, which applies to all tiers of the planning system from strategic policies to individual planning applications. As per the commitment made by the Housing and Planning Minister in the other place on 13 November, which I referred to a moment ago, the Government will now include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision-making that we intend to consult on before the end of this year. This will ensure that chalk streams are explicitly recognised as features of high environmental value in national planning policy; and that clear expectations are set for plan-makers and decision-makers in respect of managing the impacts of development on these sensitive water bodies.

As noble Lords are well aware, among the most pressing of the multiple pressures facing chalk steams are systemic issues in the water system. The Government are absolutely determined to take bold action to address pollution and over-abstraction. Measures that will safeguard and restore chalk streams are already embedded into our ambitious programme of reforms to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.

Although it does not directly relate to the planning system, in order to provide noble Lords with additional reassurance on the Government’s intentions in this area, I can commit today that the Government will embed actions to improve chalk streams into the water White Paper, which will be published before the end of the year. That White Paper will feed directly into the development of forthcoming legislation in this area.

I appreciate entirely the strength of feeling on this issue. The Housing and Planning Minister and I have very much appreciated the considered engagement that we have had on this matter, as well as the opportunity to discuss how we can best achieve what are, ultimately, shared priorities. I hope that, through the assurances the Government have now provided in respect of the water White Paper, the LNRS statutory guidance and forthcoming changes to national planning policy, noble Lords are reassured that these vital ecosystems will soon get the recognition and protection that they deserve.

I turn to Amendments 40B and 40C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. The other place has chosen to reinstate the original drafting of Clause 55—now Clause 63—so that EDPs are no longer limited to a closed list of environmental impacts. I am incredibly grateful for the continued engagement on this amendment from Peers, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis, Lady Young and Lady Grender, and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Roborough, who have given up their time to work with the Government to consider this issue. These discussions have made it clear that the aim of the original amendment was not to restrict the ability of EDPs to support environmental features where appropriate but to seek assurances in two key areas: how the Government will prioritise EDPs going forward; and how we will embed the lessons from early EDPs into the future pipeline of EDPs.

The proposed amendment in lieu seeks to develop this position, but I will make further commitments on these points today; I hope that they will provide noble Lords with the assurances they need to support the Government’s position. Before I set out these commitments, I again highlight that the nature restoration fund is a targeted tool designed to address the specific impact of development on a specific environmental feature. This targeted approach means two things: first, that an EDP would only ever be brought forward where there is a clear case that an environmental feature is affecting development consent, as it simply would not make sense to bring forward EDPs where there is no need to do so; and, secondly, that an EDP could only ever be put in place where conservation measures would materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature.

As was highlighted in the other place, it is right that we are guided by the science. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has particularly strong feelings about this, and she is quite right to have them. The legislation ensures that the design, making and delivery of EDPs are evidence-led. As we set out in the other place, we know that strategic approaches can work for both sites and species, as demonstrated through the district level licensing scheme for great crested newts and our experience of nutrient mitigation schemes to date.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill requires Natural England to notify the Secretary of State of its intention to develop an EDP, which ensures that the Secretary of State has direct oversight of the development of EDPs as well as their role in considering whether to formally approve an EDP. This clear mechanism ensures that there is clarity as to when a new EDP is being prepared. Of course, all EDPs will be subject to public consultation before they are sent to the Secretary of State to consider.

On learning from the early EDPs, the Bill provides a number of important safeguards. The first is the ongoing requirement for monitoring, which will ensure that conservation measures are performing as intended, with back-up measures being deployed if there is underperformance. This not only ensures that EDPs are subject to ongoing review but goes beyond the monitoring requirements under the existing system and means we will capture important data about the performance of conservation measures, which will inform future EDPs.

The second key limb in the legislation is the reporting requirements, which set minimum reporting periods for individual EDPs that reinforce the monitoring provisions by requiring a further assessment as to whether the EDP is on track to meet the overall improvement test.

There is also a wider annual reporting requirement across the entire nature restoration fund, which will set out all the EDPs that are in force as well as the pipeline of any EDPs being prepared. Taken together, we hope it is clear that the Bill provides assurances, both at the point of development of EDPs and through to implementation, that EDPs can be used only where they can be shown to work.

However, throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have sought to ensure that all parliamentarians and stakeholders can have confidence that the new regime would deliver the win-win for development and nature that we envisage. With this in mind, we want to provide additional assurance that EDPs will be appropriately sequenced.

As we have set out before, the nature restoration fund is self-limiting by design, in that an EDP can be put in place only where it can be shown to materially outweigh the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature using the best available scientific evidence.

However, as a first step in respect of sequencing, I commit that the first EDPs will address nutrient pollution only. This is an area where we have substantial first-hand evidence that a strategic approach works. It is also an area in which Natural England has already proved its expertise in supporting the delivery of mitigation across the country. Taking this approach will therefore provide us with a useful test case to demonstrate both the impact of EDPs and Natural England’s ability to deliver. We will then pay particular attention to the results of the regular monitoring and reporting of these early EDPs. These monitoring and reporting requirements ensure transparency and provide the opportunity for both government scrutiny and external scrutiny of the ongoing impact and delivery of EDPs.

From our engagement across the Bill, we know that independent and expert bodies, such as the Environmental Audit Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection, may wish to undertake scrutiny of this kind. This will support the assurance of the nature restoration fund’s delivery and evolution. The Government look forward to working closely with these bodies as we move forward with the nature restoration fund.

While the Bill provides for this transparent approach, I will also commit to the Government returning to the House once the first nutrient EDPs are made to issue a statement on the initial learnings from their development and implementation. It will only be after the House has seen this statement that a Secretary of State will make any further EDPs on other environmental issues. While Natural England may wish to undertake preparatory work in parallel on potential future EDPs, this approach will ensure that any learning from the first nutrients EDP is considered before any EDPs beyond nutrients are made and operational.

As we move forward with implementation, we are incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for their offer to continue to work with the Government as we progress with developing crystal clear guidance to ensure that developers, environmental groups and communities can navigate this new system effectively. This collaborative approach will ensure the targeted tools unlock the positive outcomes that I know we all want to see. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches and many other noble Lords have challenged the necessity for Part 3 throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. The Government have made a number of amendments, which have improved the Bill, to reintroduce nature protections and give more comfort on the Bill’s operation in relation to nature and the rural economy. We also welcome the Minister’s assurances and commitments around the use of compulsory purchase powers.

However, we supported the restriction of EDPs to nutrient neutrality, water and air quality in Committee and on Report, as well as protections for our chalk streams. The application of nutrient neutrality rules by Natural England is the major restriction on planning related to the natural environment. Before I go on, I again draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer, landowner, forester, and a developer of housing, commercial premises, and renewable energy.

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Young of Old Scone, for pursuing these restrictions on EDPs, and all those who supported them. The Minister has been generous with her time and that of her officials throughout the passage of this Bill, and our discussions around these and other amendments have been thoughtful and constructive. I am grateful for the Government’s commitments and concessions laid out today. They may not go as far as we might have wished. However, these commitments will allow Parliament to scrutinise the progress of EDPs and hold the Government to account over their extension—although I doubt, as a hereditary Peer, that I will be here to be part of that.

I want to put two challenges related to nutrient neutrality to the Minister. The Government refused to accept my amendments that sought not to reimpose habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. My Division was narrowly disagreed with. I have made the Government aware that, since that debate, this issue is already restricting planning consent, with a further 550 homes likely to be blocked in Somerset, as the council anticipates the reintroduction of those regulations in this Bill. What consideration has the Minister given to preventing the Bill blocking new housebuilding in this way?

Natural England provided some interesting data in response to freedom of information requests. In 2023, it promised Ministers to unlock 40,000 homes from nutrient neutrality restrictions with £33.5 million of taxpayer funding. In responding to this freedom of information request, it disclosed that it has spent over £28 million, including over £4 million on administration, and generated enough units to unlock only 11,000 homes. The scrutiny of these EDPs will need to be forensic and rigorous before Natural England should be allowed and trusted to attempt them in far more complicated areas.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that the Government have made thoughtful concessions. We on these Benches are satisfied that this will provide a good opportunity for scrutiny.

Chalk streams face urgent and growing pressures, as others have laid out in this debate, yet the tools we rely on to protect them are still not fully in place. The Government have pointed to local nature recovery strategies as part of the solution, but without the long-promised regulations giving them real weight in the planning system, they simply do not have the bite required. Given the scale of the threat from development footprints, pollution and overabstraction, we cannot afford further delay, nor can we wait until 2030 for the abstraction licence reforms to take effect. We must ensure that spatial development strategies can direct development away from vulnerable chalk stream catchments. It is a practical and necessary step to prevent irreversible harm to these globally rare habitats. Although we support Amendment 38B’s intent, we would not be able to support it in a Division today, for the reasons laid out by my noble friend Lady Scott, but we will look to find other avenues to push forward this agenda.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, but I want also to give a general statement of thanks to everybody who has engaged with this Bill. We have discussed a huge variety of topics and gone through some very technical issues. I have been very grateful for noble Lords’ patience as I have sought to find answers to the questions that have arisen during our debates, but also for the willingness—which is the best aspect of this House—to move these debates forward constructively and helpfully. I have really appreciated that, and I am very grateful for the many meetings that we have had and the late nights that we have sat over the course of this Bill. I give you all my great thanks for that work.

I will respond now to some of the points raised in the debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich mentioned that local nature recovery strategies do not capture the catchment area of a river. He points to the exact reason why we think the water White Paper and the Bill that will follow it are vital for the proper protection of chalk streams that we are all seeking. We know the main issues facing chalk streams. I cannot remember who talked about it—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—but I too have stood in more than one chalk stream, because I live in Hertfordshire, where we have a lot of them, and I know that the issues of abstraction and pollution cannot be addressed in this way. They need to be addressed through the forthcoming water Bill, and my colleagues in Defra are keen to do that. The National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out planning policies and decisions, should protect chalk streams as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value, and local plans should identify, map and safeguard them as local wildlife-rich habitats.

I liked the phrase that the right reverend Prelate used, which was that housing and development should fly in formation with nature. I totally agree. I hope that, as we have gone through the process of the Bill, noble Lords will have noted that it is the Government’s intention, as we pursue the building of homes and infrastructure, to see a win-win for both nature and development in order to deliver what we need while protecting the important natural resources around us.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her remarks. I know that the concerns around EDPs are real. She spoke about our ambitious and bold new framework, but we have listened. In local government we have a test-and-learn approach, because we all learn from each other as well as from things we have done ourselves. I hope the noble Baroness and other Peers will agree that the commitments I have set out today enable us to do that with EDPs as well. I am grateful to her and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for all the work that they have done on this issue. Their flow chart was a great help. I was not trying to mark their homework, and I hope they will forgive me; we were just trying to expand the flow chart that they had made, to make it, I hope, more helpful. We will continue to work with them on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, asked about consultation. Natural England is required to consult the public and any public authority that it considers relevant on a draft EDP for a period of at least 28 working days. Natural England must seek the views of relevant local planning authorities as part of its consultation. I am afraid it is not possible to give a timeframe for when we will return to the House ahead of the first EDP being developed. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that each EDP will need to include monitoring requirements that will form part of the draft EDP when put out for consultation, so she will see the timeframe set out as we bring those EDPs forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said she did not like the Environmental Audit Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection, the organisations that I was looking to, to work with Natural England. Natural England will have the data, but those organisations will help provide the scrutiny for this. Without using those organisations, I do not know where we go with that, but I hope we will be able to convince her that they are organisations that can do this effectively. We are willing to listen to any suggestions that she may have.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her welcome for the EDPs issue. I understand that she may have ongoing concerns on chalk streams, although I hope I have reassured her on some of those points.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to the plethora we now have of habitat regs, EDPs and biodiversity net gain. We need to simplify the guidance on this, and I hope that he will continue to work with us on that mission.

My noble friend Lady Young spoke about clarity for developers. That is exactly what we are trying to deliver as part of the Bill, and I am grateful to all Peers who have helped us to do that.

I hope I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on the independence of scrutiny. We want to use organisations that are well respected to help with the scrutiny of the EDPs.

I will reply in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on the habitat regs on Ramsar sites in Somerset. On the issue of Natural England data and unlocking homes, these things have a cumulative effect, so I hope that the money that Natural England has spent will help it to have the structures and processes in place to continue to work with us to deliver the homes that we all want to see. I hope that that work is ongoing. I look forward to working with Natural England and others.

In the meantime, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords of our intention to protect our precious chalk streams. As noble Lords have heard me say many times, I live in Hertfordshire; it is definitely in my interests to protect those chalk streams. I believe that we now have the right processes in place, and I hope that the reassurances we have given over the sequencing of EDPs will help noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The Minister gave me encouraging reassurance about independence and referred to two bodies that would be doing the monitoring and evaluation. Could she repeat for me—I think I missed it—which bodies they are? Are they fully independent of Natural England and the Environment Agency?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have not made an approach to these organisations, so I do not want to commit them to doing this, but if the Environmental Audit Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection wanted to get involved in the scrutiny of EDPs, we would be very happy to facilitate that.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this debate and in particular the Minister, for her customary care in the answers she has given us.

What we agree on, across all sides of this House, is that chalk streams are precious, irreplaceable habitats that are gravely endangered. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for giving a sense that he would like to continue to press this in other ways. My view remains that we need clear legal protections for chalk streams and other irreplaceable habitats so that developers and planners know where they stand and the public can be reassured that protections will not easily be wiped out overnight. With this in mind, I seek to test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 39A.

39A: Because the Commons consider that the proposal is impracticable and would unreasonably fetter decision-making around the use of land.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 40A.

40A: Because the Commons consider that the test for making an EDP (the overall improvement test) provides robust environmental protection, so it is not necessary to limit the scope of EDPs to only certain types of environmental impact.