Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill is something like that popular old spaghetti Western, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”.

Let us begin with the good. Chief among these aspects is the strong recognition that the status quo is no longer working. Infrastructure delivery has been sluggish, housing needs remain unmet, and many local authorities are still grappling with outdated planning frameworks and, as has been said, many do not have an up-to-date local plan.

The icing on the cake for me is the welcome return of strategic planning, and with it, empowered development corporations. These aspects were missing previously, and both are welcome and overdue. The emphasis on streamlining nationally significant infrastructure is in principle sensible if we want to tackle the climate crisis, deliver on net zero and provide energy security. We simply cannot have vital infrastructure mired in red tape for years on end.

Similarly, the focus on digitisation and data-led planning is very much a step in the right direction. If digital tools mean that more people can engage meaningfully with the process, that is a win for both democracy and delivery.

I also acknowledge the proposed reforms to compulsory purchase powers. If handled fairly and transparently, that could enable more strategic regeneration in brownfield development, which has to be preferable to the continued encroachment on our green belt.

But then we come to the bad. The Bill talks a good game about speeding up delivery but, first, we must not conflate delivery with planning permissions. As has been said, there are hundreds of thousands of units already with permission that are simply not being built. Let us have some courage and address the broken land market and the incentives that currently reward land banking. That is not about red tape but about political will.

Throughout the Bill, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords, there is a concern about capacity to deliver. Our local authorities are expected to implement much of the Bill and, as we have heard, they are already overstretched, underfunded and struggling to recruit and retain skilled planning officers. I know the Minister will tell us of the Government’s plans and funding to remedy this long-standing problem, but the gap between these plans and their achieving fruit—that is, people in post, doing the job—is one of many years. How will the Government fill that gap? There certainly is not time here to comment on the capacity within the construction industry, which is also demonstrably lacking, but the Minister may well have an update for us on that.

The Bill treads worryingly into overcentralisation. I understand the driver for that after decades of failure, but we must not fall into the trap of sidelining local voices in the name of speeding up the process. From experience, I know that the best planning outcomes emerge when communities, councillors and developers collaborate within a coherent framework, which I hope the spatial development strategies will provide. The Bill needs to be clear about the value of the public’s voice and the appropriate place for it to be heard.

It is clear, even from our debate, that Part 3 has attracted the most concern: measures which replace robust environmental safeguards with a financial levy. There are concerns that changes to the environmental assessment may risk weakening vital safeguards. We need to be certain that the new processes will uphold our biodiversity, our heritage and climate commitments. We must insist that any levy achieves significant improvement, not mere compensation.

On the ugly, as we have observed in other Bills, and increasingly so, there is a tendency to present undeveloped legislation that lacks detailed policy and grants Ministers broad delegated powers to fill in the gaps later. Most notable in this Bill is the proposed national scheme of delegation. That is a significant shift, with substantial powers given to the Secretary of State and where we are yet again asked to give the Government a blank cheque on matters of national significance and some controversy.

Disappointingly absent are provisions to strengthen community engagement, empower neighbourhood planning and bolster community land trusts—measures that empower citizens to shape their places rather than merely react to what developers propose. Indeed, I urge the Government to consider that a vision for high-quality design is a core component of the spatial development strategies, created with communities rather than handed down to them. We will support the good, amend the bad, and call out the ugly.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I start by reiterating our view that the Bill does not go far enough. It tweaks processes, roles, fees and training but leaves the fundamental planning framework—the very framework needed to unlock genuine house building—without the proper reform that Ministers promised. We now hear in the media that a second planning Bill is expected. The Government have missed an opportunity with the Bill.

Amendments 94FB and 94FC in my name seek to probe the Government’s intentions behind the powers given in Clause 48 to local planning authorities and the Mayor of London to set specific fee levels for planning applications. Fee setting must strike a careful balance between national consistency and local flexibility. Planning authorities operate in vastly different contexts, from rural districts handling modest, small-scale applications to major cities building highly complex developments. That diversity and its differences must be respected; a one-size-fits-all approach risks overlooking the practical realities faced by local authorities on the ground.

As currently drafted, Clause 48 enables the Secretary of State not just to permit but to require that these bodies set fee levels. While enabling authorities to set fee levels is one thing, which would potentially support greater local flexibility, requiring them to do so raises important questions: first, in what context would the Government require a local authority to set a specific fee?

My Amendment 99ZA is also a probing amendment. In tabling this amendment, we are seeking to understand how subsection (6) will work in practice. Can the Minister please explain the process Ministers intend to use in calculating appropriate surcharges, and how the duty to have regard to relevant costs will work in practice? It will also be helpful to know whether Ministers intend to consult local planning authorities going forward to ensure that the fees imposed do not exceed the relevant costs incurred.

I will now briefly set out our view on the other amendments in this group. We agree with the principle behind Amendment 94G from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Of course, all fees should be proportionate. That said, delivering it through an amendment to the Bill may be more challenging. Therefore, will the Minister please address the principle of proportionality and how the Government intend to ensure that fees are proportional as well as responding to the amendment itself?

I move on to Amendment 95, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As drafted, Clause 48 explicitly excludes enforcement. She makes a strong case for her amendment, and I hope that the Minister will reply constructively. In particular, we would like greater clarity on the “polluter pays” principle. Will the Minister please explain why enforcement action has been left out of this fee-raising power? Is it because the Government feel that it would be inappropriate for applicants acting within the rules to pay a higher fee to cover the cost of enforcements against bad actors? I hope that the Minster will be able to give an unequivocal answer to that question.

Furthermore, Amendments 96 and 97, tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, address two important aspects of the planning system: transparency and heritage protection. Amendment 96 would ensure that guidance to local authorities includes references to archaeological and other services, so that external services are correctly funded. I know that my noble friend has a wealth of experience on heritage issues, and he was a truly excellent Minister for the arts and heritage. We would appreciate a clear assurance from the Minister on this issue.

Amendment 97 would rightly preserve the very long-standing policy of not charging for listed building consent. This is a vital protection for owners, who often invest significant time and resources in maintaining some of England and Wales’s most treasured heritage assets. Although policymakers in the socialist tradition and the owners or prospective owners of heritage properties may not be natural bedfellows, our historic houses have an important role to play in our housing stock.

The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe; almost four in 10 houses were built before World War II, and two in 10 were built before World War I. Too often, historic houses are left empty to wither and decay because of the costs and complexities of taking them on, yet every historic property that is restored is an empty home returning to use. We must encourage more people to take on the challenge of restoring our heritage properties, both as a practical step in driving down the number of empty houses and as a gift to future generations. Our historic houses are part of our great island story, and my noble friend is right to seek assurance from Ministers that listed building consent will remain free of charge. Can the Minister give him a cast-iron guarantee on this issue?

I turn to Amendments 98 and 99, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner. These proposals represent sensible and pragmatic reforms to our planning appeals system. We see the merits in the case that he makes for the introduction of differential fee levels based on the type or complexity of an application. His amendments reflect the practical realities of casework and seek to ensure that the system better aligns with the demands placed on it. Likewise, the proposal to allow the planning inspector to charge appeal fees and, importantly, to retain that income, is a constructive measure. It would enhance the inspector’s operational resilience and reduce their reliance on central funding.

Amendment 99 goes further by proposing a fast-track appeal process that is optional, fee-based and designed to deliver quicker decisions where appropriate. This is clearly a constructive proposal that Ministers should take away and consider carefully. I hope the Minister will engage positively with this amendment.

In conclusion, this group of amendments raises essential questions about the funding, fairness and functionality of our planning system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my succinct and simple Amendment 94G, and in doing so draw attention to an issue—planning fees—that might seem a bit techy on the surface and perhaps even boring, but in reality strikes at the very heart of fairness, opportunity and the future of our housing market. I recognise and acknowledge that this Government are trying to address the concerns of SME builders in different ways; thus I believe that this amendment is in line with their thinking. It seeks a simple fix to a gross unfairness within the planning fees regime.

The reality is that the way our planning fees are currently structured disproportionately penalises the very people we need most—the small and medium-sized enterprise builders, the SMEs who once formed the backbone of housebuilding in this country. Our high watermark was the 1960s and 1970s, when SMEs delivered almost 50% of our homes. But now, there are just 2,500 SME builders, down from just over 12,000 in the late 1980s.

When the large developers apply for planning permission, they can absorb the cost of these fees—dozens, or even hundreds of units. For them, the fee for a major scheme is just a fraction of their overall margin. It is, if you like, just one more line on a long spreadsheet. But for the SME builder, often working on only one site at a time, sometimes building just a handful of homes, usually locally in the community where they live, the same planning fee represents a very different calculation. Proportionally, it is far higher—sometimes eye-wateringly so—relative to the potential return. For some, it can make the difference between a scheme being viable or never getting off the ground.

Let us not forget that many SME firms operate on tight margins—it is just a fact of the market today—and have limited access to capital. They do not have the balance sheets of the volume builders, nor teams of in-house planners and consultants to smooth the path. They are nimble, creative and often willing to take on small and difficult sites—precisely the kind of brownfield or infill plots that larger developers might overlook. In that sense, they perform a vital public service, delivering homes in places where others cannot or will not. If the Government are serious about reviving the role of SME builders, whose share of new homes has plummeted to barely 10% today, we cannot afford to ignore the structural barriers that hold them back. Planning fees are one such barrier, and it is entirely within our power to address them in this Bill.

My amendment addresses this issue without costing the Treasury a single pound. I am not suggesting that planning departments should be starved of resources—quite the opposite: we all hope that they will be even busier in the future. We all know they need proper funding to recruit and retain skilled staff and to deliver timely decisions, but surely there is a case for a more proportionate, graduated system—one that recognises the scale of development, the number of units and the genuine impact on the planning service. Without such reform, we risk reinforcing the dominance of volume housebuilders, who are of course essential; this is not a downer on them but a recognition of the role that SMEs can play in increasing innovation and diversity. They bring local knowledge and understanding to their role. By ignoring this, we weaken our ability to deliver the variety of homes this country so desperately needs.

The reason for my amendment is that planning costs are probably the most significant disparity, with SMEs facing costs that are over 100% higher than their plc counterparts. In fact, planning fees at the moment are £626 per home for the first 50 units, and only £189 per home thereafter. Therefore, a 50-home scheme pays three times more per unit than a 1,000-home scheme. This is where it creates a real structural disadvantage for SMEs, deterring those much-needed smaller developments and slowing delivery on small and medium sites. Under the Bill, fee-setting powers are being devolved to local authorities and/or mayors, so there is a genuine opportunity to fix the imbalance.

This is not about special pleading; it is about fairness, proportionality and the kind of housing market we want to create. Do we want one dominated by a handful of big players, or one where smaller, local builders have the chance to thrive? I urge the Government to look again at the planning fees regime and at how it might better support our SME builders. Without them, our housing crisis will only deepen. My amendment would help ensure that SMEs are not burdened with excessive costs; and, over time, alongside other government measures, it might reverse their sad decline. I am pleased to note that it also chimes with Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I hope the Minister agrees.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott for opening this small group of amendments and for lending her support to my Amendment 95, to which I will briefly speak.

As drafted, the Bill leaves out the question of enforcement measures being recovered from the fee. I put a very simple question to the Minister: was this a wilful omission or was it omitted by default? As my noble friend Lady Scott said, it would be helpful to know why the question of enforcement measures not forming part of the fee that can be recovered has been left out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will make two brief points. This debate has shown us that we need to charge fees for planning permission, and one has to understand the purpose. It is common ground that there is a lack of planners in this country, which is one of the reasons why the fee arrangement has to change.

One reason why we have insufficient planners in this country is not that we cannot charge enough. My authority, South Norfolk, has an advanced programme of upskilling planning technicians to become fully qualified planning officers, on a work release scheme, by using the apprenticeship levy that all councils and large employers put into the system. However, this Government have stopped that, because those sorts of people, who have made their way for a few years and have shown expertise and enterprise, are no longer able to be upgraded by using the apprenticeship levy. That has been cast away and it is an omission. I ask the Minister whether she might consider revisiting that rather short-sighted decision to stop upgrading these planners, which would start to address this.

I have huge sympathy with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about proportionality in planning fees, but I need to explain that, although the planning fee is important, it is just a single sliver of the total cost that developers, particularly small developers, have to pay. For example, there is the complexity of Section 106. As a council leader, I had to review a Section 106 agreement of which 15 banks were cosignatories. Can your Lordships imagine the cost not just of the applicants’ but of everybody else’s fees? The bespoke nature of many Section 106 agreements is really onerous. Some planning authorities require the use of only their particular lawyers, at a full rack rate. I will not go into nutrient neutrality, although that has an additional level of fees, or building control and so forth.

I know that we are in Committee, and I sympathise with what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, but, if she is minded to bring this matter back on Report, we might have a full idea of all the layering so that proportionality can be taken into account in the round.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I will see what I can do.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

This group of amendments raises several interesting areas about which I, as a chartered surveyor and an occupier and co-owner of listed buildings, feel strongly. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these and the question of proportionality referred to by several noble Lords and by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It relates to how the costs are built up and into what particular categories, pigeonholes or whatever one wishes to put them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to this question of the preponderance of very large developments in terms of their cost, and how the same metric applies to smaller SMEs and indeed, one could say, to individual householders with really quite small-scale things. She could perhaps have referred to the fact that the way in which large developments end up setting the tone and the content that goes into planning applications therefore raises the expectation. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, it creates that rather awkward but historically well-known feature of a barrier to entry by the very nature of where you have to get to, what boxes you have to tick and what expense you have to underwrite to get there. This principle is as old as economics, but it is one of the things that is particularly germane to this discussion.

Of course, if we are getting into the situation referred to by other noble Lords of some sort of cross-subsidy from the application fee to issues of enforcement or covering other things, for instance the general costs of the legal department dealing with gruesomely complicated Section 106 agreements—I have seen some gruesomely complicated ones and am very glad to say that I have never had to draft one myself—that rather raises the question: is that right, or should we be subdividing, for instance, the costs of enforcement as a separate charging entity and the costs of dealing with a particular Section 106 agreement dealt with as part of that process? We have to worry about the degree to which there is this cross-subsidy approach, because without a set of rules for that, almost any sort of charging process can be set in place. That might be manifestly unsatisfactory for all sorts of reasons.

I very much welcome Amendment 97, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I can relate to it as an owner, and in the past a professional adviser on heritage properties, although I would not really claim to be a heritage expert. We have heard that listed building applications are an addition to the need for development consent generally. Because they may revolve around matters that involve the historic character of the asset in question, it then becomes a matter of what is the character and what is the effect. These are often largely subjective considerations. That inevitably results in a sort of precautionary reaction in the eyes of local authorities. Inevitably, if that precautionary reaction takes root, all sorts of assessments and justifications may then be demanded of the applicant. Whether in fact they are reasonable is often in question. Given that, for owners who happen to live in or own listed buildings—putting aside badges of honour, in my case, several have been listed during my lifetime and ownership gratuitously imposed without consultation—I think it fair that the listed building element should not attract an additional fee.

It is important that we get this in context, and I observe that many local planning authorities do not have their own trained heritage officer. Many used to but no longer have one. In my experience, it is often outsourced to a private firm for so many days a month. Again in my experience, even where the external contractor so appointed makes a sensible recommendation, further conditions quite often get added by the local planning authority itself, in some instances displaying quite woeful failure to understand the practicalities of carrying out the work proposed. I will not go into further details on that, but I have several examples. It is therefore a matter of concern that defensively preventive or precautionary permitting practices and a lack of in-house officer competence—and, indeed, confidence—lie behind the added costs. Added to this, of course, is the citation relating to listing of buildings. In many cases, it is so cursory as to prevent a clear understanding of what features are actually important in terms of its character.

I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that something needs sorting out on a much wider scale here. I certainly would commend the Minister to take this away and see if we cannot, in the context of the Bill, produce something more cohesive going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, with many different points made. Clearly, training is important to us, as is the status of planners, but I want to touch on issues that, much to my surprise, have not been mentioned. They have been hinted at very slightly by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who came close.

I have attended and delivered planning training to councillors. You can take a councillor to training, but you cannot make him think or learn or go back into a committee room and act any differently from how he or she did before. To be perfectly honest, I have been shocked by the arrogance, attitude and behaviour of some councillors at meetings, which I was obliged to observe as part of my role within that council. What bothers me is that there seems very little ability to sanction or take to task. Often it is individuals. Within councils, they know who they are—but they still put them on the committee the following year. That cannot be ignored. It was not just lack of understanding or wilfully not wanting to understand or genuinely not understanding, but sometimes it was the tricky and thorny issues of probity and ethics within the whole area of this and public standards.

Talking to planners, which I still do, with their work on the ground, I know that they say that the following issues are the rotten aspects of the job. There is hostility from the public—aggression, the way that they are spoken to. You have set up a positive consultation meeting with everything that you think they want to know and sometimes it deteriorates into some really quite shocking situations. They feel like they are piggy in the middle.

The other side of that coin is the politicisation of planning. There is no doubt that this has happened. I said years ago that we have turned nimbys into BANANAs—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody. Even in my local area, I find that my local environment group, which I was very proud to get well and truly established, is objecting to developments miles away which could not possibly have any impact on them. It seems to be the new form of activism and we cannot ignore that.

Planners hate their decisions being overturned by councillors, because they are professionals. They understand their role, but there are times when they just feel ignored, overruled and put in this position. They too need training in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

The timing could not be more pressing. Our cultural infrastructure remains fragile, threatened by rising property values, changing consumer habits, and ongoing digitalisation. As the noble Earl has said, without legislative intervention, we risk losing irreplaceable cultural assets before communities can mobilise to protect them. This is a balanced and pragmatic proposal, respecting both community needs and property rights, while safeguarding the places where Britain’s cultural future is being written. I urge the Committee to support both amendments and to give cultural assets the recognition and protection they deserve.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I was not going to say anything on this but, as noble Lords can see, I have been deserted so it has fallen to me. However, after listening to everyone, I will say a few words. As I will wax lyrical on another day about permitted development rights, I feel that I probably should stand and support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, really because I believe in the planning system. I believe that many developments would still be built but, if they had planning permission, they would be built far better. I have a faith in the planning system to do what is right.

Interestingly, it took me back to my own experience of the 2011 community assets Bill. We had loads of rows about the interpretation of it. I remember being in the monitoring office, really at loggerheads. There was a vociferous campaign to keep a Taekwondo space that was in the basement of a derelict factory and designate it as of community value. Believe it or not, all the parents joined in and the grandparents, but we designated for 60 social homes. You can imagine where the Mayor of Watford’s priorities lay on that.

I wrote to the Minister and got what I would call a very typical ministerial reply saying it was a local decision, but I was given a little line that gave some leeway to say that political choice and discretion could come into it. In that instance, I took a leaf out of what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, and just offered a replacement. It was as simple as that. We managed to juggle things around. We got the social housing and they got a replacement, but it showed how difficult that interpretation was. Has any work been done on what has happened to those assets of community value and how successful they have been?

I think the venues issue a really tricky one, and I have every sympathy with what both noble Lords have said. I believe that, in the end, communities come up with ideas and innovations to make things happen differently when things are threatened. In my experience, music venues do not disappear quietly; they disappear very noisily. We had a particular pub, Taylors, and my son was one of the musicians who played there. There was a great hoo-ha when it closed. Guess what? Something like it popped up somewhere else and a little bit of support was given to help it to do that. I absolutely understand what the noble Lords are saying but I do not believe that outmoded, deteriorating buildings that are underused should necessarily be protected for sentimental reasons.

I am also pleased to tell the noble Earl that another of our grass-roots music venues, which we thought had really gone, has just been given a new lease of life. It was in our local newspaper last week, and the message from the people taking it over and taking a risk with it was: if you do not use it, you lose it.

I would also like to tell the noble Earl the saga of a very old building in Watford that had been the scenery store for the Palace Theatre. When I visited our “asset”, I christened it a pigeon graveyard. That is how derelict it was and, as somebody who is feather phobic, I did not stay in there very long, but I was determined to get it into community use, which we did. It was used for many years as a space for dance, Pilates—you name it—and as rooms for charities to do their admin. But that fell off, it was not used and we were in a dilemma. The current mayor has just redone it and done a redeal with the Palace Theatre for a rehearsal space, so it has gone the full circle.

I do not see any reason why a good council would not and should not list its assets and know what matters to it. We have a wonderful pump house that is many years old. It is difficult to maintain, but I am sure there would be massive protests if that were to close. These amendments are worth considering, even though I think it probably is something that should be in local plans and be built locally from the ground up. What they provide is a moratorium on a sale or a demolition, which is important, and give a window for the community to have their say and perhaps appreciate what they might lose. We know from experience that when libraries were under threat the community stepped up and many libraries and other facilities are used within communities and have new life. There are lots of examples of that.

I am interested in what the Minister has to say and thank the noble Lords for prompting me to say something and realising that it was something quite close to my heart. It was not my amendment to speak on, but I hope that that was okay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, had to leave, so I am moving Amendment 114 in his place, with the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman of Steventon and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The amendment would make the Gardens Trust a statutory consultee for planning applications that are likely to affect historic gardens and parks.

In sponsoring the amendment, the noble Lord would have declared his interests, which are also his credentials. He is the owner of a listed garden of some consequence and the park around it, and he has been involved with other owners and trustees of historic and particularly important gardens and parks. He is president of Historic Buildings & Places, previously the Ancient Monuments Society, and he is a member of the Gardens Trust, which I will come back to in a moment.

The working of the town and country planning system is buttressed by the various national amenity societies, which can bring to bear their very often specialist expertise in respect of some of the most sensitive sites in the country. These national amenity societies are essentially focused on buildings, but it is increasingly recognised, not least in the many debates on place-making, and I have been part of a lot of them, that the setting of buildings may be at least as important as a building itself. This relates both to the views in and to the views out.

Equally important are open spaces, which may have no buildings at all—for example, public parks and historic gardens. Expertise in these matters is not necessarily found among the established national amenity societies or planning authorities. The Gardens Trust, which was previously called the Garden History Society, has the expertise in this area, the same as national amenity societies in relation to buildings. It has evolved its work over time as the scholarship on this matter develops. It has been suggested that these matters do not require a statutory consultee because they can be dealt with through local plans, but local plans cover only about a third of local authorities and this is often about the detail. It is the devil in the detail that matters here.

I hope it is possible for government to add another statutory consultee in respect of gardens, parks and the planning applications that are likely to affect historic gardens and parks. I believe that consultation is under way and may lead to this happy outcome, but it would be great to hear the views of the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am in a similar position to the noble Lord, Lord Best, with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who expected a 7 pm finish, having gone for a train. I will try not to make a dog’s breakfast of her notes.

I will speak to Amendments 118 and 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The Liberal Democrats accept the aim of the Government in their desire to ensure that decisions on planning applications are made in a considered and timely way. The proposals in the Bill appear to neglect the notion of a considered and inclusive approach to planning decisions. Planning decisions matter hugely to communities because decisions can have a lasting impact on that community. The aim must surely be to get the balance in favour of enabling decisions to be made with the communities affected. Failure to do so can lead to long and acrimonious disputes between communities and developers. I can vouch for that.

Pre-application consideration of an application supports the needs of both a developer and the community affected. Pre-application consultation is most relevant for larger domestic and commercial applications, but may be of use in small but controversial ones, and here is why: a comprehensive pre-application stage allows for issues to be identified and resolved at the earliest opportunity, preventing costly delays and complex disputes later in the process. For example, at a pre-application consultation with residents on an application for a large housing estate, residents were able to provide vital information to the developer on the siting of historic mine workings. The precise information as to the location was not available from historical records, but residents whose families had lived in the area for many years knew. The pre-application meeting saved the developer from extensive works to find the shaft.

Another major commercial application, which cost the developer more than £100 million in preparation fees, was refused on grounds that would have become very clear if residents had been consulted before the application was submitted.

The pre-application process is currently good practice, and Amendment 119 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock is designed to make this a mandatory process. The pre-app should include, as the word suggests, an opportunity for councillors in the ward and residents to have details of the planned application, to ask questions and make suggestions about it—crucially, before a more formal application is submitted, when it becomes much more difficult to make changes. It empowers communities to be able to influence an application that will change their neighbourhood. This collaborative approach builds trust, ensures that proposals are fit for purpose and fosters greater public acceptance of vital infrastructure.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation after that terrific debate on green spaces to speak to Amendment 122, together with Amendments 141 and 151, all of which address the issue of affordable housing delivery.

Amendment 122 introduces a free-standing new clause which provides for regulations to ensure that affordable housing gets delivered where it is a condition of planning consent, usually through a so-called Section 106 agreement. We are all only too familiar with the problem that affordable homes for local people are expected from new development but fail to materialise. With the excuse of viability, housebuilders back out of delivering all or most of the affordable homes that they promised. They say they have discovered site conditions they had not expected or have encountered problems with subcontractors or higher interest rates or building costs or something else, and now they may not be able to make a 20% profit from the development.

They insist that it is the affordable housing element that must take the hit. Despite affordable housing being a condition of planning consent, precious few such homes may appear. The price that the housebuilder pays for the land should reflect their obligations to provide affordable housing and related infrastructure. It should never be acceptable to claim: “We had to pay so much for the land that now we cannot honour our agreement to build the affordable homes”. The Government’s planning practice guidance explicitly states:

“Under no circumstances will the price paid for land be relevant justification for failing to accord with relevant policies”,


yet this continues to be exactly what happens.

The amendment recognises that the level of affordable housing in every development, the Section 106 agreement, is subject to complex negotiation between two unequal parties—the local planning department and the housebuilder. As a report from the National Audit Office set out in June of this year, there is a serious imbalance between these two, with local planning authorities being hopelessly under-resourced while large developers can employ expensive consultants and legal experts to find ways of negotiating their contributions down.

The Government, commendably, are finding ways of better resourcing local planning authorities. This amendment would add support for planners by cutting down on the imbalanced and interminable arguing over affordable housing numbers. The affordable housing element would become non-negotiable. Amendment 121 would empower the Secretary of State to ensure that developers deliver the affordable homes that were a condition of planning consent. The amendment would add a further detail by obliging the housebuilder to provide a minimum of 20% of the homes for social rent or the percentage that is set out in the local planning authority’s policy framework if that is higher. The definition of social rent housing is that used by the Regulator of Social Housing in its rent standard.

How important is this contribution by the house- builders to affordable housing? Over recent years, the obligations on the housebuilders have produced nearly half, 44% last year, of the total programme of affordable homes. However, according to the National Audit Office, the value of the contributions from developers for both infrastructure and affordable housing fell from £6.4 billion to £5.5 billion last year. We cannot afford for this vital programme of affordable homes, funded by developer contributions, to be depleted by housebuilders reneging on their planning obligations.

Amendment 122 keeps it simple. It dismisses the specious arguments about what is viable and what is profitable. It would require straightforward fulfilment of the planning obligations accepted by housebuilders, which have too often escaped their responsibilities and have reduced or scrapped the quota of social homes that they were obligated to deliver. It would introduce a baseline of 20% of new homes for social rent in all relevant developments. I know that the Minister recognises the problem which this amendment seeks to address. I hope that she will find it acceptable.

Amendments 141 and 151 are also in my name and again supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Carlile, whom I thank. These two amendments go together and back up my earlier amendment. While the earlier amendment is just about developer contributions to providing affordable homes, these two amendments relate to all developments that will be covered by the spatial development strategies outlined by the Bill. Amendment 141 expands on the Bill’s current wording, which stipulates that spatial development strategies can specify or describe the amount of affordable housing, as well as other kinds of housing. This amendment spells out that the affordable housing should be mostly for social rent rather than, for example, shared ownership or middle-market renting.

Amendment 151 defines social rent as in Amendment 122, stating that social rent is the accommodation rented according to the rent standard specified by the Regulator of Social Housing. This is the rent level that applies to most existing council and housing association properties. It is based on a measurement that combines earnings data with property values. It represents the form of affordable housing, which helps those on average incomes or less. Using the common definition that rents are only affordable if they absorb one-third or less of the incomes of the occupiers, the current arrangements are producing pathetically small numbers of new homes for those in the bottom half of the income distribution. If the 1.5 million new homes planned for the course of this Parliament were to contain a quantum of social rented homes similar to the current arrangements, then as little as 8% of all the new homes would be affordable to those on, or below, average incomes. This does not sound like a very fair distribution of all the new homes that we are planning to build.

Fortunately, the Government are determined to see more social rented housing created. This amendment chimes with that intention. The Government have stated that, of the 300,000 affordable homes a year to be funded by the spending review’s £39 billion for Homes England to provide its social and affordable homes programme, 180,000 homes—60% of the affordable homes—should be for social rent. If achieved, this would represent a significant rise in the proportion of homes that are genuinely affordable.

Amendments 141 and 142 would greatly improve the Government’s chances of delivering this outcome. Amendment 141 would establish that a majority of the affordable housing within each spatial development strategy must be for social rent, defined by Amendment 151. This requirement would cover affordable homes in the publicly subsidised housing programme, as well as those affordable homes that are built by the house- builders in fulfilment of their planning obligations.

The amendments accord with the Government’s ambitions and give greater relevance to the new spatial development strategies. They would ensure that a meaningful proportion of the 1.5 million new homes will be for those in that half of the population who cannot otherwise afford a decent home. I know that the Minister will be sympathetic to these amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 137 and 171 and give wholehearted support to the amendments so eloquently and coherently proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which I and other noble Lords have signed.

It is interesting that this group of amendments demonstrates all too clearly the overwhelming need for many more homes for social rent. It is deeply troubling that the number of homes in that category being built has fallen significantly—despite the Government’s stated ambition to tackle the housing crisis and for a significant amount of those homes to be for social rent. We all know that social housing provides stability, dignity and opportunity for those who are in most need. Yet year after year we see promises outstripped by reality, leaving rising numbers of families trapped in temporary or unsuitable accommodation. Currently, there are 130,000 families, which have 169,000 children within them, in that accommodation. I regard it as a national scandal.

Following welcome funding announcements from the Government, the main issues genuinely now appear to be delivery and affordability, which are both deep and entrenched problems. In a small way, the amendments in this group seek to be part of the solution. Without urgent action on both fronts, all our aspirations remain little more than warm words while communities across the country continue to feel the harsh consequences of inaction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I share the aspiration that we should build sufficient affordable housing in order to house those who need it. I do not propose to repeat what has been said in the three excellent speeches we have heard so far in this debate. I want to turn to a particular issue, with which I hope that the Minister who replies will agree.

One of the ways in which we ensure that affordable housing is built in sufficient numbers is to ensure that the contractual relationship between builders and the councils that give them planning permission is a fair one and does not give undue advantage to the contractors. It has not always been the case that that is so; indeed, there are very recent examples, and I will refer to one very major one.

Some years ago, one of the things I did in my legal life was act as a part-time chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the UK’s anti-trust court. One of the cases on which I sat and gave judgment was a case in which a number of household-name builders had entered into cartel arrangements in order that it was ensured that one of them would win each contract. It was so endemic in the building system that an academic, who I will not name, from a respectable university, which I will not name, wrote a book on how to enter into these cartel arrangements. He did not do the builders much good, because the tribunal which I was chairing fined them a very large amount of money, each related to their world turnover.

They have not learned their lesson from that Competition Appeal Tribunal case. This year, a group of the largest housebuilders in the UK have agreed to a series of legally binding commitments to ensure that they are acting lawfully and to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. They have done that following an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority—the CMA. I should say to your Lordships that the CMA took a very pragmatic view and did not make a finding that they had been cartelists. I will leave it to your Lordships’ judgment as to whether that was the case or not, under the parliamentary privilege that I have, by telling you what the housebuilders have agreed to.

They made the following commitments to the CMA. The first was not to share competitively sensitive information with competitors, specifically including the prices for which houses are to be sold. If you are a builder, you do not need to make an agreement with the CMA to know that you should not share competitively sensitive information in a competitive contract situation. They then agreed to support the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to produce guidance on information exchange for the housebuilding industry. Ditto what I said about the first commitment. They further agreed—I am very pleased that they did—to pay £100 million in aggregate to programmes supporting the construction of affordable housing in the UK. Somebody will have done a calculation of how much they had gained from their anti-competitive agreements, and I have no doubt that the £100 million was a conservative—with a small “c”—estimate of the gain that they had made. Then they decided, generously, to introduce enhanced in-house compliance measures and training programmes, no doubt to deal with corruption among individuals within the industry.

Given that case and the one I mentioned earlier, surely one of the most important things—I am sure that the Government will agree with this—is that we should be alive to the risks of corruption in the building industry, so that housing is built without giving the housebuilders money which they do not deserve and have not earned legitimately.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I have a meeting with them next week; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would like to join me.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the invitation but, looking at the parliamentary programme for next week, I suspect that I am going to be here for about 11 hours a day.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

134: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of Permitted Development Rights for Conversion to Dwellinghouses(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (2015/596) is amended as follows—(a) in Schedule 2, Part 3 (changes of use), the following Classes are repealed—(i) Class G (commercial, business and service or betting office or pay day loan shop to mixed use);(ii) Class L (small HMOs to dwellinghouses and vice versa)(iii) Class M (certain uses to dwellinghouses)(iv) Class MA (commercial, business and service uses to dwellinghouses);(v) Class N (specified sui generis uses to dwellinghouses);(vi) Class Q (buildings on agricultural units and former agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses);(b) Schedule 2, Part 20 (construction of new dwellinghouses) is repealed.(2) Any development under the revoked Classes in Part 3 and Part 20 of Schedule 2 that has—(a) commenced before the date on which this Act comes into force, and(b) received valid prior approval or notification from the local planning authority before that date,shall be allowed to proceed under the conditions applicable prior to the repeal.(3) No new applications for prior approval under the revoked Classes may be submitted after the date on which this Act comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a range of permitted development rights that previously allowed certain non-residential buildings to be converted into homes without full planning permission. It repeals specific change-of-use and new dwellinghouse construction rights in the General Permitted Development Order 2015. Developments already approved or commenced before the repeal may continue under existing rules, but no new applications can be made once the changes take effect.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 134 with a butchered, watered down and much shorter version of my speech than the one I was going to give, so forgive me if it is not quite up to my usual standards.

This amendment seeks to reverse the decision of previous Governments to give permitted development rights to allow the conversion of non-residential properties into dwelling houses—in other words, to get back to where we were, when they would have had to apply for planning permission. The incremental changes were brought about over 10 years ago. Now, there is loads of evidence, including the Government’s own, that this is failing, and on three main grounds. Given that, in future, with more working from home, there are likely to be—and there already are—a lot more empty office blocks, we feel that this needs to be looked at fully and seriously before our town centres and business centres are hollowed out.

First, on quality, there is no doubt that many of these conversions are substandard. Indeed, in my own borough, Watford, there is a case study of a small factory that had been made into several flats with no windows. This happened with PDRs. The case was brought to government—with a body of other things, obviously—and made the previous Government include that such dwellings should have windows.

Secondly, and close to our hearts—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Best, here—we have lost loads of affordable housing. Had planning permission been collected, we would certainly have had more. Indeed, the LGA reckons that we have had a loss of 28,000 affordable homes. Think how many could have been housed off the temporary accommodation list had we had those homes.

Thirdly, it rides roughshod through local plans and policies, and the design, sustainability and accessibility that have been worked up with local councils and communities to build the places that they want to see.

Amendment 134 is not anti-housing; it is pro quality housing. The amendment was drawn up by the LGA, and many councils and development partners have contributed. Some 39 organisations and many individuals have signed an open letter to the Government—I heard only today that Mayor Burnham has added his name to the letter—to ask them to seriously consider rescinding PDRs. This shows the strength of opposition. In opposition, several government Members, including the Minister, had strong feelings and concerns about PDRs. My question is very simple: what has happened? I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to find that I take exactly the opposite point of view to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I see permitted development rights—as in my Private Member’s Bill, and as in my amendments to this Bill—as having a large potential to contribute substantially to housing expansion. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I shall curtail my remarks in the hope that what the Minister says will be so enlightening that I shall not need to ask her further questions.

My amendments propose a targeted set of expansions to permitted development rights to boost uptake and delivery by methods such as: removing unjustifiably onerous restrictions, including those concerning the ability to convert commercial buildings in areas of outstanding natural beauty, or the inability to extend upwards on pre-1948 buildings of no defined heritage value, or buildings postdating an arbitrary date; clarifying the wording of prior approval conditions to remove vagueness, which leads to a lack of consistency in decision-making between LPAs and more uncertainty in their application to, for example, natural light, flood risk or transport impacts; and removing the subjectivity currently allowed for within external appearance conditions for upward extensions, which are regularly used to refuse or frustrate upward extension in classes A and AA to AD and which act as a strong disincentive for the use of these permitted development rights by SME developers and housebuilders.

Instead, the local design code-based conditions in my amendments would provide certainty and consistency to decision-making, permitting the combined use and application of class MA and classes A and AA to AD, to maximise the development potential for existing buildings to deliver new homes.

Design codes are hugely important in this. Mandatory local design codes, already supported by the NPPF, are essential to make permitted development rights work at scale. They would replace subjective judgments on external appearance with rule-based certainty, define acceptable height, density, daylight and amenity standards to reduce the risk for developers, and be capable of delivery via a public/private model with some costs recovered through planning fee reforms, which could target PDR applications.

Reforms would bring consistency, reduce risk and make PDR a viable route to delivery. Local design codes would improve outcomes and boost developer confidence and certainty in the uptake and use of PDR. PDR allows for greater numbers of conversions and extensions of existing buildings to provide new housing and sustainable urban environments. This would help to reduce the demand and strain of granting housing developments in less sustainable greenfield locations.

Together, the amendments that I suggest would unlock new housing capacity in the most sustainable and accessible locations and benefit smaller building firms, while still maintaining quality and control over the urban environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am grateful for the answers that the Minister has given, and I will think hard on what she said. I certainly understand what she said about the way of dealing with these things not being through the Bill. However, I urge the Government to remember that lots of small improvements—as the Minister has pointed out in terms of the last 10 years of permitted development rights—make a difference. They nourish the small end of the builders’ market and give some balance to the domination of housebuilding by the big housebuilders. It is really important that that end of the market works well.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a quick comment. Article 4 directions are actually a very challenging process; the Secretary of State really gives you a hard time about it and you usually have to justify covering a larger area. The problem with PDRs is they are all over the place and that makes an Article 4 direction a little bit more difficult.

I would like to challenge a fundamental misconception. The Minister talked about the 113,000 homes that have already been created. The misconception is that they would not have happened anyway. I am sure some of them would not, but the majority, if they had gone through the planning process, would have had things suggested, altered and improved to pull up the standard. But, of course, it would not have happened quite as quickly.

I am going to end on a slightly tangential anecdote that shows that we really need to look at this. The people in the house next door to me have informed me that they will be erecting a 12 metre by 20 metre single-storey building in their garden directly adjacent to mine. They do not need planning permission. It is half the size of the garden and they are allowed to do that. If I want to erect a fence to cover the hideous wall of brick that I am going to be looking on instead of a beautiful garden with mature trees, I will have to apply for planning permission. Therefore, I think it is time to review the whole set-up, but particularly office to residential. I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 134 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

135E: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Meetings of local planning authorities to be available for participation online(1) This section applies to any meeting of a local authority held to discharge the authority’s planning functions, including a committee or a sub-committee of the authority held under section 101(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 (a “planning meeting”).(2) A local authority must make arrangements for the proceedings of a planning meeting to be available over the internet both in real time and for five years after the meeting, and those arrangements must include the ability for members of the public observing a planning meeting over the internet in real time to address the meeting where permitted by the person chairing the meeting.(3) Subsection (2) applies despite any prohibition or other restriction contained in the standing orders or any other rules of the authority governing a planning meeting and any such prohibition or restriction has no effect.(4) A local authority may make standing orders and any other rules governing participation by a member of the public in a planning meeting over the internet, which may include provision for access to documents.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require local planning authorities to make their meetings available for observation and participation online.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 135E—in another streamlined contribution—which is self-explanatory. I also speak to Amendment 135HZA in the name of noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who is sadly not in her place due to the hour; we believe it definitely has some merit.

The emphasis for this amendment comes very strongly from our commitment on these Benches to community engagement and, more importantly, from the fact that the community has never before been so apparently disengaged from the need to build houses and engaged instead in full blown opposition.

The pandemic changed everything, including how we did meetings. The one positive thing that is said is that remote council meetings increased the opportunities for planning committees to hear views from a far more diverse group of participants, because they were more accessible to a wider audience.

Several paragraphs have been chopped here. My amendment simply states that the Government would require local planning authorities to make their meetings available for observation and participation online—that latter word is key. It does allow for a degree of local authority autonomy in the way that it decides to allow such participation in meetings. It is not the intention of the amendment to be prescriptive, nor to favour one particular means over another. The purpose of the amendment is that meetings have to be recorded and should be kept for posterity. They could be used in appeals or public inquiries and are genuinely an accurate record of what was actually said.

The public being able to contribute is the key thing, and I believe that, unless this is mandatory, those councils that are not doing this will not choose to do so without compulsion. There are still a number of councils, around 15%, that do not even record their meetings, but, for the 85% that do, they are not always webcast in a way that people can participate in. It should also be said that many councils recognise a range of benefits from providing online availability for questions at meetings, so we must ask ourselves why these other councils are dragging their heels. Surely, giving more means to the public to participate, in a much less formal way than giving a five-minute presentation at the beginning of what can be, for many, a daunting meeting—which is what is afforded at most planning meetings that I have experienced—has got to be a benefit and make communities feel that their voice is being heard. It should be something we want all councils to do.

We know that there is plenty of research, particularly that done by the RTPI, that shows that digital transformation can help various groups, the young in particular. Half the people in the RTPI’s most recent survey said that being able to respond digitally would make them more likely to get involved in the system—and maybe we might then get some yimbys joining in the housing debate.

The Greater London Authority and the Local Government Association have been pioneering this. There are lots of good examples and good practice that we can learn from. This would particularly help people living in rural areas, who may have a long journey to get to meetings or be disadvantaged by poor public transport. It would better accommodate the needs of those with work or caring responsibilities, and people with personal or protected characteristics who may find online attendance or viewing much more accessible than turning up to the fairly stiff formal council meeting. That is why we believe this clause should be mandatory across all authorities.

The situation with regard to the public and planning has never been worse. Anything we can do to improve that has got to be tried, but we fear some local authorities will need the final push of mandatory provision to make it happen. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene, not least on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She is not here to speak to her amendment but, as a number of noble Lords will recall, she and I worked together during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill on amendments to the same effect. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will recall that she led an amendment for this purpose, all to the effect of bringing us firmly into the post-pandemic, 21st-century manner of holding meetings, enabling local authorities to hold virtual meetings. There are many reasons for that, which I will not rehearse.

I remind noble Lords, and especially the limited number of us who were here for the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, that we went into ping-pong on this issue on the basis of the amendment at the time from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It was sent back to the other place on a second occasion with a narrow majority in this House, which included the Minister responding to this debate. The then Opposition committed themselves in principle to virtual meetings. I hope they will see that through now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a brief comment. I very much sympathise with the thrust of this amendment, but I am anxious about the term “members of the public”. Those noble Lords who sit on a planning committee will know that there are decision-makers—the councillors who sit around the table—who will ultimately pass judgment one way or the other on the application. As I understand it, the amendment would contemplate that those decision-makers would be in the room and then members of the public outside, watching remotely, might contribute.

Is it the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that special participants, who are not members of the public but also are not decision-makers, will be able to contribute from outside the room? The people I have in mind are local members, for example, local parish council members, or the local neighbourhood group, who have special status in the sense that they are consultees. While I can see that the decision-makers need to be in the room and members of the public might be outside, perhaps the noble Baroness could help us by saying what would be the status of these special people—the local member and so forth—who may be members of the council but not decision-makers.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I do not think that it is for us to decide about these special stakeholders. I would have thought it would be up to the council to decide whether they are allowed in the room. In my council, they are certainly encouraged to attend. The key issue is the involvement of people who would not dream of turning up to a council meeting. Of course, the local member and all the other people the noble Lord mentioned would not fear going into a council meeting and could get there easily enough. It is those who are normally excluded who are the issue. I genuinely believe that, by expanding the voice of people who contribute, we may take some of the heat out of these really controversial planning decisions.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

At the moment, some of these special stakeholders are not permitted to participate unless they are in the room. I take the noble Baroness’s amendment to say that they might be able to participate if they are outside the room. That is what I was trying to probe.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

It would certainly put more pressure on the council to allow that, which I think they should.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The noble Baroness talked about people who would not dream of participating. It is also worth stressing that certain people would not be able to participate because of disabilities, caring responsibilities and other reasons. In fact, given the responsibilities the Government have in terms of protected characteristics, surely that would make the argument for this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 135E withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points on these amendments. They are a wee bit difficult to link up in some respects. I understand that most of them are about providing checks and balances within the system, or as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, framed it, more transparency.

I support the broad principle of these amendments, including the duty of candour, if we can refine that in the planning system. On Amendment 185SG, the key is getting public authorities and local authorities to work together. I support public authorities having a general principle for their schools, health authorities, hospitals or whatever, provided that it gives enough flexibility for local areas to make decisions, which might be different in a rural area from decisions in London. We need to make sure there is that flexibility.

Finally, we need to ensure that it does not delay the processes. Sometimes, if you put additional checks and balances in planning, local authorities will use them as an excuse for why there is a delay in a planning decision being taken at a much earlier stage. In broad principle, I support the basis of these amendments, but we need to make sure that they would not delay the processes.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I will make a few quick points in the absence of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made his own points very well, so I will not repeat them.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I imagine most MPs recognise that their local councils put all their planning applications online now, and a quick look online on a Friday afternoon by a researcher might find exactly what has gone up that week without the need for any change to legislation. But I understand how it feels when someone gets in touch with you and you do not know; I recognise her dilemma.

We wholeheartedly agree with the impassioned plea from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about consultation and communities. However, when things get as bad as the estate that he described, it has gone way beyond the need for planning to put it right. It sounded more as if it was heading towards the Bronx or similar, and in that sort of instance other processes have to kick in. I was tempted to add the rider, “Other consultants are also available for this work”—I thought he did a good advertising job there.

The amendment that I really want to turn to is Amendment 158, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I understand where he is coming from, but, when I read the amendment, I felt that the planning authorities actually do all those things and try to act appropriately. The whole list that he put in his amendment—I will not read it out again—is, in my experience, what they plan to do. I guess what he is getting at is that he has experience, as have I, of officers being leaned on—those are the words he used, but I would go so far as to say that sometimes they are bullied—by politicians into making decisions.

Thanks to the last Government’s work, carried on by this Government, we now have a lot more information about what is going on in planning committees—we have statistics and things that actually tell us what is going on. If you read the planning press, you see that it is clear which authorities, be it members or officers, are not functioning properly. There is help out there for dysfunctional councils in that regard. A council that will remain nameless was in that position and got a very poor peer review, but then at a council meeting all said, “We don’t agree with this poor peer review”. I guess the question then is what happens next when councils really are failing.

Officers are really good. The amendment makes it seem as if it is black and white, but planning officers understand the role of politicians in the planning procedure—they understand political will—and recognise that they have a legitimate role in what is happening in planning. I have had many a discussion—when I was a councillor, not a mayor—where I have said what residents feel, and the officers have said, “Well, you could say that, but…”. They are good at understanding that you have a role and want to help. They are professional. However, when discussing specific cases, officers make you realise that there is nuance. Interpreting a planning rule is not black and white but very grey. People might say, “It says the gardens have to be this big”, but the officer’s response might be, “The gardens are a bit smaller but do other things that are better and more than we expect, so we’re going to give it planning permission”. It is not simple; it is all a question of nuance and interpretation.

I am quite confident that the system should work if things are done as they already happen. My concern sometimes, when things are demonstrably going wrong or exposed to be so, is what happens next.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 158, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, sets out the principle that local planning authorities should operate under a duty of candour. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that many, if not most, local authorities operate very good planning services and do what I believe my noble friend is setting out.

However, I agree with my noble friend that there would be a benefit to this. I think it would support planning officers in their job, because they would not be so arm-twisted by others outside—and not just by councillors; I can think of some developers and others who do some arm-twisting at times. This matter is important. Communities need confidence that decisions that shape the character and future of their towns, villages and cities are taken in good faith and that the process is accessible, transparent and fair. The amendment makes a constructive contribution to this discussion.

On Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, as a councillor I agree—I think all of us ex-councillors here will agree—that we have frustrations as we know how it ought to be, but it is not. I remember having a very long conversation with people at my local hospital about some things we were seeking to do, asking why they could not move this, or do this or that. They basically said, “We would love to work with you and do it, but every Monday morning we get a call from the chief executive of the NHS and all he wants to know is about delayed transfers out of hospital”. Doing something that would fix a problem in six or 12 months’ time was not on the priority agenda.

This is a big issue with all public bodies: they all have their own priorities and all operate in silos, as has been so eloquently made clear. Placing a duty on public bodies and authorities, not only to follow best practice but to co-operate, could be very beneficial in coming up with better communities and better plans for our areas. This is a vital point. We need joined-up thinking, collaboration and co-ordination. They are not optional extras; they are fundamental. There needs to be some mechanism or tool that makes it very clear for those public bodies that they need to co-operate. I emphasise that sometimes it is the local authority that gets criticised when, in many instances—I would say the vast majority of them—it is about the inability to convene the whole public sector and quasi-public bodies together. Therefore, I am very supportive of the sentiments of this amendment.

Amendment 185J in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raises another practical and sensible point. I appreciate it is a probing amendment, but the issue of GDPR is a crucial one within local government. Again, I can say from personal experience—my noble friend Lord Banner made a comment earlier about the precautionary principle—I find that officers generally have a precautionary principle and will move to the safest option. That is not necessarily the most transparent option. If there is clear guidance that gives them clarity about where that line is, that could be very helpful in enabling officers to do their job better and more transparently, while securing, quite rightly, the privacy of residents and the public.

I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling Amendment 185. There have been a number of comments on this. As set out in Section 102B of the Planning Act 2008, a person within category 1, if they are the owner, lessee, tenant—whatever the tenancy period—or occupier of the land concerned, whose property may be subject to compulsory purchase acquisition under a development consent order, is automatically deemed an interested party. They have notification rights and a statutory place in the examination of an application. The amendment would extend this category to include any Members of Parliament in whose constituency a proposed development is to take place.

I completely agree it is appropriate that MPs know what is going on within their constituencies. However, such a change would give them a formal role in the process rather than relying on access through public channels or discretion. It might alter how MPs engage with nationally significant infrastructure projects, including those that are more contentious. I can see the case and recognise the change in balance between local involvement and the national framework of planning. Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position. Do they see merit in giving MPs a statutory role in this way? How does that sit with the strengthening of local voices within planning law?

In closing, I thank all noble Lords for raising important questions of candour, co-operation and transparency. These are not just procedural matters but go to the heart of how we deliver in this country—how we build trust with communities and ensure that our planning system is fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we now come to one of those wonderful issues where we have something in place that works, which this Bill will remove, and that is the protection provided by Sport England for playing fields and recreational facilities. I am in danger of making a very short speech or a very long one and am trying to draw a line down the middle.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The former, please.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Clearly, my noble friend has heard me often enough.

The best playing fields are in nice, urban environments where people can get to them. Effectively, you have a greenfield site, often owned by a cash-strapped local authority or an independent school that has been increasingly under pressure to improve exam results rather than develop the whole picture. The playing field owners say, “Wouldn’t it be better if we had a slightly better new gym court and got rid of the field?” or “Nobody else is playing on the playing field because we haven’t maintained it”; they sell it off and get rid of it. Who cares? The people who play the sport do and the people you want to play the sport should.

What is sport? It is the ultimate community activity with health benefits, and public playing fields are essential for those in grass-roots sport to be able to address this. Go to any successful sports club, especially for sports such as football, rugby, and cricket, and it will have started on a public playing field. That is where you start. Even with these property-owning sports—rugby and cricket are the classic examples—where you are encouraged to take over, manage and own your own ground, you start somewhere else and develop on from it. You can expand your playing numbers by taking on smaller pitches for your junior teams by using them. It is an integrated part of it. If you do not have that capacity, the nature of the club will be threatened. So we have something which adds to it, but it is potentially a cash cow for some other groups and is sitting there in the right place, very tempting for any housing plan.

The body that has been protecting such places, Sport England, is no longer a consultee. That is what it is thinking and feeling. If we are wrong about that, I would be very grateful to hear it when whichever Minister replies, and your Lordships will not be hearing from me again. If that is not the case, there is something to be answered here.

My amendment would put in another duty; of course, it is Committee and this is just the first go, but I hope that the Government will tell me here if there is another solution to this—if they cannot tell me exactly at this stage, I will make myself available for any meetings to make sure that I know and can tell the rest of the House. If something positive is going to happen there, I will be more than grateful to go away and spread the word. If the Government are not going to do something like this and will just leave it to a general duty, they are basically guaranteeing losses, and possibly catastrophic losses. Unless you understand this and your current drive is for something else, you will ignore it, because we all do. What is your primary objective? We go there. I hope that the Government will tell me something positive and supportive with regard to this group.

We should also remember that you are supporting voluntary groups which do this at very little cost to the state at the moment. That culture of gathering together, paying for the use of the pitch and running up has to have a little space to grow. If we remove that, we will stifle the whole thing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has another amendment down here; I think we all know enough not to say exactly what her amendments mean, but the idea of play also comes in and tags on there. Such play is not as formalised or structured, but it is also important.

I hope that whichever Minister replies will be able to tell us that something solid will address this, not a general air or duty of “Oh yes, of course they will deal with it”, because we all know that things like that get ignored. We need something solid that will make sure there is a protection at least compatible with what is going on now. If we do not, we will have to go back to this, at least once, and possibly it will have to be decided by a decision of the whole House. I hope we do not need to do that, but I am quite prepared to do it. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

The four amendments in my name, relating to different proposed new clauses to the Bill, are all designed to further enhance the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The purpose of his amendment is to ensure that Section 106 or CIL money is properly spent. These amendments would give legal binding to that and empower local authorities to take on that provision, if needed. They also introduce the idea of land value capture. I hope the Minister will respond well to this series of amendments on community benefits from growth.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I relinquished my position in the queue of speakers on these amendments, as it seemed obvious that my noble friend Lady Pinnock should follow the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. I am speaking to my Amendment 184. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, described her group 5 as the “odds and sods” group; this should probably have gone in that, as it applies to something rather different, but here we are.

Amendment 184 relates to what is becoming known as stepping-stone housing provision, which is a tool to combat youth homelessness across the UK. The amendment seeks an exemption to national space standards to facilitate this particular kind of housing more quickly and with less stress than it appears to need to achieve it at the moment.

We all know that youth homelessness blights the nation, with almost 120,000 young people—people between the ages of 16 and 24—asking their councils for help because they are homeless or at risk of homelessness, according to the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint. Many colleagues are familiar with Centrepoint: the charity’s efforts to address youth homelessness started, as many did, with a single night shelter in the late 1960s; its work with young people has spanned the last 50 years.

One of the greatest challenges to ending youth homelessness is a lack of genuinely affordable housing options for young people, especially those who are ready to move on from a hostel or temporary accommodation to living independently. One of the key differences for young homeless people is that they are not yet entrenched in that world; they are in the circumstances they are in, and, with the right sort of support and help, they could, and do, manage to go on to lead stable and fulfilling lives. The sooner we get them, the better. Unfortunately, thousands of young people are trapped in a cycle of emergency housing, unemployment and benefit reliance and are prevented from becoming independent adults who can fulfil their potential.

Along with other charities in the same situation—move-on accommodation is the big issue for homelessness charities—Centrepoint has delivered an innovative housing model called stepping-stone accommodation, because it is just that: a transitional accommodation solution which provides the independence, agency and space for young people at risk of homelessness to realise their potential. As part of this model, Centrepoint is building stepping-stone houses at 24 square metres for young people at risk of becoming homeless. The problem that the amendment is trying to solve—and I hope the Minister may empathise with the problem and even come up with a better solution—is that this housing is below the national space standard of 37 square metres for one-bedroom dwellings. Councils are desperate for more housing, but the rigid application of the space standard has meant that planning applications have been bogged down for years—in this case, four years.

We all get asked to do amendments, and we think whether we will take them on. Well, before I decided to take this on, I went to see this accommodation. I found myself in Peckham, where I had not been for many decades—I taught there briefly, many moons ago. Quite frankly, I was blown away—I can use no other words. What I saw was uplifting and encouraging. It was good. The first thing you notice is a solid front door. They have their own front door; they are not in an HMO. They have a lovely shower to the left, a bedroom area, a wardrobe, and a little kitchenette area with a table and chair. The people there were just safe and pleased to be there.

I know many colleagues are wary of reducing space standards, as am I, but this is for very good reason, which is looking for a way to be able to exempt this. Noble Lords will know why they need to do this—I am sure they are already a step ahead of me. It is to do with cost. If you make them a little bit smaller, you can make more.

The model is about getting these young people into work and independent. Unlike with an RSL, which might set its rents according to what the Government allow, the rent is set according to the individual young person’s job. You can have a situation, which there is at Reuben House, where they are paying different rents, but it is according to their ability to pay. It is about getting the young person to be more responsible and eventually to move into ordinary accommodation. Of course, if you cannot guarantee what your rent is going to be, that makes it trickier. There are many good reasons with regard to rent and income, and I do not want to go into that now, but I would be prepared to meet with the Minister to explain that further.

The size is key to being able to do that. The young people in these starter homes are quite clear that a few more metres would not make much odds to them, quite frankly. The homes are for single young people, living on their own for the first time, who need a manageable home that is economic to run. They are indeed that, with all the fuel efficiency and everything else. It gets the young people off benefits and into work, and to make a positive contribution.

Centrepoint and others have proved that this is viable and that it can have a transformative impact by helping young people escape homelessness for good. A targeted exemption—that is the key—should make the planning process easier for charities, so that they can build more homes more quickly for young people and help towards ending the housing crisis. I would value an opportunity to bring Centrepoint officers here to discuss this model and how it works in practice, and to offer a visit to anyone who felt it was appropriate.

I shall leave noble Lords with the words of one of the young people living in Reuben House, who said, “Stepping Stone not only provided me with a safe place to sleep but offered me a sense of hope and dignity during a challenging time in my life. Thanks to your assistance, I am now on a path towards stability and independence”.

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of Amendment 184 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on stepping-stone accommodation. This worthwhile amendment promotes transitional housing solutions for those at risk of homelessness, as well as creating incentives for young people to stay at work with financial independence and living in quality, affordable accommodation.

I have been a long-term supporter of the charity Centrepoint, which has done incredible work in providing solutions for those who have been unfortunate enough to be homeless. The stepping-stone homes initiative has delivered self-contained, high-quality homes for young people, with the rent capped, as the noble Baroness mentioned, at one-third of their income. Like the noble Baroness, I have been to see the Reuben homes in Peckham, and I was enormously moved. This cost-effective transitional housing solution has the advantage of not just supporting financial independence and reducing reliance on benefits but, most importantly, helping young people to build a stable future. It provides not just a roof but services, such as helping residents to get over the problems of unemployment, as well as education and other life skills.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, covered the obstacles to scaling this model nationally and the inflexible application of the national described space standards, the NDSS—there are all these abbreviations—which currently block these smart schemes from expanding. She mentioned the limitation of 34 square metres. These pods, as I would call them, are 24 square metres, but none of the young people complained about a lack of space. This amendment provides checks and balances for a limited and carefully designed exemption for accredited stepping-stone accommodation for young people while ensuring—I stress this—that there are still robust safeguards around design quality.

A transitional solution for two to five years, helping young people to settle into work, live independently and save money makes a massive difference to them moving on with their careers. The limited tenure of two to five years provides the push factor that makes stepping-stone homes a sustainable source of affordable housing. It is not just Centrepoint: several other charities are trying similar initiatives. For this reason, I warmly support this amendment, which effectively provides a crucial piece of the puzzle of tackling homelessness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, described Amendment 184 as compelling, and I entirely agree with him. In the interests of time, that is all I will say on that amendment.

I will briefly speak to Amendment 218, taking us back some time to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who has already introduced the idea of a review of land value capture. I am going to brandish a historical figure in defence of this suggestion. It may surprise the Benches to my right, because I am going to start by saying that I agree with Winston Churchill. That is not a phrase that I bring out very often, but I do in this context. In 1909, he said that

“the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts or at the centre of one of our great cities … sits still and does nothing. Roads are made, streets are made, railway services are improved, electric light turns night into day, electric trams glide swiftly to and fro, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains—and all while the landlord sits still … To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is sensibly enhanced”.

That was identified more than a century ago, but it exactly addresses the issue that still exists and that we have not come to deal with.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

He was a Liberal then.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Okay—I am not going to get that far into the history.

I declare an interest in that land value tax is a long-term Green Party policy and one that I am very happy to talk about at length, but I am not going to do that because it is not what this amendment would do. However, it is worth thinking about the fact that the problem with how we tax land goes back a very long way. There was a royal commission on the housing of the working classes set up in 1885; it was the first time that an inquiry had referred to land value taxation—it was called site value rating then—and it said that this would be a better way to solve a housing crisis. These are issues that we have been wrestling with and failing to solve for a very long time.

My final point is that this amendment by itself would not deal with the crunching, terrible elephant-in-the-room issue of council tax, but it would start to provide the Government with a way to open up these issues. This is all regarded as too politically difficult, too challenging and too complicated to explain—I know what it is like to try to explain land value tax in 15 seconds, because it is a challenge. We are now 35 years on from when council tax was created. It was an emergency crunch measure created by the Treasury after the political disaster of the poll tax. It is a deeply regressive tax. Someone living in a home worth £100,000 pays an effective tax rate five times as high as someone in a £1 million property. The average net council tax is only 2.7 times higher for the top 10% of properties than for the bottom 10%. This is something that we have to address. This amendment would not address all, or even the bulk, of it, but it would start to inch us into a space where we could tackle some issues that desperately need to be tackled.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.