Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I am the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Q I found the evidence you gave about the parliamentary process by which this might be streamlined really helpful, Mr Owen.

My question is for you both. One challenge for the planning system element of this Bill is that the local authority has a quasi-judicial role in administering planning law, and then statutory consultees and other organisations might be required to give consent for something, so the local authority has consented but Natural England, the Environment Agency or someone else needs to sign off. First, does the Bill strike the right balance in streamlining the different parts of that process, so that nationally significant infrastructure can make its way through quickly and efficiently?

Secondly, as well as judicial review, I am always conscious that a local authority may be subject to a maladministration complaint if it fails to take into account the legal obligations that Parliament has placed upon it. While the system may seem bureaucratic, the bottom line is that Parliament requires councils to go through that process when considering planning applications. Do you think there is a need to remove not so much the ability of others to challenge, but some of the requirements we place on local authorities, so that there are fewer loopholes and less complexity in administering that quasi-judicial role?

Sir John Armitt: That is a very complex question. I shall pass to my legal friend.

Robbie Owen: It is a complex question. On the balance and restricting this to national infrastructure, where the role of local authorities is among the role of many public bodies, as I touched on earlier, I do not think that we have yet got to a balance where the development consent order contains the principal consents and leaves subsidiary ones to be dealt with later.

I would like to see the Bill repeal section 150 of the Planning Act 2008 so that decisions can be taken on a case-by-case basis by the deciding Secretary of State on what they consider to be appropriate to put into the development consent order by way of other consents. I do not think it is appropriate for that decision to be subject to the veto of the relevant regulatory bodies, which it is at the moment. That is inappropriate.

If I understood the question on maladministration correctly, I am not sure that is a particularly relevant process for national infrastructure. My own experience is that it is quite ineffective generally. In terms of the role of local authorities in downstream supervision of the implementation of these projects, the answer is to make sure that the development consent order is very clear on the requirements and the conditions to the consent, which the local authority then needs to police and give approvals under. I think that is the way forward.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Q Robbie, you said you had no fundamental concerns democratically with the Bill. Could you give us a bit more on how you think the proposals will ensure continued meaningful engagement with affected communities and interested parties?

Robbie Owen: I would say two things. First, any right-minded applicant for a development consent order is clearly going to continue to consult formally and then engage informally with local communities, even with the changes that the Minister tabled yesterday. The role of the new guidance heralded by yesterday’s written statement is going to be critical in setting very clear guidelines in terms of what the Government think is appropriate by way of consultation and engagement. It is critical, though, that the guidance is not so specific that it almost undermines the effect of removing the provisions from the Act, as the amendments would do.

The second way in which the local community is involved is the public examination of proposals for up to six months—it normally is six months—once the application has been made and accepted. Compare that with the process for major planning applications, where communities may be given three minutes to address a planning committee: it is a much more inclusive process for local communities to take part in. Work is always ongoing to try to improve the usability and experience of the examination process, and hearings within that, and I support ongoing refinement there. But, fundamentally, those elements will completely remain—there is nothing in the Bill to remove them—and that is quite right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

Q I think your position is clear from your response, but for the avoidance of doubt and in the time that we have remaining, is Natural England confident that this model will deliver better outcomes for nature overall?

Marian Spain: We are confident that the model works. The detail will come as we work through which topics and which situations we actually apply the environmental delivery plans to. It is perhaps also a version of the answer to a previous question; the plans themselves can rule things in and out. We may decide, for example, that a piece of ancient woodland cannot be replaced and would therefore not be subject to these measures, so that is another safeguard.

[David Simmonds]

Q I have two specific questions about resourcing. The experience with section 106 agreements is often that, by the time the resource is aggregated to the point where it is spendable at scale, the cost of delivering what it was supposed to deliver has increased. You have described your expectation that the resource coming in will begin to cover the costs for Natural England in administering that. First, have you done any modelling on how the income and those rising costs will be managed? Secondly, particularly in the event of significant challenges to Natural England, how can we be assured that a significant amount of the contributions will not end up being absorbed into administrative and management costs, as opposed to being spent directly on the environmental mitigation for which they were first gathered?

Marian Spain: I cannot tell you about modelling that we are doing for the future—that work has only just started—but I can refer back to what we have already. For example, with district level licensing, the formula is quite simple: how much does it cost to build a pond and how much does it cost either Natural England or, in that scheme, a third party, including private businesses, to deliver that? That is what drives the levy and that is what developers pay. They pay the cost of administration and the cost of delivery, and that is the model we will use for this. Those costs will, of course, vary—there will not be a single cost—because it will depend on the complexity of the issue and possibly even the geography, land price and so on.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank Marian Spain for her evidence, and I thank all our other witnesses so far today for theirs.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Q Very many new homes have been built in my constituency over the past decade. Unfortunately, residents believe—and I think it is undoubtedly the case—that that has put a huge strain on local infrastructure, which has not kept pace. Do you feel that the Bill provides the opportunity to ensure that we have the right infrastructure—the medical facilities, the schools, the affordable homes—as we build the many more homes that will be built in Dartford and other parts of the country over the next period? Does the Bill give us the framework to ensure that that happens, unlike what has happened previously on infrastructure and homes being built together?

Jack Airey: The existing framework for doing that is the section 106 system and the community infrastructure levy system. I am not sure whether the CIL applies in Dartford, but in my mind that provides a fairly effective method of doing this in a way that does not make development totally unviable, while extracting enough value to provide some contribution to the community. I do not think there is anything in the Bill that really focuses on this—I could be proven wrong—but I think the existing system works okay.

It is really difficult to do this and it does not always work. Rightly, communities always want the right amount of infrastructure. This might relate to other comments I might make: we rely on the planning system to do so much heavy lifting to deliver all sorts of things that everyone wants, and we try to prioritise everything and end up prioritising nothing. We could have a system where we extracted more from developer contributions and that went to community infrastructure, but that would come with a trade-off, probably around provision of affordable housing and things like that. That would be a sensible debate to have if that is what your constituents want, but it is also quite difficult politically.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Q It is worth noting that less than one in 10 planning applications goes to committee at all, so it is hard to argue that it is a particularly heavy democratic burden. One of the things that we heard is burdensome in the evidence earlier today is the pre-application process. I would be interested in your view about what can be done to ensure that there is meaningful and useful pre-application discussion. In particular, I am mindful of the amendment that the Minister tabled yesterday on nationally significant infrastructure projects, which removes quite a number of the requirements for consultation.

Some of the large energy infrastructure projects have described having large pipelines of potential projects, some of which were very speculative and others of which were quite close to the spades in the ground stage. How can we ensure that what emerges from the Bill guarantees meaningful and proper consultation, so that the receiving community really understands what the impact will be and, where there may be local objections, people have a really detailed understanding of what the benefits will be in order to persuade them to be more supportive of the proposals?

Jack Airey: Is your question specific to nationally significant infrastructure projects, or does it relate to the TCPA as well?

[David Simmonds]

I think it covers both, but each of those things is addressed separately in the Bill.

Jack Airey: It goes back to my initial point that community participation in the planning process is so low, and you often only hear about the negative parts. If we could boost that a bit—in truth, I am not sure how you do that in a way that is not totally burdensome on local authorities, because often people have better things to do than go to a town hall on a Tuesday evening. Raising that is a difficult but necessary thing to do. That is how you begin to spell out not just the negatives but the benefits of development on the local planning system side.

On the NSIP reforms, I know you will hear later from Catherine Howard, who is much more of an expert on this than I am. It looks like a wholly positive thing to me. The Government press release talked about saving around 12 months off an NSIP development consent order process, which is a hugely positive thing.

Sam Richards: I agree with Jack. Dare I say it, I think there is a role here for elected representatives in making the case when we need to build things. I know it is hard, not least when development is poorly planned or ugly, and of course when there is local opposition it is often tempting to row in on the side of those who are opposing development, but there is a job to do here. Fundamentally, we have not built sufficient infrastructure for decades and, as a result, we have the highest industrial energy costs in the world. London has the most expensive housing in Europe. We have not built the infrastructure we need for decades. It is incumbent on all of us, including our elected representatives, to make the case for the building that we need.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Q Very few homes have been built in my constituency in the last decade. Sam, you highlighted how previous Governments failed catastrophically with the amount of time and taxpayers’ money that was put into planning and development across the country. Jack, you said the existing system is “okay”. Is “okay” enough for my constituents who need homes and communities with natural environments around them?

Jack Airey: I think what I said is that the system for securing and spending developer contributions is okay. I do not think the wider planning system is okay. In terms of how you can improve it, a lot of the measures in the Bill are very worth while, and a lot of the changes in the NPPF are incredibly worth while. There are many more things that the Government can do, especially on the national development management policies.

Sam Richards: The system is fundamentally broken. I am sure your constituents are furious that their energy bills are through the roof and they cannot afford the rent, and they are right to be so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Please expand.

Rachel Hallos: I am not convinced that there is clarity on the balance and calculations. If you take such land out of production, what imbalance does that create with production elsewhere? If you move environmental goods from one area of land on to another, what imbalance is being created there? If we are going to go down an accounting route, what is the cost-benefit of doing it—whether it is food production, homes or environment? I am not sure that is in the Bill, and I think it needs to be to make sure that the right decisions are being taken in the right places.

As an organisation representing farmers, and as a farmer myself, I know that what we do on our land is a long process, whether it is producing food or managing the land for environmental goods. This is not a quick fix; we cannot move a dial and have something change overnight. We need to make sure that the right decisions are being taken in the right places, and we also need to recompense the people who are taken along with it as they go.

Paul Miner: We broadly agree with Rachel. Overall, the Bill needs to strike a better balance between the various objectives that the planning system seeks to fulfil. It is not just about facilitating development but about mitigating and adapting to climate change, as well as helping to secure nature recovery. We think that the Bill can do more to give the wider public and ourselves confidence that, in future, we will get better plans and decisions that will look to achieve a vision for getting more sustainable development, as well as meeting our climate change targets and our very ambitious nature conservation targets.

One element that has not come up in questioning so far, which we are particularly keen to raise, is clause 22 on householder payments for electricity transmission lines. We do not think that making payments to householders is the way to go. Instead, we should really focus on building on the good practice that we already have for onshore wind farms, where we consult and involve communities in community benefit schemes, and also look to achieve community benefit schemes that help communities, in turn, address climate change, get more rooftop solar on people’s homes in rural areas and improve the energy efficiency of rural housing. It seems to us that giving payments to householders completely goes against working in any kind of public interest, and we urge parliamentarians to look at that clause of the Bill again.

[David Simmonds]

Q I would like to ask you both about the interaction between green-belt and farming areas. In a constituency such as mine, which is on the edge of London, as well as a lot of edge-of-city constituencies, there is land that is both in the green belt and farmland. That has significant implications for the landowner because the hope value is significantly higher than farmland might be elsewhere, but it also needs additional protection because it is ancillary to the existence of the city. It sometimes provides a source of food and leisure, as well as the environmental benefits of it being a green space.

I am interested in your view on whether the Bill sufficiently addresses the balance between green belt and agricultural use. What improvements would you want to see on compulsory purchase processes to ensure that landowners in those locations have appropriate recourse? Also, where it is clear that the land in question provides a broader public benefit, as opposed to simply being a business standing on its own, how can we ensure that the broader public benefit can be accounted for in the reckoning up of the value of that land?

Rachel Hallos: It is almost like having ransom strips next to urban conurbations. That green belt gets sucked into that urban conurbation and, all of a sudden, it becomes a brown belt—I think “grey belt” was also considered at one stage. The reality is, when you are in that situation—I can completely understand, although some of my members would not; that is the leadership role that we have to take—that that land is of national benefit through development. That is because it increases the size of the town, the infrastructure—the whole thing. On what the Bill needs to do, again it goes back to doing the number crunching. What is the long-term benefit of this?

We also have to remember that when we compulsorily purchase land from a farmer who is running their business and living there, they have every right to make a decision to restart their business elsewhere. What if the land value goes up and they are being paid just the flat agricultural rate? Everybody wants that land, because guess what? Everybody wants land right now. Everybody wants land for everything, so land prices are creeping up anyway. There is then artificial inflation of the land price in that area because everybody is after it.

That bit also needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to recompensing anybody who has land taken away from them. It is a complicated formula, but the Bill really does need to look at that if we are to go anywhere near rebuilding confidence and trust between the agricultural community and Government. Especially if we put it in the package of everything else that is going on, we are very much in danger of having it go “bang” again. This has to stop. We all have to get on with life. We all have to get on with what we do—produce food, infrastructure or growth for the country.

Paul Miner: Green belt is a planning policy, but as you have rightly pointed out, green-belt land often has a wide range of public benefits and meanings for people who live in the towns and cities that the green belts surround. We strongly support the Bill’s provision for spatial development strategies, because you need effective strategic planning in order for green-belt policy to work effectively.

Also, from our perspective, we should not just be looking at how the planning policy should work. If we accept that the vast majority of green-belt land will not become grey belt in the future but will remain designated green belts, we need to think about how we can better manage that land. That is why it is really important that in spatial development strategies and in the Government’s land use framework, we have policies for improving the management of green-belt land. Until now, green-belt land has been relatively poorly served by successive Governments’ environmental land management schemes. There is relatively low take-up in green-belt areas. We urge the Government, as part of the land use framework but also with spatial development strategies, to seek to improve the quality of green belts for nature and for climate.

Rachel Hallos: May I add one last thing to that? Sorry to be rude. When it comes to the spatial development strategies, LNRSs and all the different things that are going on and are being consulted on at the moment, there is no legal requirement to consult the land manager. That worries me. It is just wrong.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Rachel, may I press you on CPOs, because you have raised some very stark and serious concerns? Could you outline for the Committee what you understand the CPO reforms in the Bill to do? Specifically, could I ask whether you accept that we are, through the Bill, not changing the core principles of compulsory purchase and that, when it comes to removing hope value by directions, the Bill will merely extend an existing power, introduced by the previous Government, to town and parish councils? What is the great fear about what we are doing on CPOs through this legislation?

Rachel Hallos: It is bigger than just this Bill on CPOs. There is a mistrust. There is a concern that people are not taking food production or agriculture seriously. This is what it is encapsulated in, but the CPO element for me is that people have felt the pain of badly delivered CPOs, through High Speed 2 in particular; other things have gone on in this country. That has lingered really heavily, so when you start mentioning compulsory purchase to any land manager or landowner, it sends shivers down their spine.

We are concerned that disregarding a hope value puts landowners and farmers in that tailspin again, so where do we go from here? How do we deal with this? We have found that especially with our members and HS2—I will keep referring to HS2 because it has been an absolute nightmare, and it is still a nightmare. They are still waiting for the final, agreed payment in many cases, so that they can start getting on with their life. That is the concern when it comes to the hope value.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Q It is great to have three very experienced councillors before the Committee. We have heard evidence today, including from two former special advisers to No. 10 under the last Government, that the Bill will help with energy security and energy costs, driving forward housing and getting jobs and significant investment. To channel your discussion about the beam in the person’s house, Councillor Clewer, a significant amount of frustration was evinced about where we are with things in planning more generally. Could each of you identify what you see as positive in the Bill?

Councillor Clewer: I agree that there are areas at the moment where planning simply delays or blocks infrastructure provision. That needs changing; I absolutely agree with that. I suspect people will judge the extent to which it needs changing based on where they live and the specific infrastructure that they are facing, but I think that that needs unblocking.

You need to be very careful with the assumption that the Bill will build more houses. It will not build more houses. The Bill, and the reforms that we have seen to the NPPF, will see more planning permissions. I have 18,837 extant planning permissions in Wiltshire at the moment. Developers told me that they could build only about 6,000 the last time I asked them, which strangely enough was just under the four-year housing land supply under the last Government. I am sure that if I asked them today, they would say that they could build just about 8,000.

I have 2,400 houses south of Trowbridge that have been stuck, failing to get the section 106 agreement signed, for something like 14 years. There has to be something in the Bill that forces building. If we are to issue planning, it has to come with the actual development. We have to compel. If developers have signed a commitment that they will complete houses on whatever basis and have fallen behind, they need to start paying the council tax on them or something. At the moment, the Bill is not going to do that, I am afraid. I do not see anything in it that will actually achieve that.

Councillor Hug: I support Richard’s point about working for more “use it or lose it” powers to ensure that planning permission does not just go on the books to raise land value and not do much else, although I note the points about hope value and everything. We recognise that there is a whole heap of challenges to delivery that sit outside the scope of the Bill.

On the Bill, we support the Government’s general principles about clarification and simplification. We recognise that the strong national growth and infrastructure demands open up some of the opportunities for green energy and all sorts of other things that we are calling for in local government.

I want to draw attention to the work being done on planning fees. Ensuring that local authorities have the best possible remuneration for the work to make sure they are covering their costs fully is key to making the system work well to deliver the outcomes that you are looking for. But we recognise that that alone will not deal with it, so we have to look at how we can further strengthen the planning workforce. Again, that is about making sure that the language does not say that the planning system or the planners are the problem. We want people to go into the industry and we want them to do it, but the planning fee stuff is helpful in supporting that.

We support the principles, but the key thing is to ensure that the local authorities retain a voice in what goes forward and work with the Government on some of the practical things such as the scheme of delegations.

Councillor Wright: I think we have got close to it. As we said, we have nothing against the professional training of planning committees so that the industry knows what it is dealing with and so that the idea that we do not know what we are doing on planning committees cannot be used to beat us over the head all the time. In my district, similarly to Richard’s, 11,500 permissions were put in place between 2016 and 2024 and 5,500 were built out. There is no excuse for the rest not to be built.

Unfortunately, the proposals that have been put forward do not include anything at all to mandate that builders will build. There is a proposal over CPO powers, and the missing thing that we would like to see is “build it or lose it”. If there is an allocated site and they have permissions, but they simply do not build on it, give us the CPO powers so we can CPO that. That would help to build houses, because we could then start to control the destiny of those sites. At the moment, there are some really useful things that could have been in the Bill that are missing.

Councillor Clewer: But CPO it at agricultural value.

Councillor Wright: Yes: agricultural value, not hope value.

Councillor Hug: I very much support the planning training. The LGA supports the approach to hope value that the Government are taking. The CPO power is particularly being deployed in urban settings around land assembly, which is the intent behind the Bill.

[David Simmonds]

Q I have two connected questions. A lot has been said about the role of local authorities in decision making on planning. I am aware that councils are not short of planning guidance from central Government—every element of a local plan must already be in detailed conformity with 19 chapters of the national planning policy framework. Is there any element of your local planning process that is there for any other purpose than complying with the law, as passed by Parliament, in respect of planning? Have you gold plated locally?

Secondly, coming back to the point about strategic infrastructure projects, one of the issues is that local authorities have a lot of obligations, particularly under environmental law, whereby they have a specific legal duty around issues like air quality. Effectively excluding them from the decision-making process or even a failure to intervene in the process would leave them open to legal challenge. Air quality is a good example: I know from my experience at Heathrow airport that there was a local authority fine of £300 million per annum for the level of air quality breaches caused by Heathrow airport, through which we would have been judicially reviewed by ClientEarth had we not judicially reviewed central Government over their proposals to expand that.

Can you think of some other areas, around either environmental or other legal obligations, that are imposed on local authorities where the role you play in either the development and consent order process or those national strategic infrastructure projects is arising not simply out of local politics but because of legal obligations to your residents that you have to fulfil?

Councillor Wright: With regard to nationally significant infrastructure projects, for instance, I was thinking about the fact that we are responsible for the environmental impact assessments. I worry at times that we do not have enough weight with those when it comes to the actual decision making.

One example, which we are testing at the moment, relates to battery storage—a new thing that is exciting lots of people—and whether we can predict not just the here and now, but what would happen in the event of a problem. If we are going to have a huge array of batteries on what was good agricultural land suddenly blighting the landscape, we could ensure that the industry is not allowed to use a type of battery that is more prone to cause huge environmental issues if it catches fire, when there are already good batteries that could be used. But it comes down to a financial decision. In some places, we would actually like more weight to be given to the powers that we already have, but quite often, as you say, we find ourselves guarding the place but not being able to make the decisions that would avoid the need for guards in the first place.

Councillor Hug: My concern is not about gold plating. It is about the question whether local authorities across the country have the capacity on their planning teams to deal with the range and breadth of the requirements that are placed on them. That is one reason why local government reform is in the air, but I would also welcome some movement on fees. We have to make sure that planning is seen as a field that people want to go into, to help unlock these things, rather than these people being seen purely as the blockers. Ultimately, part of the blockage is that the system is not working effectively. The question is how we can work with local authorities to deliver not only training to communities, but greater support to the officer core so that they can move stuff through as quickly as possible.

Councillor Clewer: I do not think we gold plate our local plans. There are many councils that want to go beyond existing guidance, particularly on net zero, for example. That is mostly to stop expensive retrofitting in future and make people’s bills cheaper. There are areas where councils will want to go beyond existing national policy, but every example I can think of was done for a very good reason and will end up with broad public support.

On the bigger issue of legislation, yes, there are some real challenges. Some environmental legislation can be significantly challenging when you want to see building or when you are looking to find a way to mitigate or even unlock. For example, I have a brownfield site in Trowbridge where they need to leave a bat corridor by a train line. How on earth that makes sense I honestly do not know, but it is making the viability of the site really challenging. Some sort of off-site provision would be far more appropriate: it would be far better for the bats and would help to unlock development.

There are also problems around highways issues, for example. Whether it be for economic development or building land, there is an inability for us to work properly with National Highways to deal with motorway junctions, or the A36 in my case. The constraints that that places on us can be real blockers to our desire to build in areas that would be sensible, as opposed to in areas where developers are putting forward planning permissions.

Lastly, it would be really nice if we could tell developers where they should be building, rather than developers saying, “This bit of land? We can’t build on it yet,” when we know full well that we will get a speculative application the moment the local plan is through for that bit of land as well, having just fought the contentious bit of land.

[Amanda Martin]

Q I am not a councillor, so I am coming at this from a different angle. We had some answers from the previous panel on compulsory purchase orders, particularly from the NFU. I am not dismissing its comments in any way, but not all compulsory purchase orders are about farmland and areas like that. In my city of Portsmouth, we have buildings and derelict land that have had no planning on them for decades. How could the Government support local authorities to deliver schemes in the public interest using these powers?

Councillor Hug: The LGA broadly supports the new powers. Obviously we are looking to find ways to ensure that local authorities can take advantage of those new powers when they come in. That goes back to helping councils to be more entrepreneurial about unlocking land and giving them the support that they need to do that. Whether it is in Portsmouth—a place I know well; I was born there—or to a certain extent in parts of my patch, these are important tools in the arsenal, but it is also about unlocking those conversations. Having that on the books should hopefully enable those conversations to happen, because ultimately you want to come to an agreement with a partner to avoid having to use legal powers. It will help to unlock those conversations. It is still not going to be a magic wand, and I am not going to be able to walk down my high street and say, “That, that and that,” and suddenly unlock all these things. There are processes in place to prevent this being misused. We strongly welcome the intention to go into this space and the proposals in front of us.

Councillor Clewer: If you look at the points about London and land assembly, they make a great deal of sense to me. Please be careful, however, with the assumption that brownfield land will be made viable simply through compulsory purchase. The problem with most brownfield development is a viability one. By the time you have demolished what is on it and then remediated the land, the net value of that land is negative.

There is no point in a council compulsorily purchasing something that then has negative value for the council. That will just bankrupt councils. If we are going to unlock brownfield, something more significant has to be done, either to use some sort of brownfield development fund—that feels a bit wrong, but it is a way you could look at it—or to compel developers to deal with brownfield before they are allowed to build on greenfield. We would suddenly see town centres all over the country being redeveloped if developers were not allowed to build on the greenfield until they had built on the brownfield.

Councillor Wright: I will not repeat any points. Brownfield, for instance, in a rural area could be something that had glass houses on it. It could be a site that has no connectivity whatever to any settlement and has no services, and still be brownfield land. It would potentially come under CPO. At DCN, we think that there should be a subsection to CPO, and not just concentrating on land. If we want to look at regeneration and the issues in town centres, where there are vacant properties and areas blighted by crime or that just need added value, at the moment the CPO process is still a little too legal-heavy. The route to appeal, which a lot of it will go through, takes far too long. Perhaps there is a role going forward with mayoral authorities for that to be the appeal route. If we could see a system that shortens the CPO process for regen of property in town centres, different from land assembly, that would be useful.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question, and I look forward to what I know will be constructive debates over the days and weeks to come. He makes a fair point, which I am just coming to, in relation to the clause also providing for the ability to delay a mandatory update when there are exceptional circumstances that the relevant Secretary of State considers make the delay unavoidable.

I stress to the hon. Gentleman that those circumstances must be exceptional. We have in mind an extremely high bar: for example, if Parliament was suspended and could not sit. He will know that in instances where a national policy statement, for example, does not need to undergo a material change, a rapid update can take place on that basis. It does not have to go through consultation or the necessary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. The vision is that this particular part of the clause will be used with an exceptionally high bar, in very limited circumstances. If he wishes, I am happy to provide the Committee with further examples, but I think they will be extremely limited.

In such circumstances, as the shadow Minister said, the Secretary of State must, before the five-year deadline expires, lay a statement before Parliament explaining the reasons for the sought-after extension and when they expect to update the national policy statement, with the delay lasting only as long as the exceptional circumstances exist.

In summary, the changes give Ministers the power to ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date so that they can effectively support the delivery of the critical infrastructure that our country needs and the economic growth that its provision will deliver. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I turn to amendment 32, which, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, seeks to insert a requirement for the land use framework—on which the Government consulted between January and April this year—to be complied with whenever a national policy statement is reviewed. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State is already obliged to take into account all relevant material considerations when reviewing national policy statements as a matter of law, under sections 104 and 105 of the Planning Act 2008.

If a future Secretary of State considers the final land use framework to be relevant in the circumstances of the specific national policy statement being reviewed, it must therefore be taken into account. The Secretary of State will, in those circumstances, give the land use framework the weight that they consider appropriate in their planning judgment, but their assessment of relevance cannot and should not be prejudged by writing such a requirement on to the face of the Bill.

The majority of national policy statements are not site or project-specific. For national policy statements that do identify locations as suitable or potentially suitable for a particular development, those locations will already have been the subject of strategic level environmental assessments and appraisals for inclusion in the national policy statement.

When deciding whether to grant development consent for a nationally significant infrastructure project, sections 104 and 105 of the 2008 Act require the Secretary of State to have regard to any matter that they think “both important and relevant” to the decision of whether to grant consent. Once published, the land use framework could be given such weight as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, where they consider it “both important and relevant” to the particular consenting decision that is in front of them.

For those reasons, the Government cannot accept amendment 32, which seeks to introduce an unnecessary layer of regulatory complexity, undermining our ambitions to streamline the NSIP planning system.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I agree very much with the Minister’s point about not introducing excessive complexity. A key issue, though, that this element of the Bill highlights is where there are complex interactions—with legal obligations that are placed on local authorities, for example. I think of my experience with Heathrow airport, where air quality duties are an absolute obligation on the local authority. Parliament can decide to derogate from that, but that does not remove the possibility of the local authority being judicially reviewed, having failed to oppose the Government’s position on a national planning policy statement.

When there are such obligations on other affected public bodies but the decision has been taken from them and is being made instead by Parliament, how will the Government ensure that those public bodies will not find themselves held liable and find that the whole process is effectively derailed—because although parliamentary decisions cannot be judicially reviewed, the involvement of that public body in decisions can be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I understand that, but the fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State will no longer be required, under the Bill, to respond to feedback from Parliament. That is what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is trying to sort out with his amendment. We very much support that amendment, because it would require the Secretary of State to provide a response to the House on amendments to national policy statements.

I have no disagreement on the provision of NPSs and what we discussed in the debate on the last clause. What tangible difference does it make to the Bill if Parliament is taken note of by being able to respond, and the Secretary of State is required to respond to that feedback? The Select Committee has a right to issue its views. Why is the Secretary of State no longer required to respond to that feedback from Parliament? To us, it seems slightly undemocratic to remove transparency and the ability of elected Members of this House, of all parties, to be able to scrutinise the movements of the Secretary of State and Ministers in national policy statements. Perhaps the Minister can explain in his comments what tangible difference it makes to his life or that of his Department that the Secretary of State no longer has to respond to feedback from elected Members of this House.

As I said, we agree with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It would encourage greater accountability as part of the process outlined in the Bill and would enhance parliamentary scrutiny over crucial development policies that the Secretary of State has oversight of.

[David Simmonds]

I rise in support of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister to press the Government on this point. I think the key issue for all of us is what remedy is available where there are concerns about the impact of a decision taken using these new provisions.

In the evidence sessions, there was much mockery of a so-called fish disco at a new nuclear power station. However, the local constituency MP, the local authority or fishing and wildlife organisations would be very concerned about the impact of that development on wildlife, particularly at a location with significant numbers of protected species, some of which are unique in Europe. When the detail of a project emerges and an issue of that nature needs to be addressed, and there is feedback from Parliament, if we have inserted provisions that allow the Secretary of State to say, “I am going to ignore that now,” we lose the opportunity to ensure appropriate remedies and measures to address the impact of that detail, either in planning terms or on the local environment.

I recall a judicial review brought by the local authority where I served as a councillor in respect of a scheme that had been agreed with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State had written to the local authority and said, “This is what it is going to be. This is the process that is going to be followed.” That Secretary of State was then replaced with another, who said, “I am not going to follow it. Although my predecessor wrote to you last year to tell you this is how it was going to be, I am not going to do it.” The local authority said that was clearly unsatisfactory, because of the impact at community level.

The test that was required to be met for a judicial review to succeed was that we had to be able to demonstrate that the Minister was—what the judge said has always stuck in my mind—“out of her mind” when she told Parliament at the Dispatch Box what she was going to do, on the basis that parliamentary sovereignty was so great. If Parliament had approved the Minister’s actions, regardless of whether they were a flagrant breach of an agreement previously entered into with another part of the public sector, provided they had said that at the Dispatch Box and unless we could prove that the Minister had actually been out of their mind at that point, the decision would stand and would not be subject to judicial review. It could not even be considered, because parliamentary sovereignty has such a high test.

I think the shadow Minister is right to raise the need to get this right. We are all talking about the importance of getting infrastructure and major developments through, and we can understand the desire to drive that forward, but we would not wish to find ourselves in a situation where a key point of detail, which has a significant community impact but which emerges only once some of those detailed elements of a major project are in the public domain, cannot be taken account of and is irrelevant or disregarded in the planning process. It is absolutely critical that we have that level of safeguard to ensure that constituents are assured that the concerns that they might perfectly reasonably have will be properly addressed.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I draw your attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I concur with my colleagues. I have concerns about removing the response from Ministers to Parliament. We are told that constituents and residents will be kept at the heart of such decisions—they will have some say in the national planning policy framework through consultation on national infrastructure projects when they are in their area. Indeed, I asked the Prime Minister a question on the topic at PMQs. I was not convinced by his answer.

How can the Government, on the one hand, say that we will keep local people at the heart of those decisions and allow local people to have a say on them, while on the other, in this part of the Bill, remove parliamentary scrutiny? That will fill the British people with dread, that they will not have such a say in some of those infrastructure projects in their area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I thank the hon. Members who have spoken. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for reminding me of the discussion about Hinkley, which is 13 miles from my home and is where a lot of my constituents work. In the evidence sessions, much was made of the fish disco. If memory serves, it is an AFD—not a political party in Germany, but an acoustic fish deterrent—which would cost a fair amount, but would stop about 3 million fish being killed every year in the 7-metre diameter cooling tunnels that suck seawater into Hinkley. Many of my constituents are concerned about species loss, habitat loss and the effect on the natural environment.

[David Simmonds]

Sucking fish into a nuclear reactor—what could possibly go wrong? That seems a good example of how, when the details of a project are analysed, there is a requirement for such measures. However, we have also looked at the issue of battery storage in connection with improving grid capacity, and the point has been made that ongoing appraisals of the nature of battery storage ensure that local authorities granting planning consent have fulfilled all their relevant environmental and health and safety duties when doing so.

It seems to me that, if a parliamentary Select Committee had looked at and taken into consideration such projects, it would be valuable for the Secretary of State to be required to respond, rather than being able to set that aside and having to seek to unpick the whole decision later as a result of judicial reviews brought because of the failure of a local authority to carry out its statutory obligations.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman raises another example of a failing that could have been addressed by parliamentary scrutiny.

Hon. Members may be wondering why I am referring to the acoustic fish deterrent, but the fact is that such concerns do matter to people, and people do care about species loss and habitat loss. A simple change in Government policy—for example, a ministerial speech changing Government guidance—could provide a pretext or a basis for a change to a national policy statement without any parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, if the NPS changed, EDF would be allowed to get rid of its acoustic fish deterrent, and there would be no further scrutiny on that basis, but that is not a good way to make policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to be able to get back to the clause. Clause 2(3)(d) of the Bill is clear that any published Government policy can be the basis for a change through this expedited route, which does not involve parliamentary scrutiny. As I explained earlier, court cases have held that a speech can be admitted as Government policy. There is another danger with this approach. It may be said that there will be only occasional changes. Were the clause restricted to where there have been legal judgments or thorough parliamentary debate, those of us on this side of the Committee would be more relaxed about the changes, but it is not; it covers all published Government policy.

One of the other dangers, besides quick changes in Government policy that would help particular projects, is a potential cumulative danger. There could be numerous changes to national policy statements through this minor amendments route, and anyone who thinks that that is unrealistic needs only to look at the cavernous website of the national planning practice guidance, which is voluminous, ever expanding and always changing. One of my concerns is that this process, through gradual attrition and minor changes, will degrade the importance of a national policy statement as a single statement that has been voted on in Parliament, rather than a mass of amendments over many years, on an ever expanding website of guidance.

If the Minister suggests that there is a very high test, clause 2(3)(d) says that the only test is that it is “published Government policy”. That is not a very high test for what can go through this expedited process.

[David Simmonds]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is another risk? Ministers may set out that, in order for a particular project to be expedited, it needs to meet a series of tests. I think again of airport expansion; numerous Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box that a whole set of different tests on air quality and finance would need to be met before it could be approved. If we effectively set aside elements of parliamentary feedback, then Ministers, having announced that such tests would need to be met, could, in effect, retrospectively set aside that requirement in order to enable major infrastructure projects to go ahead, without having satisfied the kind of environmental and community concerns that the hon. Gentleman describes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Planning Act 2008 provides a uniform approach to consenting, covering a wide range of sectors and types of development. However, this may not always be proportionate for specific developments. Clause 3 provides a new power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to disapply the requirement for development consent for specified developments that would otherwise fall under the NSIP regime. The clause contains several conditions governing when a direction may or may not be given by the Secretary of State, such as when a request for direction is needed, who may submit such a request, and what such a request may contain.

The Secretary of State may give a direction only if they consider it appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply to a specific development. This would mean that a development consent order is no longer required and that the development in question could instead be considered by an alternative appropriate consenting authority, bringing greater flexibility to the system of planning consent by ensuring that the appropriate regime is used, based on the specific circumstances at hand rather than on strict statutory definitions and thresholds. This will help to reduce burdens on applicants that may otherwise be disproportionate, and to develop a more streamlined and responsive decision-making process.

Let me make it clear to hon. Members what the current arrangements provide for. Section 35 of the Planning Act allows the Secretary of State to bring into the NSIP regime specified developments that do not come within the statutory meaning of a nationally significant infrastructure project. Clause 3 will provide similar flexibility but in the other direction, enabling more proportionate and efficient consenting processes. I can provide several examples of where such flexibility may be beneficial. A railway development may be within the scope of the Planning Act, but its impacts and benefits may be more local, and it may not require the compulsory acquisition of land. It might be more appropriate for such cases to be considered under the Transport and Works Act 1992 regime.

Similarly, other large developments often include multiple elements that need to be considered under different consenting regimes, leading to disproportionate work and costs in preparing multiple applications. For example, an access road that is secondary to the main development may require consent under the NSIP regime, while other elements of the development, such as housing, may fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime. Clause 3 will allow for a direction to be provided by the Secretary of State to enable the applicant to include the access road in the planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act route.

There have also been cases where it has been argued that a development close to exiting statutory thresholds could be more appropriately considered through other, more proportionate regimes. We have all heard the examples—I have heard them in many debates secured by hon. Members—and they were highlighted again in our planning reform working paper. There are many examples of solar developments that have been deliberately kept just below the Planning Act threshold of 50 MW to avoid coming within the NSIP regime. We committed to increasing the statutory threshold for solar developments to 100 MW in December 2024, but as the technology continues to improve, similar issues may occur in the future, and other examples could emerge in other fields.

The current arrangement has resulted in the clustering of developments just below the NSIP threshold and less energy being generated overall, undermining our work to strengthen this country’s energy security. The clause provides far more flexibility at local level so that, even under the new arrangements, an applicant who wants to bring forward a 120 MW solar application need not be deterred by the nature of the present NSIP system being slow and uncertain, which we are taking steps to address. They will be able to divide their application into, say, four different applications within the TCPA regime if they have a constructive and pro-development council that they feel they can work with. That would be a faster route to getting a decision on their application, as the clause allows them to apply to the Secretary of State to make a redirection into an alternative consenting regime.

[David Simmonds]

How does the Minister propose that this measure will address boundary issues? It is not uncommon for a significant construction project to be located in one local authority while the access road, as he described, is in another local authority. Particularly where a section 106 benefit is derived from a development that is taking place, the consenting authority will undertake those negotiations, so clearly it will be necessary to have taken that into account. Can he indicate how such an approach will be built in, so that everyone has an assurance that that will be fully dealt with?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It will be for the Secretary of State to consider applicants’ requests when they are made. They will issue their policy on redirection decisions, and issue guidance for clarity about precisely how the process will operate in certain circumstances. The access road example that I gave the hon. Gentleman is a good one. In that type of scenario, there is a very strong case for an access road application not to go through the full NSIP regime, particularly if the applicant in question is dealing with a local authority that is well skilled and well resourced, and that they feel is able to better deal with the application in a more timely fashion. They can apply to the Secretary of State to make such a redirection, but we will issue guidance on specifically how the power could be used.

[David Simmonds]

May I press the Minister a little further on that? I am thinking of the Southall gasworks site, a very large housing development on a former gasworks site in London. The only possible access route to facilitate the development involved constructing a bridge from the London borough of Hillingdon, where none of that development took place, into the borough of Ealing.

Clearly, one of the issues there is that the large scale of housing being delivered is of benefit to Ealing, since it goes against its housing target. The section 106 yield also goes to Ealing as it is the consenting planning authority. However, the loss is that an access road has to be driven through a nature reserve and leisure facility in the neighbouring local authority.

I am just keen to understand how the clause will be used. When the decisions sit with two separate local authorities in normal due process, one of which has a lot more at stake and the other a lot more to lose, how will the Secretary of State be able to balance them so that local residents—constituents—can be assured that their concerns are taken into account?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I want to be very clear about the circumstances in which this measure can be used. As he will appreciate, I will not comment on a specific application, for reasons he will well understand, but, in such a scenario, I struggle to see how that application could feasibly come within the NSIP regime process at all. It sounds like a straight-down-the-line application that would be made by the applicant, across two local authorities, through the Town and Country Planning Act regime.

What the clause seeks to do is ensure that, in cases where, due to the nature of the development, the only route to go down is the NSIP regime via a development consent order, an applicant can apply to have that application determined in a different consenting order if it will lead to a faster, more proportionate and more effective decision-making process. As I say, it will therefore be for the Secretary of State to consider the unique circumstances and impacts of any specific development so that the consenting of certain developments can be undertaken by whatever body the applicant appealing to the Secretary of State says is the more appropriate route. In most instances, I would assume that that would be the local planning authority, but I gave the example of the Transport and Works Acts regime for roads.

We are trying to get at the type of examples where developments need limited consents or may not need compulsory acquisition—in a sense, when the one-stop-shop nature of the NSIP regime may not be the most proportionate means to take that through. The redirection under the clause will not be appropriate for all developments, and, for a direction to be given, the Secretary of State must consider that it is appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply rather than the Planning Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am slightly taken aback by the supportive comment from the hon. Gentleman, but I very much welcome it.

Before I make my main point, it may be helpful if I give hon. Members another example of the types of alternative consenting routes that may be considered more appropriate. We spoke about the Town and Country Planning Act and the Transport and Works Act regimes. Offshore generating stations are another good example. If they are wholly offshore, responsibility for electricity consent functions under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 may be more appropriately transferred to the Marine Management Organisation under section 12 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—again, rather than the NSIP regime. We will provide further detail, through guidance, about all the regimes that it will be considered appropriate to use in relation to this power.

I gave hon. Members assurances on the fact that we will work across Government to prepare and publish policy that will provide clarity about the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project. As I said, we will also issue guidance that makes the process clear. However, I am more than happy, in response to the shadow Minister’s point, to write to the Committee to set out in more detail how we think this process will work. That will include responding to his specific point on proposed new section 35D—

[David Simmonds]

It would be helpful if, when the Minister produces that response, he could also set out for the Committee how the processes in place will ensure consistency of decision making. As he described, some local authorities may be more pro in a particular area, or less so. There is a need to ensure transparency that a given nature of development and a given scale will be dealt with in a consistent manner.

Can the Minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to any time constraints? I am just mindful of the fact that one issue that certainly occurs in local authorities and potentially in central Government is that if the end of a Parliament, a general election, is coming up, there is a risk of developers thinking, “At this point, I’m more likely to get the Minister to sign things off if I go down this route or that route,” regardless of the merits, on a planning basis, of the individual projects that are being put forward. Can we be assured that that will be properly addressed so that we do not see development being constrained by an imminent election or, indeed, advanced without due process because of an imminent election?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that entirely reasonable question. It would certainly be our intention, in preparing and publishing policy, to provide clarity. As I said on the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project, we would hope that guidance absolutely provides certainty and clarity. It will not help the Government’s objectives through the Bill if applicants and investors are not clear about how this process works.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, about clarification of the timelines for how the process could be used, I recognise the concern, but I again remind him that it will be for the Secretary of State to make a decision only on whether an alternative consenting regime can be used. It will be through the normal processes of whatever consenting regime is used, if such a redirection is allowed, that a decision will be made on the material considerations at play in any given application; it will not be for the Secretary of State to decide. This is merely a power to allow, as I said, an applicant to redirect an application into an alternative consenting regime from the NSIP planning process through the Planning Act 2008. On that basis—

[David Simmonds]

May I press the Minister a little more on that point? I understand and thank him for the clarity that he has brought. As he set out, one purpose of the change is to ensure greater certainty for investors and applicants about the process. We are all very aware that planning issues can often become quite significant local political issues as well.

How will the regime avoid a situation where, with an election in the not-too-distant future, there is a political trade-off that involves a Government, a Minister or a candidate saying, “If we win the election, we are going to push it down this route” in order to try to produce outcome A, versus “We think we should push it down an alternative route” in order to produce a different outcome through the planning process? How can we make sure that it is sufficiently insulated from that political turmoil to ensure certainty?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the Committee that we need to get through quite a lot of stuff. The Minister has already said that he will write to the Committee, so I urge Members to press on. I know that these are very important matters, but the Minister has already said that he is going to write.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

I am so glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because that was precisely the point I was going to make and he has made it incredibly well. If we are serious about building homes across the country and about seeing the growth that investment in infrastructure, not least in transport infrastructure, will deliver, we absolutely have to give industry certainty. We have to be able to say to the public, “This will happen with speed.” The amendment seeks to deliver that and it is absolutely in line with the aspiration to speed up the planning process in this country, which at the moment is holding back investment, and to unlock land for development and infrastructure investment.

[David Simmonds]

I have a lot of sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and for North Herefordshire. I appreciate that the clause was tabled quite late, and the evidence that we heard last week was mixed. The National Infrastructure Commission gave us its views on the impact of pre-application consultation, and local authority representatives who are responsible for that section of the planning system’s decision making said that they have quite significant concerns.

The Opposition have sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve, but it seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined, we need to look at alternatives. It may be that a regime of deemed consent is a mechanism we could use to speed up elements of the process, or perhaps altering how we set out the requirements of pre-app consultation.

I know that you have extensive experience in local government, Mrs Hobhouse, and you will be aware that, as a matter of law, Parliament has set numerous obligations on local authorities in respect of the quasi-judicial process that they follow in planning, and numerous other obligations in respect of what they do for their communities. The pre-application process is a means drawing out, before a major application is made, how the impacts may play out.

I can draw a good recent example from personal experience. The Chancellor, at the Dispatch Box, said that Heathrow expansion, and airport expansion more generally, would be enabled because sustainable aviation fuel would reduce emissions. It is true that sustainable aviation fuel mandates reduce the overall lifetime emissions from a given quantity of aviation fuel, but they do not reduce the level of pollution at the tailpipe of the aircraft at all. So when we look at Heathrow airport, it does not matter whether the fuel burned there is sustainable aviation fuel or conventional aviation fuel; emissions within the locality, which are what give rise to the legal obligations on the local authority regarding air quality, remain the same. It is not a solution. When a developer proposes to create a solar farm, a battery storage area or a nuclear power station—or any kind of major infrastructure—the pre-application process gives the local authority an opportunity to begin to understand which of its legal obligations may be engaged by the application.

I am conscious of the experience that the hon. Member for Barking described, illustrating the need to streamline the process as much as possible, but clearly, as several hon. Members have said, the major risk of that is that a developer comes along and sets out an ambition for a development, and residents are consulted and their response is, “In general—in principle—that sounds okay, but what will the impact on us be? Do we understand that from what the developer is putting forward?”

[Luke Murphy]

It is useful to reflect on what Cavendish Consulting said in responding to these proposals:

“Removing a lot of the tick box requirements of a statutory consultation opens up an opportunity to be a lot more strategic and insight led in the pre-application communications, moving away from the security of ‘this is how we’ve done it before to get accepted’ to ‘what does this project and this community need’.”

The changes being proposed could be much more beneficial in removing the tick-box exercise and focusing on what communities need.

[David Simmonds]

I understand the point the hon. Member makes, but part of me thinks, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” For a business whose profits come from expediting the grant of planning consent as much as possible, removing potential obstacles to that is important.

However, as has been outlined in many of the examples that we have debated, there can be crucial points of detail that either would make all the difference to the level of consent and support in the local community for a project, or would engage other legal obligations that Parliament has placed on the local authorities, either to carry out an impact assessment—an evaluation of what that will mean—or, in some cases, to engage with that process to oppose the development taking place, because it contradicts other legal obligations placed on the authority by Parliament in respect of environment, health or whatever it may be. Clearly, we need to ensure that there is a functional process.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does my hon. Friend agree that removing the pre-planning application consultation entirely places too much trust in developers? Sometimes developers build absolute rubbish. I do not want them to spend too much money on something that does not have some sort of community support, or support from Government agencies. The Bill could jeopardise that, if we remove the consultation completely.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend puts it probably more bluntly than I have, but he is absolutely spot on. I know he has an enormous amount of experience in local government negotiating around exactly these kinds of points.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I want to tease out a point here, because one of the reasons the Government are confident that the change will lead to beneficial outcomes is that high-quality engagement and consultation routinely takes place in other planning regimes that do not have statutory pre-application requirements. Why do Opposition Members think that their removal, which will equalise all planning consent regimes so that statutory pre-application requirements are not at play, is damaging in this instance? In the TCPA and the types of residential application they are talking about, bad engagement happens, but high-quality consultation and engagement happen too, and residents and other stakeholders get their say post-submission.

[David Simmonds]

I think that most of us who have been on a planning committee, as the Minister has, probably recognise that, if anything, to satisfy the concerns of our constituents we should be going further with the consultation on small applications, rather than reducing it in larger ways. We are debating developments that will have an enormous community impact, and there are often important points of detail that influence the level of consent.

We have had multiple debates in this and the previous Parliament about the loss of high-quality agricultural land to solar farms, for example. It is quite likely that a community, if it fully understands exactly how a developer will mitigate that impact, will come around to supporting such a development; but if the community is simply faced with, “Here is the planning application. We have made it already. Take it or leave it,” there is a risk from not allowing the opportunity for the level of consent to be built up. That will in turn encourage, and in the case of local authorities’ statutory obligations, force, the exploration of other legal routes of objection to prevent the application proceeding.

While I understand what the Minister is saying, like the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, we will use the opportunity given by the provisions being tabled relatively late in the day to explore alternative methods by which concerns can be addressed. It seems to us fundamental that if a major application is made, those who are affected by it should have the opportunity in advance to learn what it means for them, their community and their home, and should not simply be told that the planning application has been made.

There is a world of difference between a planning application that means, “Your house is going to be demolished in order for something to proceed,” and a planning application that indicates a much less significant impact. It is those kinds of issues that need to be teased out; that is what the pre-application discussions and consultations are there for. We encourage the Government to think about a different, more nuanced way to address fully the concerns that have been expressed cross-party, although in slightly different ways.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be making a very long speech. I will briefly comment on some of the clauses before the Committee, and elaborate on some of the genuine points that Members on both sides of the Committee have made. I am grateful that the Minister tabled these new clauses, albeit quite late in the day, to give us some clarity, but they actually do not give any clarity on the proposals for the removal of the consultation, particularly new clauses 44 and 45.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and others, I too have chaired a planning committee. I genuinely believe that pre-applications can be very useful. If a community or organisations in a geographic locality have genuine concerns, the pre-application stage can make the passage of planning applications and planning permissions smoother by unblocking some of those concerns, and deliver a better planning application or infrastructure project. A number of colleagues, including the Minister and the hon. Member for Basingstoke, said that this and the length of time the stage takes is a block. I agree with them, but does not mean that it needs to be removed entirely. It means that we should work to ensure that the pre-application stage is better and more efficient.

I am concerned that, if we go down this road and remove pre-application requirements, we will have worse applications and store up longer term blockages when genuine concerns are not met. The Minister outlined the money and time saved, but we will see both start to creep up again or other issues arise. The hon. Member for Basingstoke gave examples of problems. I understand he is an expert in his field but I say to him strongly that solutions can be found. The solution is not necessarily to eradicate completely a provision that is designed to mitigate overwhelming grassroot concerns.

I apologise to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for thinking she was a Liberal Democrat Member. She is a Green, which is absolutely fine—I would never wish being a Liberal Democrat on anyone. [Laughter.] No offence to the Liberal Democrats, but it is rare for me to agree with either party. I am grateful for her speech, as she is clearly an expert. It was genuine and heartfelt, and came at the problem with an attitude shared by me and my colleagues.

As I said to the hon. Member for Basingstoke and the Minister, we all accept that the processes are too long, but we do not believe we are in a position where people want to do bad. My concern, shared by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, is that if we go down the proposed route, applicants and developers will end up having overarching power over local people who want to raise concerns. In my view we are giving developers too much power and the pendulum is swinging too far that way. The Minister’s view is that developers genuinely want to make a difference 100% of the time. There is a difference in approach, so I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for her speech.

I ask the Minister to look again at this matter and produce a guidance regime. [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that there will be guidance. We believe that that needs to be strengthened in the Bill. Completely removing the pre-application consultation stages, as the Minster outlined, is a retrograde step; it will put too much power in the hands of developers, and will silence those who are not nimbys but who genuinely want to achieve the best solutions for their local communities. These measures go too far and need to be looked at again. I shall be grateful if the Minister comes back to the Committee and the House having reconsidered them.

Ordered That the debate be now adjourned.— (Gen Kitchen.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 8 streamlines the judicial review process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The changes apply to legal challenges against decisions on development consent orders and national policy statements. At the moment, individuals wanting to bring challenges against nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as nuclear plants, railway lines, wind farms and other projects, have up to three attempts to try to obtain permission from the courts. As noted by Lord Banner’s independent review last year into the delays caused by these legal challenges, each attempt extends the duration of a claim by several weeks, and in some cases, by several months.

The clause will remove the paper permission stage, meaning that applications for judicial review will go straight to an oral hearing in the High Court. The clause will also remove the right to appeal for cases that are deemed totally without merit at the oral hearing, which becomes the only attempt for these cases. The Government are committed to maintaining access to justice, which is why the right of appeal will remain for cases that are refused permission at the oral hearing, but that are not deemed totally without merit. The changes are a necessary means of preventing meritless claims from holding up development by exhausting the appeals process and of ensuring that legitimate legal challenges are heard promptly. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. We touched on the issue of remedy earlier today. A local authority, for example, may have a statutory obligation placed on it by a piece of legislation, which means that it has an obligation to take an interest in a particular development, including potentially judicially reviewing that application, if the impact runs contrary to its other statutory obligations.

We are well aware of issues relating to air quality, but there are also organisations such as ClientEarth, which many of us will have heard of. Essentially, their stock in trade is to look for opportunities to address broader issues around, for example, climate change and environmental impact by using what, in some cases, are arguably loopholes, but in many cases, are essentially contradictions in legislation.

The Minister talked earlier about a shift from having statutory pre-application processes to having guidance that would need to be followed. Clearly, one of the issues is that guidance can be challenged, and bodies that have a responsibility to follow the guidance can be challenged as to whether they have fulfilled their obligation to the letter.

Opposition Members certainly have concerns about the implications of removing the right to judicial review. We share the view that we need to ensure that those processes—those applications—are not frivolous and that they are not being used simply because the cost of responding to judicial review, and the delay that is involved, is a tool to create delay, impose costs and therefore deter development, which we all agree should take place. Conversely, however, we do not wish to see a situation where a public body or a local resident—a constituent—who has a genuine right to be heard and a genuine concern arising out of law is constrained from bringing the matter forward and seeking a remedy.

We also do not want a situation where, for example, a decision by Government, which is then taken through this process and restricted from judicial review, results in a third party, such as a local authority or NHS body, being judicially reviewed for its failure to stop that from proceeding—for its failure to bring a judicial review under other responsibilities that it has. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that.

Statutory consultees already have many legal obligations and duties relating to issues such as water quality, air quality and nature. They are obliged to go to the utmost of their powers to fulfil those obligations. Clearly, they may well be held in default if a development proceeds by virtue of the fact that they have not had the opportunity to appropriately challenge it in law. It would be helpful if the Minister set out how that will be fully addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

If amended, clause 12 will follow the procedure in clause 11 by obligating the Secretary of State or Ofgem to consult a list of specified persons, such as the person to whom the direction is given, and any other appropriate individuals. If amended, the clause will also be time-limited to three years after commencement of the power on Royal Assent. The clause obligates the NESO and the distribution network operators to comply with the direction given and, if amended, will modify the Electricity Act 1989 to allow for the enforcement of compliance with any direction given. I commend Government amendments 41 to 47 and clause 12 to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

I have a couple of questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has set out, we are broadly supportive of the direction of travel around energy in the Bill.

One of the things we are all conscious of with the move to renewables being the main source of power in the grid—something that the UK has achieved faster than most other countries, with a bigger drop compared with the 1990 baseline than any other developed economy —is that it makes the grid more complex. Unlike oil, gas and nuclear, which can be delivered in an entirely predictable manner, renewables are generally much less predictable. There are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and we cannot therefore put that element into the grid. We need to find alternative methods so we need to be able to shift greater amounts of power around to meet the growing energy needs.

As the Minister has outlined, the regime that is envisaged will, for a limited period of time, give greater powers to the Government to determine who gets connected and in which order. First, will the Minister set out how he and the Government intend to feed back to Parliament what we learn from that process, to inform the future shape of our energy grid?

Secondly, what recourse will there be for those at a certain point in the queue who anticipate that their development, whatever it may be, will be served by a particular project and connected at a particular point, if the Government decide otherwise because the reordering of the queue is, in the Minister’s view, necessary? We all understand why that may happen, but if someone is about to invest in a major new carbon capture and storage facility—the sort of major infrastructure project that the Bill is designed to support—and they expect it to be powered by a wind farm but are then told they have been moved much further down the queue than they expected, that will affect the delivery of that project. It would be helpful to understand the process whereby those affected by the reordering of the queue are able to challenge the decision, if necessary, and certainly to engage with the Government, or with constituency MPs, who may seek to advocate for them, so that the reordering can be revisited if necessary.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those helpful questions. He rightly set out the fact that the grid is already considerably more complex than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and it will become more complex, which is partly why the reform of connections is so important.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the process of prioritising projects will mean that some will be deprioritised. We have looked at the projects that already have a connection date, and in many cases they will proceed. Viable generation projects above the capacity ranges outlined in the clean power action plan—the first strategic document that will be used to guide projects—might still be able to connect if there is capacity in that particular bit of the DNO after the prioritised projects have been assessed. If there is no space in the pre-2030 queue, they will be offered dates in the 2031-35 process.

We have been clear throughout that the process has not been arbitrary or theoretical. Ofgem and NESO have gone through individual applications that are currently in the process to make sure not only that they fit with the requirements of the clean power action plan but that projects are not unnecessarily disadvantaged. Some projects will go ahead even though they are not in the strategic plan, because where they already are in the grid will make it possible for them to go ahead.

The question of transparency is really important. I will come back to the Committee with details on how we might make the information public, but throughout the process Ofgem and NESO have made public as much information as possible about how they have gone about things, and there was a full public consultation as well. The point about how individual MPs can see whether projects in their constituency are affected is well made and I will take that away and reflect on it.

The critical fact, as the previous Government rightly recognised, is that 750-plus GW is simply unmanageable. Really good projects are sitting with dates long into the future but cannot connect because of what are often phantom projects that are never going to come to fruition and are holding up spaces in the queue. For all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined in terms of the importance of energy security, and the importance of prioritising the queue, we think that the Government amendments and the clause are essential.

Amendment 41 agreed to.

Amendments made: 42, in clause 12, page 16, line 17, leave out

“as mentioned in subsection (1)(c)”

and insert

“in accordance with the conditions of an electricity licence”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 41.

Amendment 43, in clause 12, page 16, line 22, after “distribution system” insert

“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.

This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which a direction may be given under clause 12 may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.

Amendment 44, in clause 12, page 16, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

“( ) A direction under subsection (2) must describe the kinds of modification to be made by the person to whom it is given.”

This amendment inserts a new subsection which would mean that a direction made by the Secretary of State or the GEMA to the ISOP or an electricity distributor to modify an agreement must describe the kinds of modification required.

Amendment 45, in clause 12, page 16, line 38, at end insert—

“(7A) Before giving a direction under subsection (2), the relevant authority must consult—

(a) the person to whom it proposes to give the direction, and

(b) such other persons as the relevant authority considers appropriate.

(7B) Subsection (7A) may be satisfied by consultation carried out before the passing of this Act (as well as by consultation carried out after that time).

(7C) A relevant authority must publish details of any direction it gives under subsection (2) as soon as reasonably practicable after the direction is given.

(7D) A relevant authority may exclude from publication under subsection (7C) any information the publication of which would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person.”

This amendment requires a relevant authority to carry out consultation before giving a direction under clause 12. It also requires a relevant authority to publish any direction it gives under the clause.

Amendment 46, in clause 12, page 16, line 41, at end insert—

“(8A) The power to give a direction under subsection (2) may not be exercised after the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”

This amendment ensures that the power to give a direction under clause 12 is time-limited in the same way as the power to make modifications to licences and other documents under clause 9.

Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 17, line 10, at end insert—

“(11) In Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 (provisions imposing obligations enforceable as relevant requirements)—

(a) in paragraph 4A (electricity system operator), after sub-paragraph (c) insert—

‘(d) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’;

(b) in paragraph 5 (distribution licence holders), after sub-paragraph (g) insert—

‘(h) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’”—(Michael Shanks.)

This amendment amends Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 in order to provide for enforcement of the duty to comply with a direction given under clause 12.

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Managing connections to the network: strategic plans etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

As I think I have just outlined, that amendment did not just call for the money to make the system more efficient; it called for it to be spent in communities on community benefits. That is quite different. My argument to the shadow Minister in resisting that amendment was that we did not want to tie the hands of the Scottish Government, because we see that investing that money in making the planning system more efficient is probably the best use for it, but it is not for me to tell them that. This clause is about giving them the power to set and charge fees to electricity network operators. I suggest that the point he is making is a slightly different one, but if I have misunderstood him, perhaps he can explain.

[David Simmonds]

A general point arises here, which we also debated on the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee. The different systems in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—most of the legislation we are dealing with here is for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—give rise to a risk of inconsistency. The shadow Minister spoke of the importance of community benefit. That is designed to secure community support. If there is a view that Ministers in Scotland might choose to spend such revenue on other things to the detriment of community benefit, that may also undermine consent.

I completely agree with what the Minister is saying about creating the necessary power, but will he commit to further discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government so that we can ensure—not just in this Bill, but in future legislation—that where we expect a community benefit to derive from something that we decide on, it will be a consistent benefit across the UK?

[Michael Shanks]

In general, I agree and disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. I understand the point he is making about consistency, but I take the view that the whole purpose of having different devolved Administrations in England, Wales and Scotland is to make different decisions. Northern Ireland is separate in the energy discussion, because it has a separate grid.

I am not sure that I would say that consistency at all costs is the right approach. We created the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly so that they could make decisions locally that affected them in a different way. We have worked with the Scottish Government on these changes to make sure that there is a package of reforms to the consent arrangements under the Energy Act that relates to the planning system in Scotland as it currently is. It is not the same starting point as the system in England and Wales, so it is important to look at them separately. Nevertheless, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

I return to clause 17. Fees are already charged in England and Wales for processing wayleave applications. I reiterate—this comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne—that the Scottish Government do not have the power in legislation to raise those fees. That power is reserved. The clause will give them that power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I am not trying to be difficult with the Minister at all—I know it seems that I am, but I am not. He said that he has not had those conversations but he now will, and that is welcome. This clause is procedural and process-driven, but within the grand scheme of the Bill it is stated clearly in black and white that the UK Government have an objective for the extra income to be generated, yet the Minister has not had that conversation with Scottish Ministers. I do not blame him for that, but he will now have those conversations going forward.

I hope that when it comes to other clauses, UK Government documents will be very clear about the aims, ambitions and outcomes of what they will do because what we have seen this afternoon has been questionable. The UK Government are setting an objective, with no way to actually achieve it.

[David Simmonds]

This is a small “p” political point rather than a party political point, but it undermines confidence in devolution when we hear that a devolved body—a local authority, regional government or whatever it may be—has been given a power and has not used it, or central Government have said, “We have allocated additional funds for potholes,” but the council has spent it on social care, as we have seen recently. It undermines the confidence in those central messages that what is promised will be delivered.

I urge the Minister, on behalf of my hon. Friend, to please come back to the Committee with that assurance. For those listening to this debate who expect that the funds raised will be spent on the purpose that the Minister has told the Committee they are intended for, that assurance needs to be there.

[Paul Holmes]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. I understand that I may not be the Minister’s favourite person, but I am trying to help him—I actually think what he is proposing is very good. We support any measure that allows an income stream to be spent on local people and within devolved Administrations to make processes quicker and more efficient. The other Minister on the Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, knows that that is my stance historically. I support the Government reforming planning fees, for example, and ringfencing them to enable processes to be delivered more quickly, but I say again to the Minister that I hope he does what he has committed to in his interventions during the debate on this clause.

We will not push this to a vote because, as I have outlined in a very long-winded and convoluted way, we support the clause, but I hope the Minister will take a firmer line in speaking to Scottish Ministers. Before he says this again, I am not asking him to direct those Ministers; he seems to have a preoccupation with me claiming that I want him to instruct Scottish Ministers to do certain things. I am asking him, within his role and remit as a UK Government Minister legislating to give those Ministers extra powers, to use the art of politics and diplomacy to make sure that the outcomes he wants, as per the explanatory notes of his Bill, are delivered for the people affected by his changes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

We broadly support the content of clause 20, but I have one question for the Minister. I am mindful of his comments about the process of EU retained law, and it is absolutely right that we are looking to update that. However, a lot of the new powers set out for Scottish Ministers are the kind of thing that, in England, we would expect to be the subject of a pre-application consultation. One might ask the promoter of a project to come in and discuss those exact things with the local authority, the strategic planning authority if there is one, or the mayoral authority or the combined authority, so that the application process can be streamlined as much as possible.

Earlier on, we said that we would amend legislation through the Bill to remove that process in England. Given the intention to effectively introduce a top-quality process for applications to be considered in Scotland, does the Minister agree that there is an element of contradiction in that, in the same piece of legislation, we are seeking to remove many of the equivalent processes in England?

[Michael Shanks]

I understand the argument, but it appears as a contradiction only if we assume that both planning systems are the same, which they are not. And they are not slightly different—they are fundamentally different. The processes are different. The timescales are different. The opportunities for public consultation are different throughout, so we are starting from a different starting point. Although I understand the hon. Member’s point, I do not think that the two are comparable.

This particular clause is even more narrow than the hon. Member recognised. It is simply about the assimilated regulations. I have been in a number of Delegated Legislation Committees where we have discussed some of the unintended consequences, as we obviously assimilated thousands of different pieces of legislation into UK law. As I say, the result was that neither the UK nor the Scottish Government currently have the power to amend these regulations, which is a ludicrous position for us to be in. This clause is narrow in scope, and I do not think it has quite the reach that the hon. Member is suggesting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

The purpose of clause 37 is to remove the need for Transport and Works Act order applicants to apply to multiple consenting authorities for separate authorisation requirements under relevant heritage regimes in England and Wales, such as listed buildings and scheduled monument consents. Instead, the clause provides for the consolidation of the application process for certain heritage authorisations, so that they can be obtained through the Transport and Works Act itself. I must make clear that it is for applicants to determine whether they want to proceed on the basis of existing arrangements, namely consulting multiple consenting authorities, or whether they want to obtain those consents through the Transport and Works Act itself, in which instance the Secretary of State for Transport would need to confirm that that could be undertaken via that route. The consents would be obtained as part of the TWA order process and the decision-making process that pertains to it.

In making this change, as with other changes that we have made in this part of the Bill, we would bring the Transport and Works Act order process in line with the Planning Act 2008, which provides a one-stop shop development consent order process for major infrastructure. To ensure proper oversight is maintained throughout the amended process, applicants will still need to consult the relevant consenting authorities before applying. I commend this clause to the Committee.

Schedule 2 amends the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as a result of the changes made by clause 37 of the Bill. As I have just set out, clause 37 enables an order under the Transport and Works Act to obtain certain consents through the Act itself, rather than requiring separate applications to each relevant consenting authority. Schedule 2 disapplies offences that would otherwise arise from proceeding without those consents or authorisations. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the schedule to the Committee.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition broadly understand the direction of travel that the Minister has set out and the principles underlying it are clearly quite sensible.

Will the Minister give us a degree of assurance, particularly about the process for determining the circumstances in which the authorities that are listed and the circumstances that are listed may be set aside? That is significant because significant infrastructure developments are often close to heritage railway buildings and historic sites where there will be a legitimate expectation from both local authorities and residents that a proper consultation will be undertaken.

We know that, in the past, the effect of that regime has been that in many cases developers, in places such as Royal Quay in my own constituency in Harefield, have chosen to put historic buildings back into use for a new purpose. For example, formerly industrial buildings connected with Victorian transport networks could be used for residential development, rather than simply demolishing and clearing the sites and losing that heritage asset in the process.

It would be helpful to understand how we will ensure, through the regime as set out, that those considerations are fully taken into account. I appreciate that we will debate the green belt later on, but there is significant interaction in the Bill between the different types of regime that apply, and we have already had much debate about the green belt and the grey belt.

I am aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government yesterday issued a decision with respect to a site just north of London, and the effect of her determination is that any land on a transport corridor located between, for example, a motorway and a village, even if it is currently in the green belt, will be considered to be grey belt for the purposes of developability. That will clearly have a significant impact in similar situations in locations with a significant heritage element that are close to railways, motorways and other such transport networks that would potentially, from a developer point of view, benefit from swifter development without a consultation being undertaken. However, from the perspective of local residents and the wider community concerned about heritage and land use, they are losing the opportunity to have this.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I rise to speak either against the clause or in favour of amendment 7, which is in my name. I am not sure which, but I am sure you can advise me, Ms Jardine. We have significant concerns about the clause, and I will spend a few minutes on them as it is, perhaps, more serious than it first appears. The clause would disapply the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent and notices for works on land of archaeological importance from Transport and Works Act projects.

Our heritage has benefitted from protection under criminal law since Lord Avebury in the Liberal Government brought in the Ancient Monuments Protection Act in 1882. The Act provides that anyone who damages a monument commits an offence punishable by imprisonment

“with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month”.

That protection, and much of the wording in that Act, has survived, and the relevant wording remains in the main and principle Acts for listed buildings: the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. My suggestion is that this is not the time to remove such strong statutory protection and criminal sanction from measures to protect ancient monuments and listed buildings.

I appreciate that the Government, in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, say that the approach is similar, but not as wide as the Planning Act 2008 approach, which the Minister has mentioned, and I fully understand the single consenting regime objective. It would be narrower in some ways because, in the proposed Transport and Works Act approach, it could be possible to be more selective about which measures are disapplied. However, the Planning Act 2008 approach is very different, because regulations made under it enshrine those same legal tests that go back decades—and, in some cases, centuries—so that they remain on the statute book and applicants under that Act still must comply with them.

If our country’s heritage is worthy of protection under criminal law, as the Liberal Democrats believe that it is, the same tests should surely be applied under the Transport and Works Act as under other legislation. Those are long-standing tests. In relation to listed buildings, the wording that many in the sector will know is that we must have

“special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest”.

Those words ring down the years. For scheduled ancient monuments, the requirement was to have regard to the “desirability of preserving” the scheduled monument or its setting and, in conservation areas,

“to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”

Those are familiar words that, as I say, ring through legislation over many years. They should not be removed from the Transport and Works Act process altogether, which this clause would do. These are central principles of heritage protection that have lasted decades, if not centuries. The Government may point out that, as they say in the explanatory notes, section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 remains in place, which provides:

“An application for listed building consent shall, without any direction by the Secretary of State, be referred to the Secretary of State instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority in any case where the consent is required”.

Although that section is referred to, it does not apply here, because consent is not required. All the requirements for consent are disapplied by the clause in this Bill, so there would be no recourse to consent under that route.

Our recommendation is that the important statutory tests be repeated in the legislation for Transport and Works Act projects, just as they are for all other projects, including in regulations made under the Planning Act 2008.

Many heritage organisations share our concerns. The National Trust says:

“We have serious concerns regarding the scope of Clause 37 of the Bill which seeks to disapply existing heritage regimes. This clause enables Transport and Works Act 1992 orders to disapply authorisation”

for listed buildings, and so on. It continues,

“we have strong concerns about the possible disapplication of heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is a risk that this could enable harm to heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than the stated ambition of the Bill.”

The Heritage Alliance has stated:

“Until greater clarity and detail is forthcoming from government, we continue to have significant concerns regarding its potential to cause…unintended harm to heritage assets.”

Even the Government’s own agency, Historic England has said:

“Whilst the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State on whether to disapply the legislative provisions relating to heritage, as drafted there is a lack of clarity as to how and when this discretion would be applied. This risks resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency, which would undermine the policy intention…In addition, the disapplication of the legislative provisions for heritage does not provide any equivalent safeguards for the protection of heritage in relation to the authorisation and enforcement provisions for listed buildings and scheduled monuments, as exists at present”

in legislation. It goes on:

“The clause, as currently proposed, would therefore result in a weakening of heritage protection.”

It concludes that

“the current wording of Clause 37 may not actually deliver the policy intention of streamlining planning decisions, whilst having the unintended consequence of reducing heritage protection.”

In short, we are very concerned about the removal of such long-standing legal protections for our heritage. In our view, they must be put back on the statute book in one way or another.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley wants to raise some points, but I want to ask a couple of slightly technical questions.

The first relates to clause 44(6), on directions in relation to planning fees. The publication of a schedule of planning fees is part of the statutory council tax-fixing process, which every local authority is required to undertake. As we hear from our residents, that generally takes place in February and comes into effect at the start of the following financial year. If a local authority publishes its proposals, as the Minister described in respect of cost recovery, it needs to be confident that any change—in the form of a direction from the Secretary of State—will come in a timely manner that enables further consultation so that the lawful council tax fixing can occur. What provisions will be in place to ensure that any objection from the Secretary of State will come in a timely manner?

My second slightly technical question is this. My experience of planning authorities is that there is huge variation in their cost bases. That partly reflects a shortage of staff, but it also reflects different local arrangements. An authority with large numbers of householder applications may use an outsourced service to process them at a relatively low cost. However, if senior, experienced, in-house planning officers are responsible for managing all planning applications, that will significantly increase the cost. Neither of those things is illegitimate; each is a manifestation of the democratic decision making of elected politicians about what is appropriate for their community.

It would be helpful to understand what process the Secretary of State will go through in determining what a reasonable level of planning fees is. For example, will she consider the requirement for specialist input at a technical level because there is a significant amount of radon gas, which is found in certain challenging sites because of their topographical nature? Whether there is a requirement for remediation and specialist consultancy will be critical to a proper assessment of that planning application. Other local authorities may have development opportunities of a different nature. Will the Minister set out his thinking on that? That would be enormously helpful.

[Rachel Taylor]

When the Committee met the witnesses a week or so ago, we touched on section 106 agreements and the role of planning authority lawyers in that process. I think that the fees for processing and determining applications include the process for agreeing a section 106 agreement. Is it the Government’s intention to include costs arising from the legal department’s time and efforts in determining those applications in the ringfenced planning application fees? I am aware that there is a severe shortage of qualified and experienced property lawyers in both local authorities in my constituency, as well as a shortage of planning officers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is an interesting point. That would be a fairly extreme measure for a local authority to undertake but, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, it could drain its planning department budget, foreseeing that it would be able to set a fee at an appropriate rate to make up for that, and therefore in a sense evading the clear stipulation that we have here to ringfence planning fee charges to the provision of planning services. I will say a couple of things on that basis.

As I said, local planning authorities will have to consult publicly and test their fee level. As part of that, they will have to consider the benchmarking exercise that we will undertake for the default national rate—so we will have a sense of what different local authorities are charging. However, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall go away to reflect more fully on how—as I hope is clear we have been thinking today—local authorities without the best intentions might seek to game the system.

[David Simmonds]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

The final point I will make before giving way is that, were a local authority to seek to evade that ringfencing provision by reducing the amount of resource going into its planning department—a not particularly sensible route to take—and then, potentially, it were not able or allowed to charge a fair and proportionate fee set in that regard, it would come under the usual planning performance dashboard, where the Department can look at the local authority for not providing a timely service or performing appropriately. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a set of intervention powers would be available to national Government, were that the case.

It is far more likely, however, as we have heard from local authorities, that they would use the power to set local fees that reflect the cost of services, using it to bring more resource in and—generally, this is what they want to do—to start processing applications in a more timely manner than they can now.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister’s response has been excellent. Clearly, there will be a number of different arrangements at a local level. That should encourage us, as a Committee considering the legislation, to reflect a little further.

In the example that the Minister talked about—the behaviour of local authorities—it may not be about those who have ill intentions. Some local authorities may have a planning and building control department—although the two regimes are separate, there is great commonality of skills—while others may have outsourced one or both those functions, or have them in-house but entirely separate.

As part of the published council tax fixing, there is a requirement to set out a schedule of fees for building control. Some local authorities may choose to bundle that together, so when people put in a planning application, they pay for both; but others may do that separately. Some developers, including householders, may choose to purchase the building control privately, even though they could purchase it from the local authority. A lot of factors will determine what a reasonable cost base is. It would help if the Minister shared with the Committee some further thinking on how the Government might seek to establish a baseline, in particular in the light of potential challenges in the future by developers who feel that the level of cost at a particular spot is other than reasonable.

I press the Minister a little on how that interacts with two further points that he made. Government new clause 39 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to implement a surcharge as a percentage of a planning fee that has been set. From what I understand of what the Minister said in his commentary, that will principally be to fund the work of the statutory consultees. Clearly, the imposition of a surcharge will then form part of the planning fees that have to be part of the statutory consultation on the legislatively fixed timetable that the local authority has to follow. How will the Government ensure that that timetable is respected, so that they themselves are not subject to the challenge?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pressing those two points. I am more than happy to come back to the issue in more detail, but as a general point, a lot of further detail is yet to come post consultation and the regulations’ being laid. We will provide further detail then on some of the technical questions as to how the power will be implemented.

The surcharge introduced by Government new clause 39 will provide the ability to fund the statutory consultees and other bodies that provide assistance and advice in relation to the planning application process. For example, we may wish to fund training and guidance for local planning authorities so that they can better engage with statutory consultees. However, the surcharge, which, as he rightly says, comes as an additional amount on top of the fees for processing applications, is very much intended to address the particular challenges that we are facing in terms of how statutory consultees are able to engage with the process in a timely manner, so that we get that advice up front.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

May I press the Minister a little further? That is a really helpful answer in illuminating the Government’s thinking, but could he explain to the Committee how that will interact with the existing arrangements for planning performance agreements, which are very common in respect of larger-scale planning applications? Clearly, if a developer required to engage with all this wider statutory-consultee process is already entering into a voluntary agreement with the local authority to fund the process, there is a risk that that will have an impact. It risks either reducing the ability of the local authority, because that surcharge is effectively being taken by the Secretary of State, or increasing the cost base and therefore opening up the question whether the planning fees are reasonable in the first place.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say two things in response to that, and then perhaps, Ms Jardine, in the interests of making progress on the Bill, I will happily write to the Committee to set out further details of the operation of the surcharge.

First, on how the surcharge will be processed and distributed, it will, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, be paid by the person collecting the fee to the Secretary of State in a manner and at a time prescribed by regulations, which are forthcoming. Outside the regulations, the proceeds will then be earmarked for distribution to bodies that provide advice and assistance in the planning process, including by way of consultation responses.

Secondly, the question has been asked several times whether the Government have properly considered the cumulative impact of fees and charges—are we getting the fees right? We are very aware that the surcharge will increase the fees that are already out there—it is an additional levy in that sense—and that other measures in the Bill may already result in fee increases. I repeat that we are committed to consulting on the proposed rates and the type of application that this should apply to—not least to allow the development sector to fully engage with those proposals.

On that basis, I think it would help the Committee if I set out later—chapter and verse—how we think both the clause and the surcharge will operate, on a very practical basis, and how local authorities can understand the Government’s intent in bringing them forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Training for local planning authorities in England

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I am struck by the Minister’s point about the need for consistency. We will all be conscious of the level of inconsistency in delegated planning decisions, which make up around 95% of decisions on planning applications. Does he have a programme in mind to achieve the level of consistency for those decisions that this measure will bring to decisions made by democratically elected members?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If I could probe the hon. Gentleman in turn, does he mean consistency in the decisions made by expert planning officers rather than on individual planning applications?

[David Simmonds]

Actually, the answer is both. We will all know of people’s experience with local authorities: they meet a planning officer to discuss a delegated planning decision and they receive advice, but when it is submitted, it is considered by a different planning officer who takes a completely different view. Given that that is how the vast bulk of planning applications are dealt with, if the Government’s aim is to bring consistency and certainty to the process—it is a laudable aim—it will be necessary to focus on the more than 90% of decisions that are already made under delegated powers, as well as this measure, which is for that small number considered by the planning committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair and reasonable point. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him to set out the Government’s thinking on that issue. If it is available—I fully expect that it will be— I will give him some sense of the level of refusals on appeal for decisions made by committees versus decisions made by expert planning officers, which I think would be relevant. In general terms, in many instances, we think that expert planning officers have the relevant expertise to make good decisions on the basis of planning law. We are trying to ensure through this clause that elected members also have that experience in place through mandatory training.

As has been rightly said, the clause is about building on existing good practice—there is very good practice out there—and ensuring that it is implemented consistently across the country. It is worth noting that mandatory training for committees was strongly supported by the sector as a whole in the responses to the planning reform working paper where we set out ideas in this space, lots of which we are taking forward.

We will introduce regulations to specify which planning functions are covered by this measure, what the training looks like—its nature and content, and how it will be delivered—and details about the certification process. Those regulations will be subject to further engagement with the sector and I will reflect on all the points that have been made today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

I recognise a number of those points, but supply of housing is the fundamental reason why we have a housing crisis in this country. The amendments being proposed sit alongside many of the solutions that she is seeking. Without our ability as a country, including local authorities, to see housing delivered at the necessary speed, we will never see the number of affordable homes we need or a buy-to-let market being constrained in the way that it needs to be. Supply is the No. 1 reason why we are experiencing a housing crisis. We cannot deliver the number of homes we need without fundamentally looking at the planning system.

Finally, on councillors having their say, the idea that councillors run for public office only because they want to sit on a planning committee—it sounded as if a number of Members were insinuating that—is, I am afraid, a little out of touch. There are lots of ways in which local authorities and councillors can make a difference. Planning committees are indeed one of the most attractive committees, but there are multiple layers of regulatory policy in a local authority that members not only can have a say on, but get to vote on. Earlier, I referenced a local plan that full councils are required to vote on.

An officer making a decision on an application that will not go to a planning committee does not remove a local authority’s ability to put out for consultation. Members of the public, and indeed councillors, will still have the opportunity to submit their views through what will be a statutory consultation period. Local authorities and planning officers will be obliged to take those views into consideration.

I want to underline the point that if we accept that there is a housing crisis in this country and that the planning system is broken, surely planning has to be an aspect that we look at in recognition that local authorities are sometimes being hindered by the existing framework. The speed at which we can deliver housing through a more streamlined planning system, putting faith in professionals in a local authority alongside councillors, will allow us to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we so desperately need.

[David Simmonds]

I will start where the hon. Member for Barking finished. We know that the planning system has delivered consents for 1.5 million new homes in England, where the development sector has failed to step up. One of the things much debated among political parties is the fact that that seems to suggest that, although there are undoubtedly issues, the planning system has been good at producing the opportunity for those new homes—the challenge has been the inability of the development sector to step up to the plate. That should be the priority to address.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley mentioned the Mayor of London’s recent decision about going into the green belt. That is in the context of a capital city that already has 300,000 unbuilt planning permissions for new homes. The Opposition’s argument is that the priority should not be increasing the stock of unbuilt planning permissions but delivering the homes that our country needs.

[Gideon Amos]

As an illustration of the hon. Gentleman’s point about unbuilt planning permissions, in Somerset there are permissions for 11,000 new homes that have not been built, while the new NPPF requires a 41% increase in the allocation of permissions. There is no record of these pressures having led to an increase in the number of houses actually being built.

[David Simmonds]

If we look at the statistics from the ONS on new household formation and the balance between that and the delivery of new homes, we see that they are reasonably in balance at the moment. We know that many people would like a bigger home or a different type of home, and that is why we have consistently argued that we need to focus on the nature of the homes we are delivering, not just on the units being delivered through the planning system.

Members have consistently made the point about centralisation. The UK is already an exceptionally centralised country: we have fewer democratically elected politicians per head of population than most other developed democracies in the world. Our concern with these measures is that they further reduce the voice of a local resident through their democratic representative about a decision that may be the most significant thing affecting their home or their neighbourhood in their entire life.

By creating a national scheme of delegations, we go beyond a point of saying that all local authorities must ensure, in the delivery of a quasi-judicial process, that they are following the law. We begin to say that this is no longer a delegation: it is compulsory. We are taking away the democratic power of the local authority, under which it delegates those decisions to planning committees and to officers, and we are deciding in Whitehall who will make those decisions.

While I absolutely respect what the Minister is saying about expert planning officers, having served in the last Parliament as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and planning and worked very closely with the RTPI, I think we need to be realistic. In many cases, when the Minister says “expert planning officers”, we are talking about newly minted graduates who do not live in—and have no experience of—the local area. They arrive and undertake a desk-based exercise to make these decisions. They are not highly experienced people with a level of local insight who understand why particular aspects of design, materials, or the nature of a development will have a real impact on a neighbourhood.

There are specific examples; one is applications by elected members themselves. I know from my time as a councillor in Hillingdon that a standard rule to ensure transparency is that any application by an elected councillor must be heard by a committee. If someone wishes to change the windows in their home, or build a loft extension, it has to go through a planning committee, even when those things are covered by permitted development rights. That was to ensure that level of transparency. It is not clear how such issues are dealt with through this proposed scheme of delegation.

Matters of detail can be critical: ensuring the acceptance of a proposed development at a neighbourhood level may often come down to issues like overlooking or how it respects the privacy of neighbours. Does it have tree planting, to screen developments that people are unhappy to see? Will there be mitigations around noise? Those are not trivial matters; they have a huge impact on people’s quality of life. The ability of elected representatives to say, “This decision made, entirely in accordance with planning law, needs to be taken transparently in public so that these representations can be heard” is critical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

[David Simmonds]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that point. It is a point well made, and it was also made by the shadow Minister on another clause. I will go away and reflect on what more, if anything, needs to be done in that regard. It is rightly put that, just as we want to ensure consistency in decisions by elected Members, we want consistency in the decisions and recommendations made by expert planning officers at a local authority level. I will happily come back to the Committee on that.

[David Simmonds]

I gently say to the Minister, who I look up to in many ways, that it is a challenge for the Committee to rely upon, on the one hand, an argument that this is not a big deal because it would affect hardly any planning applications, and on the other hand, an argument that it is so important we have to push it through via a national scheme of delegation. The concern that Members have is considering the 4% of applications that go to committee as a major problem, when in fact, by general acceptance in today’s debate, they are not really much of an issue. We lose the important element of local democratic accountability without any corresponding benefit in planning delivery.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we do think there is a corresponding benefit, because we think the change will remove a large element of risk and uncertainty in the system and ensure some very important applications are made in a more timely way. I end by inviting the shadow Minister, at the point we publish our proposals, to come back on whether we have got the balance right. I am more than happy to continue the conversation about what we take forward on the regulations. On the principle of introducing a national scheme of delegation, the Government feel very strongly that it is the right thing to do.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Shanks]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and their recognition, first and foremost, of the important role that long-duration energy storage plays in our system. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East referred to Cruachan—the hollow mountain —and I think there is barely a person in Scotland who has never been on a school trip to there. I would recommend it to anyone; it is a fantastic example of not just how important this is to our energy system, but the engineering that has lasted a significant number of decades and still runs on our system. It plays an incredibly important role.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, raised a number of important questions. Ofgem has consulted on the process for the first window of the cap and floor scheme. It has published detailed, technical guidance on what we would expect those projects to be able to deliver. We, and Ofgem as the regulator, have very deliberately been technology-agnostic to allow more of these innovative projects to come forward. That first round will run its course, but we absolutely would expect that Ofgem and the Government will look at the results of that review and see if there are areas that we might improve on for a further round if that is deemed necessary. We will keep the scheme constantly under review.

The cap and floor scheme that Ofgem has run for interconnectors has been an incredibly successful way of delivering value for money for consumers and of giving that revenue certainty over the long term. It is a model that works very well. We will review the projects that move forward in the scheme. As I outlined, there are technical requirements that they must meet, but there will also be a process of ensuring that the projects deliver value for money for consumers.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly recognises the role that LDES plays in the mix. We could see some battery projects coming forward in this round. Traditionally, they have not been part of long-duration energy storage, but that technology is moving forward rapidly and some might be able to bid into this process. There are some really innovative projects in that space.

It is important to take the question of how we deal with safety risks for batteries in a balanced way. There are safety incidents for a whole range of infrastructure in our country; some get a lot more attention than others in the media, and we need to be careful not to draw more attention to one particular technology at the exclusion of others. But the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right that safety should be paramount in everything we do with every energy system and every part of infrastructure.

We are looking at the wider question of how we might introduce additional safety measures on battery storage sites more generally, not just as part of the LDES scheme. The Health and Safety Executive has a key role in regulating battery designers, installers and operators to ensure that they take the necessary measures to ensure health and safety. It is an important step, and one that we take seriously.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I want to press the Minister on the point raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. On a visit to the London Fire Brigade I learnt that there is a particular set of risks associated with batteries—essentially, the difficulty of putting the fires out.

In the grand scheme of things, batteries are not more serious than, for example, oil storage, but they require different equipment and differently trained and equipped crews to respond. Will the Minister say more about how, as batteries become a more significant part of the energy mix, he will ensure that fire brigades are able to take a view at the planning stage and are made aware of the risks—just in case they have to respond?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which we will take onboard. It is already part of what the Health and Safety Executive and the Fire Service are looking at nationally in terms of guidelines, but the Government continue to take an interest. The hon. Gentleman is right that as the schemes expand across the country, more fire brigades that may have not had experience of these incidents in the past will have to gain experience. It is an important point and we take it seriously.

On a general point, I am glad that hon. Members across the Committee recognise the importance of LDES. It is genuinely an exciting moment for the country that we will build some of these important engineering projects to deliver the long-duration energy storage that the country needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

I rise briefly to welcome the clause, which underlines the Government’s commitment both to tackle climate change and to restore and protect nature. As the Minister said, we have seen how Forestry and Land Scotland has been able to make use of its estate to install more than a gigawatt of generating capacity, which has been a major source of revenue for it to continue its conservation, preservation and reforestation mission. Once again, it underlines the Government’s commitment to protect nature while tackling climate change.

[David Simmonds]

My great-grandfather spent his entire working life at the pit in Cwmcarn, which is now a forestry commission site. There is evidence of the coal that was dug for centuries on that site, which is now a place that is enjoyed for leisure by all. Broadly, I echo the comments about welcoming the clause.

On page 35, line 20, the excluded types of fuel are listed, to determine what may be considered to be renewable. Waste to energy is not included; nor is the sustainable fuel mandate, which is currently focused on aviation fuel, but ultimately involves producing a gasoline product entirely from waste the purpose of which is to create energy. The fuel may go into aircraft, but it could be used for other purposes. The concept of waste to energy means, essentially, building an incinerator on forestry land to burn waste and generate electricity. By implication, that is something that the Government envisage as a result of that subsection. Could the Minister say more about that?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley has taken the right tone, which is that our forestry land is to be treasured and protected for future generations, but there is a balance to be struck—we strike it every day in relation to how much the public can access and enjoy that land, and use visitor facilities. Stewardship of our forestry land is the responsibility of all of us. I thank him for his remarks.

We expect the footprint from the projects to be incredibly small. In fact, the most successful projects in Scotland are often on the rooftops of visitor centres, alongside toilet blocks, and in those sorts of places, so we are not talking about cutting down huge areas of forest to build ground-mounted solar. However, the point the hon. Gentleman made about consultation is critical. There will be comprehensive public and statutory consultation, and I fully expect Forestry England to carry out an even more detailed engagement process, given its stewardship role for certain pieces of land.

In fact, in Scotland, where some projects have been carried out, groups of people who frequently use the forest have been involved in designing the projects and deciding what the money will be spent on. There are real benefits to that. Although there is sometimes short-term disruption from construction, often the projects have resulted in accessible routes being opened in Scottish forests, including new wheelchair-accessible paths, so previously inaccessible land is being made accessible. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about consultation.

On the subject of revenue stream, we expect the measures to enhance Forestry England’s wider role and its existing objectives, which do not shift as a result of the measures. Of course, those objectives relate to environmental conservation. In fact, the revenue, which is currently being wasted—the critical point is that these projects cannot export to the grid—could actually create a net benefit, and we would expect it to do so. That is an important point, as is the issue of mission creep. We will certainly keep that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much welcome that intervention, as will my officials, I am sure. It saves them a letter—although letters may be forthcoming in the course of debate if we require further detail on very technical points. I will just stress the point again: I think the confusion lies in the fact that section 10 orders apply only to National Highways, if the shadow Minister needs reassurance in that regard. But broadly, these are procedural changes that just allow, as I have said, the administrative burden to be transferred from the Secretary of State to National Highways.

[David Simmonds]

Just to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister—again, at the risk of placing officials in need of writing a letter—we can consider London, where we have Transport for London, Highways England and various other agencies or companies that manage the miles and stretches of those motorways. Very close to my constituency we have the M40/A4 motorway, which is literally the same road but transfers from being a Highways England road to a TfL road at the boundary of Greater London. There could be significant issues where, for example, local authorities that are responsible for neighbouring roads would need to be consulted, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, particularly in respect of where we have TfL, red routes and things like that, all of which I think would be within the scope of the clause, that that has been fully considered so that we can ensure that we do not see unnecessary friction as a result.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think that in any circumstances we would see friction on elements where the Secretary of State remains the body that takes forward the administrative process. I cannot envisage a way in which that would cause friction. Just to be very clear, a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road. That is action carried out by National Highways, as I have said. We simply want it to take the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—apologies to my officials —on this administrative change as to who takes on those actions, namely National Highways rather than the Secretary of State, and how that interacts, which I think was his point, with the boundary of roads managed by the Greater London Authority, which is not covered by this clause of the Bill.

[David Simmonds]

I am just reflecting on my experience as a councillor in local government. There are often disputes. For example, the creation or designation of a red route clearway as a trunk road removes all parking along the length of that route and also affects things like bus services along it, so there are situations in which there may be a difference of opinion between a local authority, which is the current manager or administrator of the route, and a trunk road manager, who wishes to designate it as such for the benefit of an infrastructure project but clearly will not be subject to the consequences that that would have for bus routes, parking and other issues under the ambit of the local authority. I am just looking for clarity that there is a process by which those issues will be resolved and that there will be a relevant level of consultation, so that the kind of tensions that we saw around low traffic neighbourhoods with a dispute between Transport for London and a local authority about what was going on in a local area are not replicated.

[The Chair]

I remind everybody of the tightness of the parameters within which we need to keep this debate. Otherwise the Committee will have to find another day to sit. By no means do I want to stifle debate, but it is also up to the Minister to allow interventions or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Broadly speaking, the Opposition support the intention set out in the clause. Improving the efficiency of such works is clearly a very logical step. Could the Minister say a little more about how the power will interact with the powers and duties that apply to statutory undertakers? I am thinking, for example, of where it is necessary to divert a gas main or water main, or other significant infrastructure, where there are already legal rights in place that can be used for that purpose. An issue we are all familiar with is the disruption caused to transport networks when major works are being undertaken. Will there be a process for ensuring a degree of co-ordination? Will there be a requirement or expectation for consultation so that, where a highways body wishes to undertake that work, it can possibly be co-ordinated with the work of other statutory undertakers involved in the same project, to minimise the disruption?

Will there be an assurance that that process will provide for an appropriate level of compensation for the landowner whose land is being taken temporarily, as that often seems to be a source of dispute? This should not become a back-door way by which a highways agency, as the lead body, says, “We are going to take that at no recompense,” rather than going through a process of negotiation to achieve an agreed sum in respect of the loss of amenity to the owner of the land.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that contribution and I recognise the reasonable concern he raises. If he will allow me, because it is a very technical aspect of the Bill, I will write to him with full details of how we see this power working, particularly in respect of compensation measures. I think his remarks recognised that the present arrangements do not provide the necessary certainty for landowners that they can regain their land. They force applicants to use disproportionate powers. We are trying, through the clause, to provide certainty that there is a way to take possession of land temporarily when required.

It is worth saying that there is a temporary possession power in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. It is a different mechanism; it has not yet been enacted. We are trying to achieve a fairly simple clarification through the Bill, which will not require us to enact powers that are above and beyond what is required under the simplification to which the clause gives effect. It is an uncontroversial procedural change that will make the process more certain and efficient for both parties and provide them with reassurances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Replacement of model clauses with guidance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope that on this clause, at least, we can avoid detailed questioning by the Opposition, because there is nothing with which issue can be taken. It is a simple tidying up of the statute book. The Transport and Works Act requires updating to reflect the wider changes that are to be implemented in the planning sector. It was, as I have mentioned, given Royal Assent in 1992.

The purpose of clause 31 is simply to remove a redundant section of the Transport and Works Act, which refers to schemes considered to be “of national significance”. Since the Planning Act 2008 was introduced as the consenting regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects, with clearly defined thresholds for what is considered “of national significance”, it has effectively rendered that part of the Transport and Works Act entirely redundant.

The effect of the clause is a simple procedural fix. By removing outdated references, the clause will make it easier for developers and public bodies to understand and apply the law, while also reducing administrative burdens. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

Throughout proceedings on the Bill, we have flagged up the important point that is highlighted by subsection (3), namely the lack of retrospective application. I would like the Minister’s response on a point that is of concern to the Opposition. There is always a risk that powers that are due to expire will be used and exploited in advance of new legislation coming in. What measures does the Minister have in mind to ensure that that does not turn into a problem?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. As ever with his points, it was well made. I will go away and reflect on it, but I struggle to see how the use of the clauses we are considering in the Transport and Works Act—as I have said, they have been rendered entirely redundant since they were superseded by provisions in the Planning Act 2008 that clearly define thresholds for what is deemed to be nationally significant infrastructure —give rise to the challenge that he posits.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister has served on a planning Committee, and he will be aware of the challenges that arise where, for example, a historical permission is secured on which a developer subsequently seeks to rely. It is clear that the intention is, quite rightly, to remove those redundant clauses. The concern I am highlighting is that when permission rights have arisen under the clauses that have been made redundant and a developer later relies on them, we must ensure that the process is effectively managed.

[Matthew Pennycook]

If I have understood the point correctly—I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister and set this out in detail, but he can intervene if I have not got this right—the challenge is about applicants who in the past have relied on the provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 that we are today arguing are redundant, and how permissions obtained on that basis prior to the Planning Act 2008 interact with the changes in the clause. It is essentially a concern about retrospection in relation to the clause.

[David Simmonds]

We are zeroing in on the issue that I seek to highlight. The statement in subsection (3) says that the clause does

“not apply in relation to an application in respect of which a notice”

has been made

“before this section comes into force.”

Early on in his remarks, the Minister referred to sections of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 that have not come into force, eight years after they underwent scrutiny in a Committee like this one and Parliament passed them. This clause may not come into force for some considerable time after we debate it in Committee and the Bill becomes law—indeed, it may never come into force. If the previous legislation remains the relevant legislation for an extended period, or if a developer sees advantage in securing a permission now, under the previous legislation, before the new measures take its place, do we have an appropriate process for dealing with that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the point, but I think the shadow Minister is conflating an application under the relevant provisions in the Transport and Works Act and what the clause seeks to clarify, which is when schemes are considered to be of national importance. As I said, with the Planning Act 2008, we have an Act of Parliament that provides very clear thresholds for when schemes are considered of national importance.

I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister with further detail, but I think he raises a valid point. We think the redundant section 9 should be removed from the Transport and Works Act to give developers and public bodies clarity on how the law should be applied going forward, while also reducing administrative burdens. The easiest way—mindful of your strictures, Mrs Hobhouse—to move the Committee on and ensure that we can debate important clauses later in the Bill is for me to commit to writing to the shadow Minister with exhaustive detail on that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Duty to hold inquiry or hearing

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not concerned, for the reasons set out in the “Brownfield Passport” working paper, which I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go away and read, if he has not had the chance to do so already. In a sense, we are looking at a set of proposals, and again I emphasise that we have asked for feedback on them and we are considering how that feedback maps on to how we take forward this approach through national development management policies. In effect, we are saying that there is a presumption that the answer to applications on brownfield land is yes, but it has to meet certain criteria and conditions. The various options that we have explored are set out in that note, but it would absolutely not be a free-for-all on brownfield land, so I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman on that point.

I do not agree that amendment 72 is necessary to achieve the important objective that it raises because, while spatial development strategies will provide for a high-level framework for infrastructure investment for housing growth, they will not allocate specific sites. Strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategy is consistent with national policy. National planning policy, as I have said, already provides strong support for brownfield development, and it is clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call.

It is also clear that authorities should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements of the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies, and those national policies are clear, as I have argued. I therefore ask that the shadow Minister withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75 seeks to ensure that spatial development strategies consider other practical options before identifying infrastructure or the distribution of housing within the green belt. To be clear, spatial development strategies cannot allocate land for development. This is a really important point: they can identify broad locations for new development, if the participating members wish to take those forward, and that may include land within the green belt. However, the formal allocation of sites will remain the preserve of local plans and neighbourhood plans.

I am in full agreement that it is crucial to take a brownfield-first approach to development, as I have said, in which the reuse of previously developed land and options to increase density are given priority. I can assure Opposition Members that, when any such green belt review takes place, existing planning policy in relation to the reuse of green belt will still apply. The NPPF makes it clear that, when plans are considering the release of green-belt land, they must demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified needs, including making use of brownfield land and optimising the density of developments. This is a point that I have made on several other occasions: there is a sequential approach to plan making to green-belt release, and it is very clearly set out what the Government intend in that regard.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

My apologies, Dr Huq, for my late arrival to the Committee. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, for moving the amendment, which stands in my name. I seek a more detailed assurance from the Minister. I appreciate that he is not in a position to comment on the specifics of individual cases, but yesterday I raised something that is very pertinent: the decision of the Secretary of State on the Abbots Langley development.

It was a longstanding principle of the approach to green belt that, where there were hard boundaries such as motorways, rivers and railway lines, the preservation of green space between them and adjoining settlements was very important, because it creates a green boundary and some additional space to reduce air pollution. The Secretary of State’s decision in respect of the national planning policy framework 2025 is effectively to redesignate all such land as grey belt. Areas that our constituents clearly understood were directly protected and were in the green belt have effectively, at the stroke of a pen, been redesignated as grey belt and eligible for development. That is why these amendments are so important. We need to guarantee that those vital green spaces, which provide a bit of a cushion between hard infrastructure and people’s residences, will be preserved and protected. Without commenting on that specific case, will the Minister address the legitimate concerns raised by that decision?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a couple of points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I understand his argument, but I go back to the point that what we are doing in this clause and others in this part of the Bill is setting out a framework for spatial development strategies for cross-boundary strategic planning. National planning policy is already in place in those areas and is very clear. The national planning policy framework sets out the considerations for deciding whether development in the green belt is appropriate.

The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it includes previously developed land in the green belt, such as disused petrol stations, and other land that, although formally designated green belt, does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes. The test of what qualifies as grey belt is very clear in the NPPF, and that is supplemented by planning policy guidance. For every application, there will be a judgment about how the national policy applies—the hon. Gentleman will understand, for the reasons he has outlined, why I will not comment on specifics.

I repeat that it will not be for SDSs to allocate plots of land; that will be for local plans and neighbourhood plans. Where the release of green-belt land is necessary, the Government are asking authorities to prioritise the release of brownfield land within the green belt, along the lines I have just discussed. Our proposal in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify infrastructure of strategic importance or an amount of distribution of affordable housing does not change the existing requirements in relation to the release of green-belt land. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 75.

I can assure the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections on agricultural land, but I do not consider amendment 82 to be necessary to achieve that objective. Strategic planning authorities will need to consider national policy when preparing their SDSs. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural land. Planning policy already recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. If the development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be prioritised.

The Government are supplementing the national planning policy that is in place in respect of this issue with a land use framework, which has gone out to consultation. That will set out the Government’s vision for long-term land use change, including by exploring what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. We all agree on the need, on such a constrained island, to make the most effective use of land possible.

When it comes to issues such as solar farms, which we have discussed in the Chamber many times, I want to ensure the debate is proportionate. Even in some of the most optimistic scenarios I have seen for solar deployment, no more than 1% of agricultural land will be released. That is why the National Farmers Union and other bodies have called for a proportionate debate in this area. It will be necessary in certain circumstances to release agricultural land, but that must clearly proceed on the basis of national planning policy.

In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements in the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies. For those reasons, I am confident that there is adequate planning policy and guidance already in place to describe requirements for development on different types of land tenures.

New clause 104, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, also focuses on green-belt developments. It seeks to prevent development on green-belt land for 20 years or more after a green belt review has been completed. As hon. Members know, the Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. That remains the case.

I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. Not only did the green belt expand between 1979 and 1997—it almost doubled to just over 1.6 million hectares—but we saw a significant amount of green-belt land release, in what I would argue was a completely haphazard manner, under the last Government. It is not the case that this Government have introduced green-belt land release for the first time, and through the changes to national policy we are trying to introduce a strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release so that we release the right parts of the green belt first. Our revised national planning policy framework maintains strong protections for the green belt and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. It also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.

However, we know that there is not enough brownfield land in this country, and not least brownfield land that is viable and in the right locations to meet housing demand and needs. That is why we ask local authorities who cannot meet their needs through it to review their green-belt land to identify opportunities to create more affordable, sustainable and well designed developments. In doing so, we expect authorities to prioritise the development of brownfield land and low quality grey-belt land in the first instance.

High performing green-belt land and land safeguarded for environmental reasons will still be protected, and our new golden rules will ensure that development that takes place on the green belt benefits communities in nature, including the delivery of high numbers of affordable housing. That is a really important point to stress once again. Given the value that the public attribute to the green belt, the Government clearly expect that through our golden rules the communities that see development take place on it will benefit in a way that is slightly different from other forms of development.

The framework is clear that where it is necessary—only in exceptional circumstances—to alter green-belt boundaries, that must be done using the local plan process of public consultation and formal examination by planning inspectors. The framework is clear that development can be committed in the green belt only in specific prescribed exceptional circumstances. Beyond that, it can happen only in very special circumstances. That is a high bar.

Given that statutory plans secure the designated status of green-belt land and that planning policy already demands the rational and evidence-based application of green-belt protection for plans and decisions, I do not consider amendment to be necessary. In the same way as I have politely asked Opposition Front-Bench Members to withdraw their amendments, I hope the hon. Member will feel content to withdraw this amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be brief because I can see that the hon. Members opposite are intent on pressing the amendments to a vote. I have a couple of things to say, at risk of eroding the fondness that hon. Members opposite have expressed for me in recent days. That is troubling, but I will continue none the less.

What can I gently say to the shadow Minister? I think he must have forgotten—because I am sure he has not overlooked it—that it is not the case that the Government have been converted to the Opposition’s view on the subject. From day one, we have been clear about the stipulations in terms of a brownfield-first approach, and the approach to green-belt release that I have outlined. They were clear in the NPPF changes, and they remain the case. I gently challenge the hon. Members by asking them to think again.

SDSs are intended to be high-level plans for housing growth and the allocation of infrastructure investment. They are not big local plans; they do not need to do everything in national planning policy. The logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is that we transcribe all national planning policy into SDSs and have requirements. The requirements are already there, they apply, and regard will need to be given to them in the development and production of SDSs. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendments are necessary. I humbly ask hon. Members to give a final thought about whether we need a Division.

[David Simmonds]

Again, at the risk of a political love-in taking place, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with all of the debates extremely courteously, and he has responded in detail. However, there is a genuine point of principle. I gently respond to him on a point that I raised earlier. We have had a lot of assurances that there is a shared direction of travel around the protection of the green belt.

However, the first significant decision that has been taken by the Secretary of State, in line with the planning practice guidance from February 2025, has driven a coach and horses through the expectations that were set about how that protection will operate. I think that that has stiffened the resolve on this side, so that we are now saying that we need to press the issue, because it is clear that whatever undertakings appear to be made, the reality is that decisions to develop on the green belt, in places that constituents reasonably expect to be protected, are being taken. Therefore, we need to ensure that, as far as possible, we secure those protections in the legislation.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have already said, I will not speak about two individual decisions that have been made. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the concern that he outlines—that is, a particular decision that he does not agree with—will not be resolved by trying to transcribe national planning policy into the SDS process. National planning policy remains in force, and I do not think it is necessary that in order to achieve the aims that are set out, which the Government agree with—in terms of brownfield first and a strategic approach to green belt release—for the amendments to be agreed. I ask hon. Members to think again, but reading the room, I think they are certain about pressing the amendment to a vote. The Government will resist it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Well, the Minister says “facts”, but he should read the House of Commons Library document on the housing targets that he proposed. He cannot deny that the rural uplift in housing targets under his algorithm is an exponential rise, but the increase under his housing algorithm for urban centres is much smaller. That is delivered by the fact that for many urban centres in cities across the United Kingdom, the number of houses required under his Government’s targets has reduced.

I look forward to the Minister’s “facts”. I hope that he knows that we have a fundamental disagreement on this; I have said that repeatedly in the Chamber, on Second Reading, and in many Westminster Hall debates, where housing targets have been a topic of concern for many Members of Parliament across the country. As I say, I look forward to his “facts”, and I look forward to his reading the House of Commons Library document that backs up the arguments that we are making. We will press this amendment to a vote.

[David Simmonds]

On a point of order, Dr Huq. May I seek your guidance? My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, the shadow Minister, has spoken to two amendments tabled in my name, which we intend to push to a vote. It is a departure from Committee procedure to vote on one amendment but not on the others, when a vote has been expected, and to set them aside. When, in the Committee proceedings, will we return to the amendments discussed earlier to vote on them?

[The Chair]

It goes according to the sequence in the amendment paper. At the moment we are at amendment 29, on page 3 of the amendment paper. When will we reach amendment 73, on page 5? How long is a piece of a string? We intend to reach it today, but perhaps not before the sitting is adjourned at 11.25. This was all decided in a Programming Sub-Committee at the beginning of our Committee proceedings; someone put matters in this order.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I have been on these Committees for 10 years, and chaired them for the last five years, and as far as I understand, this is the way we always do it. We often say a measure “was debated earlier”. It just seems to be coincidence that the decisions fell as they did yesterday—or whenever it was. This is, I have been told, non-negotiable.

[David Simmonds]

Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I return to the question: can you indicate when in the Committee proceedings we will return to vote on those amendments?

[The Chair]

That depends on how succinct or verbose people are. I am not Mystic Meg. The Committee will decide on those amendments whenever it gets to them in the amendment paper.

[The Chair]

These things are often negotiated by the two Whips: they make it happen at a certain time. Any vote on amendment 73 will come after the debate on amendment 88—that will be today—and amendment 74 will come after that.

[David Simmonds]

On a point of order, Dr Huq. The groupings have been negotiated by the Whips. The Chair’s selection of amendments is in that order, and votes have followed that process.

[The Chair]

The Clerk helpfully suggests that we could suspend the sitting to give members a primer on this matter.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank members of the Committee for so eloquently outlining the intent of these amendments. I will first deal with amendments 1 and 30. I very much accept the positive intent of these proposals and would like to stress that the Government are fully committed to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made clear, 85% of the world’s chalk streams are found in England. They are unique water bodies, not only vital ecosystems, but a symbol of our national heritage. This Government are committed to restoring them. We are undertaking a comprehensive set of actions outside the Bill to protect our chalk streams; in the interests of time, it is probably worthwhile for me to write to the Committee to set those out in detail.

We do not believe it is necessary to include amendment 1 in the legislation, as existing policy and legislation will already achieve the intended effect. Local nature recovery strategies are a more suitable place to map out chalk streams and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new section 12D(11) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires spatial development strategies to

“take account of any local nature recovery strategy”

that relates to a strategy area.

Strategic planning authorities will also be required to undertake habitats regulations assessments, subject to a Government amendment to the Bill. That places a further requirement on them to assess any adverse effects of the strategy on protected sites, which, in many cases, will include chalk streams. The point I am trying to convey to hon. Members is that strategic planning authorities will already have responsibilities in relation to their protection.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

This is an important and much debated issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could share with the Committee whether he has given consideration to bringing this issue within the remit of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, specifically in respect of species that are unique to those particular habitats. This is very much an area of cross-party interest; I am conscious of my own constituents, who have the Colne Valley, which has a chalk stream. I work closely with my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose constituencies this affects as well.

This issue often goes significantly beyond the scope of a local nature recovery strategy, simply because pollution discharge or run-off in one part of a river ecosystem results in a problem elsewhere. While I am sure the Minister will say he welcomes the measures that we passed in the Environment Act during the previous Parliament—which, for the first time, introduced comprehensive monitoring for issues such as sewage discharges—I believe there is still an opportunity to do a bit more to protect these unique habitats.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that point. We will come on to discuss our approach to development and the environment more generally when we reach part 3 of the Bill. In response to his specific question, it is probably best dealt with in the letter I will send to the Committee on this matter, where I can pull together a range of points. The important point I am trying to stress, for the purposes of amendment 1, is that if a strategic planning authority considers the identification and protection of chalk streams to be a matter that should be included in its SDS, proposed new section 12D(1) already makes clear that an SDS must include policies relating to the

“development and use of land in the strategy area, which are of strategic importance to that area”

so that it can be taken into account. There is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from including such policies in their spatial development strategies if they consider them to be of strategic importance.

As I said, we have an ongoing debate about when centralisation is appropriate or not; I assume the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will tell me that it is, in this instance, in her view. But for those reasons, we do not consider these amendments necessary to achieve the desired effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise, briefly, to support the substantive point about the necessity of public consultation on something as important as a spatial planning strategy. As new section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is entitled “Consultation and representations”, it is disappointing that there is actually no provision for consultation. There is provision only for the consideration of notification, which is inadequate for strategies that will be as important as these. I urge the Minister to consider going away and aligning the text of his clause with the title of his clause.

[David Simmonds]

When we were drafting amendment 78, we gave a good deal of consideration to the direction of travel set out by the Government. The concerns that underlay the drafting were reinforced in the evidence sessions, where the Committee heard from a cross-party panel of local government leaders that the consultation process in planning was an opportunity to get things right, and for a public conversation about the impact of any proposed development, large or small, in order to forestall, through the planning process, objections that might later arise, by designing a development that would meet those concerns.

We have heard today a number of examples from Members that fall within that category. We have heard cross-party concerns about the impact on chalk streams, where consultation would allow effective parties with an interest to bring forward their views—for example, on the impact of run-off. A developer would therefore have the opportunity to build those concerns into the design of their proposed scheme to mitigate the impact and address the concerns.

We heard about the impact of air pollution on asthmatics—including, for the record, me. If a developer says they are planning to use biomass or wood burning as the heat source for a development, and the stoves are on the DEFRA exempt list—that is, if the Government consider that they produce little or no environmental pollution—that might be acceptable to people with that concern. However, if it will simply be up to the developer to install whatever they wish, that will have a significant negative impact and there is no opportunity for mitigation. The consultation is therefore critical.

There is a direction of travel: it feels very much that the Government’s view is that consultation and democracy are a hindrance to getting new units built. It is very clear from the views expressed by many Members—from all parties, in fairness, but certainly in the Opposition amendments that have been put forward—that we are keen to retain a sufficient element of local democracy and local voice to ensure that the kinds of concerns I have described are properly addressed. I invite the Minister to consider accepting the amendment, which would not in any way derail the intentions that he sets out in the Bill, but would achieve the opportunity for consultation, which is critical.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take on board the strength of feeling that has been expressed. As with all the debates we are having, I will reflect on the arguments that hon. Members have made. However, we do not think the amendments are necessary. As I have sought to reassure the Committee on previous occasions, each SDS will have to undergo public consultation and then be examined by a planning inspector. Once a draft SDS is published, it is open for anyone to make representations about that SDS. For those reasons, I hope that, in dealing with the specific amendments, I can reassure the Committee that they are unnecessary.

Turning first to amendment 78—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the interests of brevity, Mrs Hobhouse, I will make one final comment, then I will go away and reflect and we can return to the matter on Report, where there will be time for consideration.

Again—it has felt like this a lot today—I think we are conflating different things. The process for an SDS is different from the process for the development of a local development plan. They are different things.

[David Simmonds]

Yes, I know.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister says he knows, but in a sense the legislative underpinning that we have looked at for this measure, and the most obvious and comparable example, is the London plan. Broadly similar provisions exist in the London plan, and when it is put out to consultation it gets tens of thousands of responses to the notification, which are taken into account. I say gently that I do not think we are talking about an arrangement here much different from what applies there. To make the point again, this is a very different strategy that we are asking strategic authorities, or boards in those cases, to bring forward.

[David Simmonds]

One question that frequently arises when there is a challenge to a development through the process of judicial review is about whether the processes of consultation have been correctly followed. Removing a requirement for consultation and replacing it with a discretion to notify dramatically lowers the ability of people who are very concerned that developments are brought forward within their strategic plans that would not have been acceptable and would have failed to meet the proper consultation standard—for example, on issues such as air quality or environmental impact. In fact, it would be in the interests of the development industry for proper consultation to take place, rather than its being forestalled in this way.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I come back to the point I have made several times now: SDSs cannot allocate sites. There is a role for local plans underneath SDSs, which must be in general conformity with them. We would have failed if we simply ensured that SDSs were big local plans with the level of detail required on site allocation for a local plan. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that SDSs will not opine on whether a particular development on a particular plot of land is acceptable. They may outline the areas of general housing growth that the strategic authority or constituent member authorities want to be brought forward in that sub-region.

Again, I am more than happy to go away and set out in chapter and verse the way we think the clause might operate—if we ever get to clause stand part, I might be able to outline it in a little bit more detail—but I think that when hon. Members grasp the full detail of what we want these strategies to do and how we think they should be prepared and developed, they may be reassured. If not, we can come back to the matter on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise, Mrs Hobhouse, for the length of my speech on the previous clause; this one will not be as long. I will take your steer and cut my remarks to a more suitable length. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said from a sedentary position, but she is making my speech longer.

Amendment 77, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an attempt to elaborate on the Opposition’s arguments about Natural England. The Minister will know where this amendment is coming from. He was open to some of the challenge from Members and witnesses in the Committee’s evidence session in which concerns were repeatedly raised about the functionality, ability and readiness of Natural England to play the role expected of it by the Secretary of State and the Minister in the parameters of this legislation.

I was initially concerned about Natural England because I have had involvement with it in my constituency, and some of its response times and ability to react in what I consider to be a satisfactory manner are sometimes compromised. That is by no means a criticism of the chief executive, who I thought gave very honest and able testimony in our evidence session. I will précis her words, as I did not make a note, but essentially she said, “We are going to wait for the spending review, but there is a lot of work that we need to do. We have been assured that the Government are going to resource us, and there are added responsibilities, but we hope, we see, we think.” I am afraid that, when we are looking at such monumental changes to development and nature recovery planning, we need better than that.

The Minister was really open when we cross-examined him in the evidence session. He said that I was tempting him to give an answer ahead of the spending review. I will not do that this afternoon; I know that he is but a small cog among the many Ministers asking the Chancellor for more money to resource their Departments. I understand that, having been through it myself. None the less, we are concerned about Natural England’s ability and whether it is the right organisation to take these responsibilities forward.

Amendment 77 to clause 48 would remove the reference to Natural England and provide that an environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document. The second part of the amendment, proposed subsection (1B), would provide that where an EDP is prepared by a local planning authority, the references to clauses 48 to 60, which essentially outline Natural England’s responsibilities, should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.

We believe that local planning authorities have the wherewithal to develop local environmental delivery plans. They have experience of doing so. I know that there is some challenge, given the resourcing of planning departments, but the Minister’s record on that issue, as well as the actions that he is taking through this legislation, which we wholeheartedly support, make me confident that that challenge will be met.

As I say, I am concerned to ensure that local authorities can develop environmental delivery plans. After my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has spoken, will the Minister elaborate on that in his winding up? I hope that since the evidence session, he has taken a look at some of the legislation and recommendations for Natural England, or discussed them with Natural England to reassure himself that Natural England is resourced for the actions that he and Secretary of State will require it to undertake, although I realise that he will say this is a slow-burn development going through. Those are the parameters of our amendment, and we hope that the Minister will look on it favourably. If he cannot, we hope he can give us some reassurance that Natural England is still the best fit to undertake these responsibilities.

[David Simmonds]

For the Opposition, support for the recovery of nature and the natural environment is a high priority. Amendment 77 and the arguments we will advance later are about ensuring that the additional capacity the Government are bringing to the process of nature recovery through their changes to the planning system is focused in a way that delivers.

As we have heard, both in evidence and in the general debates around the comparison with the section 106 process, for example, where financial contributions are sought, they are accumulated until the point when the delivery of a plan—for school places, road improvements or whatever it may be—is viable. Clearly, the Government intend environmental delivery plans to work in the same way.

As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has ably set out, during the evidence sessions we heard concerns about the capacity of Natural England, as a further part of this already complex system, to deliver on that objective. In his rebuttal remarks earlier, the Minister relied on the proposed new section on chalk streams, saying that it was an example of something that could be dealt with through a local nature recovery strategy. That is one alternative to Natural England seeking to create a much larger process, but there are many others.

In my constituency, we have the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, which might well be able to deliver a very substantial project in this respect. All of those bodies have a very direct relationship with the local authority, which is the planning authority. Rather than create an additional element of complexity, we should streamline the process so that a local authority becomes not only the planning decision maker, but is able, through its direct engagement with the developer and its detailed local knowledge of the environment in which the development is taking place, to take on that responsibility. Should it feel that Natural England is the best delivery partner for that, okay. I am sure we would all accept that, but there will be other options available, especially when the impacts the EDP is intended to mitigate are quite specialist or quite local in their effects. That is the thinking behind the amendment.

I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley in that I do not consider the Minister to be a small cog in this wheel. I am sure that his will be a significant voice in discussions with the Treasury, given the priority given to growth. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration, because this is an opportunity to step away from the previous delays, which were frequently cited in evidence on the role of Natural England, and to ensure that additional capacity goes into the part of the planning system that we know is already delivering at scale—the part that is under the control of local authorities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Did we hear about the other amendment, Mrs Hobhouse?

--- Later in debate ---

The Government are working closely with Natural England to ensure that the appropriate resources are in place to administer the nature restoration fund. As I said in a previous exchange with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, the autumn Budget allocated £14 million to support the set-up of the nature restoration fund. In the medium to long term, we will move the fund so that it operates on a cost recovery basis, and therefore sustainably. Were the amendment to be accepted, there is a risk that local authority EDPs could conflict with those produced by Natural England, leading only to additional complexity. However, as I said, the Secretary of State does have the power to appoint a local authority to produce a plan.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister mentioned moving to a cost recovery basis. Earlier, I mentioned a weakness of section 106: by the time funds are accumulated, maybe over a five or 10-year period, costs have risen and the delivered outcome is significantly less than was envisaged to mitigate the original impact. Could the Minister set out the process for establishing the relevant costs, with reference for example to the much-mocked £115 million HS2 bat tunnel, which came up in the evidence sessions? That has been hugely costly. We could end up with a very substantial bill that the developers and the promoters of the project had never expected in the first place, but that was judged necessary as a result of this process, despite it being entirely out of the view of the planning authority determining the original application.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to come back to me on that point, but we will deal with the mechanism by which fees are set under the EDPs in a later clause. I hope that, at that point, I will provide him with more clarity, but perhaps we could defer that particular discussion, because I think it would be more appropriately dealt with then. For the reasons I have given, I commend these clauses to the Committee and ask for the two amendments to be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Just to clarify, for Hansard more than anything, I laughed only at the shadow Minister’s delivery of the term “blanket bog”. I was not in any way questioning the importance of that type of peatland.

[David Simmonds]

For the edification of the Committee, they are also known as featherbed bogs.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Indeed. I look forward to seeing how Hansard tidies up that exchange.

As the shadow Minister said, amendment 148 would prevent chalk streams and blanket bogs from being an environmental feature for which conservation measures can be put in place that address the harm from development at a different location from the impacted site. Where the feature to which an EDP relates is an irreplaceable habitat, such as a blanket bog, it would not be possible for impacts on that feature to be compensated for elsewhere. That is the nature of their being irreplaceable.

The Bill is clear that impacts must be adequately addressed for an environmental delivery plan to be made by the Secretary of State. Moreover, as I just set out in relation to a previous amendment, both chalk streams and blanket bogs are protected by the national planning policy framework. They are not environmental obligations that can be discharged through the nature restoration fund, so they would not be the focus of an environmental delivery plan.

The NPPF makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections will continue to apply. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press the amendment.

Due to the slightly muddled way in which we have debated these amendments, I have not had the chance to respond to amendment 13, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, so I will do so now. As he set out, it would require environmental delivery plans to go further than the current requirement to contribute to an “improvement” in the conservation status of an environmental feature to contributing to a “significant improvement”. The Government have always been clear that they would legislate only where we could secure better outcomes for nature, and that is what we have secured through these clauses by moving beyond the current system of offsetting to secure an improvement in environmental outcomes.

Clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. That reflects the commitment that EDPs will go beyond neutrality and secure more positive environmental results.

That commitment ties into the crucial safeguard in clause 55(4), which ensures that an EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That means that environmental delivery plans will already be going further than simply offsetting the impact of development.

However, requiring environmental delivery plans to go even further, in the way that the amendment proposes, risks placing a disproportionate burden on developers to contribute more than their fair share. In effect, I am arguing that EDPs already go beyond the status quo. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment, not least because we will discuss these issues in more detail in the debate on clause 55.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

In establishing this new approach, we recognise the need to ensure that developers have clarity around the required levels of contributions to benefit from an environmental delivery plan. This transparency will ensure that developers can factor in the cost of the levy, should they choose to use the EDP.

Clause 51 establishes clear, understandable charging schedules with each environmental delivery plan, including one or more charging schedule. These schedules will set out how much developers will be required to pay to discharge their environmental obligations through the EDP and will reflect the environmental impact that the EDP is seeking to address. This may vary depending on the nature and size of the development, with the charging schedules being bespoke to each particular environmental delivery plan. In addition, the charging schedule will be regulated in accordance with clauses 62 to 69, which will allow regulations to be made setting out requirements for how these rates will be determined.

I think this is probably the appropriate point to respond to the shadow Minister’s previous point. Those regulations would allow for fees to be index-linked to account for inflation, which is part of what he raised, but he mentioned build costs as well. Those regulations allow that scope.

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. There is a combination of indexation, which is always the relevant consideration. For example, we have been through the recent experience of covid, which unleashed a huge wave of construction inflation. If the EDP were to be negotiated at a certain point, the envisaged outcome of that might be a substantial investment in, for example, a chalk stream environment or the creation of a new habitat.

There might be significant construction inflation between the point at which that EDP is first negotiated, the point at which sufficient contributions have been accumulated from the various parties that might have been involved in the development—which gives rise to the need for it—and the point at which that money is available to be spent. How will the level of the EDP be appropriately calculated so that we do not end up with what we already see in the section 106 system, whereby a contribution is secured from a developer, but by the time it comes to be spent, it is insufficient to pay for the mitigations that were necessary when it was negotiated?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the shadow Minister’s point, and I will offer to write to him. His point about the sequencing of an EDP and the conservation measures that it would give rise to is valid. How can we essentially, through the fee and charging schedule process, ensure that those measures can be carried out on the basis of that fee? I will write to the shadow Minister with more detail on how we envisage that particular part of the Bill working. While later clauses set out further detail on the framework governing charging schedules, EDPs cannot function without them, and this clause ensures their inclusion and proper regulation.

Let me turn to clause 52. As well as clear charging schedules, it is important that EDPs include a range of other matters. Clause 52 supplements clauses 50 and 51 in setting out further detail on the information that Natural England must include in an EDP, ensuring that EDPs are transparent and robust.

As with all environmental matters, it is vital to understand the underlying environmental condition, which is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This is crucial to set the baseline against which improvements can be measured. Flowing from that baseline, Natural England must set out why it considers the conservation measures to be appropriate, including details of alternatives considered and why they were not pursued, as well as listing the plans and strategies to which Natural England had regard in preparing the EDP in question. Like the assessment of the baseline, the consideration of alternatives is an important step that ensures that the best approach is taken forward and justified.

The EDP must also include an overview of other measures being implemented, or likely to be implemented, by Natural England or another public body to improve the conservation status of the environmental feature. This will provide confidence that the EDP is properly targeted and that the conservation measures are additional to other ongoing actions to support the relevant environmental features.

To ensure clarity in respect of protected species, EDPs must also specify the terms of any licences that will be granted to a developer or to Natural England. A further important element of the clause is that Natural England must set out how the effects of an EDP will be monitored, which will be critical to ensuring that further action can be taken, if necessary, across the life of an EDP. Natural England is under a duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in doing that.

The clause also provides a power for the Secretary of State to stipulate further information that must be included in an EDP. It may be used for various purposes, for example, to require an EDP relating to a protected species to set out how relevant licensing tests are met. For those reasons, I commend both clauses to the Committee.

I would like a chance to respond to amendment 3 if it is spoken to in due course.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I have total sympathy with what the Minister is saying, and understand the point that the Member for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is seeking to address. Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons from section 106 is that, in many cases, funds end up being returned to the developer, as it is impossible to spend on the mitigation because of the specificity for which it is provided?

The Opposition agree with the Minister that there will be occasions when, in the view of the Secretary of State or Natural England, it is impossible to build the specified badger, bat or newt mitigation on a specific site, and that it would be better to spend that money somewhere else to create a better overall environmental benefit. It is therefore important to provide for that flexibility in the legislation.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister makes my case for me, because we want to allow Natural England to have that flexibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

—but the hon. Member was not in the café. He has nicked my joke; I was about to say that I hope that that does not go on a focus leaflet somewhere as a broken Tory promise. It takes two to tango.

[David Simmonds]

Lib Dems missing in action.

[Paul Holmes]

Missing in action and not winning here. I know that the Minister is very keen that we expedite this Committee today because of the semi-final play-off with Charlton tonight. I hope that his team does well in that, because we would like to invite him down to the Den to watch a match between Millwall and Charlton, if Charlton are promoted. The Minister is always welcome down to the Den.

I turn to amendment 126, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). We absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiments on EDPs, and we wholeheartedly agreed with the majority of what he said on the previous clause. We accept that EDPs will be a step change in environmental delivery across the United Kingdom.

One of our concerns, and the reason why we tabled amendment 126—I will come to amendment 127 in a minute—is that at the moment the legislation says that there will be two reviews into the EDP: one at the mid-point and one at the end. We simply want to see whether the Minister would entertain the idea of review periods at five-yearly intervals and a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period. That is for a number of reasons.

First, with only two reports—one at the mid-point and one at the end—there could be long gaps during which important issues or shortcomings in implementation go unaddressed. In rapidly evolving environmental contexts, more frequent reporting would allow for timely adjustments and a greater responsiveness to emerging challenges. What would happen under the current proposals if a mid-term report showed a failure to deliver in conservation outcomes? Also, are the two required reports sufficient for long-term monitoring and public accountability?

We have a slight concern that the clause does not seem to specify the content or required level of detail in those reports. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate slightly on what he and the Secretary of State would expect in terms of the detail when a report is published. It is also important to state that although the Bill will have to meet equality legislation, it does not meet the standard for public accessibility or independent review. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. Without these safeguards, the report could become a box-ticking exercise rather than a meaningful tool for transparency and continuous improvement.

I turn briefly to amendment 127, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley. Given what the Minister said in our discussion of the last clause about the impact that the wording will have on legal definitions and measurements if those were to be challenged, I do not intend to press amendment 127 to a vote. We think that the wording

“the local economy and community of the relevant area”

is not defined enough, so we will have to look at whether we need to tighten it up, bearing in mind what the Minister said about the language in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. But I would like to press amendment 126 to a vote.

On amendment 127, I hope the Minister will say something about community benefits and the local economy in the relevant area. I hope he looks favourably on amendment 126, which stipulates more transparency and a clearer guideline for the process of reviewing EDPs. I look forward to his response.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse; welcome back to the Committee. Good afternoon to all colleagues.

We are generally supportive of clause 61; I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but I would like to speak to clause 61 stand part. Although the clause introduces a streamlined mechanism for fulfilling environmental requirements, it raises several questions that I shall put to the Minister on some of the detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner may have some specific questions too.

First, the discretion given to Natural England to accept or reject a developer’s request lacks clarity. There are no outlined criteria or standards for decision making, which could lead to an inconsistent or opaque outcome. I ask the Minister: what criteria will Natural England use to accept or reject a developer’s request to pay the levy? Does he think there needs to be more specificity in the accompanying regulations, if not in the Bill?

Secondly, although the clause references charging schedules and payment phasing, it does not address how those charges are calculated or whether they reflect the environmental impact of the development. Could the Minister assure the Committee—not necessarily today or in the legislation—how he will provide more specific details on the charging regime? Without that, there would be a risk of turning the levy into a transactional tool rather than a meaningful mechanism for ecological restoration. Additionally, there is no mention of how Natural England will ensure that payments are effectively translated into real conservation outcomes. Without clearer safeguards, the process could be perceived more as a pay-to-proceed option than as a robust tool for environmental accountability. If the Minister could provide some specifics on those two main points, we would be content to support clause 61.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I wanted to set out briefly the views of the Opposition, in addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has said.

Recently, we listened to views from those with specialist experience in this context. There are a number of ways in which issues about biodiversity net gain and protected species may feature, with the relevant protections, as a consequence of the legislation. Although amendment 54 sets out some reasonable points, it does not address them sufficiently. In particular, there is potential scope to bring some of it within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provisions, which would enable in many cases more effective enforcement powers than under the existing habitats regulations.

We acknowledge the Minister’s point that it will be important for those responsible for biodiversity net gain and for considering the mitigation hierarchy to be able to deploy the resources that flow from these different types of agreements in a way that reflects the broader national responsibility, rather than a site-by-site basis. That additional flexibility would be required, and we are therefore likely to seek further amendments later in the Bill’s passage that address the specifics of those concerns.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. Let me respond first to amendment 54, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. I will then turn to clause 61 and schedule 4. The hon. Lady’s amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which Natural England can receive a nature restoration levy payment in respect of an environmental delivery plan. She made a number of points about the mitigation hierarchy and irreplaceable habitats. I will not repeat the debate we had on a previous clause in relation to existing protections in national planning policy, which will still have effect for irreplaceable habitats.

On the mitigation hierarchy, we share her and the OEP’s view: it is a very important component of environmental law. Natural England will always want to consider the mitigation hierarchy when it is developing EDPs. We anticipate that Natural England will still prioritise avoidance and reduction of environmental harm in the first instance, not least because it is likely to deliver the best environmental outcomes at the lowest cost for developers. However, we do not believe that it should always apply.

The flexibility provided by the Bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England’s expert judgment, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to sub-optimal outcomes, and where money could be spent in a far more effective way to achieve better outcomes for nature. The hon. Lady is absolutely right and we have been very clear about this point: it is the Government’s view that the Bill effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy. As I have said, that is also the view of the chief executive of Natural England. There is flexibility built into the Bill, which we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. In the correspondence I will send to the Committee, I am more than happy to try to give hon. Members a sense of how the provisions in the Bill do or do not interact with the existing developer contribution system. However, section 106 agreements are a very different proposition from what we are discussing. We are talking about a nature restoration levy payment, managed by Natural England and directly for use on conservation measures that form part of an EDP. So section 106 is an entirely separate issue.

I recognise—I think this is the hon. Gentleman’s point—how issues of viability will be addressed in the calculation of the levy payment. What I would say to that is that this is a regulation-making power; the regulations will come forward with further detail, and we have made them subject to the affirmative procedure. We will have further debate in the House on the technical detail of how those regulations look when they are published. This is just the regulation-making power that will allow the levy to be charged. On that basis, I hope I have somewhat clarified the issue.

[David Simmonds]

This is a slightly technical question, but what consideration will be given to regional and local variation in the levels of cost? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne highlighted the point about the interaction with section 106, which the Minister has accepted. One of the calculations under section 106 is child yield, which reflects the number of children we would expect in a development. Through the formula, that produces a payment in respect of the cost of provision of school places. Clearly, that cost will vary significantly depending on which part of the country the development takes place in. I would like to be confident that if, for example, a developer undertakes development in a very high-cost area, we will not see a significant corresponding reduction in the environmental yield from such a negotiation, and that viability will not, in practice, become such a barrier that developments do not go ahead or we end up forgoing the expected yield in some of these crucial areas in order to make housing viable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I am grateful the Minister for his comments on amendment 129. All I would say to the Minister in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley is once bitten, twice shy.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister on clause 63. The clause delegates significant discretion to the Secretary of State, without setting out guiding principles or safeguards. Although the Minister said that regulations will be forthcoming—I am grateful to him for confirming that they will be subject to the affirmative procedure—there remain some important unresolved issues in the Bill. That includes how liability will be shared in complex developments involving multiple parties, or how the timing of liability will interact with project phasing and financial planning.

Without that clarity, there is a real risk of legal uncertainty for developers and of inconsistency in enforcement. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind when the Bill receives Royal Assent and he goes away to look at regulations for affirmative scrutiny in this House. A more robust approach would involve the Bill at least outlining the key principles that will to guide the development of the regulations, ensuring that they are applied fairly, consistently and with due regard to the practical realities of development delivery.

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend agree—he is making this point very clearly—that the risk with this process, and with the lack of clarity around the process behind the regulations, is that it will increase the number of permissions being delivered that are not viable? Essentially, all the money is coming from the same pot, and the developer will say to the local authority and Natural England, “You can have the kids or you can have the bats, but you can’t have both.” If the developer has to pay for both, the scheme becomes non-viable. We will simply end up with more units that cannot be built.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I entirely agree with him, which is why, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, we make a dream team that is in fast competition with the Minister. He should watch this space—it is four years and counting. [Interruption.] I am joking with the Minister.

What I would say to my hon. Friend is that that is the key reason why we have concerns about clause 63. We understand the Minister’s intentions, and we will not press the amendment to further complicate the clause. However, we are concerned that the lack of clarity in the Bill could, in a very complex EDP involving multiple parties, damage the clause’s intent to enhance environmental protection. The number of planning permissions going through could increase, but the end result would actually be that the delivery was not there. That is a key area where the Minister needs to look at strengthening the wording in the Bill. That aside, we will not push our amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to amendment 130, again tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, which would prevent Natural England using funding collected through the nature restoration levy to purchase land via compulsory purchase order. In effect, this would require any purchase of land via compulsory purchase to be met by the state, which would effectively prevent Natural England from being able to make a CPO.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley was particularly concerned about a situation where, in order to fulfil the requirements of the EDP, the compulsory purchase of land that had specific characteristics would be necessary. Therefore, that would potentially drive a very significant increase in the value of the land because it was the only way in which that EDP could be fulfilled, and that would significantly increase the cost to the public purse. What measures does the Minister have in place to ensure that where that type of situation arises—because, for example, there is a blanket bog or a particular type of pond that is required to fulfil the EDP—it is delivered at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I understand the shadow Minister’s point. Obviously, the normal process for compulsory purchase would apply. We will come to CPO provisions later. If I have not covered it, I am more than happy to go into further detail at that point.

As I have set out, in order for an environmental delivery plan to be made, there must be sufficient certainty that the conservation measures are deliverable to allow the EDP to pass the overall improvement test. The possibility of using compulsory purchase where other options are not available is, in our view, essential to the operation of the nature restoration fund. That does not change the fact that, in practice, compulsory purchase will always be the least preferred delivery option, with a negotiated procurement of land use or management changes being the natural starting point, wherever those are required.

While talk of compulsory purchase can raise concerns—I understand those, and we debated them on Second Reading —we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income. We will debate Natural England’s compulsory purchase powers more fully when we reach clause 72. Given the environmental and practical need for these limited powers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees to withdraw the amendment.

I turn to amendments 131 and 10, which seek to remove the ability for regulations to make provision for Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure. By removing the circumstances in which Natural England can reserve money for future expenditure, the amendments would limit the flexibility for Natural England to secure the most appropriate conservation measures and would prioritise haste over environmental outcomes. In our view, they would also restrict Natural England’s ability to plan for unforeseen circumstances and allow money to be made available to react to changing circumstances.

The Bill provides a number of additional safeguards to the use of the nature restoration levy, which will ensure that money is spent effectively and transparently. I will set those out when we reach the debate on clause 66. Natural England will, of course, not wish to unnecessarily delay the procurement of conservation measures once levy funding is received, and preventing prudent financial management would not assist it in that endeavour. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Members will agree not to press their amendments.

I turn finally to amendment 132, in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. This would require any unused funds to be returned to developers where an EDP no longer requires funding. We recognise that a requirement for Natural England to return any unused funds could reduce the cost to developers. However, we do not expect Natural England to be left with significant residual funds at the end of an EDP. Natural England will be encouraged to ensure that the costing of conservation measures is clear from the start and, as I have said, subject to consultation.

In the event that there are unspent funds that are not required to secure the conservation measures under the EDP, those funds will be directed towards additional conservation measures and securing additional positive environmental outcomes. Should the EDP period elapse before the outcome is achieved, the funds will continue to be invested until the required environmental outcome is achieved.

In addition, any system of dividing up and returning residual funding would risk making environmental delivery plans more expensive and would distract Natural England from focusing on developing and delivering them. It is important to emphasise again that developers are not paying for specific conservation measures on a site-by-site basis. They are providing a contribution to secure the package of conservation measures required across the EDP geography to outweigh the impact of development covered by the plan. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

We need to understand that Natural England is being asked to do a lot. The Minister has come here with some clauses, and he anticipates introducing some regulations. However, it was clear in evidence—I think the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is also absolutely sincere about this—that there remains a concern about whether Natural England will be able to undertake the functions that relate to collection, enforcement and other elements that we have discussed. The Minister has outlined the £47 million, or the relevant amount of money, and he has outlined that there is a spending review coming up. He and I talked slightly jokingly about that, and about the fact that he would seek to get the best settlement for his Department. We do not have enough detail to be sure that Natural England can conduct all those operations efficiently and secure the outcomes that he seeks.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is setting out the concerns eloquently. The Minister was clear earlier that the Government’s expectation is that this system will raise no net additional funds compared with the existing one, so the cost to the developers will be no different. The implication is that there will be no significant additional resource, if any, for Natural England to deploy as a result. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that that raises a serious question about its capacity to do the work that is outlined in the Bill?

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We heard evidence from the chief executive of Natural England, and in case she is listening, I say again very clearly that I make no imputation about the way she or the organisation are doing their job, but the language that she used was very loose. Without that financial certainty, there is a question about whether the organisation will be able to cope with all the responsibilities that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined. As my hon. Friend just mentioned, the Minister has also admitted—if he wants to intervene, that is fine—that no additional funding means that Natural England will be relying on the spending review even more than we thought at the beginning of the evidence session.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak to our amendment 121. Our primary concern is that the Bill’s proposed amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 will, for the first time, introduce permission to kill badgers, in addition to the power to interfere with their setts. Badgers are a much-loved British species of wild animal, and one that humans have not so far managed to make an endangered species. That could change with the Bill’s broadening of the legislation. It is a significant change in the law, from a power to interfere with badger setts to a power to kill badgers—the word in the Bill is “kill”—where there is an “overriding public interest”.

In our view, “overriding public interest” is not a clear justification. There are other legal tests: for example, the test of

“imperative reasons of overriding public interest”

appears in the habitats regulations, and the test of a

“compelling case in the public interest”

appears in compulsory purchase legislation. The “overriding public interest” does not seem, to us, a clear test; it is in the eye of the beholder and could be justified by any particular development. If the provision is not going to be used to make development quicker, it is difficult to understand why it is needed, since current legislation provides for interference with badger setts. Such interference can, in any event, lead to the death of badgers.

I am tempted to say that this is not a black and white issue, but perhaps we cannot say that about badgers—I thought I would get that in before someone else did. Our concern is that the Bill would significantly weaken the legal safeguards. In this country, we have provisions to protect wild animals from being killed, and we Liberal Democrats do not understand why badgers are now to become an exception to that. Laws to prevent killing wild animals are an important part of our legislative system. Making badgers an exception is not something that we are able to support.

We also believe that the provision is unnecessary. Under the 1992 Act, a licence can already be obtained to

“interfere with any badger sett…for the purpose of any development”.

In this context, “interfere” means:

“As a registered user you can interfere with badger setts under this licence to carry out development work or stop badgers causing serious damage”

by “monitoring setts”, “evicting and excluding badgers” and “destroying setts”. I do not understand why that is not sufficient for a developer, and why they need to go out and kill them. It would seem more challenging and problematic to try to find badgers to shoot them, when all those powers already exist. In all the numerous development projects in which I have been involved—over more years working in planning and development than I care to remember—it has been possible to relocate and remove badgers. None of the applicants I represented, or any of those I listened to as a planning inspector, complained that they were not able to go out and kill badgers, or that they were allowed only to move and interfere with their setts. We therefore do not understand why it is necessary to introduce this power to kill badgers.

Paragraph 41 of schedule 6 also contains a provision to allow badgers to be killed to preserve “public health or safety”. Again, it is unclear why that is necessary, given that the current legislation already allows badgers to be killed

“for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease”.

If that power already exists, why do we need the new power? It seems unnecessary, and a distraction from the main purpose of the paragraph, which is to allow the killing of badgers for the purposes of development. For all those reasons, we do not feel that it is justified to introduce the power to kill badgers, which are, as the Minister himself said, a much loved British species.

[David Simmonds]

I had not quite appreciated quite how ill the Minister’s intentions were in respect of our black and white furry friends. It is clear that they have been singled out by the Minister for extra special hostile treatment in the Bill. That raises a more general point, which we referenced earlier in relation to our intentions to introduce debates on biodiversity net gain. As important as badgers are, we know that our countryside is home to hedgehogs, dormice and all manner of protected species of flora and fauna. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire spoke eloquently on the mitigation hierarchy earlier on, and we must ensure that appropriate protection arrangements are in place in that hierarchy. I know that the Minister will write to me on the powers in the Wildlife and Countryside Act and how they might be relevant in this context. We look forward to that.

I would like to address two points that arise from clause 75. The first is that, under an earlier clause, the Secretary of State acquires the power to designate another person to undertake the functions of Natural England; this clause makes specific reference to the duty to “co-operate with Natural England”, but it does not specify what happens when a third party may have been appointed. That would have relevance where there may be a conflict, perhaps in planning terms, between the appointed party’s intentions to undertake work in the delivery of an EDP and, for example, a local authority or other public body that is having to consider, under its duties and responsibilities, an application for the delivery of those in its area. It is important to be clear whether third parties that have been appointed are covered by the clause.

The second point relates to how that interacts with a situation in which the public body covered by the duty is opposed to the development that gives rise to the need for the EDP in the first place. It reminds me of my personal experience of the example of Heathrow airport. What happens if a local authority says, “In discharging our duty in respect of air quality, we are obligated to oppose this development in any way we possibly can”, but is then advised by the Government, “However, you are obligated to co-operate through the EDP in order to enable that development to go ahead”? Clearly, that is not something that our constituents would expect to happen. The clause would introduce a degree of moral hazard in any major infrastructure project. How will the Minister address those two issues?

[The Chair]

I can see Members looking for the reference to the killing of badgers. It is in schedule 6 on page 157.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for those fair and reasonable questions. I will provide a reassurance on the central mechanism by which we expect the Bill to operate. Electronic communication will become the default. Where parties do not agree to receive service of notice by electronic methods, or do not provide an electronic address for service, they will continue to receive notices by post, hand delivery or it being left at their address, so there is a clear mechanism for those who do not want to, or feel they cannot, receive such notices by electronic communication.

However, authorities will need to ensure that the electronic address given by recipients for service of notice is the one used when they serve notices electronically on that person. Where an action is triggered by the receipt of a notice under the CPO process, the legislation is clear that if notice is served by electronic communication, the notice will be taken to have been received on the next working day—“working day” is defined in the legislation. We will, of course, provide guidance for local authorities on best practice, and ensure that routes to legal challenge on procedural grounds are maintained.

The central point on which we must be clear is that where parties have agreed in writing to receive service of notice by electronic methods, the burden of responsibility for responding to an action triggered by receipt of a notice will lie solely with the recipient. If they do not feel able to administer the process on those grounds, there is an option to still receive notices in the existing manner.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. Is this proposed to become the default across Government? In my experience as a magistrate, large numbers of people do not attend court. The rules essentially say that a notice is deemed served if it has been posted to a correct postal address of the individual concerned. Clearly, that could become more efficient in the days of electronic communication. However, are we going to find that there is a sufficiently consistent approach, especially in situations where there is a dispute between the landowner and those acting in pursuit of the compulsory purchase order, so that there are no misunderstandings by lawyers advising people about which rules apply under this specific legislation, as opposed to other legislation of which they also have experience?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take the shadow Minister’s point. He tempts me to opine on digital communication strategy across Government, but it is too early in the morning to do that. Different Government Departments are taking forward reform in different ways. I recognise the point he makes. It may or may not interest the Committee that I am required to do jury service in the coming weeks, which the Whips have some issue with. I received electronic and postal notice of that jury service. Different processes are in different stages of reform.

We are very clear that, for this process, we want to move to default electronic communication, which has lots of administrative benefits, but we have made provision for those who do not feel that they can move, or want to move, to that type of notice. We will, as I have said, provide guidance for local authorities on best practice and ensure that routes to legal challenge on procedural grounds are minimised. However, I will take the hon. Member’s point away. I am happy to share it with ministerial colleagues in other Departments. I think it is a fair challenge that the Government should ensure that, across the board, to the extent that they possibly can, they have a uniform approach to moving to electronic communication in instances where they want to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84

Required content of newspaper notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I again thank the shadow Minister for that fair and reasonable challenge. I recognise—as the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would—that the loss of local newspapers is very keenly felt in a London context. Blogs and other things have sprung up in their place, but this is definitely an issue. That is one of the reasons why we have determined not to remove the requirement to publish CPO notices in newspapers. We think that that does have benefits, particularly for members of the public who cannot access the internet, but we do think that a modernisation of the process is necessary.

This is not about reducing transparency; it is about making the administrative process more proportionate and more cost-effective. The key point is that the information contained in the newspaper notice will still give the location of the land and other information, and, importantly, as I have said, that will be complemented by information available in site notices affixed to the land in question, notices served on individuals, and information published about the CPO on the acquiring authority’s website—for example, electronic copies of the CPO, including a map and notices. The requirement to describe the land fully in these other notices is not changing. We are just trying to make more proportionate the information contained in the newspaper notice in question.

[David Simmonds]

I agree with my fellow shadow Minister that the Government are landing in the right place on this. It was a great frustration for many of us who served in local government that quite a few of those newspapers moved to being online-only, but maintained a print edition because that meant that they could charge the local authority £5,000 for putting a notice in that, if it was a lonely hearts ad or someone selling their car, would have been £25. The system has been abused at the expense of council tax payers for quite a long time, and this moves us a bit more to the right location.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I have said enough. There is no further information that I can provide on the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85

Confirmation by acquiring authority: orders with modifications

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 92 amends the process for the confirmation of CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981. Decisions to confirm CPOs made under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, such as housing and planning CPOs, can be made by inspectors on the Secretary of State’s behalf, but currently, confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act must be taken by the relevant Secretary of State. Clause 92 introduces a power for confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act to be delegated to inspectors, although the Secretary of State will retain the ability to recover decisions for their determination. This change will ensure the decision-making process for CPOs facilitating new towns is streamlined and consistent with the confirmation of other CPOs.

Clause 92 also amends the decision-making process for directions for the payment of additional compensation under schedule 2A to the Land Compensation Act 1961 where an acquiring authority has not fulfilled the commitments it relied on when it obtained a direction allowing it to acquire the land without hope value. The clause introduces a power for the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to take decisions on applications for additional compensation. This will ensure that the process for considering applications for additional compensation is more efficient and consistent with the approach set out in clause 91, which allows for the delegation of decisions on CPOs. The clause will make the authorisation process more efficient, resulting in quicker decisions.

[David Simmonds]

I just want to ask the Minister, in respect of the appointment of the inspector, what the Government’s thoughts are about the requirements for who that inspector would be. With reference to my fellow shadow Minister’s point on an earlier clause, one of the concerns is whether what emerges from this process will be a fair level of compensation, particularly in a constituency such as mine on the edge of London, where there is a lot of farmland—a lot of green-belt land—for which the occupiers will have paid a significant hope value premium to Parliament, sometimes decades ago. The same will be true in many potential development areas on the fringes of cities.

Clearly, it will be necessary that the inspector, who comes to a view about what an appropriate compensation payment is, has a relevant level of qualification. Again, does the Minister have a view about including a requirement for the inspector to have a relevant accountancy, surveying or other qualification that would enable them to discharge this function, or to secure the relevant advice, so that all parties can be confident in the decision that is made?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the shadow Minister will allow me, I will come back to him in writing on the specific point of how the Government will ensure that the relevant inspector has the correct skillset to make the necessary decisions.

I think it is probably worth making two other points. First, how will the delegation of decisions to inspectors on CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981 be considered? The appointment by the Secretary of State of an inspector to make the decision on a CPO made under the 1981 Act will be considered against the delegation criteria published in the Government’s guidance on the compulsory purchase process.

Secondly, there is the important question of whether the decision on an application for additional compensation will be delegated to the same inspector who considered the original CPO with the direction removing hope value. In that regard, it is important to note that the timescales between the confirmation of a CPO with a direction removing hope value and the determination of an application for additional compensation will vary in each case. As such, it may be impractical for the inspector who considered the original CPO with the direction removing hope value to determine the direction for additional compensation, so we need that flexibility.

[David Simmonds]

I understand the point the Minister is making. The lessons learnt from the HS2 project is that this can become a very significant source of hardship for land occupiers. I think of a constituent in his 90s who has waited six years for the payment of compensation for land that has been occupied throughout that time by HS2 in pursuance of its project. There are ongoing debates about how this will be settled. Despite an agreed figure having been reached some time ago, payment was held up. If the Minister is not minded to introduce deadlines around that, he might wish to table amendments to that effect at a later stage. I am interested in what he has to say about that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I note the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I will not comment on the specific case he raises, but I am keen to provide him with as much reassurance as possible about the skillset of inspectors, and that skillset being directly applicable to the types of cases they will be looking for in terms of compensation. On the practical considerations around the timescale of the process and other issues he has raised, I am more than happy to set that down in writing to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93

Reporting on extra-territorial environmental outcomes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak to new clause 76, which is in my name.

This new clause seeks to probe the Minister’s thoughts about the success of local authorities in tackling and challenging the unauthorised development that has gone on. As he will know, the last Government made intentional unauthorised development a material consideration, meaning that planning permission could be refused, and there is a presumption that it should be refused, when development has taken place without consent.

I think it is safe to say that we do not think—many of us see this in our constituencies—that that is being enforced uniformly. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has an open case at the moment, and I am sure all of us, as elected MPs, have had such cases in the past. There is also an issue with unauthorised encampments. The new clause goes a step further by saying that if development has taken place without authorisation, the planning authority should not grant consent. This is a probing amendment because such provisions already exist, but there are many examples across the country of enforcement not taking place.

New clause 76 requires that no planning permission is to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development. It would provide a power to the local planning authority not to grant consent for development

“where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.”

It gives further detail about the meaning of “intentional unauthorised development”, which

“(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission”,

but

“(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.”

We have put in paragraph (b) to take account of householders who have undertaken small modifications—for instance, small extensions, walls or garden sheds—that in certain circumstances would need planning permission. We do not want to persecute or make the law come down hard on those who have made a genuine mistake. This is about larger unauthorised development. The reason for tabling the new clause is that we think the Bill should go further in restricting unauthorised development, and that we want local planning authorities to be able to enforce the powers they have through the legislative changes made by the last Government.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly in the context of our earlier debate about hope value, it is important that this issue is addressed? For law-abiding citizens, nothing is more frustrating than someone carrying out an unauthorised development, potentially on a site in the green belt, as we have seen on a number of occasions, and then being able to regularise that by obtaining retrospective planning permission, when, had they applied lawfully to begin with, it would have been refused. That is an injustice in the planning system that needs to be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to speak to new clauses 48, 49, 50 and 75, most of which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—I do not know whether he intends to intervene or to speak after me, but he is more than welcome to do so, because he drafted the new clauses and can do them a lot more justice then I can.

These wide-ranging provisions would help strengthen the legislation. We tabled new clause 48 because we want to review the method for assessing local housing need. The current method does not adequately account for the type of home being built. For example, a family home can accommodate more people than a one-bedroom flat, and it should count for more because it goes further towards meeting a local area’s housing need. Under the current methodology, we often end up with the wrong stock being built and with people being displaced or having to move away from long-standing connections in their local area.

New clause 48 states:

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need…A review under this section must consider…how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property”—

as we have indicated, that should be based on demographics and local housing lists—

“basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit…In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult…local councils; and…any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and eloquent speech—far more excellent and eloquent than my contribution will be. Does he agree that one of the big concerns the Bill needs to address is the sense among some constituents that new housing development is not built for them or their community? We need to make sure that this debate is about homes, and that means we need greater subtlety and nuance in housing plans and the targets we set. It is not simply about delivering units—the dark towers we see in parts of central London, whose units are not available to or occupied by the local community—but about having a housing supply that reflects the needs of a particular place.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Who can say the Conservative party is divided when we have a bromance like this? My hon. Friend and I agree with each other all the time. He says that my speech is better than his, which is untrue, but he makes a serious point. The whole point of the Bill, and of our being here, is to ensure that housing is deliverable and accountable, and that it adapts to the will and the needs of local people. We are in Parliament and we stand for election predominantly to make our areas better and to leave the world in a better place, with people feeling better.

In my constituency, we have many four-bed and five-bed family homes. We also have a huge housing waiting list. Those homes cost £250,000 each. Of course, I aspire to being able to afford a house like that myself one day, but we need to ensure that the right housing is being built for people in Eastleigh and Fareham town centres. Often, they are displaced down the road to Southampton and Portsmouth, or to other areas of the country with which they have no connection. That is simply not fair. We tabled the new clause to see, first, whether the Minister agrees with it—I suspect he will do more resisting—and secondly, whether he will try to ascertain how we genuinely improve the method for assessing local housing need.

We had a brief debate about whether housing targets were warranted and whether people think they are good or bad. The Minister knows my position: I think they have been set for a particular reason, but that was a debate on a different clause. We want new towns to contribute towards meeting housing targets. As the Minister knows, new towns do not currently do that and are not included among those that can meet housing needs in local plans. New clause 49, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tabled, would change that to include new towns, for several reasons.

First, that would give certainty to constituents that once a local plan had been developed and proposals had gone forward for consultation, they would not be surprised by the Government’s suddenly announcing a new town. The Government are prone to doing that at the moment—I say that neutrally. When that happens, an area seems to have to take much more housing because the new town does not, on paper, contribute to the targets. I believe that, because new towns do not contribute to those targets, they suffer in terms of their services and infrastructure. The new clause would help with fairness in the system and with housing targets and planning. It is not nimbyism—I agree with the Minister that the terms yimby and nimby are reductive. To provide clarity for the consumer, as well as stability for local areas, the Government should make new towns contribute to housing targets.

The Minister should view new clause 50 as productive. If he is worth his mettle, he will see that. Its purpose is to require local authorities to have a housing plan for their areas to inform their local plans. The housing plans would cover types of home, demographics and first-time buyer homes. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the local housing plan

“must outline the number and type of homes…(a) required, and…(b) proposed to be built…in the authority’s area.”

That would strengthen local authorities’ and local people’s ability to have a say about what they want to be built for them in their areas.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and I had an interesting meeting with several house builders. The Government should embrace and look to expand retirement villages in local plans. People are getting older, and many older people prefer to stay at home, but the system is slightly broken in terms of service charges and the leasehold model. That is not working.

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way during a speech that is as eloquent as it is stylish. He makes a serious point. One change in the UK housing market is the collapse in the provision of small developers; something like 93% of homes are now built by very large housing providers. Particularly in pursuit of developing some of the smaller sites, in which the Minister has expressed a clear interest, we need to bring those types of development to market at scale. That is what new clause 75 seeks to do, and I hope that the Minister will—in a speech that will no doubt be equally eloquent and stylish as that of the shadow Minister—set out his thinking to ensure that that happens, so that the Bill does not become purely a charter for large developers while the huge number of smaller sites, which could deliver so much additional housing, are left undeveloped.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

On a point of order, Ms Jardine, we had agreed, through the usual channels, that the Whip would move the Adjournment for the Committee at 4 pm—that was agreed with the Labour Whip yesterday. I appreciate that, for very good reasons, she is not here today. I also understand that Ministers may have a preference, given our progress, to continue a degree further. I will not move the Adjournment if the Ministers indicate that they wish to continue a little later, but may I seek your guidance, Ms Jardine, on how to resolve that, given that the schedule on which hon. Members’ diaries have been constructed included an adjournment at 4 pm?

[The Chair]

I am sorry, but I have had no instruction about that. There has been no mention of it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

I am standing in as both Energy Minister and a Whip, Ms Jardine. As far as I know, the assumption was that we would have made speedier progress on various clauses today, and might have concluded line-by-line scrutiny by 4 pm. I do not think it was agreed that we would adjourn at 4 pm, but I am not party to any of those conversations, so I am afraid I cannot help. I think all other hon. Members have 5 pm in their diaries—and, given the lack of progress that we have made, we probably should proceed.

[David Simmonds]

Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine, I accept that it was a discussion between me, as the Opposition Whip, and the Labour Whip yesterday, which is the usual channel through which times are agreed. That being the case, and in her absence, I will not move the adjournment, in order to enable the Committee to proceed. However, I respect that hon. Members may have to leave—including me, because I have built my diary around that agreement and I have childcare responsibilities.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine—I do not wish to waste any more of the Committee’s time—for my part, I am content for the Committee to sit until 5 pm to ensure that business gets through. However, given my own diary, I would take a dim view if the Government should seek to continue beyond 5 pm.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is once again a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine.

We broadly support the aim of this new clause. I know my colleague the noble Lord Goldsmith proposed a similar amendment in the House of Lords, which Baroness Taylor and the Secretary of State at DEFRA have indicated they are supportive of. However, there are some flaws in the new clause. It is clear that rather than just habitats for swifts, there are creatures—insects in particular—that would also benefit from similar arrangements within the building industry. Creatures such as starlings, which are something of an iconic British bird and also nest in buildings, would require an alternative design provision.

I am not inclined to seek a vote, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister that there will be consideration given to ensuring that new buildings—both homes and, where possible, commercial buildings—incorporate features designed to support the nesting of birds and other creatures that may use those habitats in a way that is sympathetic to the use of the building.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak to new clause 26, which would increase biodiversity net gain to 20% for nationally significant infrastructure projects, and new clause 27 on swift bricks. The Committee will be relieved to know that I will not repeat all the points that have been made on this. It is worth saying that the swift bricks proposal has widespread public support and would be a very small and limited change to introduce to building practices. Swifts fly thousands of miles from the Congo basin and back across the Sahara desert twice. When they get here, quite often they find that their nesting places have gone, have been sealed up or are not available. This new clause would make a significant contribution to providing better habitats for swifts and other bird species. We are in support of this new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to conduct an annual review of the capacity of local planning authorities. The Bill’s passage appears likely, given the size of the Government’s majority, but it will impose a number of additional duties and responsibilities on local planning authorities, and meeting the proposals for housing growth will also stretch their capacity. Our new clause would require a review of their capacity and resources, as well as the impact of issues, such as lack of capacity in the construction sector or supply chains, on achieving some of the housing goals that are being put forward.

While this Government have an ambition to build lots of homes, it is important that we pay attention to how that happens. We know that local authorities are already under-resourced. I am sure that the Government appreciate the need to support local authorities in delivering housing and all the accompanying infrastructure, and we feel that this new clause would go some way towards doing that. At the risk of anticipating that the Minister is unlikely to support the new clause, we look forward to hearing what alternative solutions he may have to these challenges in planning capacity.

[David Simmonds]

I briefly draw the Committee’s attention to the Planning Advisory Service. As a result of a long-standing arrangement with the Local Government Association, through a funding set-up whereby local authorities and Government provide resources, both peer-support services and these activities are already provided in partnership with local authorities. For that reason, I would be reluctant to seek a legislative method of delivering something that is already, in practice, working well on a voluntary basis. There will always be a debate about whether local authorities feel that their resources are sufficient, but in supporting them to undertake the capacity assessment and build their capacity by working with their peers, that arrangement has been in place and working well for several decades.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for—

[David Simmonds]

On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I should declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which I referred to in my contribution.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that clarification from the shadow Minister and thank him for his comments. He highlighted the important role that the Planning Advisory Service plays.

Skilled planners are essential to delivering efficient, proactive planning services and ensuring that new development supports growth and high-quality design of places and homes. The Government recognise the mounting pressures on local planning authorities as they adapt to significant reforms, both in how we want to reform the house building system and in boosting housing supply. That is why we have legislated in the Bill to allow all local planning authorities to set their own planning fees in order to increase resources in a way that responds to the individual needs of each authority and, as we have debated at length on previous clauses, ensure those fees are ringfenced.

Furthermore, the Chancellor announced—I have said this before, but it is worth my pointing to the Government’s good efforts in this area at every opportunity—a £46 million investment for 2025–26 at the Budget last year, supporting planning capacity and capability, including the recruitment and training of at least 300 graduate and apprentice planners. Funding is also being used to support implementation of the revised national planning policy framework. For example, we allocated substantial funds to local planning authorities to assist them with green belt reviews.

Alongside that, our planning capacity and capability programme works with sector partners to build long-term skills, modernise local plans and speed up decision making, using innovation and digital tools. Importantly, we are closely tracking the impact of those interventions through an embedded research and evaluation team. A national survey conducted in 2023 informs our approach; a further survey, now concluding, will build on that baseline. Given the robust programme of support and evaluation already in place, we are of the view that the new clause is not necessary, and I hope that with those reassurances he might be minded to withdraw it.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gideon Amos]

I will be brief as we come to the last couple of new clauses that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to speak to today. I was speaking to new clause 101, which relates to playing fields. Fields in Trust is a charity that helps to protect playing fields and green spaces. Its public green space index is a way to track change over time, and it consistently finds inequality of access: one in three children do not have a playground close to home and 6.3 million people live more than 10 minutes away in walking time from a green space.

The new clause would place a duty on local planning authorities to protect playing fields and pitches from development. In March this year—a couple of months ago—the Government announced that some organisations, including Sport England, will no longer be statutory consultees on planning decisions, in order to speed up development. The press release states:

“The NPPF is clear that existing open spaces, sports, recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless an assessment has shown the space to be surplus to requirements or it will be replaced by equivalent or better provision.”

The Government argued that such protections were sufficient, but Sport England states that:

“from 2022-23 alone it protected more than 1,000 playing fields across the country.”

That was in a Guardian article where it was reported that thousands of playing fields may be lost. The protections in the NPPF are therefore not sufficient. The effect of removing Sport England as a statutory consultee can only be to speed up development on playing fields.

Sport England has also stated that

“it responds to over 98% of applications within 21 days and that in 70% of statutory applications it does not object.”

There is not a source of unnecessary delay as a result of Sport England being involved in the process. If those provisions are being removed, then the Government need to put in place more robust legal provisions for playing fields. The new clause would do that so that important community assets are not lost.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I will be brief: the issues in new clause 111, which it is my privilege to speak to, have already been extensively debated. We have just heard about protections in respect of playing fields; new clause 111 is about protections in respect of villages. Those are relevant to places such as Harefield in my constituency—pretty much the last village in London—and to the concerns highlighted by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), about some recent decisions on infilling, which puts the separation of villages from nearby towns at some degree of risk. We are keen to preserve it. We will press the new clause to a vote in due course.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I rise in support of the important new clause 111, in the name of the shadow Minister. I have six villages in my patch—Goffs Oak, Hertford Heath, Brickendon, Great Amwell, St Margarets and Stanstead Abbotts—all of which have a unique character. We need to protect village life; villages are all unique and different. The new clause is not saying that we do not want any development in villages—of course, to make progress, there has to be developmentbut people in villages in my constituency, and probably across the country, are fearful of having loads of development so that villages all get connected up together and lose their rural identity, village community and spirit.

I would like the Government to really consider the new changes they have made to the national planning policy framework, particularly on villages. As I said, when we drive throughout the country, probably through hundreds of villages, we know they are all unique and have a different character. We should try to maintain that, rather than having an urban sprawl, with no green spaces left and developments that all link together. I fully support the new clause in the shadow Minister’s name.