Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse.

The amendment relates to the mitigation hierarchy. As previously, I refer to the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection, which called particular attention to the weakening of the mitigation hierarchy in the wording of the Bill. The OEP advice to Government mentioned that specifically in relation to clause 50. My amendment relates to clause 61, but it refers to precisely the same issue.

The mitigation hierarchy is a tool that delivers for nature and for development. It has done so for many years. The omission of the hierarchy from environmental delivery plans will therefore undermine their effectiveness as a means of delivering nature recovery and smooth development progression. The Minister has been at pains to reiterate his view that nature protection and development can happen hand in hand. I completely agree, but if the mitigation hierarchy is removed entirely—as, in essence, it is by the wording of the Bill—unfortunately that will not happen.

To be specific, the mitigation hierarchy directs development plans to prioritise actions to avoid harm to nature first, then to minimise harms and, as a last resort, to compensate for the impacts of development on biodiversity. The hierarchy is avoid, minimise and mitigate, and compensate or offset.

The “seeking to avoid damage first” principle is enormously important for nature. Natural habitats and species populations take a really long time to build up; some damage can take decades to be replaced or repaired by mitigatory action. I have already spoken about irreparable habitat damage. Such damage to what is known as irreplaceable habitat, and the species that rely on it, cannot be repaired.

For example, ancient oaks grow over hundreds of years to create complex ecosystems with species that have evolved alongside the oaks and need those ecosystems to thrive. Research suggests that 326 species in the UK can only survive on established and ancient oak trees, so the destruction of an ancient oak, such as the one tragically felled in Whitewebbs Park in Enfield a few weeks ago, or—even worse—of a whole swathe of ancient woodland, means the destruction of the only home possible for reliant species in that area, in effect signing their death notice. Any replacement woodland would take centuries to become an ancient woodland ecosystem, even if the conditions were perfect. That delay is so long that species cannot survive it, making the replacement effectively redundant.

Without the mitigation hierarchy, there is no decision-making framework to prioritise avoidance of such fatal damage to irreplaceable habitats such as ancient oak woodlands or to other habitats, and of threats to the future of reliant species. That gap in the framework causes problems for development as well as for nature. The famous bat tunnel, mentioned previously, in part stemmed from a High Speed 2 failure to apply the mitigation hierarchy properly at the start of the process, at the point of design. Had that hierarchy been applied early and in full, avoidance to damage to an ancient woodland, home to a large number of threatened species, including the extremely rare Bechstein’s bat, would have been prioritised—avoidance would have been prioritised—preventing the need for clumsy attempts at mitigation measures such as the tunnel.

Swift and effective use of the mitigation hierarchy at the start of a proposal can nip development problems in the bud. Given the effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy as a development planning tool, therefore, it is deeply concerning that clause 61(3) will, in effect, disapply the mitigation hierarchy from environmental delivery plans. That was confirmed in a recent answer by the Housing Minister to a parliamentary question, where subsection (3) was described as enabling a “flexibility to diverge” from the mitigation hierarchy.

Departure from the mitigation hierarchy risks environmental delivery plans, permitting the destruction of irreplaceable habitats and causing damage to other habitats and reliant species. It also threatens bumps in the road for EDPs as a development progression mechanism and, if EDPs permit measures that would destroy irreplaceable habitats, they will lose the confidence of nature stakeholders and local communities and be more open to challenge, potentially to the extent of a replacement being required and development delayed across whole areas.

My amendment would head off those risks by applying the mitigation hierarchy to EDPs, just as it applies to other planning decisions under paragraph 33 of the national planning policy framework. It would instruct Natural England to accept an application to pay a nature restoration levy for a development only if the developer has first taken reasonable steps to apply the mitigation hierarchy.

The requirement to demonstrate consideration of the mitigation hierarchy created by my amendment would not be a heavy one. Compliance with the requirement could be demonstrated by the developer explaining how development proposals have been informed by efforts to prioritise the avoidance of harm to environmental features.

As part of the explanation, the developer could, for example, propose planning conditions being used to secure onsite measures to reduce harm, such as including green infrastructure; many developers will already be looking to integrate these features anyway because they recognise the wider health and wellbeing benefits that green infrastructure in developments can deliver. The use of the words “reasonable steps” in my amendment would also help to ensure that developers’ consideration of how to apply the mitigation hierarchy would not be onerous. The amendment has been drafted in an effort to reinforce commitment to the mitigation hierarchy without creating unreasonable expectations.

The consideration of the mitigation hierarchy would be a matter of factoring in environmental considerations and efforts to avoid irreparable damage into early development plans and demonstrating to Natural England that that has been done, rather than any lengthy assessment process. Much of the work should already have been considered and recorded as part of the initial process of identifying development sites, designing a development and assessing biodiversity net gain requirements.

The amendment also provides an extra degree of protection for the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats, about which I have already spoken in this Committee, by allowing levy payment requests to be accepted for developments that would damage these rare sites and habitats only when there is an overriding public interest for the development to proceed. That would apply to only a very small number of developments, as the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats are sadly small in number and, as I have emphasised, irreplaceable. There is a reason why the mitigation hierarchy has been used since the 1980s—almost my entire life—as a decision-making framework in UK planning and why it still has a central place in the revised NPPF: it works for nature and development alike.

The amendment would ensure that EDPs benefited from the mitigation hierarchy as other parts of planning do. It would ensure that they were able to catch and delay costly development mistakes before they happened and prevent EDPs from becoming a rubber stamp for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats. I call the attention of the Committee and the Minister to page 5 of the annexe to the Office for Environmental Protection’s advice to us. It emphasises that

“Mitigation hierarchies are an important component of existing environmental law”

and calls attention to its concern that the effect of the current drafting of the Bill could allow a protected site to be harmed in a way contrary to existing environmental law and the stated purpose of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will warmly consider my amendment.

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

It is a privilege to continue to serve the Committee with you back in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. The mitigation hierarchy is incredibly important. In fact, the Liberal Democrats were aiming to put down an amendment very similar to this one, but the hon. Member for North Herefordshire beat us to it—congratulations to her on that.

Clearly, the mitigation hierarchy is an important feature of the playing system, which has endured for a long time. One of the principal concerns with EDPs is that they will not ensure that oversight measures are taken first and foremost. The principle of “first do no harm” must guide everything we do in protecting the environment and in dealing with development that may affect the environment. We will support the amendment.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate—as, no doubt, the development sector will—the hon. Gentleman’s concern for developers and the right of appeal. I do give him that commitment. I will go away and think about the point he raises.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Use of nature restoration levy

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 66, page 96, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) The regulations must require Natural England to ensure that use of money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy is not unreasonably delayed.”

The amendment would ensure that funding would be available for upfront nature restoration and mitigation on development sites.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 130, in clause 66, page 96, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) The regulations may not permit Natural England to spend money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy for the purposes of acquiring land through a Compulsory Purchase Order.”

Amendment 131, in clause 66, page 96, leave out lines 40 and 41.

Amendment 10, in clause 66, page 96, line 40, leave out “may” and insert “will”.

This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would ensure that nature restoration levy money is reserved for future expenditure.

Amendment 132, in clause 66, page 97, line 6, leave out “use” and insert “return”.

[Gideon Amos]

I will be reasonably brief—the Committee will be pleased to know that I have been striking sections out of my speaking notes as the Committee days wear on. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Louder!

Amendment 9 would ensure that funding was available up front from the nature restoration levy and to provide mitigation on development sites. It is important, in terms of the effectiveness of any mitigation provided, that it happens up front, and not later on or after works have happened.

In terms of nature and biodiversity, the UK is one of the most depleted countries in the world. One in six species is threatened with extinction. In partnership with our pump-prime funding amendment—amendment 6 to clause 67—the amendment seeks to ensure that the levy, upon receipt by Natural England, is used as soon as possible, in order that the nature recovery fund can go some way towards ensuring that overall species abundance is increasing, rather than decreasing, by 2030. It would not be legitimate for money to sit unused in Natural England’s coffers when there is an ongoing crisis and action urgently needs to be taken.

Amendment 10 is consequential on new clause 18. It would ensure that nature restoration levy money is reserved for future expenditure—it “may” be reserved, but again that is very uncertain. That funding needs to be there and it needs to be protected. In line with our amendment to ensure that the nature restoration fund levy is not unreasonably delayed, amendment 10 would ensure that the money is put to use as soon as is reasonably practicable and is reserved for planned future expenditure.

[Ellie Chowns]

I fully support this.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me work through each of the amendments that have been tabled and spoken to. I will start with amendment 9, which was tabled and set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that funds gathered through the nature restoration levy be spent without unreasonable delay.

An environmental delivery plan will have had to meet the overall improvement test, as we have debated at length, to have been made. In designing the conservation measures in an environmental delivery plan, Natural England will have been aware that delivering measures at the earliest point in time is usually the easiest way to achieve that outcome. However, the appropriate timing to deliver a conservation measure may depend on the specific circumstances of each case and the nature of the conservation measures that represent the best outcomes for the environment in the view of Natural England, as the body preparing the EDP. Natural England’s discretion in these determinations should not, in our view, be unduly restrained by an obligation to spend money quickly, rather than well and effectively, to achieve the outcomes under the EDP. There is an option for Natural England to establish—

[Gideon Amos]

Both are possible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Both may well be possible in some instances, but may not be in alignment in others. We our principally concerned that money is spent well on the most effective conservation measures to achieve the best outcomes for nature. There is of course an option for Natural England to establish some mitigation measures prior to development starting.

Furthermore, the Bill contains provisions requiring National England to report on its progress, to ensure that there is transparency over how money secured through the levy is being used. We discussed that in a debate on a previous amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, which had overlooked the fact that EDPs have a set timeframe. The shadow Minister will know that EDPs are required to be reported on twice over the EDP period. It is worth making the point that Natural England must also publish annual reports setting out how it is spending the money received via the levy and the effectiveness of any EDPs. That requirement is a minimum and, as we have discussed, Natural England may publish reports at any other time. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Gideon Amos]

I note in particular the Minister’s concern about proceeding with undue haste—I am sure that that is the furthest thing from the mind of this Committee. Without wishing to proceed with undue haste, I suggest that he is imputing to our amendment words that it does not contain. He is suggesting that it would deprioritise effectiveness and prioritise timeliness over the measures taken being effective. However, our amendment actually says “not unreasonably delayed”, which is well-known legislative wording. It does not prevent things being done well and, if not with undue haste, in a timely fashion.

We believe that the amendment is eminently sensible. I believe in it as strongly as I did when I stood up a few minutes ago.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman further reassurance. There are two things. First, we genuinely do not believe that that line would strengthen the legislation in any way, in the sense that it is ambiguous and would be an additional expectation on Natural England. More importantly, it is likely only to limit Natural England’s options in bringing forward the conservation measures under EDPs. I will give him an example: it would make it more difficult to do things such as pooling levy payments to fund larger-scale, more beneficial interventions over the EDP geography. I ask him to reconsider on that basis.

[Gideon Amos]

As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. I would argue that it is possible to carry out the actions that he described without unreasonable delay, which is what our amendment seeks. The Government cannot have it both ways: on the one hand, it is ambiguous; on the other hand, it would definitely mean that timeliness is to the detriment of the quality of the actions. I do not think those two arguments stack up.

I believe in the amendment as strongly as I did a few minutes ago. However, in the interest of the progress of the Committee, and based on my understanding of maths, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 66, page 97, line 13, leave out “separately” and insert

“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.

This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 24, in clause 66, page 97, line 17, after “money” insert

“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.

This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.

Amendment 25, in clause 66, page 97, line 18, after “report” insert

“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.

This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on expected charging collection and use of nature restoration levy money.

Amendment 26, in clause 66, page 97, line 24, after “paragraph)” insert

“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.

This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on money passed to another public authority.

New clause 18—Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, before Part 3 of this Act comes into force, establish an independent body to monitor the administration of the nature restoration levy by Natural England.

(2) The independent body may request information from Natural England relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy additional to the information and reports provided to the independent body by Natural England under section 66(5).

(3) The independent body may report to the Secretary of State on—

(a) any concerns relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy, and

(b) any other matters relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy as the independent body deems appropriate.”

This new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy.

[Gideon Amos]

I will spend a few moments on these amendments, because they concern the important oversight body, and I will speak to them together, so Committee members need not fear—I do not have five separate speeches. I know how disappointed they will be.

The amendments are about an independent oversight body for Natural England. As the Bill stands, the effectiveness of the environmental outcomes will be determined solely by the effectiveness of Natural England in administering its own EDPs and its nature restoration levy. That is a large amount of power and responsibility, and it requires a system of monitoring and evaluation.

A single public body should not be able to evaluate its own actions without independent scrutiny. As drafted, the Bill would ensure that Natural England would be the regulator, fundholder, implementer and monitor of the nature restoration fund without any independent oversight. This is a very important part of the Bill. The lack of external oversight risks weakening the accountability of the system. Independent oversight is essential to ensure impartiality, manage conflicts of interest and guarantee effective use of the funds.

Without criticising the hard-working staff at Natural England, there are already serious concerns about the organisation’s ability to meet its obligations. It is under-resourced and overstretched, with its budget declining 72% in recent years. It is struggling to fulfil its statutory duties. Some 78% of sites of special scientific interest have not been monitored in the last six years. In the biodiversity net gain credit scheme administered by Natural England, the total income from statutory credits was £247,000 last year, while the projected administrative costs were £300,000, surpassing the income and resulting in no actual conservation from the scheme.

Frequently, other Government levies, such as the water restoration fund and the community infrastructure levy, have been historically underspent and badly managed. Lessons from those past failures must be incorporated into the new levy system. Natural England’s district-level licensing for great crested newts has also faced delays and unclear outcomes. The Government have already committed to an extra £14 million to Natural England—we Liberal Democrats thoroughly welcome that—to increase capacity to develop an initial tranche of priority EDPs. However, this is question not just of funding and resourcing, but of using the funds effectively. Ensuring that the money is spent well, in the words of the Minister a few minutes ago, is incredibly important. If he is committed to that, there should be independent oversight so that the public scrutiny and transparent reporting mechanisms essential to building trust in the system are in place.

I emphasise that this is not a criticism of Natural England. It is a way to make sure that Natural England is resourced and empowered properly to fulfil the major and significant responsibilities given to it in part 3 of the Bill.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I offer some brief remarks to complement the excellent ones of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington in support of new clause 18.

The new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the proposed nature restoration levy. We know from testimony to this Committee that we as a country have not prioritised nature and fully understood the importance of protecting habitats. Although we cannot correct those mistakes, it is important that we look to the future, in terms of nature restoration, to bring back what we had. Not only is that crucial for a healthy planet by helping to mitigate climate change, but there is a benefit to human wellbeing. Restoring natural ecosystems can enhance food production, improve water quality and quantity, reduce flood risks, and offer socioeconomic benefits such as tourism and sustainable jobs.

As my hon. Friend said, this is not about criticising Natural England but about recognising two things: first, Natural England is resource-constrained; and secondly, there is quite a lot of evidence from around the world that schemes intended to offset carbon emissions or promote nature in other forms can, if not properly scrutinised, often not achieve their intended benefits. I do not question the Government’s intentions with the proposals, but it is important that the nature restoration levy does not end up being greenwash.

We see so many examples of that. I was bewildered by a LinkedIn post a few years ago in which some people were applauding an intercontinental airline that was expanding its services for its commitment to the environment by eliminating plastic cutlery on their planes—talk about throwing a tiny starfish into an ocean. It is very important that we do not make such mistakes with the nature restoration levy. I hope that the Government will consider our new clause 18 to ensure that Natural England receives the independent oversight that it needs to discharge its objectives fully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for the Government’s response to the proposals. I can only restate some of the concerns we have about potential conflicts of interest in relation to Natural England administering, collecting and spending the money, and judging its own effectiveness. The fact that the Secretary of State is the only arbiter above it would not necessarily bring confidence to those who are most concerned about the natural environment.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire reminded us of a cast list of former Secretaries of State for the Environment. I am a little older, so I remember another one: Nicholas Ridley. Or let us think about the future: perhaps there could be a Secretary of State from the Reform party—goodness me, wouldn’t that be a prospect? What reassurance would that provide on regulating and overseeing the effectiveness of the nature restoration fund, the levy, the spending of the levy and the actions of Natural England?

For such a broad range of significant Government functions, and the significant spending of public money, it makes eminent sense to have an oversight body. It might add somewhat to the cost, but, in our opinion, that cost should be borne by developers. It is a worthwhile amount to be spent for a small regulatory function. We wish to press that point further, because it is an important way of strengthening the system, making it more robust and giving it more integrity in delivering its outcomes.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I leave the hon. Gentleman with a point to reflect on? Natural England already undertakes a range of duties and makes interventions in support of positive nature outcomes, not least in terms of nutrient pollution, which we have discussed. It cannot do that through the approach we are talking about. Oversight of that is provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and that would remain in place. I ask him to reflect on the existing situation as it applies to Natural England, and how its very beneficial work is overseen at present.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to respond to our concerns, but, as I said, such a concentration of functions so closely related to each other—establishing the EDP, collecting and spending the funds, and monitoring its effectiveness—in what is a single system surely requires some separate oversight, rather than relying on future Secretaries of State. We will press the amendment to a vote.



Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to Committee members for responding to our amendment about payment of the restoration levy up front. The Minister raises the objection that it might prevent multi-phase payments. In response to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made very clear that the intent of our amendment is to ensure that works occur up front, at the early stage, and that funds are there to make that possible.

I recognise that, for the Minister, resisting amendments is the order of the day, week, month and all the rest of it, but I did hear him refer to regulation. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we earnestly hope that those regulations will take account of the principles that we have advanced in this amendment—that funds should be provided up front and early enough for mitigation works to happen early in the process. We will be looking carefully: if that occurs, we shall be very pleased to have had raised those issues in this debate. We shall be watching the regulations carefully. Given the assurance that regulations are coming forward, which we hope will achieve the objectives of our amendment, we will not seek to push it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Compensation

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

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 69 is a further building block in the system of regulations that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy. Whereas regulations made under clause 68 will enable Natural England to take enforcement action to address non-payment of the nature restoration levy, clause 69 ensures that, where appropriate, any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of such enforcement action will have a route to compensation.

The compensation process, including when and how a claim for compensation can be made and how the amount of compensation will be determined, may be set out in regulations, with the clause providing the framework for that process. Through the development of a new system, we intend to guard against such circumstances, but it is only right and prudent to provide for them. For that reason, I commend the clause to the committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

Administering and implementing EDPs

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

--- 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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I did address this in some detail—the intention behind these clauses has obviously passed hon. Members by—but I would just like to make very clear, for the Guardian article that will no doubt appear tomorrow, that I have no particular animus against badgers in whatever form. However, we need these amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. They bring badger licences granted as part of an EDP in line with licences granted under the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In essence, all we are trying to do is to ensure that the licensing approach is relevant across all relevant species. I am happy to write to Members with more detail. I really do think, and I say this with all sincerity, that their concerns in this area are unfounded. I am happy to set out more detail in respect of badgers specifically.

[Gideon Amos]

I understand that interference with badgers is sometimes necessary for development or perhaps for environmental measures, but can the Minister explain why the existing powers are not sufficient? These are powers that enable interference with a badger sett, which may indeed mean the badgers are killed, and the sett to be destroyed. All those powers are there. Why is it necessary to have the additional power to kill them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member is right that those powers are there. The reason the new clauses are required is to ensure the operability under the nature restoration fund. To provide him with a little more detail, which I hope might be helpful, in respect of the Protection of Badgers Act the new clauses extend which prohibited activities may be covered by a licence to cover what will be needed for an EDP.

The new clauses also provide for a greater alignment between licences granted under the existing Protection of Badgers Act and those granted in respect of other species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. EDPs will set the terms of a licence, but we need these new clauses to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. As I said, I am more than happy to write to hon. Members to reassure them on this point, but I do think their concerns are somewhat unfounded and I do not think the interpretation they are placing on the Government is correct.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Some points have already been made on the underlying point of amendment 14, so I will be reasonably brief, but clause 55 goes to the heart of the overall improvement test and is crucial to the structure of the Bill.

In many ways, amendment 14 has a similar target as amendment 20, but I would argue that it is more in the spirit of the Bill and how the Government are going about it. Amendment 14 would require that the conservation measures within an EDP would “significantly”—it would add that word—outweigh the negative effect of development.

Clause 55 sets the overall improvement test that an EDP must pass before the Secretary of State can approve it. At the moment, in order to pass, the conservation measures in the EDP must be

“likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect, caused by the environmental impact of development”.

As the Wildlife Trusts has argued:

“The lifting of the bar to ‘significantly outweigh’—

through this amendment—

“is needed to secure a level of gain for nature capable of meaningfully improving conservation outcomes.”

That approach aligns explicitly with the Government’s stated intentions for the nature restoration fund. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government factsheet describes the proposed system as being a

“marked change from the current approach which, at most, requires development to offset its impact and no further”—

on that, the Minister and I are agreed. Instead, the Government say the approach will deliver

“a positive contribution to nature recovery”,

but saying “likely” to outweigh simply will not deliver that marked change, as “likely” is neither a high bar nor a strong test.

The higher bar of “significant improvement” that we propose is also in line with well-established environmental law. The Environment Act 2021, for example, is notable; now four years from receiving Royal Assent, its use of the robust benchmark of “significant improvement” has not experienced a single legal challenge. There is no reason to expect that any would arise from applying that test in this EDP legislative framework.

An EDP that passes that high bar and is made by the Secretary of State would, by definition, be environmentally robust as a result, and less vulnerable to a legal challenge than one that passes only the lower bar currently in the clause. It is in everyone’s interest that the EDPs deliver the promise of positive contributions and that step change—that marked change—the Government have stated they intend to achieve.

Finally, if we are not raising the bar through this amendment, can the Minister explain, in his summing up, why the wording is only “likely” to outweigh? Why not use “will”, as the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire proposes, or “significantly” outweigh, as in our amendment? Those who are familiar with the habitats regulations will know that the test there is that “no reasonable scientific doubt” should exist. There is a marked difference between that established approach and the current wording in the Bill, which is not simply strong enough.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I acknowledge that this is an important part of the Bill and that some organisations have expressed concerns about the matter. I agree with the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for Taunton and Wellington pointing out what the OEP has said about this part of the Bill, but we should acknowledge that what the Minister said yesterday and his speech today could not have been clearer: the Government are reviewing and reflecting on the OEP’s advice, and they have set out their incredibly clear intention to ensure not only that nature is not worse off, but that it is better off as a result of the Bill.

The Minister has been crystal clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice. The latter came through seven working days ago yesterday. We are now on the eighth working day since it provided its advice. I urge colleagues to take the Minister at his word and to allow the Government to respond to the OEP. If colleagues across the House are not content with their response, that can be dealt with on Report, but we should take the Minister at his word when he says that the Government are taking the OEP’s comments incredibly seriously and reflecting on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady tempts me down a path of commenting on past Secretaries of State—I would enjoy that, but I will not do it. She is absolutely right that we must ensure that this legislation can be exercised appropriately by any Secretary of State, whoever they might be, in years to come.

Where the hon. Lady and I slightly differ is on what legislation is required to do in all circumstances. We rely on Ministers to exercise their judgment in line with the relevant legislation and other obligations, for example on call-in decisions that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in my Department are asked to make. They are judgments. They are exercised on the basis of a recommendation by the Planning Inspectorate, and of the relevant material considerations, but a judgment is still exercised. We are saying that the Secretary of State has to exercise a judgment on the “overall improvement test” but on the basis of advice from Natural England, once consultation has been carried out.

As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned, clause 55 gets to the heart of this approach. We are reflecting on the points made in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection. I want to set out why we feel our approach is right, and that the necessary safeguards are built in. I will deal briefly with the amendments in turn, starting with 119.

Changing “are likely to” to “will” would require a greater deal of certainty from the Secretary of State before they would be able to make an environmental delivery plan. That does get to the heart of the difference in approach. In moving away from a site-by-site assessment to trying to improve outcomes for nature in the round, over a wider geographic area, we have to move away from a time period in which those conversations, or offsets, can be delivered on those sites specifically. By its very nature, the approach requires a degree of, if you like, gazing into an as-yet-unknown future. The test of “likely” makes that difficult to achieve.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will finish this point first.

That is why there are safeguards built into the process in terms of monitoring, the backup measures that can be taken in terms of amendment or revocation, and the ultimate judgment made by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice on whether the EDP is having the relevant outcomes. We cannot, unless we are determined not to attempt this approach in any way, apply near-impossible tests for an EDP to meet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give someone else a chance, but I am happy to come back to the hon. Lady.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister; I will give him an opportunity to move on to our amendment 14, which I hope he agrees is in the spirit of that approach. I sympathise with the point made by the shadow Minister, and I understand the qualitative difference with a site-by-site approach, in which outcomes may more easily be predicted than in a nation-wide or region-wide approach. Does the Minister agree that wording that retains “are likely to” but introduces “significantly” raises the bar in a way that is in tune with the Government’s approach in the Bill?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Without in any way denigrating the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a subtler way of attempting to constructively suggest how the Bill might be improved, but we still think it is problematic, for the following reasons. It would apply a higher threshold to the improvement test in clause 55 —namely, that measures are likely to be sufficient to “significantly” outweigh the negative effect of development.

The addition of “significantly” into the improvement test would mean that measures would need to be likely to significantly outweigh the negative impact of development, and that would require more than a marginal improvement. It would also introduce uncertainty as to what could be classified as “significantly” outweighing the negative impact—as well as, I might add, an associated risk of legal challenge.

In that sense, in seeking to press EDPs to deliver far in excess of the impact that arises from development, amendment 14 risks undermining the efficacy and placing an undue burden on developers, notwithstanding the legal risk I have just mentioned.

[Gideon Amos]

Does the Minister know that the same “significant” test under the Environment Act 2021 has not been subject to a single legal challenge?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure how comparable they are. We are very mindful—this is something I was aware of before becoming a Minister, but it has certainly been brought home to me since—of the impact of specific wording in legislation. It is incredibly important.

In the interests of moving on, Dr Huq, I will probably finish here. I think we have had an extensive debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq. I am also pleased to see everyone here this morning on the Committee.

Last night, after buying the Minister a coffee to keep us going, I promised to buy one for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I declare that I did intend to stick to that promise—

[Gideon Amos]

Broken Tory promises!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister, as always, for his clarity on the amendments. He has said many times in Committee that he will be reflecting; I hope that he finds time to do things other than reflect. Given his assurances, I will have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley so that he might have a proper look at where in the Bill the timescales are already set out; that may be a lesson for cross-shadow ministerial working in the future. Given the Minister’s assurances, I will not press the amendment; as I have said already, we are content with what he said on amendment 127. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Amendment of an EDP

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 58, page 89, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) An EDP may not be amended if the amendment would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures that are to be taken to protect the identified environmental features.”

This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend an environmental delivery plan so as to reduce the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of a development.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 15, in clause 59, page 91, line 14, after “to” insert “significantly”.

This amendment would require that the actions of the Secretary of State must carry out when an Environmental Delivery Plan is revoked to significantly outweigh the effects of development in respect of which nature restoration levy have been committed to be paid.

Amendment 128, in clause 59, page 91, line 18, at end insert—

“(7A) Where the Secretary of State revokes an EDP, the Secretary of State must also seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”

Clause 59 stand part.

Government new clause 66—Compulsory purchase powers: Secretary of State.

Government new clause 72—Revoked EDP: powers of Secretary of State etc to enter and survey or investigate land.

[Gideon Amos]

It is with great excitement that we move on to another clause. I will speak briefly, but this is an important amendment. In the same way that protests from developers, in another part of the planning system, about viability end up affecting the outcomes of planning applications by, in particular, reducing social housing numbers, we are concerned that protests from developers could lead to calls to change EDPs. If EDPs are to be changed—this is a very simple point—that should not mean a reduction in the environmental protection therein.

Amendment 15, also tabled in my name, is in line with our amendments 14 and 11, to which I have already spoken, which were about strengthening the environmental tests. The Government have made it clear that they seek to achieve a win-win here, but in our opinion that will not happen without that additional wording and strengthening.

We have heard from the Minister that his point of reference, like ours, is to improve the status quo. At the moment, we are not convinced that the status quo will be improved. I am grateful to him for being extremely generous with his time on all the clauses by accepting numerous interventions, and for his assurances that he will reflect. I am sure that he will do so, but for such a, dare I say, common-sense amendment—that changes to an EDP should not mean a reduction in environmental protection—he might do even more than reflect: perhaps reflect positively on it. We feel that the amendment is entirely pragmatic, sensible and difficult to refute, although no doubt attempts will be made to do so.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the Minister explicitly address the concerns expressed by the OEP, in its advice on clause 58, about the fact that there is no requirement to consult? The Secretary of State “may direct” Natural England to consult on an amendment, but does not have to. There is also no mandatory requirement to initiate a review or to update an EDP if there is evidence that it is failing to achieve its intended effects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I appreciate the Minister’s explanation. He addressed a number of the points in our amendment, including that an EDP should not be amended to reduce the amount or extent of conservation measures. He explained that in circumstances in which there is a reduction in development, there might be a need to reduce the amount or extent of such measures. I do not feel that he addressed the need to make sure that the impact of conservation measures is protected. We feel that it is common sense that changing an EDP should not lead to a reduction in the impact of conservation measures proportionate to the amount of development going ahead.

The Committee will be delighted to hear that, in the interest of getting on to other clauses, I will not press the amendment to a vote, but we feel no less strongly that it is an important amendment, and we will reflect on its wording and maintain our interest in the topic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We now come to amendments 15 and 128 to clause 59, which have already been debated. Does anyone wish to press either amendment to a vote?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

Division 7

Ayes: 3

Noes: 9

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

I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 47, page 66, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would create a requirement that spatial development strategies specify infrastructure of strategic importance for the purposes set out in subsection (4).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 89, in clause 47, page 66, line 5, leave out first “or” and insert “and”.

This amendment would create a requirement that infrastructure of strategic importance specified in a spatial development strategy have the purposes both of mitigating and adapting to climate change.

Amendment 79, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, after “area” insert

“, including through the provision of social infrastructure.

(4A) For the purposes of this section, ‘social infrastructure’ means the framework of institutions and physical spaces that support shared civic life.”.

Amendment 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—

(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;

(b) social care provision;

(c) education, skills and training provision;

(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;

(e) sufficient road capacity;

(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and

(g) recreational and leisure facilities;

(h) publicly accessible green spaces.

(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—

(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;

(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;

(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”.

This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak to amendments 88 and 89, which together relate to spatial development strategies and their content. The important point is that spatial development strategies should provide properly for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Currently, the Bill says that they “may” provide for those matters. From the Liberal Democrats’ point of view, spatial development strategies must provide for tackling climate change.

Amendment 89 seeks to change the Bill’s current wording so that instead of saying that spatial development strategies may consider mitigation “or” adaptation, it says that they must consider mitigation “and” adaptation. It seems perverse that it should be one or the other. That may not be the intention, and no doubt the Minister will have a lengthy explanation as to why the Bill is drafted as it is, but our position is that climate change must be tackled in spatial development strategies. It is not an either/or in terms of adaptation and mitigation: it needs to be both.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I speak in support of the amendments tabled by my colleague, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and also in support of amendment 79, on social infrastructure.

Amendment 79 is a probing amendment, emphasising the importance of social infrastructure such as parks, libraries, community hubs and sports facilities. These elements of the public realm are so important for community cohesion and strong communities. There are many communities that are doubly disadvantaged: they are economically disadvantaged and they lack the social infrastructure that is a key catalyst for development, social cohesion and wellbeing locally. We have a real opportunity in the Bill to specify the importance of social infrastructure—the elements of public space that enable people to come together to make connections and strengthen communities, and that act as the springboard for prosperity.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse. On your comments about the speed with which you handled things yesterday, that is to your credit as a Chair, rather than the other way around.

I rise to speak to Lib Dem amendments 89 and 123. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Climate change mitigation and adaption are needed. Mitigation is about preventing climate change and adaptation is about dealing with the effects of climate change that we have not been able to prevent.

Amendment 123 relates to our earlier amendment on infrastructure delivery plans, and is intended to achieve something similar. House building is essential, as the Committee has discussed, to provide the homes that people need, but there are significant problems with our current approach to planning. We have targets for building homes, but we do not have the same targets or focus for all the things that come alongside housing.

My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has seen population growth of 35% in 20 years, which is why the boundaries of the predecessor constituency of Wantage shrunk considerably ahead of the 2024 general election. The single biggest issue I hear on the doorstep is that our services are struggling to cope. People cannot get doctor’s appointments, their children cannot access vital special educational needs and disabilities services, roads are often at a standstill and residents are not happy with the amount of amenities provided.

We must invest more in local infrastructure, particularly where there has been considerable housing and population growth, and support our local authorities to deliver it. Local authorities often do not have the powers or funding to deliver some of the most important infrastructure, particularly in respect of health, which is administered at a more regional level, and major transport schemes, as I will to illustrate. Nor does anyone within local authorities have the power to hold the bodies responsible to account—at least not fully.

For example, a new housing estate in my constituency has a bare patch of land designated to be a GP surgery. There is money from the developer in the section 106 agreement, to put towards the build, but the body responsible for delivering healthcare is the regional integrated care board, and although the development has been finished for a number of years, the land for the GP surgery still sits undeveloped. Fortunately, the district council is working with the ICB, and the GP surgery now has planning permission. But if the ICB had chosen, it may not have been delivered at all—there are no targets as part of the planning process that say the ICB has to deliver it. I am sure that is not the only case and that the same thing is replicated across the country.

Another example from my constituency is that of a new railway station at Grove to support the enormous population growth we have seen at Wantage and Grove. Local authorities do not have the power to insist that funding is allocated to that station on the Great Western main line, and are dealing with significant problems in accessing facilities in Oxford, as well as access to London and beyond. By not delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for housing growth, which is essential, as the Committee has discussed.

[Gideon Amos]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister’s supportive comments about the delivery of infrastructure, how it will unlock housing and how it needs to come forward to do so mean that he must be lending his support to the reopening of Wellington station in my constituency, which would unlock several thousand new homes? It was ready and construction was starting when it hit the review in July, when the Chancellor had said that such stations would go ahead.

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend makes the case persuasively for a new station at Wellington. I note that it is not responsibility of the Minister’s Department, but I hope he is aware that railway and station re-openings in recent years have seen vastly more use than even the most optimistic forecasts and models predicted.

Without delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for the housing that we all know we need. The issue of housing targets not being supported by accompanying targets for—and commensurate investment in and focus on—infrastructure, amenities and public services needs to be rectified. That is essential for happy and well-functioning communities, and for ensuring that there continues to be public support and consent for more housing.

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

Let me take each of the amendments in turn, beginning with amendment 88. I fully agree that it is essential to consider and identify infrastructure needs when planning for new development, including through spatial development strategies. I do not agree, however, that amendment 88 is needed to achieve that outcome, as the Government intend to set a strong expectation in national policy that key strategic infrastructure needs should be addressed in spatial development strategies. Furthermore, the Bill grants powers to the Secretary of State to intervene where she considers that spatial development strategies are inconsistent with national policies, as we discussed in relation to previous amendments.

On amendment 89, although I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for clarity on the matter, I do not agree that any changes are needed to clarify the provision. Proposed new section 12D(4)(b) already enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigating and adapting to climate change. It does not need to be one or the other.

[Gideon Amos]

I appreciate that the Minister is hoping that spatial development strategies will make provision for that, but does he accept that the wording in the Bill is that they will provide for either mitigation or adaptation? That is the wording on the face of the Bill, is it not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. As I have said, proposed new section 12D(4)(b), as drafted, enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigation and adaptation. The Government are very clear that we need to have concern for both. As I have said, it does not need to be one or the other. I am more than happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with further detail—in writing, if he wishes—as to the operation of that subsection.

On amendment 79, I recognise that the provision of social infrastructure is also an important consideration. Proposed new section 12D(4)(c) already allows spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for the purposes of promoting or improving the social wellbeing of the area. I therefore do not consider that additional provision is needed in order to enable SDSs to describe social infrastructure.

On amendment 123, I agree that, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage noted, sufficient provision of health and education facilities, and other forms of essential infrastructure listed in the amendment, is critical in supporting and facilitating new development, and in ensuring that the needs of existing communities are met. I hope that I gave the hon. Gentleman, in relation to a previous clause, some reassurance about the Government’s intent in this policy area. I also recognise that in some cases, for a variety of issues, it can be related to whether sufficient developer contributions have been secured and so on, but in many cases there is an issue of co-ordination with bodies like ICBs. I think the Government could potentially do more in this area.

I note the plea from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for his local railway station, which I will ensure is passed on to the relevant Minister in the Department for Transport but, in terms of amendment 123, I do not agree that it is necessary to enable spatial development strategies to contribute to such an outcome. Proposed new section 12D(4), as drafted, already gives strategic planning authorities the scope to specify in their strategies a wide range of infrastructure types, including those listed in the amendment.

On the issue of specifying infrastructure targets, I do not think it is appropriate for spatial development strategies themselves to set infrastructure targets. Again, that is because SDSs will not allocate specific sites, and therefore they are not likely to give sufficient certainty about the precise level of infrastructure needed at that stage. That is a role for subsequent local plans, which will need to consider infrastructure needs at a more granular level when sites are allocated and, as I have said before, need to be in general conformity with other plans. Spatial development strategies will, however, be able to specify the key infrastructure needs for the development that they identify.

For the reasons that I have outlined, and because we do not want to fetter the production and development of spatial development strategies—it is for the areas that bring them forward to have a measure of discretion about their infrastructure and housing tenure needs—we do not think the amendments are necessary, and I request that hon. Members withdraw them.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I remain concerned. The Bill states:

“A spatial development strategy may specify or describe infrastructure the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.

Particularly if the Government will not accept the amendment discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, on the provision of infrastructure, surely spatial development strategies must specify or describe that sort of infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

On that I point, as I have said, the Bill sets out that SDSs

“must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”

We could spend many hours debating the implications of “and”, “or”, “may” or “must”—I have spent many an hour in Bill Committees doing that, when we were trying to string out the Bill for various reasons. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and reflect on the point he makes about the wording and whether further clarity would help.

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—

(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;

(b) social care provision;

(c) education, skills and training provision;

(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;

(e) sufficient road capacity;

(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and

(g) recreational and leisure facilities;

(h) publicly accessible green spaces.

(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—

(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;

(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;

(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”—(Olly Glover.)

This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship Mrs Hobhouse. I do not agree that this is the right place to make such an amendment to the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about chalk streams and I want to put on my record my appreciation for those rare and irreplaceable habitats.

In Basingstoke and Hampshire, we are blessed with the River Loddon and the River Test. During the election campaign, I enjoyed—or was subject to, depending on your point of view—a sermon from Feargal Sharkey about chalk streams, and I learned much. As the hon. Lady says, they are very rare and irreplaceable, and they mean a lot to many people.

Although I do not believe this is the place to put this amendment into legislation, I would be grateful if the Minister can set out the Government’s position on how to protect these rare and special habitats. I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural Basingstoke and Greener Basingstoke for their outstanding work and campaigning to protect these much-loved rare habitats.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to support amendment 1 and speak to amendment 30, which my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage will talk about, and amendment 28, in my name, which relates to local wildlife sites.

Amendment 28 would require spatial development strategies to take account of local wildlife sites and include policies that would avoid development on them. Local wildlife sites are some of the country’s most valuable and important spaces for nature. They are selected locally using robust scientific criteria. Those critical sites for biodiversity create wildlife corridors that join up other nationally and internationally designated sites, improving ecological coherence and connectivity. It is a misconception to think that all the best sites for nature conservation are designated sites of special scientific interest—that is not true. SSSIs cover only a representative sample of particular habitats, which means that only a certain number of sites are covered by the national selection. Local wildlife sites, in contrast, operate by a more comprehensive approach, and all sites that meet the criteria are selected. Consequently, some local wildlife sites are of equal biodiversity value to SSSIs.

Where there is little SSSI coverage, local wildlife sites are often the principal wildlife resource for the area, as well as an important place for communities to access nature on their doorstep. In my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, there are 213 local wildlife sites covering almost 23.5 sq km, compared with 16 sq km of land designated as sites of special scientific interest.

In the interest of time, I will cut short my remarks, but it is important to say that the current protection for local wildlife sites in the national planning policy framework is not strong enough, and 2% of sites have been lost or damaged in recent years. My amendment would improve the recognition of local wildlife sites and provide clarity to allow plan makers and decision makers to make the appropriate provision to protect and enhance local wildlife sites within spatial development strategies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—

“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy includes a Smoke Control Area or an Air Quality Management Area, the strategy must—

(a) identify measures to reduce air pollution resulting from the development and use of land in that area, and

(b) outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in relation to the management of air quality.”

This amendment would require spatial development strategies which cover Smoke Control Areas or Air Quality Management Areas to consider air pollution and air quality.

This amendment would require that, where a spatial development strategy includes a smoke control area or an air quality management area, the strategy must identify specific measures to reduce air pollution from the development and use of land, and must outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in managing air quality.

Currently, over 10 million people in the UK live in smoke control areas: zones where restrictions are placed on burning certain fuels or using specific appliances to reduce particular emissions. Likewise, more than 400 air quality management areas have been declared by local authorities under the Environment Act 1995 in locations where air pollution exceeds national air quality objectives. These are places where we are really not doing well enough on air pollution. Despite the formal recognition of these zones, they are often not meaningfully integrated into spatial development strategies, so this legislation gives us an opportunity to ensure that new housing, transport and infrastructure projects, when approved, must fully account for their cumulative impacts on already poor air quality.

Construction and land development are direct contributors to air pollution through increased traffic volume, emissions from building activity and the removal of green space that helps to filter pollutants. In many cases, strategic planning authorities are not required to take those factors into account when drafting or approving development strategies. The amendment would close that gap by ensuring that air quality is treated not as a secondary consideration, but a fundamental part of sustainable planning. Perhaps I should declare an interest as an asthmatic, like huge numbers of people in the UK.

The amendment also strengthens the accountability of strategic planning authorities, by requiring them not just to assess air quality impacts, but to work out what they are going to do—to define their roles—in addressing them. That would help to prevent the recurring issue where the responsibility for mitigating air pollution falls between Departments or different levels of government, central and local. It would ensure that development strategies are consistent with the UK’s broader legal commitments to air quality, including the targets that we set under the Environment Act 2021 and the national air quality strategy.

From a public health perspective, the case for the amendment is clear. Air pollution is linked to an estimated 43,000 premature deaths annually in the UK. That is a huge number and contributes to a range of serious health conditions, particularly among children, older adults and those living in deprived areas. The economic cost of air pollution, including its impact on the NHS, is estimated at a whopping £20 billion a year. Embedding air quality considerations directly into spatial planning is a proactive and cost-effective way to address the crisis before further harm is done to human health.

I believe that the amendment provides a clear, proportionate mechanism for ensuring that planning strategies support our clean air objectives. I strongly urge the Minister to consider warmly the amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

I very much sympathise with the amendment. Indeed, I have air quality management areas in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, including two that breach the lawful limits of air pollution. We desperately need the bypass for Thornfalcon and Henlade, which would solve that particular issue.

In brief, I feel that the approach in amendment 93 is not quite right, because it would be better directed at local plans. As I understand it, spatial development strategies are not site-specific or area-specific in their proposals. We do not feel that the amendment is quite the right approach, but we are very sympathetic to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s motivation for tabling it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Once again, I understand the positive intent of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s amendment. Of course, improving air quality is a highly important issue in many parts of the country, not least in my own south-east London constituency. It is part of the reason why, many moons ago now, I established the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. It is a public health issue and a social justice issue, and the Government are committed to improving air quality across the country. Amendment 93, however, is another example of trying to ask SDSs to do things that they are not designed for, and replicating existing duties and requirements that bear down on authorities in an SDS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Yes. We had a significant debate yesterday on what I said was the Government’s centralising zeal in taking powers away from locally elected politicians. Many Opposition Members agree with me. The Opposition tabled an amendment that would not have allowed to go ahead something as large-scale being put together by a strategic planning authority, created by the Government, but the Minister won. We believe people should be consulted.

As I said to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, it is vital that when there is a democratic deficit—we fundamentally believe that one is being created by other aspects of the Bill—local people should have the right to be consulted on the end product. That is why I say this to the Minister, slightly cheekily, but with a serious undertone. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, he is the forward-looking planner of our time, and I know he gets embarrassed about these things—he is blushing—but nobody in the House of Commons is more deserving of the role of Housing Minister. He worked hard on the role in opposition, and he comes from a space of wanting to reform the system. We accept that, but sometimes his reforms have consequences, and if those reforms are so good, he should not be afraid to allow the people who elected him to his place and the Government to their place to have their say on something as radical as this change.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak to amendments 90 and 91—hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. We have significant concerns about community involvement in consultation and about many of the points that have just been made. I have more to say on all that for the next group, in which we have tabled an amendment to make those points.

Amendments 90 and 91 would simply ensure that disabled people are consulted in the preparation of spatial development strategies. The Equality Act 2010 includes a public sector equality duty: a duty on public authorities to advance equality and eliminate discrimination. That implies that disabled people should be consulted on spatial development strategies in any case. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report on disabled people in the housing sector said:

“Despite the cross-government effort to ‘ensure disability inclusion is a priority’…we have found little evidence that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is treating disabled people’s needs as a priority in housing policy.”

We need to make sure that the voices of disabled people are heard in the preparation of spatial development strategies.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 47, page 70, leave out line 40 and insert—

“(5) A strategic planning authority must prepare and consult on a statement of community involvement which provides for persons affected by the strategy to have a right to be heard at an examination.”

I want to discuss participation in and consultation on spatial development strategies. I appreciate that this will be a long day as we are going on until 7 pm, but this is a really important part of the Bill, and the level of public involvement that is allowed in spatial development strategies is really important. It is vital that the Bill gets that right.

The amendment provides that strategic authorities would have to prepare a statement of community involvement, which would set out the people who had a right to be heard on a spatial development strategy. That approach recognises that spatial development strategies are different from local plans. This debate was had, probably in this room, during debates on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Labour Government did not intend to include any right to be heard in local development plans, but they changed their mind and accepted the wisdom of the arguments that were put forward. A right to be heard on local development plans was enshrined in that Act.

I recognise that spatial development strategies are different, that a right to be heard is more challenging in a strategic context, and that the London plan does not have a right to be heard. However, the provisions on spatial development strategies in this Bill do not even go as far as those in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which set out the London spatial development strategy. That Act has a duty to take account of consultation, and there is no such duty in this Bill.

I have some sympathy for the amendment that the shadow Minister proposed—the points made were valid—but we did not feel the drafting was quite right. Picking out particular businesses and interest groups was not how we would do it. We propose that strategic authorities should develop their own statement of community involvement. After all, that is what local councils are expected to do on their local plans, so why should a mayoral authority not be required to do that on a much more overarching, much more strategic and much more powerful document that would follow as a result?

In another respect, the Bill provides for even less consultation than there is on nationally significant infrastructure projects in the Planning Act 2008. In that Act, there is a statutory duty to take account of consultation—I believe it is in section 50, if memory serves me correctly. In this Bill, there is no duty to take account of consultation. There is a difference between considering notifying parties and consulting them and being required to take their views into account.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This is an important point, and perhaps some of the confusion arises from the stages of the process. Let me draw his attention to proposed new section 12K(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. That makes it very clear:

“The strategic planning authority must…consider any representations received in accordance with regulations under section 12H(7)”—

which we have just discussed—

“and decide whether to make any modifications as a result”.

A strategic planning authority cannot, as I think the shadow Minister asserted, bin all the representations that it receives in a cupboard—I think that was how the hon. Member for North Herefordshire phrased it. It does have to have regard to them. I just address that point, in terms of the examination, about what is required to come via submission to the Secretary of State before adoption.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for correcting me on that point. He is absolutely right that there is a provision stating that consultation responses must be taken into account, but there is no duty to consult and no requirement, and it is the same for community involvement. In fact, the Bill explicitly states that there will not be a right to be heard in the examination in public.

We should be clear that what is called a public examination of the strategy does not mean that the public are allowed to take part. They are allowed to watch and listen to it—that is what it means—but they are not allowed to take part. A clause specifically states that there should not be a right to be heard, so those affected—members of the public, landowners, businesses and so on—will not have a right to take part in that examination. There is effectively no right to take part in any of the process.

   We propose a modest approach that is less onerous than what is required of local planning authorities: a statement of community involvement, in which mayoral authorities would establish for themselves what categories of persons have the right to be heard in examinations of their plans. I believe that is a sensible measure that would provide a different level of involvement, which is appropriate given that a strategic authority obviously covers many more people and it would be difficult to provide a right to be heard to every member of the public. A provision to allow mayoral authorities to set out their own consultation and involvement standards seems eminently sensible to us, and that is why we have tabled the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for clearly setting out his intent. Again, I preface my remarks by saying that, given the strength of feeling that has been expressed this afternoon, I will certainly reflect. As a point of principle—I will repeat this clearly, so that it is on the record—the Government of course want local communities to be actively involved in the production of a spatial development strategy for their area. All persons have the right to make representations on a draft SDS. However, we do not think it is necessary to be overly prescriptive about how strategic planning authorities should go about seeking the views of their communities, or to require them to demonstrate how they are doing so.

As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, following the implementation of changes made in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, local planning authorities will no longer be required to produce a statement of community involvement setting out how they are engaging with their community. I do not think it would be appropriate to place a similar requirement on strategic planning authorities.

Similarly, I do not think it is necessary to give people the right to be heard at examination. It is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right for persons to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy. As I have said several times, it is the Government’s intention that spatial development strategies should act as high-level documents that set the context for subsequent local plans that must be in general conformance with them. Notably, unlike local plans, spatial development strategies do not allocate specific sites for development. Therefore, it is more appropriate for people to have the right to appear at local plan examinations and for examinations of spatial development strategies to be kept proportionate to their specific role.

I say that having heard very clearly the hon. Gentleman accept and understand the difference between what the Government are trying to achieve via SDSs vis-à-vis local development plans, for example. Experience shows that planning inspectors go to lengths to ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations of the London plan, which, while not identical in legislative underpinning, is the most comparable SDS that is out there. For reference, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows given his background and experience, the most recent spatial development strategy examination—that of the London plan in 2019—took place over 12 weeks and the list of participants ran to 27 pages.

For those reasons, we do not think the amendment is necessary, and I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

[Gideon Amos]

We wish to press the amendment to a vote, because we believe in the right to be heard and, in general, we are highly concerned about the potential erosion of the democratic planning system by the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 16

Ayes: 3

Noes: 9

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 47, page 74, line 10, leave out “from time to time” and insert “annually”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 48.

Schedule 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

The Committee will be delighted to hear that I will be extremely brief on this topic. Simply put, there is no provision for how often a spatial development strategy should be reviewed, and our amendment proposes that it be done annually. It may be that annually is not be the appropriate timeframe, but there should be regular reviews. That is the spirit of the amendment, although I will not seek a vote, to enable the Committee to make progress.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will start by responding to amendment 124 moved by the hon Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will then speak to clause 47 stand part, Government amendment 48 and schedule 3.

In reference to amendment 124, it is true that, unlike local plans, which must be reviewed at least every five years, there is no set timescale in which spatial development strategies must be reviewed or replaced. Spatial development strategies are intended to be long-term strategies that provide greater certainty for investment and development decisions. The areas producing them will vary greatly in their size, the scale of development that they require and the changes over time which they must respond to. This light-touch review requirement gives strategic planning authorities greater discretion to review their strategy as and when they feel it necessary to do so.

By way of comparison, the London plan, which has the same review requirement, has been fully replaced twice, and another version is now under way; it has also undergone several interim reviews and updates. I hope that strategic planning authorities will exhibit similar diligence in maintaining their SDSs. In the event that a strategic planning authority fails to adequately keep its strategy under review, the Secretary of State will have the power under the Bill to direct the authority to review all or part of its strategy. For those reasons we do not think that this amendment is required.

The Government firmly believe that housing and infrastructure needs cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, and that new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning are essential. A nationally consistent system will underpin the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, help to deliver better infrastructure, and boost economic growth. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will understand what we are trying to achieve with this clause and withdraw the amendment.

Government amendment 48 makes consequential changes to regulation 111 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to add spatial development strategies drawn up under the Bill to the definition of “land use plan”, and update the definition of “plan-making authority” and the references to

“giving effect to a land use plan”

to reflect the introduction of the new spatial development strategies. The amendment will bring the new spatial strategies into line with the spatial development strategy for London, along with local and neighbourhood plans. It ensures that strategic planning authorities will also be bound to carry out habitats regulations assessments. A habitats regulations assessment will identify any aspects of the spatial development strategy that may have an adverse effect on special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites. That will ensure that the impacts of development on protected habitat sites are appropriately considered.

Finally, on clause 47 stand part, as we have discussed at some length, the clause reintroduces a system of strategic plan making across England. The recent period has been something of an aberration, as throughout most of the past 50 years, England has had a strategic tier of plan-making. We have had structure plans at county level, regional planning guidance from central Government and regional spatial strategies prepared at regional level. The past 14 years, without any formal planning since the abolition of regional spatial strategies, have been anomalous, and this Government’s firmly held view is that that has led to suboptimal outcomes. Over the last 40 years, development levels have consistently failed to meet the country’s needs, resulting in a housing crisis and significant affordability gaps across the country. Additionally, the number of local plans being adopted or updated has continued to decline, with only about 30% of plans adopted in the last five years.

As is generally accepted by hon. Members, the planning system is in dire need of reform. A system of strategic plans is central to our efforts to get Britain building again. The duty to co-operate introduced by the Localism Act 2011 was intended to replace strategic planning, but it has failed. Instead, it created a bureaucratic system and significant uncertainty, led to numerous local plan failures, and ultimately failed to deliver the kind of joined-up thinking and co-operation across local authority boundaries that was intended. Indeed, the failure of the duty was such that the previous Government legislated for its repeal in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I can assure the Committee that this Government will honour the previous Government’s intentions and commence the relevant provisions of the 2023 Act to repeal the duty. Our goal is to establish a system of strategic planning that garners support from all sides of the House, and so create a stable and consistent framework for planning the growth that this country so desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

Briefly, schedule 3 contains amendments consequential on new part 1A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 inserted by the clause. That includes amending the 2004 Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. That will ensure that legislation is operable and effective, achieving the Government’s intended objectives. For those reasons I commend clause 47 and schedule 3 to the Committee.

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Section 47: minor and consequential amendments

Amendment made: 48, in schedule 3, page 146, line 4, at end insert—

“Habitats Regulations

11A  (1) Regulation 111 of the Habitats Regulations (interpretation of Chapter 8) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘land use plan’—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘(the spatial development strategy)’ substitute ‘(the spatial development strategy for London)’;

(b) after paragraph (a) insert—

‘(aa) a spatial development strategy as provided for in Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act;

(ab) a spatial development strategy of a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);

(ac) a spatial development strategy of a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);’.

(3) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘plan-making authority’—

(a) in paragraph (a), after ‘replacement’ insert ‘of the spatial development strategy for London’;

(b) after paragraph (a) insert—

‘(aa) a strategic planning authority (within the meaning given in section 12A of the 2004 Planning Act);

(ab) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”;

(ac) a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan;”’;

(c) in paragraph (c), before sub-paragraph (ii) insert—

‘(ia) section 12P or 12Q of the 2004 Planning Act (Secretary of State’s powers in relation to spatial development strategy);’.

(4) In paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (c), after ‘strategy’, in both places, insert ‘for London’;

(b) after sub-paragraph (c) insert—

‘(ca) the adoption or approval of a spatial development strategy or of an alteration of such a strategy under Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act;

(cb) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”;

(cc) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan”;’.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment revises the Habitats Regulations 2017 so that the new kind of spatial development strategy (see clause 47 of the Bill) counts as a “land use plan”. The effect is that an assessment under those Regulations will be required in certain cases before the strategy is adopted.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48

Overview of EDPs

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 48, page 83, line 2, after “to” insert “significantly”.

This amendment would require that conservation measures undertaken within Environmental Delivery Plans (EDP) should significantly protect environmental features.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.

(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”

Clause stand part.

Clause 49 stand part.

[Gideon Amos]

I am sure we can hardly contain our excitement about moving on to another clause. Amendment 12 would require that conservation measures undertaken within environmental development plans should “significantly” protect environmental features.

Clause 48 is definitional, introducing the concept of environmental delivery plans and setting out briefly what they should contain. Amendment 12 would strengthen the second of the four main functions of an EDP in subsection (1)(b), which describes the purpose of any conservation measures, including an EDP, as merely to protect the environmental features in question. “To protect” is not adequate or strong enough. The amendment would have the relevant text read, “significantly protect” the features, which would provide stronger protection.

We heard oral evidence from various environmental groups at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill. They rang alarm bells about the level of protection that EDPs would offer and said that it would not be strong enough. This is a specific change to the test of what those environmental measures should deliver, and it would go some way to address the environmental concerns that have been raised.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Gideon Amos]

We are concerned about this issue. Our set of amendments in these areas is small; they are in the spirit of the Bill and of what the Government want to do with environmental delivery plans. They are designed to provide the strengthening that environmental groups are calling for clearly and strongly. We will not push the Committee to a vote, but we remain concerned and we will return to similar points, which are also in the spirit of the Bill, on later amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.

(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”—(Paul Holmes.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

I rise to speak to clause 50. The Government and the Minister deserve complete praise for their attempt to thread the needle of building more homes while protecting and restoring nature. We must recognise that the system we inherited was failing on both counts. The innovative approach outlined in this part of the Bill, including in clause 50, is to be applauded.

I have one question for the Minister. In evidence to the Committee, there was a difference of opinion between Natural England and Wildlife and Countryside Link about whether the mitigation hierarchy would still apply under the Bill. As the Minister is aware, the Office for Environmental Protection has also expressed concerns about the undermining of the mitigation hierarchy. Here we have a disagreement between Natural England and the OEP on the loss of the mitigation hierarchy, and whether developers can indeed get away without avoiding harm.

I have also seen written evidence from Arbtech, the leading ecological consultancy in the UK and a major employer in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). In its representations on the issue, it also expressed concerns on behalf of developers about the complexities that could be created for them. I ask the Minister, how can we clear up the discrepancy? It is absolutely clear that the Government want to avoid harm for habitats that cannot be easily replaced, and that the Government want to restore and protect nature and achieve our housing goals. How can we give the OEP and others the confidence that the Government’s intentions will be made a legal reality?

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 13, which would require that the conservation measures undertaken within environmental delivery plans should significantly protect environmental features. It is one of a number of similar amendments that I will not speak to at length. Together, they would strengthen the thrust and strength of environmental delivery plans.

I say gently to the Government that if none of these strengthening opportunities is taken, we will end up with a Bill that provides environmental delivery plans that do not have the confidence of environmental bodies in this country or those who represent our environment. I hope that the Minister will consider that as we debate these amendments, which may seem to concern minor matters of wording but could really strengthen the structure of EDPs.

We look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about amendment 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. We are concerned about irreplaceable habitats, and we look for some reassurance on that topic before considering how we respond to that amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Before I start, let me make a point that I think has been well conveyed, but that I will make again for the sake of clarity: I hope that Opposition Members who have dealt with me in the past know this, but when I say that I am reflecting and listening, I am. I will take all the comments about these clauses away. As I said in respect of the opinions that have been shared with us by the Office for Environmental Protection, we are already thinking about how we might respond to allay some of those concerns.

Environmental delivery plans will ensure that the environmental impact of development is addressed through the delivery of effective, strategic conservation measures. The conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to provide a positive contribution to overall environmental improvement, delivering the win-win that we have spoken about.

Clause 50 is central to establishing the new approach that I have outlined. It introduces requirements for the environmental delivery plan to identify and set out information on three of the key concepts that it deals with. The first is the environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected: either a specific protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species. Those protections stem from the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I will come back to that point, which is relevant to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.

The second concept is the relevant environmental impact of development, and the third is the conservation measures that will be put in place to address the negative impacts and contribute to an overall improvement in the environmental feature. For example, where an environmental feature is a type of plant that is a notified feature of a protected watercourse, and the environmental impact is nutrient pollution from housing development, the conservation measures will address the nutrient pollution from the housing development but will go further to improve the conservation status of that type of plant in that watercourse.

In designing conservation measures, Natural England will consider the lifespan of the development and the period over which conservation measures need to be secured and managed. EDPs will be able to include back-up conservation measures that could be deployed, if needed, to secure the desired environmental outcomes. That is not only important for nature, but part of ensuring that the Secretary of State can be confident that EDPs will deliver conservation measures that outweigh the impact of development. This shift from the status quo towards active restoration is a key feature of the nature restoration fund.

A draft environmental delivery plan will also contain information on the expected cost of conservation measures to ensure that conservation measures are adequately funded. The cost of the measures will be relevant to making sure that the levy is set at a reasonable level for development, while allowing us to be confident that the conservation measures will be delivered.

As well as setting out further detail as to what an environmental delivery plan will contain, clause 50—with clarification from Government amendment 96—establishes the ability of Natural England to request that a planning condition be imposed on development as a conservation measure. Those pro forma conditions will allow avoidance and reduction measures to be secured up front, alongside wider conservation measures. It could be, for example, that as part of an environmental delivery plan dealing with the impact of water scarcity, a planning condition requires development to achieve a certain standard of water efficiency.

Although it has always been the case that those conservation measures would be maintained, Government amendment 95 introduces a requirement that an environmental delivery plan sets out how they are to be maintained and over what period, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.

I turn to the amendments tabled and spoken to by Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire set out, amendment 18 seeks to prevent irreplaceable habitats, or habitats linked to irreplaceable habitats, from being included in environmental delivery plans. I should first set out clearly that the provisions in the Bill will not reduce protections for irreplaceable habitats.

Existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the national planning policy framework will continue to apply. Those protections provide that where development results in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, development should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. That policy is set out in the NPPF and applies to those particular habitats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say it once again for the record: I have understood the hon. Lady’s point. I will reflect on it, in the spirit of this Committee as a whole. I have sought to take points away when they are well made, and to give them further consideration.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is being characteristically generous with his time; I wish we had more. There are genuine concerns about the timetabling of the measures. I invite him to confirm that the Government are considering how to tackle the issue of ensuring that measures are taken in a timely fashion. That appears to be what he is saying, and I am encouraging him.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am not going to provide the Committee with a running commentary on the Government’s internal deliberations in response to the OEP’s letter. I will not do that today. I totally understand why hon. Members are trying to draw me on the point, but I am not going to do that. I have set out the Government’s position, and I have made it very clear that we will reflect on the letter and on the points made today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Other requirements for an EDP

Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—

“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.

(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.

(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”—(Ellie Chowns.)

This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to our Hansard colleagues at [e-mail]. I also ask Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Officially, I think that Members have to ask my permission to remove their jackets, so I can give a unilateral order, on a hot day like this, that you may all have it off—[Laughter.] You may all remove your jackets; it is hot, especially for women of a certain age. We now come to clause 47.

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

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 47, page 62, leave out from line 32 to line 2 on page 63.

This relates to amendment 22. This amendment would remove the requirement for unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 22, in clause 47, page 63, leave out lines 14 to 17.

This relates to amendment 21. This amendment would remove the requirement for unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies.

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq—although I was not sure how much of a pleasure until you introduced the sitting in the way that you did.

Amendments 21 and 22 would remove the requirement on unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, simply based on the resources that unitary authorities have and the stretch under which they have been placed.

My own authority is working hard to stave off financial challenges after being left with a massive deficit to manage—£2 of every £3 of the council’s funding is spent on care for children and adults, but it also has to prepare a new local plan. It has permission for 11,000 homes that are not yet built, but the new plan will require a 41% increase in housing allocations in Somerset, which is a massive task that will cost millions of pounds. For an individual unitary authority, having to not only establish a unitary local plan but, at the same time, prepare a spatial development strategy seems over the top. That should be reserved for mayoral authorities, where a strategic authority is established.

We do not oppose the concept of spatial development strategies; for strategic-level authorities, they could be a sensible addition to the planning system to reintroduce the strategic level of planning that was taken away. However, we are concerned about the significant additional burden on unitary authorities in also being required to prepare spatial development strategies that are meant to be more strategic in nature and have more than a single unitary authority area. With that in mind, I commend amendments 21 and 22 to the Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to resume our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling amendment 21, but the Government will have to resist it for reasons that I will set out. Having said that, as we have already discussed in previous sessions, we absolutely recognise the real challenges that local planning authorities face not only in resourcing but more widely in capability and capacity. We have discussed a number of the measures that the Government are taking, both in the Bill and outside it, to address that challenge.

Amendments 21 and 22 seek to make upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities ineligible to produce a spatial development plan. It is the Government’s intention that, in the future, all spatial development strategies will be produced by strategic authorities in accordance with our devolution framework, including combined authorities, combined county authorities and the Greater London Authority. While we are making substantial progress, with six areas currently part of the devolution priority programme, the establishment of strategic authorities across the whole of England will be a gradual process.

However, the Government want to move quickly on strategic planning. That means that, as well as combined authorities and combined county authorities, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities are being made into strategic planning authorities with a requirement to produce a spatial development strategy. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would remove the requirement for those aforementioned authorities.

The requirement to produce a spatial development strategy will be realised either individually or in defined groupings; in some cases, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities may also be grouped with a combined authority or combined county authority. As such, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

Dr Huq, I do not know whether I get the opportunity to sum up, so I have jumped in with an intervention. Could the Minister clarify the circumstances in which an individual unitary authority—perhaps a unitary county such as Somerset, or Oxfordshire, if it becomes a unitary county—would be required to, on its own, prepare a spatial development strategy? Will all unitary authorities be required to prepare spatial development strategies on top of, and in parallel with, preparing local plans? I think that that clarification would be helpful.

[The Chair]

Apparently, there will be a chance to sum up and to respond to the summing up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Over time, spatial development strategies will have to reflect the appropriate geographies at the point they are renewed and refreshed—if that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point. But as I said, either individually or in groupings through the strategic boards we are creating, we will have to have those SDSs in places, although obviously the geographies will be able to change over time, if that is the wish of the component member authorities.

As I was saying, for the reasons I have outlined the Government believe that the legislation, as drafted, is essential to support the introduction of our strategic planning policy, which is an important means of ensuring our pro-growth agenda and that we are able to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. As we have argued on many occasions, the introduction of a robust, universal system of strategic planning is a core part of the Government’s reform agenda, and we think that the Bill is required to operate in the way that I have set out. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw his amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, and he has my respect for bringing strategic planning back into the system. I know he has worked on that for a number of years; some of us have also worked on regional planning for a number of years and can remember the regional spatial strategy processes—in fact, took part in them. However, the question of individual unitary authorities preparing SDSs remains quite a challenge.

Perhaps the Minister, in summing up, could say something about the timescale. I can see that the Government are moving towards universal coverage of mayoral—well, strategic—authorities, as well as SDSs, which makes sense, but the timescale will be crucial here. If an individual authority becomes something of an orphan, or it needs time to ally itself with others and agree its strategic authority area—for example, Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire put forward their proposal but were knocked back, so they cannot establish that strategic authority—it would seem unfair for those authorities to be required to prepare three SDSs for those three counties on top of three local plans. That is a massive amount of work. We must not underestimate the weight of work that goes into a local plan. For a huge area such as Somerset, it will costs tens of millions of pounds and it will take several years. For those three authorities also to be required to prepare an SDS at the same time would be unfortunate.

If the timing could work such that—this may be the Government’s intention—those authorities have sufficient time to establish their mayoral strategic authorities first, and then develop an SDS, that would appear to be a much better way. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on that. We do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.

[The Chair]

Minister, I am advised that you are not obliged to speak now—you can respond in writing—but if you wish to, you can.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address a couple of points to give the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington some reassurance. First, I very much welcome his support for the reintroduction of sub-regional strategic planning—I would actually say introduction, because we are not proposing a regional model along the lines of what happened before.

In our view, there has been a clear lack of strategic planning and of those effective cross-boundary mechanisms between local authorities for delivering housing growth in the past 14 years. Therefore, we do not intend to wait for strategic planning to be reintroduced. It is the Government’s intention for all future SDSs to be produced by strategic authorities, but I recognise that there is a sequencing issue here.

As I have said, however, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, and the Government want all areas of England to feel the benefit of effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Strategic planning boards will allow areas outside of strategic authorities to do that, so we think there is a mechanism that will allow for those instances where a strategic authority is not yet in place. As I said, however, I do recognise the sequencing issue.

To reiterate to the hon. Gentleman, we have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We expect all local planning authorities within the area of a strategic planning authority, such as district councils within a combined authority, to be closely involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, including by sharing staff members and expertise. That is already standard practice in areas producing a joint local plan, which can be done at the discretion of local authorities wishing to take part, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. On that basis, I hope that I have reassured him and other hon. Members as to the Government’s intentions in this area.

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 47, page 63, leave out from line 28 to the end of line 28 on page 65.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak to new clause 104, which relates to green belt protection. We recognise that the Government’s proposals are set out in the national planning policy framework. We do not support the way in which the standard method is being imposed on local authorities, nor do we support the way in which green belt release will be forced on local authorities through the requirement that they review and effectively release land for green belt. However, among the rules that the Government have put forward, we sympathise with the strictures they have come up with for the release of green-belt land where local authorities decide to do that, which should support higher levels of social housing.

Our new clause would require a quid pro quo for the release of green-belt land, which clearly will happen—it must happen, because it has been required and dictated in an NPPF. Local areas want to see proper protection for their green-belt land. Indeed, many areas would like to have a green belt, but it is extremely difficult for areas that have not historically had green belt to introduce it, such that there are hardly any areas where that has ever happened.

There is therefore an inequity in terms of protecting land. Greenfield land can be just as valuable and important in Taunton, where we have green wedges stretching into the centre of town, as it is in and around London, where there is official green belt protection. Our new clause would provide for local authorities to carry out a review of the green belt and then to protect that land from development for 20 years. That semi-permanent protection would be a quid pro quo for the loss of green-belt land that many authorities will see under the NPPF.

It gives people a real sense of the planning system’s failures when they have believed for years and years that a piece of land near them is protected green belt, but then they attend the planning committee or some meeting, and a planner—possibly like myself in the past—comes up and says, “Oh, no, no. It’s not actually protected any more. It’s not got long-term protection; that protection didn’t mean anything,” and it is wafted away. Communities want to know how their most precious areas of green land will be protected. Our amendment seeks to provide them with a mechanism to establish green belt protection for at least 20 years.

[Nesil Caliskan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I would like to make a couple of points about the green belt, not least because I would like to address the direct comments from the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to new clause 104, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I wholly endorse the aspirations behind the new clause and the mechanisms with which he is trying to protect greenfield sites by clearly placing a responsibility on local authorities. However, once local authorities have done that work, they and the public need certainty that there will be a period of time—20 years under the provisions of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause—during which those sites will be left alone. That would be through work that has been done by locally led politicians and those in their offices, who know their areas well. I look to him for assurance and he could do that with a nod.

[Gideon Amos]

indicated assent.

[Paul Holmes]

That does not mean to say that once they are reviewed again after 20 years, those sites might not be allocated, but that is the choice of the local authority and the local people that are leading that piece of work.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that he would have our support for new clause 104 if he decided to press it to a Division. However, there is a clear precedent and reason why we have tabled our three amendments. I say to the Minister that we must go for a brownfield-first approach, with an acceptance that we must protect green-belt land when urban development is not possible. We must also protect the most valuable and productive agricultural land in the country through the planning system and Government regulation. We intend to press amendments 72, 75 and 82 to a vote. I hope that the Liberal Democrats also press theirs to a vote.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise simply to confirm that we will press new clause 104 to a vote.

[The Chair]

New clause 104 will come later. We are debating amendment 72 now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Just 72 on its own.

[Gideon Amos]

So when do we vote on amendments 75 and 82 and new clause—

[The Chair]

This afternoon, probably, after lunch. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] They are in that sequence on the amendment paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The Clerk will talk to you afterwards. We want to go to Prime Minister’s Question Time—there are Members in the Committee Room who have questions at PMQs. As I said, amendment 122 was another example of an amendment where the debate and the vote were separate—I said that it had been previously debated.

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 47, page 65, line 36, at end insert—

“(2A) A spatial development strategy must have regard to the need to provide 150,000 new social homes nationally a year.”

This amendment would require spatial development strategy to have regard to the need to provide 150,000 social homes nationally a year.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 73, in clause 47, page 66, line 8, after “describe” insert

“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.

Amendment 17, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert

“; (c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”

This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.

Amendment 35, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—

“(c) the particular features or characteristics of communities or areas covered by the strategy which new development must have regard to in order to support and develop a sense of belonging and sense of place;

(d) a design style to which development taking place in part or all of the area covered by the strategy must have regard;

(e) any natural landmarks or features to which development should be sympathetic.”

Amendment 74, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—

“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—

(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or

(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in area part of a strategy area which is an urban area, when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.

(5B) In subsection (5A) “urban area” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”

This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.

Amendment 94, in clause 47, page 67, line 11, leave out from “means” to the end of line 14 and insert

“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.

(15) For the purposes of this section, “social rent housing” has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”

This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.

Amendment 85, in clause 47, page 67, line 13, after “2008,” insert—

“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.

[Gideon Amos]

Amendment 29 would give effect to the Liberal Democrat target of building 150,000 new social homes per year by introducing such a requirement into spatial development strategies. It is a commitment set out in our manifesto, alongside a funding commitment of £6 billion per annum of capital investment—above current levels of affordable housing programme spending—to get to that level of provision over the course of a Parliament.

In contrast, the Government’s commitment of £2 billion in affordable housing programme funding for 2026-27, for up to 18,000 homes, is welcome but, in our view, does not go far enough. For too many people, a decent home has crept out of reach. The National Housing Federation and Shelter both make it clear that at least 90,000 new social homes are needed per year, given the loss of 20,500 social homes in 2023-24. According to the New Economics Foundation, 2 million council and social rent homes have been lost to right to buy since the 1980s, but only 4% of those have been replaced—a massive sell-off, leaving far too many people out in the cold when it comes to their housing aspirations.

A bath cannot be filled if the plug has been taken out. We need to end the current system of right to buy and allow councils the power to do so. As the University of Glasgow has shown, the building of private homes—even at the rates the Government advocate—will not mean any significant reduction in house prices. We should not rely on the private sector to build those low-rent and social rent homes we need. Private sector homes are built for profit. We need private market housing, and we have consented to thousands of new homes in my Taunton and Wellington constituency. However, those homes will never be released on to the market at a rate that will diminish prices or bring rents down to the levels that most people can afford. For all those reasons, we need to build 150,000 social rent homes per year, and that is the target that this amendment seeks to install into spatial environment strategies.

[Ellie Chowns]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise to speak to amendments 17 and 94. Can you clarify this is the correct time to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The learned Clerk tells me that he can ventriloquise an explanation but it would be easier for him to explain after the sitting is adjourned.

[Gideon Amos]

Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I echo the comments of other members of the Committee. We have so far followed the groupings on the selection list, and within each group we have voted on each amendment that has been pushed to a vote. New clauses may be a different matter, but that is what has happened in the Committee to date.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I do not wish to exacerbate the conversation, but the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden, is correct, and I am concerned that if we entertain the new way of working, even though it may be challenged, that we will lose the efficiency and rhythm that this Committee has had.

I am open to challenge by the Clerk, but in previous sittings we have followed the groupings on the selection list, which has meant that we were prepared—though of course we are always prepared—and know the sequence that we are following. That was so for the whole of the Committee proceedings. This approach, following the amendment paper, has not been in action for the previous sittings of the Committee. I wholly endorse the comments made by the Government Whip. I believe that, if we could follow the groupings and vote on the amendments in order, as we take them, that would assist the Committee in getting through the process, and business of the day.

--- Later in debate ---

For the reasons outlined, we do not think that these amendments are necessary to further the objectives of the Bill. I ask hon. Members to withdraw them.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Member for Basingstoke invited me to go down memory lane to what was happening in 2009, 2010 and so on. I am happy to do so. The Liberal Democrats went into coalition at that point. They were 9% of the Members of Parliament, but prevented a great deal of the worst excesses of the Conservative Government over that time, and continue to stand by that achievement. In fact, there was a 25% increase in affordable housing starts based on £15 billion of additional funding on affordable social housing under the coalition. In contrast, in 2009, a Labour Chancellor proposed cuts in the pre-Budget papers that he called “deeper and tougher” than anything Margaret Thatcher did in the 1980s, and began a £22 billion cut in capital expenditure, which was greater than the—

[Luke Murphy]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gideon Amos]

I will not give way. I need to get back to the present day, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. It is important to dwell not on the proposed cuts of £22 billion to capital expenditure from 2009-10 onwards that the outgoing Labour Government were proposing, but on the reality of the situation that faces people who need social homes today. That is what amendment 29 is all about.

The hon. Member for Basingstoke suggested that the amount required per social home is £183,000. Figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research suggest that that is actually £131,000 a home. I do not doubt his sincerity in looking at the costs of each social home, but those are our figures. Against that, our proposed investment of £6 billion would be on top of the existing affordable homes programme of £2.3 billion.

In passing, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we recognise and respect the £2 billion investment that the Government have put into the affordable housing programme for up to 18,000 affordable homes. It is worthwhile. Our amendment simply asks the Government to go further and faster. Our commitment of £6 billion per year in our suggested budget—funded by the taxation proposals we set out there—added to the £2.3 billion of the existing affordable homes programme, would be sufficient to get us to a delivery level of 150,000 social homes per year in the course of a Parliament, according to figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research.

Our proposals are therefore founded on some consideration of the financial costs involved and of the priority that the Government need to give to the delivery of social homes. I reiterate simply that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out, relying on the private sector to provide low-cost social housing or even to bring down the price of housing has not worked to date and is extremely unlikely, to say the least, to happen in future.

[Matthew Pennycook]

An important point to make is that, through the revised standard method for assessing housing need and the housing targets that flow from that, we are asking local authorities to do more to meet the housing crisis. We expect more social and affordable homes to come through under section 106 agreements.

I take issue, gently, with the assertion that I think is implicit in some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman: that we are just leaving everything to the private market and doing nothing ourselves. The fact that we have topped up the affordable homes programme by £800 million and brought forward this bridge of £2 billion in anticipation of the future grant funding to come is very much at odds with his description of leaving it all to the market. The Government are not leaving it all to the market; we are providing grant funding over and above what we inherited from the previous Government.

[Gideon Amos]

We have always accepted and we support that allocation of funding to social housing, but a theme in Government thinking seems to be that the delivery of more homes through the private sector will bring prices down. If the Minister wishes to correct me, he should feel free to do so. That was my central point: we cannot rely on private housing to do that. The delivery of social homes needs to be done by Government. I was pleased with the Minister’s passion for delivering social homes, which he expressed clearly, and I therefore expect him to accept the amendment. It would simply increase the targets to deliver social homes to a reasonable level of 150,000 per year.

The delivery of social homes is a priority. We need to fund that to make it happen. If we really want to deliver more homes in this country, however, there are two big blockers, and they are not people, wildlife or the communities who will lose their voice in planning committees. The blockers are the funding for social housing and for infrastructure. If those two things were brought forward, I suggest that we would be able to build almost unlimited numbers of new homes.

For all those reasons we moved our amendment, which would simply take the Government’s rightful ambitions and laudable objectives of delivering social homes a little further and faster, and would set a target for the first time for the delivery of social homes. We do not have such a target, but one is desperately needed if we are to address the housing crisis, as organisations across the board have attested we should, including the National Housing Federation, Shelter and so many others. On that basis, I have moved this amendment.

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

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see you again. I welcome both Ministers to their places. As soon as you said that we can start removing layers, Mrs Hobhouse, my button suddenly popped off. I apologise, and I guarantee that I will not remove any more layers, for fear of disrupting the Committee.

The clause amends the Electricity Act 1989, requiring the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to implement a cap and floor scheme for long-duration energy electricity storage or LDES. We are concerned that the clause introduces unnecessary bureaucracy and will distort the market with the introduction of the scheme. I have several questions on this. Can the Minister explain what criteria will determine the initial cap and floor levels? More importantly, how frequently will they be reviewed to stay responsive to market changes?

We know that the scheme aims to provide financial stability to LDES for operators by setting revenue caps and income floors, and to encourage investment in this technology. However, will LDES operators and investors have a role in reviewing or adjusting the scheme to ensure that it reflects real-world conditions? Will there be eligibility criteria for a formal application process for operators to access the scheme, ensuring fair access for all players? Those concerns, we would argue, highlight the need for clarity and effective integration with broader energy policies and to ensure the scheme’s success. I look to the Minister for clarification on those elements of the clause. We do not intend to divide at this stage, but we will provide further scrutiny at further stages of the process.

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

Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse, it is especially a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. Liberal Democrats are supportive of a scheme to encourage long-duration energy storage and, for that reason, are generally supportive of the clause. Long-duration energy storage is crucially needed, including, of course, battery storage.

There are instances of fires in battery storage facilities, but there is no reason why they should not be built safely—they can and are built safely. We ask the Ministers to consider whether fire brigades should be statutory consultees in applications for battery storage proposals. That is not the case at the moment, which seems perverse, given that there is an acknowledged fire risk that needs to, and can, be dealt with. We should have fire services as statutory consultees to ensure that happens.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I rise simply to support the provision. The first point to note is that this sort of technology has always been critical for the electricity system, which is why we have plants such as Cruachan in Scotland—which I commend to everyone as a great place to visit on their summer holidays—and Dinorwig in Wales. We need more investment in this.

As someone who has been involved in the energy sector for almost 30 years, the simple fact of the matter is that this technology will not be invested in without additional support. The plan for a cap and floor mechanism is well worked through, and has a reasonable pedigree in the electricity industry for supporting investment. Clause 21 seeks to introduce that. Quite properly, it is technology-agnostic, because there is a great deal of innovation in this sector. The provision is important for decarbonisation, energy security and jobs across the British Isles; I therefore support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak to new clause 102, which stands in the name of the Liberal Democrats. This would ensure that all communities hosting major energy infrastructure—solar farms, wind farms, major battery storage, gas, nuclear or other power stations, as well as transmission infrastructure, which is already covered by the Bill—would receive a benefit of 5% of the annual revenue of that project.

Safeguarding the future by tackling climate change is vital, but we are only going to achieve that if we bring communities with us and make it affordable for households. We recognise, and of course welcome, the provision in the Bill for community benefits for those near transmission lines, but those living beside nuclear, gas, coal-fired or other power stations are not eligible for any community support. For example, I supported the development of Ham Farm solar park in Taunton, but none the less the community gets no benefit for the significant impact it is having on that community.

It is time that we had a system that gave community benefit for all energy infrastructure if we are to persuade communities and work with communities to host that infrastructure. If we are going to move Britain to a low pollution energy future with more home-grown energy—something the Liberal Democrats strongly support—we must be willing to compensate those expected to live with and host these enormous developments. It is time, in short, that local people benefited from national energy projects.

Liberal Democrats have consistently led the way on community benefit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) brought in the first community benefit system of this kind. In 2013, when he was Secretary of State and making the UK the biggest offshore energy generator in the world, he said:

“Communities hosting renewable energy installations play a key role in meeting the national need for secure, clean energy. It is only right that local people should be recognised and rewarded for that contribution”.

He continued:

“developers already offer community benefit packages on a voluntary basis, we challenged them to do more”. —[Official Report, 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 116WS.]

He then announced an increase in the recommended community benefit package in England from £1,000 per megawatt of installed capacity per year to £5,000, which remains the basis of the system today. Now it is time to extend that benefit to all energy, and to make it proportional to the revenue raised by energy projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who is a real champion for his constituency, proposed a scheme such as is set out in new clause 102 to Highland council back in 2021. It is important to recognise that the industry has contributed in this area, and in renewables especially.

In February 2024 the Government, in their document, “Developing Local Partnerships for Onshore Wind in England: Government response”, endorsed the 2013 system of £5,000 per megawatt installed capacity. Our new clause would mean that 5% of revenue from all energy projects goes to local communities. To put some figures on that, Grubb and Garjardo at UCL Bartlett estimate that, in a good year for energy generators such as 2022, UK revenue from renewables was £15.5 billion. Put that across 53,000 megawatts of installed capacity, meaning that £288,00 revenue per megawatt of installed capacity was raised, and 5% of that would be around £14,000 in community benefit per megawatt of installed capacity. In less good years, such as 2021, it might be around £7,000 per megawatt of installed capacity.

With average electricity bills in households being £730 in the UK, it is also important to secure reductions in bills by adopting the Liberal Democrat policy in our manifesto of finally decoupling electricity prices from the wholesale gas price. Based on Energy UK’s figures, that would mean a reduction in electricity costs per household of around £200 per year. The sums yielded to communities through the new clause—around £7,000 in 2021—would be comparable with the volunteered figure of £5,000 from the industry, but with the added benefit that when revenues increase, the community benefit would also increase.

So far the Government have taken only limited steps, which are welcome; but as part of the proposals that we put forward for a similar system in a debate in Westminster Hall in October, we were encouraged by the Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, who said:

“On community benefits in particular, we are continuing—at pace”—

that key word—

“the work started by the previous Government to review how we can effectively deliver benefits for communities living near this infrastructure.”

He said that they were,

“developing clear guidance on community benefits for both the infrastructure and the transmission networks.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 276WH.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire provides an example from the highlands. It is in the periphery of the UK—the highlands and elsewhere—that many of the biggest energy projects are located. Typically, they are areas where there are high levels of fuel poverty, limited access to affordable housing, lower wages, and high costs for electricity connection and heating. Rural areas, where many major projects are built across the UK, share the characteristics of departing young people, sparse and remote public services, especially after the ending of the rural service delivery grant, and poor infrastructure.

Other countries provide compelling examples of what can be done. Denmark, for example, requires new renewable projects to offer at least 20% ownership to local residents. In Germany, local authorities, or Länder, such as Munich, develop their own offshore wind farms, and community benefit comes from the tax revenue that they provide.

Our new clause would see two thirds of the benefit funds designated for the community, by which we mean to be spent in the council ward affected, where community groups themselves could and should be delegated with the power to manage and distribute those funds, with one third used for community benefit at a more strategic level for the council area decided by elected councillors. Fuel vouchers, affordable housing and investment into health and social care could be among the priority candidates for the spending of these benefits. It is unacceptable that these communities, which provide the backbone of our energy revolution, often see little financial benefit from hosting such infrastructure.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank all Members for an interesting debate. Amendment 83 was tabled by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. He is ever present in these discussions, but never present—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

It is a very important point, and this will come through in the discussions that we will have more generally in this Committee around community consultation, but it will continue to play an important part. I think it is important to separate out any question of compensation from community benefit.

This is not a compensation scheme, and landowners that currently are compensated for infrastructure being built will continue to be compensated through whatever channels that is decided in. This is a community benefit, so it is additional. It is about recognising that it is critical for the future of the country that we build new grid infrastructure, and that if someone hosts that infrastructure they should gain some benefit from doing so. This is our proposal for doing that, alongside the community benefit funds that we have announced.

The Government believe that it is appropriate to set out the full detail on this in regulations, as is the case in many such schemes that have been set up over the years, due to the technical level of detail that will be required, and have drafted this clause to make sure that it applies only to transmission infrastructure, as it is not the intention that it should apply to other technologies. I commend clause 22 to the Committee.

That brings me to new clause 102, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which seeks to introduce a scheme that would ensure communities are provided with financial benefits from hosting major energy infrastructure projects from a range of technologies. I welcome the intent of this measure. Indeed, I have had a number of conversations with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on this very topic over the past nine months in which I have had the privilege of having this job, and spoken fairly recently to his colleague, the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr Angus MacDonald)—I was in his constituency yesterday, seeing the investment that this Government have made in port infrastructure in his constituency.

We therefore agree broadly with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington’s point about how communities should benefit from all this energy infrastructure, but the new clause is not the right way to do it. We are already considering—he quoted myself to me, and I was delighted to hear I was fairly coherent in that debate—the question of wider community benefits. Clearly, at the moment most such community benefit schemes are voluntary schemes run by developers. It is important to say that some of those are actually hugely successful, and communities welcome the collaborative approach in drawing them up, but others are very unsuccessful, and leave communities without the genuine benefits that they should get. We are therefore looking at this really closely at the moment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke noted, we published guidance in May 2025 on community benefit funds for those who live near electricity transmission infrastructure, and shortly we will publish updated guidance for onshore wind in England, which, of course, follows the 10 years of the previous Government’s ban in England. We are also exploring options for our overall approach to community benefits, to provide consistency across different technologies and to maximise the ambition from that. We have left on the table the option of that being mandatory in every case, but we want to look closely at how that would work, and how the design would work to ensure that we are not setting a scheme that does not suit the flexibilities that individual communities might want to take advantage of.

I reiterate that communities are providing a service to this country when they host clean energy infrastructure and there should be a benefit from it. Towards the end of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he rather veered off community benefits and into an equally important space on community ownership, which is something that I have also had a number of important conversations about. We see ownership of energy by communities as a really important step as well, and that is a step up from community benefits.

[Gideon Amos]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for addressing the serious points in the new clause, and particularly for saying that mandatory schemes will not be taken off the table. He was coherent back in October, except—if I might suggest—for the phrase “at pace”. Could he explain what “at pace” means in this context, in terms of what the timescale might be?

[Michael Shanks]

That is a question that I have asked myself many times over the past nine months. The problem is that we inherited a number of these things from the previous Government and we are working through them.

I have regular meetings on the subject. It is really important that we get this right, because we need to strike the balance: ultimately, the community benefit funds will, one way or another, be paid for by bill payers, but we want communities to have a real benefit. The balance has to be right because we are trying to bring down bills for everyone across the country. The Conservative amendment would increase people’s bills, but we are determined to try to bring them down. There is a balance to be struck.

We feel that this is an exciting moment to drive community ownership forward. A key aim of Great British Energy will be to drive forward the local power plan, so that communities do not just have benefits from infrastructure, but own some of those benefits. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned the real benefits of communities having a stake in projects—they can spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on, rather than on what a scheme might define. The two go hand in hand.

The bill discount scheme is an important step to drive forward community acceptance of new network infrastructure. We will develop proposals at pace for the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and for communities right across the country on the wider aspects of energy infrastructure. I hope that he will not move his new clause 102.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clauses 32 and 33 relate to public inquiries under the Transport and Works Act. Clause 32 will amend the circumstances in which an objection is considered to an application under that Act. Currently, if an objection is raised to an application under the Act, a public inquiry or hearing can be required to be held, even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. That can result in costly and lengthy public inquiries taking place, even where objections lack merit.

The length of the inquiry process can range greatly depending on the complexity of what is being examined, from six months to two years. Clause 32 will mean that a public inquiry is held only when an objection is raised that is considered by the determining authority to be serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and cost for applicants. All objections will continue to be decided—I want to stress this point—entirely on the merits of the arguments put forward. This not about removing the voices of individuals or communities; instead, it ensures that the objections process remains proportionate, so serious objections are given due attention.

Clause 33 makes amendments to section 11 of the Transport and Works Act regarding decisions on costs arising from a public inquiry. It will enable an inspector conducting the public inquiry to make decisions on those costs, unless the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them. Currently, the inspector must write a report with recommendations of costs to the Secretary of State based on the conduct of parties taking part in the public inquiry. That approach contrasts with the Planning Act 2008, where cost decisions are made by the examining authority.

By delegating the decision-making capability to the inspector conducting the inquiry, we will ensure that claims are resolved more quickly for all stakeholders. That will reduce administrative burden in determining such cases and save time, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. The Secretary of State in England, and Welsh Ministers in Wales, will retain the ability to direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them should they not wish to delegate responsibility on a potentially contentious case. The clauses, as I have argued, will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative burdens, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. I commend them to the Committee.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to query some of the provisions. We understand that the Government’s proposal would effectively remove the automatic right to call a public inquiry. The Minister knows we are concerned that the Bill seeks to remove people from the process, and to remove the opportunity for objections in the planning process. That is a very serious concern for us. The clause proposes a public inquiry only where the Secretary of State

“considers that the objection is serious enough”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Hopefully I can provide the hon. Gentleman with further clarification. I recognise and appreciate the valid concerns he raises. As things stand, it is not the case that any objection to an application of the kind we have described results in a public inquiry or hearing, but it can in many instances give rise to one.

For example, when an objection comes from a landowner whose land would be affected by compulsory purchase; when a local authority for the area concerned receives an objection that they do not consider frivolous or trivial; or when other concerns are raised that need to be considered, a public inquiry or hearing takes place. In many circumstances, that is appropriate. In others, it may be the case that an exchange of correspondence, for example, can achieve the same goal without the need for a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I hope that gives him some reassurance as to the type of circumstances—

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am pre-empting what the hon. Member is going to intervene on, so I will finish making the point and he can come back to me. I hope he is reassured as to why we consider the change necessary, and the outcome that we are trying to achieve.

The hon. Member raises an entirely valid point about the fact that it will be for the Secretary of State for Transport to decide on a case-by-case basis when objections meet the test that he rightly reiterated. I will reflect on how we might provide further clarity, perhaps through guidance on the circumstances in which that test should be applied, but I recognise there is a fair challenge about what cases will come through this route.

I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the problem we are trying to resolve is that under certain circumstances, as things stand, a public inquiry or hearing can be triggered where it is not necessary, and there may be a far more proportionate way of moving things on and responding to objections—for example, in an exchange of correspondence. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman somewhat. As I have said, I am happy to reflect and come back to the Committee with further thoughts on this point.

[Gideon Amos]

I simply say that doing away with, effectively, an automatic right to a public inquiry in certain circumstances, as the Minister has clarified, and replacing that with the words “serious enough” is a big leap. I strongly encourage the Minister to put on record guidance on what relevant parties can expect will be considered serious enough to merit a public inquiry.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not have much more to add. There is a genuine problem with the current arrangements that we need to resolve. As I have said, in some circumstances a public inquiry or hearing is not necessary; things can be dealt with in other ways. Under the current arrangements, public inquiries and hearings can be triggered even if an objection is considered to be lacking in substance. That is onerous and disproportionate, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the basis on which the Secretary of State for Transport will determine whether the objection is of the relevant level of seriousness to require a public inquiry or hearing. I am more than happy to come back to him on that point in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Deadline for decisions

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

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Let me go over some of the points I have made to reinforce them, but also to respond directly to the challenges raised.

I think the principle of the one-stop-shop DCO process for major infrastructure is accepted as a beneficial aspect of the NSIP regime. We think allowing Transport and Works Act orders to take that holistic approach to all the consents required has merit. It would provide more certainty for applicants and ensure that some timelines and requirements were reduced, therefore benefiting the speed of the process. I very much recognise the concerns raised about heritage protections. The shadow Minister will forgive me for not commenting on a decision made by the Secretary of State, not least in the period when it is potentially still challengeable, but I note his concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

The type of grounds that I think would be reasonable for the Secretary of State for Transport to refuse to take the application down such a route might be, for example, an objection by Historic England or the relevant local planning authority. The hon. Member makes a valid point and he is perfectly within his rights to press the matter to a Division, but I will go away and seriously think about how we can provide further clarity and reassurance on this point. We absolutely want to ensure a better process, with those bodies consulted and their concerns addressed, but to allow for the decision-making process and the Transport and Works Act to apply, not to weaken heritage protection.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I urge him to consider regulations. That is the approach under the Planning Act 2008, which has worked and ensures that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to apply the same tests that local planning authorities’ inspectors and the Secretary of State have to apply under the 2008 Act. They have to apply their central and historical tests—ironically they are historical tests for historic parts of our heritage and should be retained. We strongly urge the Government to consider regulation in that regard. I am grateful that he has indicated he will consider that, no doubt among other options. We believe it should be statutory. On the basis of the assurance given, we will not press the matter to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We will certainly go away and reflect, because it is broadly our intention to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is brought into line with other consenting regimes, not least the Planning Act regime and how that operates in respect of some of these protections. I commit to give him an answer by Report stage, either in terms of changes we think are necessary or reassurance that we do not think changes are necessary. One way or another, I will get him a clear answer on his, as I said, fair and reasonable challenge.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 38

Deemed consent under marine licence

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to support the thrust of clause 44. For a very long time, we Liberal Democrats have called for local authorities to be free to set their own fees for planning applications, so we welcome the approach.

I seek a couple of clarifications from the Minister. Does clause 44 refer to planning applications and not to listed building consent? I think we all share a desire to keep listed building applications free of charge, so will the Minister let us know about that in due course? Local authorities are struggling for funding. In my own Somerset council, £2 out of every £3 of council funding is spent on care for adults and children, leaving £1 out of every £3 provided by council tax for everything else, including planning, housing, enforcement and environment, so funding is crucially needed.

Somerset council has asked for the freedom and flexibility to set its own planning fees. One challenge it faces, in common with other planning authorities and planning departments, is the market rate paid to professional town planners, who frequently find that the level of remuneration in councils is worse. Will the Minister confirm that local authorities will be free to set salaries above the market rate to attract planning officers in circumstances when the market conditions make that necessary? The Minister may not wish to answer all my questions now, but I hope that he can address them at some point.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I fully support what the Government intend to do in this clause. Those of us who have worked in local authorities or have supported the development industry over many years will know that there are many occasions when statutory deadlines are not hit, reports do not go to committee at the right time to enable consent within an agreed timescale, and reports have to be deferred because they have not been written well enough by an overstretched planning department.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the arrangements that will be introduced through this legislation. Will there be a backstop for local authorities that do not put a regime in place? Will he consider allowing local planning authorities and developers to agree bespoke fees for applications to be determined on a shorter timescale? Is the use of planning performance agreements, which are currently in common use, affected by the new legislation? What performance management arrangements do the Government want local authorities to put in place to justify the fee changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is generous in inviting interventions; I rise to make a small one. I technically ought to declare that I live in a listed building—a fairly shabby one—but that is not the only reason why I wanted to listed building consents to be free.

[Matthew Pennycook]

On that point I should say, although I hope this was implied, that we will set out detailed processes in the regulations. We will absolutely take into account points that have been made today. I give the hon. Gentleman my undertaking that the specific issue that he raises will be fully considered as part of that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

Amendment 152 is well intentioned and sets out a number of matters that planning authorities should take into account when organising training. There are also other aspects of the planning process to consider, including how we make better provision for electric vehicles. The last major piece of planning legislation from 1990—it has endured for 35 years—is very prescriptive about the content of training for members and officers, but it will be extremely difficult to encapsulate everything that is needed.

I certainly think that the requirements for people with disabilities and for climate and nature are sometimes conflicting. I have seen a number of planning schemes where trees are put in the middle of the road or pavement. Although those environments look nice, they do not accommodate people with disabilities, such as sight or mobility problems.

We have to adapt as things move on, and this is exactly the sort of thing that I would ask the Minister to consider in guidance that could be regularly updated, as opposed to it forming part of the Bill. I certainly support the amendment’s intention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for tabling it.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to support amendment 152. The Liberal Democrats have a similar measure on the amendment paper, new clause 11, which also refers to the accessibility of housing. We are pleased to support this amendment, and we support training for planning authorities in general. In the Minister’s summing up, can he address the concern of some organisations that, as well as accessibility, the training needs to include conservation and heritage?

[Paul Holmes]

Clause 45 relates to mandatory planning training, which is long overdue. It could be a huge benefit to local planning authorities to have trained planning committee members.

When many members of the public—and many Members of Parliament—saw the mandatory training element of the Bill, they probably shouted, “Oh good God, thank you!” There is a massive variation in the outcomes of planning committees, as we will come to in debates on other clauses where we disagree with the Government on planning committees. To strengthen planning committees and ensure that they all perform—and that members of planning committees perform to the best of their ability and are trained to make the complicated decisions that local planning authorities and committees have to make—is a good thing.

I declare an interest that, as a former chair of a planning committee at Southampton city council for two and a half years, I really enjoyed the training. The planning training at the time, when the council was under Conservative control—I will say that it does it now under Labour too—was automatically given to newly elected councillors on the committee. It was exemplary.

Councillors could not pick and choose whether to go. Instead, the council very clearly said from an early stage, “If you do not attend this training, we will not defend any decision that you make, and we will not put you on the planning committee, despite the best wishes of group leaders from all parties.” That is a commendable approach, and one that I know other local authorities also take.

Planning decisions are sometimes the most user-friendly decisions that are made; although they are not necessarily the most important, they are where a local resident will have the most interaction with their local authority. Apart from when a bin is not collected—or, in a unitary or county council, when someone is going through problems with education or an education, health and care plan—planning decisions are the bread and butter of the public facing element for locally elected politicians.

Later in Committee, we will talk about how the Opposition feel that the Government are trying to take some of those responsibilities away, but the precept of this provision to allow locally elected councillors to have the best training that could possibly be provided, so that they make decisions that they are proud to stand by and are legally defensible on appeal, is long overdue and is of huge benefit to local authorities. We welcome clause 45.

On Government amendment 49, the Minister may forgive me a slight rant. I absolutely agree with this amendment on mineral planning authorities. I suggest that officers and managers of highways authorities, particularly those in Hampshire, should also undergo some training, given how woefully Hampshire county council officers have dealt with a mineral extraction facility in Hamble in my constituency. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that in his semi-judicial capacity, but I can because I do not have those responsibilities.

Locally elected councillors, who should make the decision and have had the proper training, refused Cemex’s application. When it came to appeal, local planning officers removed the rug from under people’s feet by refusing to defend that decision, so the local community has had to find £75,000 to try to defend it—thank God for the constituents of Hamble who are defending it. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that case, and I am being slightly facetious, but perhaps we need an audit of the way that officers engage their responsibilities as mineral and waste planning authorities. Other Committee members are aware of the case in Hamble, and, although I will not ask them to speak on it, I know they will be sympathetic to my call.

I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for moving amendment 152 on behalf of the hon. Member for Shipley. It is well intentioned, but it would create a burden that is already met by national equality and planning legislation, as well as local authority planning guidance and locally set planning regulations. This is a slight role reversal, but I hope that the Minister will agree—I am not writing his lines for him—that accepting the amendment would create more bureaucracy for councillors on planning committees.

There is already provision, through national guidance, national legislation and local guidance, to ensure that developments are accessible and that accessibility is at the forefront of any proposed development. The Opposition do not support the amendment, because we believe that we have made great advances over recent decades in ensuring that developments are accessible and that local authority members and planning officers take very seriously their responsibilities when it comes to accessibility in the planning system.

I wholly welcome clause 45, which is a great thing for the empowerment of local authority councillors. It will bring councillors, their constituents and their residents closer together. Some of the most difficult decisions that I had to defend in my time as a councillor were those I took on planning applications as chair of the planning committee, particularly on the big blue IKEA in Southampton, which other hon. Members might have been to. Yes, I did that—I am looking to other Hampshire Members, who may have been there.

That decision was controversial, but I was able to defend it because I had had the training. When some of my or my committee’s decisions were challenged, I had a detailed knowledge from that planning training, which officers provided, so I could be questioned at appeal and make sure that the decisions were sound. We lost a few, but we defended a few; that is the nature of local democracy. I say to the Minister that I am deeply encouraged by clause 45, which we wholeheartedly support. We do not accept amendment 152. We wholly agree with Government amendment 49.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I invite the Minister to go slightly further. Will he say today that the regulations will include the requirement for both accessibility and heritage training?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member understandably tempts me to start to specify what will be in the training, but I will not do that. Further details will be brought forward in due course, but I have certainly heard the case made by Committee members about what the training should include in respect of accessibility and other issues.

Finally, Government amendment 49 is a minor and technical amendment that clarifies that members of mineral planning authorities should also undergo training in planning matters. Mineral sites deal with complex planning issues, so it is only right that members of mineral planning committees, acting on behalf of mineral planning authorities, should be included in the requirement to undergo relevant training.

Along with amendments 50 and 51—which we will come to shortly—this amendment clarifies the position of mineral planning authorities for the purposes of the Bill. To be clear, we want to remove any doubt as to the requirements of the Bill with respect to the training of members of mineral planning committees, and that is what this amendment achieves. For those reasons, I humbly invite the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to withdraw amendment 152.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak on amendments 50 and 51.

Portsmouth is a part of a minerals partnership and collaborates with Hampshire county council, Southampton city council, New Forest national park authority and the South Downs national park authority. Together, they have developed and adapted Hampshire’s minerals and waste plan. Does the Minister agree that amendments 50 and 51 will support administrative efficiency, particularly for those fully urbanised authorities such as mine in Portsmouth, where we have no or very few mineral resources to extract? Releasing such authorities from having full mineral plans and duties could reduce future duplication and free up much-needed planning resources, allowing us to work on plans that are relevant and specific to our area.

[Gideon Amos]

We support the delivery of 1.5 million homes, but a confrontational approach, whereby elected representatives are longer allowed to take decisions on behalf of local people, will alienate people from the planning system, create more conflict and make it harder to deliver the homes that we need. Taking powers away from local elected representatives is taking powers away from local people. So much of planning is already predetermined by national guidance and policy.

Only last Friday, I had two parish councillors at my surgery. They came to ask why Government guidance on highway planning overrides everything that they, local people and their own transport planning expert know about highway safety in their village. Those objectors wanted to support the housing scheme in Cheddon Fitzpaine, but they were asking for a previous commitment to secondary access to be honoured. The councillors were told that there would be costs of £400,000 if they did not follow Government transport planning guidance, and they had no choice but to accept the application without the road. Not for the first time, after that meeting some of my councillors came to me and said, “What is the point of being a councillor if local resources are so constrained that there is no money to provide local services?” Even on planning committee, the Government are taking away decision-making powers from local people. It is totally unacceptable.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This is an important point to try to tease out. The decision the hon. Gentleman has just referred to took place in an instance where, if I have understood him correctly, local residents took issue with the application of national policy and guidance on a planning decision. I do not think it is the position of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats that national policy and guidance should not exist, and that it should all be completely localised. We may have disagreements on the spectrum, but we all recognise that national frameworks should be in place in some instances. The NPPF is a good example, as are other policies and guidance.

That is why I think we should have a more rational and proportionate debate—we may disagree at the end of it—about the pros and cons of a national scheme of delegation, and, if one is in favour of it, as the Government are, what it should include. There is this idea that, at present, local authorities and local elected members can do whatever they want—that they are completely free, and their mandate gives them scope—but, no, that is not true. They are constrained in several respects. In fact, we have debated that at length in this Committee. The NSIP regime was introduced in recognition of the fact that certain applications should be determined on a national basis, not by local committees.

I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect and expand on why in this area, local discretion should be untrammelled—if I follow his argument—whereas in other areas he would rightly support the idea that national guidance and policy should be in place. He may differ with the content of that guidance, but local planning authorities are subject to frameworks and guidance that I think we all recognise should be in place.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, but guidance and policy are guidance and policy. We are talking about giving him and all future Ministers, of whatever party, the power to write the delegation arrangements for each local council in the country and tell them what they may or may not be allowed to decide. The difference is that national infrastructure projects are huge projects that have a national justification and are decided by an elected Secretary of State, but the Bill will forcibly delegate to an employee of a council decisions that will quite often be completely disagreed with by every single member of a council but will stand as a decision of that council. It cannot be logical.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a separate argument, but the hon. Gentleman cannot pray in aid the case that he has just cited, which was made on the basis of a national scheme of delegation not being in operation, and where his local residents just took issue with national policy and guidance, which he thinks should be in place. He has recognised, quite rightly, that elected members of the Government can take views about what national framework should be in place.

We strongly feel that there is a good case for a national scheme of delegation that does not remove, in the apocalyptic terms that the shadow Minister outlined, all decisions and all ability to input into applications from local residents, but simply sets out where appropriately elected members in committees should make decisions and where decisions should be left to expert planning officers.

[Gideon Amos]

I completely accept that policy and guidance exist, but there is a degree of discretion when it comes to policy and guidance. We are dealing with primary statutory legislation here, and there would be no discretion over its implementation.

I think the Minister should accept that this is not about a fluffy national scheme of delegation that we all agree with; this is about removing the right of councillors to recover decisions to democratically elected members of the council. They may not; they are not allowed to. The clause is very clear that the Local Government Act 1972 will be changed so that councillors may not recover those decisions, and they will be made by employees.

This is not about a national scheme of delegation. We could all agree on a recommended scheme and have a standard scheme of delegation. This is about the law. I am surprised that the Minister is so lightly giving all future Ministers power to deny decision making by local councils.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very reasonable argument. Does he agree that we could be having a very different debate today if the Minister and the Secretary of State had not been so heavy-handed in legislating on what local councils can do? We could be having a conversation about national guidance for planning committees. This overreach and this democratically reductive approach are the reason why the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington I are so concerned about the Government’s measures.

[Gideon Amos]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, the Local Government Act will be changed so that councillors may not have permission to recover such decisions, even if every single member of the council disagrees with a decision. This would be better described not as a national scheme of delegation, but as a forced removal of planning powers from councillors.

In response to a statement in December, a number of Members from across the House challenged the idea of taking these powers away from planning committees. The Minister said that the measure would be in relation to “minor reserved matters” applications—that is from Hansard on 9 December 2024—but the clause we are presented with has no limits at all. The Secretary of State may draft regulations in relation to any relevant function, so there is no such qualification and no limitation on any future Minister or Secretary of State.

Let us look at the history of planning in this country. It began as a local system and has gradually become more and more centralised and nationalised in its approach. Surely to goodness, that is exactly what will happen again with this huge power that is being given to future Secretaries of State.

Breaking the link between elected councillors and decisions made by their councils is so anti-democratic, and it will undermine trust in politics further. Councillors are coming to me and asking me, “What is the point of being a councillor any more?” Imagine their voters’ response if councillors say that they no longer have any ability to affect a whole tranche of decisions, and what decisions they are allowed to make will be determined by Ministers in Whitehall, not by their council.

By dint of this clause, the Government’s message is, “It doesn’t matter how much you engage in the planning system. It doesn’t matter which councillors stand for election, what they stand for, what their manifestos are or who gets elected. All decision making is directed by Whitehall, and local people must keep out. They have no say over what their employees will decide at the council.”

The enforced removal of decision-making powers is completely unnecessary to sustain the granting of the permissions and consents that everyone wants in order to provide the housing that the country needs. The vast majority of planning decisions—some 97%—are already made by council officers. Councillors and committees are not blockers; they approve nine out of 10 of all applications that come before them.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me first say that, for entirely understandable reasons, this has been a passionate debate. People feel very strongly about the local planning system, the role of elected members in it, and the role of residents in inputting to those decisions. That is because local planning is principally a local activity. It is for that reason that we as a Government are putting so much emphasis on ensuring that up-to-date local plans are in place in every part of the country, because we think that they are the best way to shape development in a particular area, but we want to ensure that planning committees function effectively.

I will make a couple of points in response to the issues raised. The first is on outcomes. I slightly chide the shadow Minister, because it cannot be true on the one hand that this is a measure, as he alleges, that we are introducing to build our 1.5 million homes and then, on the other hand, to say that it will essentially make no difference to the current arrangements.

Outcomes-wise, we think this is an important part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, because it will ensure that decisions are made in a more consistent and more timely manner. That is why I gave the example on Second Reading of reserved matters applications. I do not know what the views of Members are, but I certainly do not think that every reserved matters application should come back to committees. I think that often delays the process.

We can discuss many of the other challenges that we face in the planning system. It is absolutely true that there is more that we can do on empty homes; we are giving that consideration. There is more that we can do on build-out—watch this space. There is more that we can do on all these things, but it is still the case that the planning system is too inconsistent and slow, and that there are things we can do about that.

To come back to the point on build-out, and we do need to take action on build-out, it is this Government’s view that we need to oversupply consents into the planning system to ensure that we are building out at the rate that meets the housing crisis, because whatever anyone thinks about the rights or wrongs of this reform, we are not building homes at the scale that we need in order to meet housing need and housing demand. We have to do things differently. In terms of outcomes, we think this measure is impactful.

[Gideon Amos]

Another time, I would be interested to discuss what level of oversupply will actually work, because we have huge oversupply permissions already. My point is in relation to reserved matters. The last reserved matters application I dealt with was for a waste site that had 770 objections. I think local residents would have been incredulous to be told that their local planning committee was not allowed to decide that application. There were more objections to that than to any other application in the council area for years. The Bill does not say that this relates to just reserved matters, but even if the Government did bring forward a proposal to say that, does the Minister not see how controversial and significant even reserved matters applications can be?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take the point, but let me be clear about what I said: every reserved matters application should come back before a committee. I will come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, but in terms of outcomes we think this measure will be impactful.

My second point is about straw men. Parts of this debate have generated more heat than light, if I am honest, and many allegations have been thrown around. Some said that this measure rides roughshod over local democracy, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne alleged that the Government are saying that once a local plan is in place, every decision will just be shoved through. That is obviously not the case, so let me be very clear about what we are talking about.

Local schemes of delegation are in place across the country. In lots of those, lots of decisions are delegated to planning officers. In principle, we all agree that expert planning officers should be allowed to make decisions on certain applications—I do not think that is contested—so let us put what we are discussing in proportion. We are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications. Representations are and will continue to be considered by the decision maker, whether that is the planning committee or the planning officer. In that sense, I will continue to argue that the proposed change does not remove democratic oversight.

My third point is about what is decided. There are understandably a lot of assumptions about what the national scheme of delegation will suggest. I would wager that in a couple of years’ time, when we look back at this, a lot of the concerns raised will seem to have been unfounded. I hope the Government allay those concerns when we bring forward the precise proposals about what we want the national scheme of delegation to entail. It is not the case that the controversial and significant applications that several hon. Members have raised, which we agree should absolutely come before committees, will be ruled out in the national scheme of delegation. The assumption about the amount that we are removing from the system will prove to be unfounded.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman is doing so, but he tempts me to announce the proposals that we will bring forward. I would like to do that as a package so the House can see what the Government are proposing. As I said, at that point I think some of the concerns will have been assuaged.

My fourth and final point, which is the crux of this debate, is that we can have a very sensible discussion about the type of things that should or should not be in a national scheme of delegation. The shadow Minister just inadvertently went down that route, and I am happy to have that conversation. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington gave the game away, in a sense, when he argued that if we were just talking about a scheme of standardisation across the country, that would be fine, but a national scheme of delegation is not. We are, in a sense, talking about a standardised scheme that will ensure consistency in the system about what comes forward.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will just make this point, then I will give way for a final time. This debate has revealed a very principled difference of opinion, sincerely held, about whether it is appropriate at all to have a national scheme of delegation. I feel very strongly that, just as the Government set frameworks in other areas, it is right that we have a say on schemes of delegation that apply in local areas. I think that is right, both in terms of the outcomes that will be secured and to reduce uncertainty and risk in the system. I understand that Opposition Members feel differently and think that a national framework should not be applied. That is a perfectly reasonable view, but we disagree.

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

[David Simmonds]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

But the conversation that we will have to have, because we have the numbers, is what the national scheme of delegation should incorporate, not whether we bring one forward. Three Members want to intervene. We have a few minutes left.

[Gideon Amos]

My point was about the distinction between a voluntary guideline and putting in statute the removal of powers from councillors. I repeat: does the Minister not have any qualms about giving all future Ministers and Secretaries of State in future Governments the power to make any regulations they want to take these powers away from councillors?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think it is perfectly appropriate that we introduce a national scheme of delegation, and that we bring forward, through a regulation-making power, those details in due course. Any future Government would have to consult on changes and take them through via secondary legislation, and it would be up for scrutiny.

I am tempted to comment more widely on regulation-making powers, but I gently say to Opposition Members that some of the placeholder clauses that I saw in legislation in the previous Parliament make this one seem very minor, in relative terms. We can debate that more widely, but I think our approach, both in outcomes and in a reasonable balance between democratic oversight and trusting expert local planning officers, which we all do in certain circumstances, is the right one.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members should email their speaking notes to [e-mail]. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. However, it is very hot this morning, so if you would like to remove your jackets, you are allowed to do so.

Today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates; decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.

The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak to all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendments in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.

Clause 1

National policy statements: review

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

I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(3A) After subsection (2), insert—

‘(2A) Any review of a national policy statement in relation to a nationally significant infrastructure project must include consideration of whether the project complies with the Land Use Framework.’”

This amendment would require national policy statements to be in accordance with the proposed Land Use Framework.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to move amendment 32, which stands in my name.

We are pleased that the Government have kept their manifesto commitment to publish the long-awaited consultation on the land use framework—something the Liberal Democrats had long called for. The consultation states:

“Optimising how we use England’s land will be essential to delivering the Government’s Growth mission and the Clean Energy Superpower mission”.

It rightly recognises that a

“strategic approach to land use strategy and planning”

is needed if we are

“to avoid siloed…decision-making and…unintended consequences or unanticipated costs.”

It says that that will also inform decisions

“to guarantee our long-term food security...support development...achieve our targets on nature and climate…and support economic growth.”

Those are good objectives. However, the Secretary of State has repeatedly emphasised that the land use framework is not about telling anyone how to use land; instead, it is about providing the principles, data and tools to empower decision makers. It is right that the land use framework should not become prescriptive, but there is a real chance that it will become an expensive waste of time if it is not bolted into the planning system. To succeed, we need an efficient legal link to planning and spending decisions; otherwise, the land use framework will likely only sit on a shelf.

Part 1 of the Bill rightly recognises the need for more efficient ways to keep national policy statements up to date. In the past, NPSs have fallen behind Government policy, which has led to delay. For example, as Justice Holgate noted in the Drax development consent order challenge, the energy NPS designated in 2011 left important questions about greenhouse gas emissions unanswered because it did not reflect Parliament’s net zero decisions.

To avoid that kind of disconnect and delay, NPSs should have a direct link to the land use framework, as proposed in the amendment. The amendment would help to ensure that the land use framework has a dynamic link to major infrastructure decisions, without becoming too prescriptive. That would help to protect the environment and agriculture by guiding projects away from the most damaging options early in the process. It would also help development by improving certainty up front, reducing the challenge of judicial review were the relationship between NPSs and the land use framework left to the courts to determine.

The land use framework must be aligned with national policy objectives to inform the policies needed to deliver those objectives. Failing to consider the land use framework when reviewing national policy statements would also perpetuate siloed decision making. It would leave the land use framework as toothless and without the necessary weight, undermining public confidence in land use decisions. The amendment would not bind decision makers or prescribe specific land uses but would meet the Government’s stated objective of better informing decisions and supporting the delivery of a shared vision for English land use that balances the need for housing, energy, infrastructure and food security with our statutory climate and nature targets.

In his remarks when he launched the land use framework, the Environment Secretary said that the framework

“will work hand in hand with”

the Government’s

“housing and energy plans…creating a coherent set of policies that work together, rather than against each other.”

Ensuring that national policy statements in these areas consider the land use framework is therefore essential to realising the Government’s objectives of joined-up decision making.

The House of Lords Land Use in England Committee highlighted the issue in its report, which found that the “overarching theme” from witnesses to the Committee was the “lack of integration” between nationally significant infrastructure projects, both

“with other NSIPs (including other projects within same policy area), and with the wider planning system.”

It recommended:

“Energy and other large-scale infrastructure projects should be incorporated into a land use framework.”

An obvious and effective way to do that would be to ensure that any review of the national policy statement complied with the land use framework. Without that, and without the amendment and the institutional and legal levers to create change on the ground, a land use framework would likely just be another strategy on the shelf.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Before I speak to clause 1 stand part and respond to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I put on the record my thanks to the large number of witnesses who gave up their time last week to give evidence to the Committee and inform our deliberations.

Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity that our country needs and the high living standards that working people deserve; that is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission. The failure to build enough critical infrastructure, from electricity networks and clean energy sources to public transport links and water supplies, has constrained economic growth and undermined our energy security. That is why the Government’s plan for change commits us to fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.

While nationally significant infrastructure project applications are already being processed 50 days quicker on average than in the last Parliament, achieving that milestone will require the planning regime for NSIPs to fire on all cylinders—yet we know that the system as it stands is too slow and that its performance has deteriorated sharply in recent years. The Government are determined to improve it and to deliver a faster and more consenting process for critical infrastructure that will drive down costs for industry, bill payers and taxpayers.

Key to an effective NSIP regime is ensuring that national policy statements are fit for purpose. To be clear, those statements are the primary policy framework within which the examining authority makes its recommendations to Ministers on individual development consent order applications and against which the relevant Secretary of State is required to determine an application. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just noted, despite their importance many national policy statements are outdated, with some having not been refreshed for over a decade.

Clause 1 addresses that problem by establishing, on enactment, a new requirement for every national policy statement to be subjected to a full review and updated at least every five years. NPSs can be reviewed at any point within that five-year timeframe, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Additionally, any statement that has currently not been updated for over five years must be brought up to date within two years of the clause’s enactment.

Having taken on board the views of consenting Departments, a wide range of industry stakeholders and the recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission, we believe that a five-year timeframe strikes the right balance between ensuring that statements are kept up to date, while avoiding rapid change and the consequential uncertainty for the infrastructure sectors that would be caused by a more rapid review timeframe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point but, if I have understood him, it is a slightly different issue from the one we are considering. I will give him some extra clarity about the land use framework and any other material consideration that would need to be assessed. When looking at a national policy statement, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to such material considerations, be they the land use framework or any others, for the decision to be legally sound.

The reason we cannot accept the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is that it is not necessary to specifically require that, as it would effectively repeat public law decision-making principles on the face of the Bill that would have to be taken into account anyway. For that reason, we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, so I hope he will withdraw it. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In our view, the land use framework is a really important document about the sustainability of the development of land in the UK, and simply referring to it as one of a number of documents that must be taken into account does not guarantee that it will be delivered on in the really important national policy statement framework. Our intention is that it should be a requirement that national policy statements are in accordance with the land use framework for those reasons; it should not simply be a background document.

I am bleary-eyed this morning, but I have spotted that there are more Members on the Government side than on the Opposition side, so we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

National policy statements: parliamentary requirements

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 3, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a response to a resolution made by either House or recommendations made by a committee of either House in relation to amendments to national policy statements. The requirement to do so is otherwise removed by 2(a).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Gideon Amos]

The justification for the proposal in clause 2 to remove parliamentary requirements for scrutiny and the approval of amendments to national policy statements is that they reflect legislative changes. In our view, that justification is faulty in three respects.

First, it is claimed that since Parliament will have considered the changes, it does not need to scrutinise the resulting amendments to NPSs. However, it is far from certain that national policy statement amendments will reflect new or amended legislation. Let me give an example. In its 2023 review, the Transport Committee was very critical of the draft national networks national policy statement, and said that new planning policies for major road and rail schemes need clarifying against net zero laws. However, the Department for Transport not only failed to accept any of the MPs’ recommendations but put a climate test from the outdated 2015 policy back into the NPS it designated in 2024. Given that the reason for updating the NPS was to update the climate test, that completely compounded the original justification for carrying out the review. There is therefore no certainty that legal decisions will be reflected if my amendment is not accepted.

Secondly, the explanatory notes say that the change will “preserve parliamentary oversight” for amendments to NPSs, but in fact the purpose of the clause is to take away parliamentary oversight of changes to NPSs. It will mean that the Government are no longer required to respond to recommendations of the Select Committee or other MPs. As the Transport Action Network said,

“If we are serious about front-loading, in other words deciding key policies in advance rather than in individual infrastructure decisions, the Planning Act 2008’s failure to enable effective scrutiny of NPSs requires addressing, rather than being made worse.”

Thirdly, although it is suggested that the removal of parliamentary scrutiny is limited, subsection (3)(d) makes it clear than any change of Government policy can be effected by changing an NPS without the oversight of Parliament. The clause—and particularly subsection (3)(d)—destroys the distinction between national policy that has been debated and voted on in Parliament and the rest of Government policy. There is a clear distinction, which is really important, in the NPS regime.

In the case some time ago of Dinsdale Developments Ltd v. Secretary of State for the Environment in 1986, the court accepted an after-dinner speech from the Secretary of State as Government policy. Although I doubt that the Minister speaking over dinner in his family home would be captured and changed into a national policy statement, there is scope for speeches made by Ministers and Secretaries of State to become Government policy. They can be wafted into the national policy statement with no opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise or vote on it, which would undermine the strength of national policy statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

All I would say is that if the hon. Gentleman looked at the history of the response times on some of these matters he would see that in not every instance is there a timely response. It can delay the process quite significantly. We appreciate the concerns, but the procedure cannot and will not be used to bypass due parliamentary scrutiny.

Any court decision change being reflected in the NPS will have been scrutinised by the public and Parliament on its own terms. We are adjusting the parliamentary scrutiny requirements to update an NPS, so that it is more proportionate and enables those documents to be updated more quickly. The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government. The Secretary of State is required to lay a statement in Parliament announcing that a review of the NPS is taking place. The Government will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period, and Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical. Finally, the NPS as amended will still be laid in Parliament for 21 days and can be prayed against.

I turn to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington; we have covered many of the issues it raises. In seeking to remove clause 2(3)(a), it is a wrecking amendment, in our view. It would fatally and fundamentally undermine the introduction of a new streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements by requiring the Government to respond to a Select Committee inquiry before being able to lay a national policy statement before Parliament. We will therefore resist it. As I have set out, the new procedure introduced by clause 2 will help to unlock growth in our country by enabling policy to be updated more easily, providing certainty for applicants using the NSIP regime and for decision makers. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.

[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.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people are also very concerned about the anaemic economic growth in the United Kingdom over the past 14 years, as well as the housing and energy crises, and that the Bill seeks to strike a balance between all these competing considerations? At the moment, we do not have a balance—the balance is against development—and we desperately need developments such as Hinkley that create brilliant, well-paid jobs, including for many young people in south-west England.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is right: many of my constituents appreciate the opportunities that the Hinkley development provides them. Perhaps he is right that the decision should be wafted into a quick policy statement and then whacked into the NPS, so EDF can get rid of its fish deterrent for the sake of economic growth and the jobs that he is talking about—but surely Parliament should have some say on these crucial questions of balance between economic objectives and objectives around the natural environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well, it would have to have been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House in order to meet the criteria. We think that it is therefore reasonable to take it through in this manner. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is suggesting that there will be a complete absence of parliamentary scrutiny, and in that way is misleading the Committee regarding the effect of the clause.

[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 ---

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Member accurately highlights the point that I was trying to make in relation to the acoustic fish deterrent, where particular changes could be made through this new route to facilitate projects—changes that would not have had proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister may say that the provision would apply only to proper Government policy—real Government policy—such as the national planning policy framework, which I fully accept has had parliamentary scrutiny, but look at case law, such as Mead Realisations Ltd v. the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the Court of Appeal last year, Sir Keith Lindblom said that

“the legal status of the government’s planning policies in the NPPF and its guidance in the PPG is basically the same. No legal distinction exists between them...Their status is equivalent in the sense that both of them are statements of national policy”.

Clearly, Ministers and Secretaries of State can make a range of policy changes that could feature in, and become changes to, national policy statements. Through a cumulative process, an NPS could become degraded by a morass of detailed changes, and no longer have the strength and integrity that it requires. Crucially, it will not have benefited from parliamentary scrutiny. We intend to press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The Opposition generally support what the Minister said. We want to speed up of these applications and give people a better choice in securing the developments that we require. However, we have some concerns and questions, which I hope the Minister will take in the spirit in which they are intended; I am looking to support the clause, not looking to make hay or create issues for him—would you believe it?

The introduction of the idea that the Secretary of State may disapply the requirement for development consent raises some concerns about the potential diminishing of that planning process and the vesting of too much power in Government Ministers. The Minister will understand that the Opposition are concerned about the wording of the provision with regard to when the Secretary of State can use this power. That probably needs to be strengthened, or at least there needs to be a strengthening of the relevant frameworks and parameters.

Two possible cases in which the powers could be used have been outlined, and the Minister helpfully outlined some examples, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. We will not press the clause to a vote, but I would be grateful if the Minister could write to the Committee about whether he and his officials would consider strengthening the parameters relating to where the power could be used. I hope that he does not think that too unreasonable.

Proposed new section 35D provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the timetable for deciding requests and about the provision of information to the Secretary of State. This may be my naivety or it may be that I have not read the right paragraph—I am perfectly willing to accept that I am not perfect, as many of my colleagues will say—but why are those provisions not on the face of the Bill? As the Committee continues this process over the next few weeks, will the Minister try to bring some clarity on that new section?

We do not disagree with the clause. We have some concerns about transparency, but generally we welcome the Minister’s aspirations to speed up these decisions and speed up the process that he has outlined.

[Gideon Amos]

Without wanting to shock the Minister too much, I rise to support the clause. The Liberal Democrats want measures that will help to facilitate net zero and other developments, and the clause will provide an opportunity for many decisions to go into the Town and Country Planning Act regime, which is local, is accountable and involves local planning committees. That shows that this does not necessarily need to be a slower process; it could at times be a quicker process with more local involvement. I have been involved in NSIP projects that could have gone through that process but in fact came through the Planning Act 2008 regime. Direction under the proposed new section could be very helpful in ensuring more local processing of planning applications.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

Alongside these measures, clause 7 clarifies and puts it beyond doubt that examining authorities can make an order for costs incurred by persons in relation to an application for a development consent order at any time after they have been appointed. The clause does not change the scope or intent of the original power; it simply removes the risk that other legislative changes will affect the ability for the examining authority to award costs. I commend the clauses, and the Government amendments and new clauses, to the Committee.

[Gideon Amos]

This set of amendments is, at first sight, very sweeping and broad, as it will remove large sections of the Planning Act 2008. However, we have some sympathy with the Government. Provisions were put into the Act to proscribe dangerous commissioners who might make decisions without proper scrutiny. Given that the decisions reverted to the Secretary of State in 2011, it seems that a number of them may not be needed.

None the less, it is important to ensure that consultation is meaningful and of high quality. In place of the Planning Act provisions, we want a consultation test on the face of the Bill; if the machinery of the Committee so allows, we would like to table an amendment along those lines. If there is no test at all for meaningful consultation in NSIPs, these amendments would simply remove a great number of requirements for consultation without putting anything in their place. We should be moving from a set of sections in the Act that are about the mechanics of consultation to a qualitative test: consultation should be meaningful, and people should have had the opportunity to be consulted.

We would like to see the key principles in the guidance on the face of the Bill. That is the spirit in which we will respond to the amendments. We hope to be able to bring forward proposals for the Committee to consider.

[Ellie Chowns]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, as I should have said earlier. There are three reasons why I, too, have concerns about new clauses 44 and 45 and the removal of the requirement for pre-application consultation.

First, pre-application consultation is often a very useful process, as a way of highlighting and addressing issues between developers and other stakeholders before we get to the formal, structured, legalistic processes. There was a case in Suffolk in which engagement between the Wildlife Trust and National Grid resulted in the trust’s concerns being addressed in such a way that they did not have to be raised in a more legalistic way later in the process. Pre-application consultation is useful and productive for all parties. It is not for developers to decide whether pre-application consultation will be useful in a particular case, but there should be a statutory requirement for key stakeholders, such as local authorities, to be consulted in that way.

My second concern is that the replacement guidance requirements set out in new clause 45 do not provide sufficient clarity for developers, communities and other stakeholders, or for the Planning Inspectorate, on what pre-application engagement is required specifically, because the wording is too vague to provide sufficient clarity. “Have regard to” is a relatively weak duty, while

“what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take”

is very vague language. It would be open to interpretation and potentially to contestation, which could be unhelpful to speeding up the process in the way we seek.

My third concern, notwithstanding individual examples of processes that might have been held up, is that generally speaking pre-application consultation and public engagement is not the main constraint on the rapid processing of such applications. I understand that research conducted by Cavendish in 2024 looked at DCO consent times from 2011 to 2023. It found that for the first 70 projects going through the DCO process up until 2017, the response time was pretty reasonable. What changed in 2017? It was not the pre-application consultation requirements, which remained the same throughout the process.

Political chaos is what caused the change. Cavendish’s report identifies that it was political turmoil and manoeuvring that caused delays to happen once projects reached the Secretary of State’s desk—I see my Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, nodding. Who was in government at that time? We had the turnover of Prime Ministers, Ministers and so forth. Bearing all that in mind—the fact that pre-application consultation is a very useful way of deconflicting issues of contestation, the fact that the replacement guidance is so vague as to be unhelpful and itself probably subject to test, and the fact that this is the wrong solution to the problem of delays—I am concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would observe that generally speaking the way oral evidence sessions work is that the Government decide who they want to come and give evidence to support the arguments that they wish to put forward in Committee, so I am not all that surprised that we might have heard that evidence. I am not discounting what the witness said, but I am suggesting that there are other ways to look at it. A blanket removal of the pre-app consultation process with stakeholders who have a huge stake in applications, such as local authorities, is an excessively blanket position to take.

[Gideon Amos]

Would the hon. Member support a test in the Bill of the quality of the consultation carried out, in place of the mechanistic requirements in the previous Act? They do not actually exist in the Town and Country Planning Act, for example, and normal planning processes.

[Ellie Chowns]

Indeed, and I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about bringing forward a proposal about meaningful consultation. I would very much welcome looking at that. I think that would help to address the concerns being raised here.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Q I have two quick questions: one on planning decisions for Victoria and one on development corporations for Hugh. Victoria, you will know that at the moment individual local planning authorities have schemes of delegation. It would be great to get your take on how effective they are. What variation do we see out there? What principles should inform the national scheme of delegation that we intend to introduce via the Bill?

Hugh—the Bill provides a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework for the operation of development corporations. You know that it is clearly our view that they have to do a lot of work in the coming years to drive the kind of delivery we need and the types of development we want to see come forward. What is your assessment of how effective those development corporation powers are to support development and regeneration?

Victoria Hills: One thing we know about from our members, but also from those people who are actually in the business of building things—of course, that is really what is important if you want to see some growth coming—is consistency. You asked about the variation. Some councils have fantastic schemes of delegation and it is very clear what is and is not going to committee, but other councils have a slightly more grey scheme of delegation—let’s call it that—whereby things can pop up in committee on the basis of an individual issue or individual councillor.

The opportunity afforded to us by the Bill is for some consistency through a national scheme of delegation. We have in place some very robust processes that look at the business of development, through the local plan process. It goes to not one but two public inquiries, through the Government’s inspectorate, and then back to the community. What we recognise is that if you have had some very robust considerations of the principles of development and you have good development prescribed by, for example, a design code that says, “This is what good development looks like here”—so we have worked out what we want, where it is going and what it looks like—it is perfectly possible that suitably qualified chief planning officers can work out whether something is in conformity with a plan. We therefore welcome the opportunity to clarify that through a national scheme of delegation.

This is not to take away anybody’s democratic mandate to have their say. Of course, there are all sorts of opportunities to have that say in the local plan process, but if we are to move to a national scheme of delegation, we would want a statutory chief planning officer who has that statutory wraparound and has the appropriate level of competency and gravitas to be able to drive forward that change, because it will be a change for some authorities. For some, it will not be a change at all, but taking forward that innovation via a national scheme of delegation will require that statutory post, so that those decisions cannot be challenged, because they will be made in a professionally competent way.

Hugh Ellis: I think development corporations are essential if we are going to achieve this mission. You would expect the TCPA to say that, because we are inheritors of the new towns programme. The interesting thing about them is that, for the first time, they bolt together strategy and delivery. The existing town and country planning system is often blamed for not delivering homes, but it has no power to build them.

The development corporation solves that problem by creating a delivery arm that can effectively deliver homes, as we saw with the new towns programme, which housed 2.8 million people in 32 places in less than 20 years of designation, and it also paid for itself—it is an extraordinary model. The measures in the Bill to modernise overall duties on development corporations are really welcome. I assume you do not want me to talk about compulsory purchase orders right now, but hope value and CPOs are critical accompanying ideas in the reform package that go with that. In the long run, I think that they will become critical.

Obviously, the new towns taskforce has to decide what it wants on policy. The challenge that we face with them is legitimacy, and there is still work to do in making sure that there is a Rolls-Royce process of getting public consent for this new generation of places. However, the outcome is such an opportunity to generate places that genuinely enhance people’s health, deal with the climate crisis and provide high levels of affordability. What a contrast that is with what we have delivered through town and country planning at local plan level, which is a lot of the bolt-on, car-dependent development. Frankly, as a planner, I find that shameful. The opportunity with development corporations is there and I hope that the Government seize it.

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

Q Clause 46 is about delegating decisions away from elected councillors, which is something that the Liberal Democrats oppose. This is directed to Dr Hugh Ellis, but the others may wish to jump in. I am a planner, you are a planner; perhaps all these decisions should be taken by planners. Would you like to respond?

Hugh Ellis: I will be honest: as a planner, I am really worried about it. The one difficult thing is that you cannot build without consent, and I think governance in planning is really important. Environmental governance in general is important. I am sceptical about the degree to which this is a really big problem. I can see evidence coming through to suggest that delegation rates for normal applications that you can decide locally are very high already.

I made this point earlier on, but what worries me more than anything else is that if you sideline the opportunity that the public currently have to be represented at committee, the appearance—if not the intent—is that you are excluding people. In periods of change, you have to lean into consultation, participation and democratic accountability. You must accept that while it is not a veto, because you as parliamentarians may wish to decide that the development proceeds, it is either democracy or it is not.

For us, the idea of democratic planning is so central, and it was so important in 1947. That Government had a choice: it had proposed a Land Board, which could have made all the planning decisions centrally, but it gave those decisions to local government on the basis that people locally understand decision making best. My own experience is that people are a solution, not a problem. Wherever I go, I find people who know detail about development and can improve it, particularly on flood risk, and they want to contribute.

I do not accept that there is an anti-development lobby everywhere, and there certainly is not in my community. Instead, there are people concerned about quality, affordability and service provision, and their voice should be heard. The Bill could create the impression, even if it is not the intent, that there is a non-respectful conversation going on. Finally, as a planner, I would never want to be in the firing line for taking a decision on a major housing scheme that is ultimately a matter of politics, and should always be so.

[Paul Holmes]

Quite right!

Faraz Baber: If I may respond on that, there is real merit in the delegation scheme being proposed, within the confines of ensuring that the plan-making process is robust, and that there is engagement by community representatives through the EIP process, as well as other avenues that can help the plan-making take place.

I have created neighbourhood plans as much as I have worked on regional spatial strategies and the London plan. I know that if you get those processes to a place where, from the outset, everyone has engaged with the plan, and communities buy in from that point, you see the follow-through in the consistency of the delivery of the plan. Actually, it is not then a brave decision for a planning officer to make because they are following the lines of what the community has charged them to go and deliver for them. We must remind ourselves that it is about cases that are devoid of those policies and try to do something else, which is where it then needs further democratic overview. In the broadest sense, if we are looking at the growth that this country needs, at the delivery this country needs and at the pace at which that needs to come, we do need to think in a more dynamic fashion, and I think the delegation scheme does have merit.

I take the point that Victoria made about the chief officer. That seniority does provide good cover in a council, and it will enable them to provide that oversight and ensure that things that are required for the community are also delivered. Working in tandem provides a real opportunity for a good national delegation scheme to come forward.

Victoria Hills: To add to that, a professionally competent chartered town planner is very capable at ensuring that all the community interests are represented and balanced. That drives really excellent outcomes, and certainly that is the business that our members are in: delivering great places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Q You both worked for the previous Government in different roles, one in housing and the other in climate and the environment. Are there things in the Bill that you would have argued for then but that did not happen under the previous Government? Are there any areas where you would go further? Does the Bill deliver on the need to build more homes and get the growth that we need while protecting the environment?

Sam Richards: For those of you who do not know, Britain Remade is a campaign, and 35,000 people across the country support us building the homes, energy and transport infrastructure that we need. It is worth briefly stepping back and remembering why we desperately need to streamline the planning system. I am going to give you four quick examples.

First, the planning application for the lower Thames crossing—I see the relevant Member here—has cost more than £250 million. That is more than it cost Norway to actually build the world’s longest tunnel. That has been all in planning. That is all paperwork—not a single spade in the ground.

Secondly, High Speed 2 is the world’s most expensive railway line, in no small part because we are doing things like building a £121 million bat tunnel to protect 300 Bechstein’s bats that live in a nearby wood—not actually the wood that the line goes through, but a nearby wood. I think most people would agree that that is a disproportionate response.

Thirdly, we are currently building the world’s most expensive nuclear power plant, at Hinkley. It is the most expensive nuclear power plant ever constructed in the history of the human race. Why is it so expensive? We used to build them more cheaply: 20 years ago, they were half the price; when we built the fleets in the ’50s and ’60s, they were a quarter of the cost of the ones that we are building now. Why is it costing so much more? In no small part, it is to do with the environmental rules that mean that EDF is currently wrangling with regulators, and has been for eight years, about installing an underwater fish disco—an acoustic deterrent to stop the fish from swimming into the exhaust pipes of the power plant. Millions of pounds are currently being spent on that.

Fourthly, the planning application for a 3.3-mile railway line between Bristol and Portishead—reopening an existing line that was cut in the Beeching cuts—is 80,000 pages long, with more than 1,000 pages dedicated to bats, on what is an existing line.

It is important to make those points, because the ambition of the Bill is absolutely right: we need to make it much easier to build the homes, energy and transport links that we need. In many ways, the Government are delivering on what they are setting out to do, but there is one crucial area where they are going to need to go further, and that is on the changes to the application of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

It is worth saying that while we are failing to build, we are failing to protect nature; all our key biodiversity indicators are in decline. The shift to a strategic approach to environmental protections is absolutely the right one: getting away from this site-by-site approach, which has led to the bat tunnels and the fish discos, is absolutely right. We need to do that both to help us build the stuff quicker and to help us better protect nature. My fear with the way the Bill is currently written and how the environmental delivery plans will be implemented is that, because the habitats rules remain untouched and sit underneath them, if EDPs are not brought in, the habitats rules kick in as they do currently. It relies on Natural England bringing out all these EDPs and, indeed, those EDPs working for species.

It is easy to see how they will apply in the case of, say, nutrient neutrality. We have basically already started doing that with the nutrient mitigation schemes that started two years ago. That is all to the good, and that should unlock lots of house building in the south of England. That is brilliant, but I fear that as things stand, the Government have not solved the bat tunnel issue, and they will need to come back to that.

Jack Airey: Whether it delivers more homes and infrastructure is almost an unfair question, because legislative reforms to the planning system take so long to have an effect. While a lot of the things in the Bill are very positive and will improve the structure of the planning system, it will take a long time for them to have an effect and for the various bits of regulation to be laid. I worked on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. So much of that has not been implemented and probably will not ever be implemented, and I fear we will be in that situation with this Bill, too.

The reforms the Government have brought forward in the national planning policy framework are much more radical and impactful, certainly in the short to medium term; ditto forthcoming reforms to the national development management policies, if they are done the right way. Policy changes by the Department have a quicker effect, and I would be looking to that in the short term.

In terms of where I would go further, I agree with Sam on that part of the Bill. If I were a Government who wanted to deliver a lot of homes very quickly, I am not sure this is the reform I would have brought forward. I would have looked again at the reform that was put forward by the previous Government, which would have totally disapplied habitats regulations when they related to nutrient neutrality requirements, so there would be no need to produce an EDP or for the developer to pay a levy. That would have been the quickest way to unblock the homes that are currently stalled by this issue.

[Gideon Amos]

Q That is a very interesting analysis. You touched on Hinkley, which is close to my constituency. I want to drill down into where you see the delays in the planning system. All the examples you mentioned were delivered within the six-month examination, but the points you raised were about species. You mentioned bats and fish. Is it those species protections that are really holding things up?

Sam Richards: As I said, that is where I think the big gap in the Bill is. There is a range of things. There are the rounds and rounds of consultation, which the Government have made some good progress on just this week by announcing that they will reduce the pre-application consultation stages. That is to be welcomed. It is the rounds and rounds of judicial reviews and the fact that the vast majority of major infrastructure projects in this country are brought to the courts. That has been the case multiple times for Hinkley and will be the case for Sizewell. Again, what the Government have done there is welcome, by reducing the opportunity for vexatious judicial reviews and reducing the number of opportunities from three to one and a half. That is to be welcomed, but it is also the additional environmental mitigations that have to be brought and the disproportionate responses that add costs and delay to building major infrastructure.

[Gideon Amos]

Q The Liberal Democrats have sympathy for a lot of the measures in the Bill. To come back to the point about the species, I have just checked, and removing the fish disco, which was a famous feature of the Hinkley development, would cost about 3 million fish a year. Is that an expendable species? Does it not matter?

Sam Richards: The key point is not just whether a particular species matters but the mitigation measures that developers are able and allowed to take under the current framework. I am not here to represent EDF, but it proposed that you could basically pay a fishing vessel to not fish a similar species in a similar area, which would then allow the replenishment of an equivalent amount of stocks. Under the current rules, you are not able to do that strategic-level mitigation.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take the point about the nuance. That is helpful—thank you.

[Gideon Amos]

Q As a former councillor whose wife is a current councillor, I know the struggles and challenges. You have made a powerful case about the importance of councillors and the public acceptance of the decisions that you are talking about, and you have highlighted approvals where the recommendation has been refusal. As Liberal Democrats we oppose the clause completely, but if the Government insist on it, would you want to see in the Bill some qualification of the power of central Government to write your delegation agreements to your officers, because at the moment the regulations that could be laid are completely unqualified?

Councillor Hug: As the Minister pointed out, the consultation is going on in parallel with the Bill. Hopefully we can make this national scheme of delegation work, provided that there is a degree of flexibility built into it. I hope that working between local government and national Government can help to resolve some of those issues at pace. Obviously some things may need to be specified, but we are hopeful that that kind of engagement can help to resolve some of the issues.

Councillor Clewer: If in the scheme of delegation we see guidelines around how a scheme of delegation should work, I am not sure that that would concern me hugely. If they are prescriptive rather than guidelines, we will fall into the problem that you will create cases where you need to get round them but you cannot.

This is a simplistic example—I will get into trouble now with the New Forest national park authority—but we allow parish councils there to call things into committee. I think that that is crazy. It ends up with all sorts of things coming to committee that should never go near them. I would love a delegation that said that they cannot do that, on a personal level. There are elements where I think Government guidance would be really helpful.

[Gideon Amos]

Guidance?

Councillor Clewer: Yes. Pretty firm guidance, but still guidance, with the ability where you really have the nuance to be able to work around it.

Councillor Hug: It goes to the point about having a common core of things, with certain things that apply in certain areas but then a space for guidance on top of that.

Councillor Wright: I agree that it should be guidance, not mandatory. We always seem to see policy brought forward on the basis that there is a problem. Perhaps for once we could go out to where planning is actually done well—where authorities have gone through modernisation and done things in the way you would expect them to be done—and work with those authorities, instead of assuming that there is a problem in the planning system.

Also, how far will this delegation go? If it turns into nothing more than delegation that is almost similar to permitted development rights, if people think that that is not dangerous, they should look at a picture of Terminus House in Harlow. They would see somewhere where they would not want to live. Members were nowhere near that.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Q We Liberal Democrats are sympathetic to a number of the changes that the Government are proposing to compulsory purchase and the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. You mentioned the length of examinations, and you are absolutely right that inspectors have taken longer and longer—I did one in four months, which is two thirds of the statutory time of six months. People are trying to avoid judicial review by asking as many questions as possible and making sure all the issues are addressed. We are in a more litigious society, are we not? How do we get out of the loop of trying to de-risk to prevent judicial review, but have speedier examinations?

Catherine Howard: There should be some education on judicial review for inspectors. As a lawyer, I can tell you that people do not bring judicial reviews because not enough questions were asked or the environmental statement was not long enough; you will never pick the one thing that someone brings a judicial review on. Most of them are not successful, and they are very niche.

That probably is one of inspectors’ fears, but I also think that they want to be seen to be hearing all the issues, even if they know that those are not going to be material to the determination. That was not really the purpose of the regime; it was supposed to be mostly written reps and so on. We could do some education for the inspectorate about the things that do and do not lead to judicial reviews. Inspectors actually have a lot of latitude about what it is rational for them to consider a material planning consideration and what it is not, and so the depth at which they need to look into things. I think they sometimes go slightly overboard.

[Gideon Amos]

Q Let us turn to the compulsory purchase changes and the clause on hope value, which would enable the acquisition of land at existing use value. I support that clause, but as someone practising in the private sector and representing landowners, how do you think that it will take effect? Will it be plain sailing?

Catherine Howard: That side of the planning regime is not my specialism, but hope value is part of the value of the land, as far as the ordinary person sees it, so they will not be delighted if they are not going to get paid what they see as part of the value of the land. It is a wider public interest test, is it not? I am not saying that it is the wrong thing to do, but I imagine that if people know that they are not going to get the market value, they will object to compulsory purchase orders perhaps a bit more than they otherwise would have.

Of course, if the compulsory purchase order is made, people might try to bring more judicial reviews. However, I think that it would be quite hard for them to bring a judicial review on the basis of the test, which is quite wide in terms of the purposes for which hope value can be disapplied. As long as the acquiring local authority is within those tests, I think it would be hard to JR on that basis, but people might find other grounds, such as procedural grounds, on which to have a go.

[The Chair]

We have just over a minute, John Grady, so it will have to be a very quick question and answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

That is very clear—thank you very much.

[Gideon Amos]

Q Welcome to the Committee, and thank you for coming today. We hear a lot of debate around targets for housing numbers, the NPPF and so on. What should be the role of targets for the delivery of social homes in the planning system?

Kate Henderson: First, it is a pleasure to be before the Committee; thank you for inviting the National Housing Federation to give evidence. Just to be clear, I want to declare up front that I am a member of the Government’s new towns taskforce, working to advise Government on a new generation of new towns, so I will not be commenting on—

[Paul Holmes]

Forgive me; I should have asked you, Mrs Henderson.

Kate Henderson: No problem. I will not be commenting specifically on what is coming forward from that piece of work.

From a National Housing Association perspective, on the principle of new towns, it is worth recognising just how acute housing need is in this country. Right now, we have 160,000 children who are homeless. We have 310,000 children who had to share a bed with a family member last night. The need is acute and spread right across the country. The need for social housing is huge. The Government have set out a very ambitious target of a million and a half homes across the course of this Parliament. We think that about a third of those need to be affordable and social housing. Research that we have commissioned shows that we need around 90,000 social rented homes every year. That is not just in this Parliament but over the course of a decade, to meet the backlog of need.

We are a long way off that target, but an important part of it is to have reform, not just of the planning mechanisms and targets within the planning system—and the standard method is an important part of that—but of the resources within the social housing sector, local government and delivery partners to crank up the delivery. That is an important part of the piece, but we are also very much looking forward to the spending review to get a long-term housing strategy in place that also has measures to inject stability, certainty and confidence back into the social housing sector to crank up delivery.

James Stevens: I absolutely agree with Kate that it is very important that we do what we can to support affordable housing delivery. The Government’s proposals around spatial development strategies, which would allow those strategies to define policies on affordable housing, would be very beneficial. On the work looking at the section 106 model—which is a current barrier—as Kate said, the Government probably need to invest to ensure that the long-term rent settlement provides more assurance for housing associations in that regard. That is a major obstacle to housing delivery at the moment. In London, for example, that is resulting in a major shortfall in supply.

The spatial development strategies should be quite useful mechanisms, so long as they are not too prescriptive. The problem we have with London, as an example, is that it had a very prescriptive affordable housing policy, which did not really last through the economic cycles that we are experiencing at the moment. You need something that is looser fitting and that constituent local authorities can adapt to their own local circumstances.

[Gideon Amos]

Q May I ask a supplementary of James? We hear a lot from the federation about the viability challenge of sites. Without rehearsing the whole system and the pressures on development value, what is the HBF’s approach to resolving that issue so that there are fewer schemes going back to appeal, with 106s renegotiated and affordable housing targets reduced? That is something that we see in all our constituencies.

James Stevens: We think that affordable housing, as part of section 106, is probably one of the most important planning obligations, and our members generally support that, because they know how to build houses. Capturing an element of development gain is a real feeding frenzy, particularly among every public agency. They are all attempting to finance their policy objectives off the back of capturing an element of the developed land value. That can result in very difficult competing claims over viability. I have looked at viability plans supporting lots of spatial strategies and local plans up and down the country, and very often large elements of a local authority area are unviable because they just cannot afford the cumulative claims upon that development value. Greater scrutiny at the examination level, and perhaps a stronger steer from the Government that affordable housing and public contributions to public transport are the foremost claims upon development value, would be a major step forward.

Savills has identified that the viability system—section 106 and the community infrastructure levy—is fairly successful. It is pretty successful at capturing the majority of development value that is out there. The Government could go further by being very clear that these are the requirements in local plans, they are not negotiable and schemes are expected to be policy compliant, but that would need to be underpinned by a more rigorous system of assessing viability of the local plan stage. That would provide the Government with the certainty.

[Rachel Taylor]

Q James, I would like to ask you a question first. We heard a lot on earlier panels about the number of permissions that have been granted but not yet delivered. How do you think your members can be helped by the Bill to deliver those homes? Also, when we talk about affordable housing, how much of that really needs to be socially rented housing to help deliver homes that homeless people need? That second question is more for Kate.

James Stevens: On the first element of that question, we really dispute the notion that house builders just bank land and are not interested in building out. Craig Bennett of the Wildlife Trusts cited a figure on Radio 4, I think, of 1.4 million homes that have granted permission but that have not been built out. We strongly contest that. A lot of those things are not counted as a completion until they are actually completed. A lot of those schemes have to work through very complicated discharge conditions. A lot of those permissions can just be outline planning permissions, and not the detailed planning permissions that you need to be an implementable consent. A lot of those figures are just poor figures that do not reflect the true numbers that have actually been built out.

Lastly on that, this accusation of land banking has often been levelled at the house building industry over the last 20 years. Consistently, independent studies, including one by the Competition and Markets Authority last year, have given us a clean bill of health on that. There is an issue about absorption rates—the ability of a local market to absorb certain sales—but house builders do not make their money from sitting on land. That costs them money. We make money from the sale of homes.

The issue of social housing—I will allow Kate to come in shortly—is very important. The problem is that we have a severe housing crisis. As Kate said, we have many thousands of children in temporary accommodation. Local authorities had to spend something like £2.3 billion last year on temporary accommodation; local authorities would go bankrupt there. Therefore, the tendency is to try to maximise social housing provision—social rented housing. We can understand why local authorities want to do that. However, to follow up on the point I made to Gideon Amos, the problem is that if local authority policies are too prescriptive on the tenure split, that can make it very difficult for house builders to contract with registered providers, to provide registered providers with the type of tenure mix that they need. We need to be a bit more realistic and flexible about that.

The key issue is to get houses built—to focus upon the quantity—in order to alleviate the affordability problems that make people so dependent upon social housing in the first place. But absolutely, social rented housing is very important. We are not trying to say that we do not want to build it.

Kate Henderson: Social housing is needed in every part of the country. What is really important is that we have objectively assessed needs and that those needs are then incorporated in local plans, and that we deliver mixed, sustainable communities that reflect the needs of those areas.

I will just dispute a little bit the point about the London situation and the London plan. London is the only part of the country where we have a strategic development strategy. The reason that we have a crash of supply in London is not because of strategic planning. It is because of a building safety crisis, hugely high inflation, huge land prices, an absolute crisis in temporary accommodation, and huge pressures that have happened across the social housing sector over the last 15 years in terms of cuts and caps to our income.

To get out of the situation in London and in the rest of the country, we need a comprehensive planning system that is based on objectively assessed need; a long-term housing strategy that looks at our existing homes as well as new homes; a rent settlement, including convergence, and funding that addresses building safety as well as new supply. Those are all things that the Government are looking at, which is welcome.

As for bringing forward those spatial development strategies in the rest of the country, it is really important that they have a focus on social and affordable housing, and that that should be mandated within them. The percentages will need to reflect the context of the areas and the need in those areas, so there will need to be a degree of flexibility in accordance with place, but it is vital that that is mandated as part of the remit of those strategies. We welcome their introduction.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Can I remind you again to keep questions as short as possible? It is entirely up to you, but I am just advising so that as many Members get in as possible.

Matthew Pennycook: I will take both questions in turn. The first is really important, and I am glad to have the chance to say very clearly again—as I did to Mr Benwell—that we do not accept as a Government that development has to come at the expense of nature. We have put a huge amount of effort into engaging with Mr Benwell’s organisation and many others, as well as other Government Departments, to ensure that the clauses allow us to deliver that win-win for development and the environment.

We are confident that the Bill will not undermine or reduce environmental protections, which is why we confirmed that to be the case under section 20 of the previous Government’s Environment Act 2021. As you heard from the chief exec of Natural England, our reforms are very much built around delivering overall positive outcomes for protected sites and species.

Specifically on the viability point, there are existing environmental obligations that developers have to pay to address. Moving to a more strategic scale and large geographies where we can get those better outcomes will allow us to drive down costs through strategic action through those economies of scale. We think that the approach will be beneficial overall, but viability has to be a consideration in the levy fee that we will eventually set.

[Gideon Amos]

Q I, too, am grateful for the Ministers’ time today. In the interests of brevity, I want to ask a question of the Energy Minister. There are provisions in the Bill on overhead lines at generating stations. Are the Government looking at further reforms that would make the delivery of the electricity network simpler and more straightforward, by widening permitted development for the electricity distribution network and transmission network, given that we all want to reach net zero and the challenges that industry faces?

Michael Shanks: That is a really important question. Probably the single most important part of us being able to achieve our clean power mission will be the necessary grid upgrades, many of which should have been decades before. We now need to build out the grid, so we are looking at a range of options. I think that connections reform is important for making sure that we are only building the grid that we absolutely need to build. The bill discounts and the community benefits that go with that are all around trying to improve acceptability, but we will look at a range of other issues as well, including around permitted development rights.

What we are really clear on is that we have a clear indication of the projects necessary to hit clean power by 2030. We know where those need to be built and what the barriers are to doing that, and we want to move forward with those as quickly as possible. I think that the community acceptability point is key because, unlike some of the other parts of our electricity system, pylons and substations are probably the ones that communities have the biggest challenge with, particularly because they are going through multiple communities in the course of a line. We have evidenced that the bill-discount scheme will improve that acceptability to help build those much faster. Of course, that is the only way that we will achieve clean power—by getting the power to where it is needed most.

[Amanda Martin]

Q First, it is welcome that we have a Government who are working on a Bill across Departments, so it is not only on planning but also on the environment. We have heard from a panel today on the move from the “first come, first served” approach to “first ready, first connected” for connections to the grid. We know, and have heard from other panellists, that, in recent years, the delivery of new homes across the country has been delayed by grid capacity. We also know that this particularly affects small and medium-sized developers. How will the Bill support our SME developers—and, in turn, growth—in our communities?

Michael Shanks: It is a really good question. To Mr Amos’s question, I said that network was probably the single most important thing, but connections reform is probably the single most important lever in clearing out what is now 756 GW in a queue to connect, which is frankly an absurd amount. This is therefore really a fundamental shift to move from “first applied, first in the queue” to what is strategically important: is a project actually ready to be connected? As has been discussed, we have so many of these zombie projects that take up a space in the queue for years on end.

We have also been clear about prioritising what is strategically important to our energy mix, particularly on some of the questions around storage, to make sure we actually have the right capacity. Connecting is really important, so we want to bring that queue down as quickly as possible. That frees up the connections process for new generation to join far faster, but the other important side of it is that, for the projects in the queue on the demand side, it frees up capacity for those to connect much more quickly as well.

The estimates at the moment are probably conservative, based on how quickly the growth of AI, datacentres and things are taking hold, but the estimate is that, by 2050, the demand for electricity in this country will have doubled. This step—clearing out the queue now—is therefore really important, but so is putting in place a process that makes sure that the queue does not fill back up after we have done this particular clear-out. The Bill therefore details the process that will be taken, but also the role that the Government will have in setting strategic priorities for queue management for future connections.

The first stage of that will be the clean power action plan, but it will allow us in the future to look at some other aspects of the economy to ensure that we are prioritising the projects that get through. We have resisted the approach of prioritising demand projects, because obviously how you prioritise those becomes much more subjective, but if we clear out a lot of the 756 GW now, we can connect projects and get the economy growing as a result.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing a debate on residential estate management companies—an important issue for many of us up and down the country, and many of our constituents.

My hon. Friend has done a service both to her constituents and to people across the country by exposing, and placing on the record, the scandal of poor management companies. I do not want to denigrate companies that do a good job for the common areas and spaces that they are contracted to look after, but, as we have heard today, Members of Parliament too often hear how far too many companies are fleecing residents, charging rip-off prices and failing to respond to reasonable requests for repairs, information or accounts of how residents’ money is being spent.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

In the town of Teignmouth in my constituency of Newton Abbot, FirstPort has been buying up other management companies, and the sinking funds—the contingency paid by residents—appear to have disappeared: they have been sunk. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be looked into?

[Gideon Amos]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is doing a great service to his constituents by exposing that problem.

In too many constituencies, residents are plagued by rogue developers who provide housing under a freehold tenure, but force residents to accept the estate managers or shared owners of public spaces within the developments. We have heard shocking examples from all over the country, which surely demonstrate the scale of the problem and the need to act. In one block of flats in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, people have been unable to get repairs for a leaking roof from the owner of a building in Corporation Street—it has been leaking for nine years without being attended to.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

In my constituency of South Cotswolds, there are tragic stories, including about disabled residents being trapped in their flats due to a lift being out of order. Another constituent was informed that their charges had risen from £1,500 to £2,100 per six months. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need urgent action from the Government to end this daylight robbery?

[Gideon Amos]

“Daylight robbery” is a good way of putting it. Those staggering increases in charges, with very little notice or warning to residents, are experienced in many of our constituencies, including my own.

In my constituency, I am receiving complaints about FirstPort from residents of Parsonage Court in Wellington, and from those of Quantock House, Pavilion Gardens, St George’s Square and Firepool in Taunton. I am also receiving complaints about Cognatum Estates from residents of Cedar Gardens and Fullands Court. These issues are arising in a whole range of properties.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

One of my constituents, Mr Vivian Lythgoe, is here today because of FirstPort. Unfortunately, he has had to make the painful decision to sell his home because he is fed up with dealing with management companies that are not interested in leaseholders. He has been fighting FirstPort to try to make it carry out basic maintenance, which residents have already paid for. Residents are not cash cows for management companies or footnotes in company accounts; they are people. It is time that they were treated as such. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is time for this shocking behaviour to be rectified and for legislation to be introduced. I will continue to work for the residents of the properties in my constituency that I have mentioned, and to get the legislation that we need.

Those who suffer from poor management can, of course, be leaseholders or freeholders. There are 4.8 million residential leasehold properties in England, which is equivalent to a fifth of the housing stock. That system is a relic of the feudal period. Its abolition has long been sought by Liberals and Liberal Democrats. The abolition of residential leasehold could be one of the most important carried-forward pieces of business from the last Liberal Government of about 100 years ago, which goes to show how long overdue it is.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In my constituency of Horsham, we have many similar examples. Would my hon. Friend agree that although we certainly need legislation, the industry could act right now by introducing a voluntary code of practice? The industry does not have to wait for legislation; it should hear the call from across this Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and is championing the issue in his constituency. The companies watching or reading the debate would do well to listen to his words, because they could easily improve their practices right now by introducing a code of practice, as he suggests.

Liberal Democrats believe that leasehold tenure should be abolished for all properties, including flats. For too long, homeowners have been exploited by what is ultimately a feudal system. Existing residential leasehold should be converted either to freehold or commonhold, as appropriate, and we urge the Government to introduce legislation to make that happen. On commonhold properties and commercial leaseholds, ground rent should be capped to a nominal fee, so that everyone has a degree of control over their property.

Of course, the Conservative Government introduced to Parliament the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, which received Royal Assent in 2024. However, the secondary legislation, which would give leaseholders rights over their freeholder landlords when it comes to accounts and accountability in general, has failed to be enacted. Crucially, the Act fails to regulate property management agents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) pointed out, there has been widespread agreement about that since the 2019 report chaired by the Cross Bencher Lord Best, supported by the Liberal Democrats in this House and in the other place. We need to see vital improvements to the 2024 Act. I hope the Minister will today confirm when secondary legislation will be introduced, or indeed other legislation on the regulation of property agents.

Liberal Democrats want the management of buildings to be professionalised. Building maintenance and safety need to be guaranteed, not dependent on whoever happens to be the freeholder. Nowhere has that been more important in terms of safety than in the entirely avoidable but tragic disaster of Grenfell Tower. Putting profit before safety, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report has found, was one of the chief causes of that fire. Just as profit-driven sign-off in the testing of building materials and in the inspection of buildings needs to be reversed with the ending of both the privatised Building Research Establishment and privatised building inspectors, so too there is surely now a need to regulate property agents—for safety reasons, as much as anything else.

Today is also Stephen Lawrence Day. As Stephen was a budding young architect, it is fitting that we are debating regulating building management agents; it would be even more fitting if there was a commitment today to bring legislation forward. Just as leaseholders are charged extortionate amounts while being poorly served by the landlords and estate management companies they employ, too many freeholders of their own homes find themselves beholden to others over whom they have no control in relation to the open spaces and common areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) mentioned.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

My own local council is attempting to address the issue of fleecehold through its new local plan, which I commend. Would my hon. Friend urge the Government to bring forward the legislation quickly in order to strengthen the council’s position?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend must surely have read the next words of my speech, which urge the Government to make urgent progress on strengthening leaseholders’ rights and on their draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill.

We should, for example, make sure that legislation strengthens leaseholders’ rights to extend their leases, to buy their freeholds, to take over the management of their buildings and to make commonhold the default tenure. We should also regulate ground rents for existing leaseholders, and freeholders too: it is surely time for legislation to enable freeholders to recover ownership and control over public spaces that surround and adjoin their homes, which are held by others for no reason other than to extract maximum payment. A single freeholder among many who exercises control over common areas, such as access roads and green spaces, should no longer be allowed to hold all other homeowners to ransom with ever increasing charges and unreasonable management practices.

Back in December last year, my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, led by my hon. Friend for South Devon, were the first to bring the directors of FirstPort to the House to account to MPs for their management. My hon. Friend has blazed a trail for those affected by the appalling management of common areas and public spaces.

I return to the issues in my constituency. One resident in Wellington has been unable for over a year to get reasonable adjustments for disabled access to her parking space, even though she is also a cancer sufferer. We have seen now that persuasion on its own is not enough. Just as it is high time for residential leasehold to be brought to an end, it is also time for legislation to enable freeholders of common areas to acquire open spaces and common areas from those who would hold ransom over them. As Liberal Prime Minister Lloyd George pointed out, these practices are not business but blackmail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Despite the announcements referred to earlier, the Building Safety Regulator is now advising applicants to plan for 16 weeks to clear gateway 2. That is holding up a disproportionate number of social homes, including 100 in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and it is much longer than is required for planning permission. What steps will the Government take to reduce the wait back down to eight weeks, as it was?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The newly established Building Safety Regulator is crucial to upholding building safety standards, but we acknowledge that it is causing delays in handling applications, particularly for high-rise building projects on gateway 2, and there is gateway 3 after that. The funding we have announced will make a difference, but as I have said, we are working with the regulator to support its plan for improved delivery, including increasing caseworker capacity and guidance to the sector. We will continue to keep its performance under close review.