Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 325 in this group but, first, I would like to support the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst. I echo what has been said about compulsory purchase orders. We live in a country that is meant to have property rights. What can be worse than forcibly removing property that someone rightfully owns? Which one of us would like our property to be compulsorily removed?

Generally, in the past, this has been done only for huge infrastructure projects—not that that makes it better for those whose property it affects. It has been rarely done, although we have just heard of a very awful example from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. However, I am sure that many of your Lordships will have read about the property removed to make way for HS2: the family farms that were taken and the homes that people had to leave. Do the general public really think this is a good thing? Surely, it is a human rights abuse. The Bill incentivises this approach by allowing acquiring agencies to buy the land at agricultural prices and then sell it on for development. We are meant to be making life easier and better for people, not causing utter misery.

I thank noble Lords who have allowed me to insert Amendment 325 into the group. Amendment 325 would insert new subsection (2A) into Clause 83 to ensure that fields used by people to graze their animals and high-quality agricultural land that could be used for food production cannot be compulsorily purchased by Natural England as part of its environmental delivery plans.

I spoke earlier in the debate about how one of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have these property rights. In the Bill, there are provisions to make compulsory purchase easier and for local authorities to be able to seize land more cheaply, as I just said, where it is required for new development.

I spoke last week about how high-quality agricultural land should be used to produce food, which is in proposed new paragraph (b) of this amendment, so I will not repeat all that we talked about then. I would like to focus on proposed new paragraph (a), which concerns

“land … that is in personal use for the grazing of animals”.

People who have a few fields, for horses, donkeys or maybe llamas, goats, the odd pet sheep or anything else, need those fields to keep their livestock and pets. These fields are often on the outskirts of villages or towns. They therefore look rather attractive for development but, if this land were removed, what would happen to the animals and livestock?

A while ago, the Prime Minister himself purchased a field, so that his mother could care for neglected donkeys. Sadly, she has now died and the field has been sold, but what would have happened if this field had been taken while it was being used for the donkeys? In short, as I have said before, I believe that compulsory purchase—seizing someone’s property—is against human rights and should be used by a Government in only the most extreme of circumstances, and that land that is being utilised for family animals should never be considered.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I start by declaring that I have shares in a family company that owns a farm in the Midlands. To avoid giving a Second Reading speech, and to save us all quite a lot of time, I will jump over what I was going to say on Amendment 210 and just say that I agree thoroughly with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst, on those matters. After all, so-called hope value is just another term for what the market is prepared to pay—in other words, market value.

When we look at land, the owner may already have paid inheritance tax on it, invested in its maintenance and improvement, and spent substantial sums, time and effort seeking planning permission. For the state or local authority simply to swipe the increase in value that the owner has nurtured and invested in over the years is not only deeply unjust but a powerful disincentive to bring forward land for development, for EDPs or anything else.

There is a different perspective, at least in the case of land: the increase of value may be derived from societal need—for example, space for housing—rather than entirely from the efforts and investments of the owner of that land. As such, perhaps society should be entitled to at least a share of the uplift in value. But it already is. The state, without lifting a finger, receives at least 20% capital gains tax on the price achieved by all vendors and other very valuable benefits in exchange for granting planning permission—in the form of planning conditions, Section 106 agreements and so on.

We will be discussing the closely related matter of compulsory purchase shortly in subsequent amendments, but this is on hope value. In February 2025, the Compulsory Purchase Association, in its response to the consultation on the process and rules for compulsory purchase, had strong objections to the removal of hope value on the grounds that it would—I will try to list these briefly: make the development process slower and more complex; produce distortions in a two-tier market with some land taken from its owners subject to the removal of hope value via compulsory purchase and some land sold at true market price; discourage developers and owners from promoting land for allocation or development; encourage owners to fight attempts to compel them to part with their property; and have equalities impacts on the human rights of those affected—for example, through potential abuse by acquiring authorities and time pressure put on owners to accept terms. As one lawyer in a government department put it to me recently, compulsory purchase brings people to the table. I would argue that it brings them to their knees. Finally, it would damage the reputation of the compulsory purchase process as a fair and equal one.

There is a case for society to capture some of the value from development. As I have tried briefly to illustrate, society already does so in the form of significant tax and planning conditions. The real issue is not to confiscate hope value but to ensure that land, once given planning permission by the state, is actually developed. This requires, first, a review of how long a planning permission can run before being lost, and, secondly, an end to the practice of a planning permission being acquired with the expectation that, for example, affordable housing percentages will later be haggled downwards. Contractual obligations in this area need to be far tougher. Putting together the time limit and this contractual aspect with limited planning permissions would address issues such as land banking, which are the subject of other amendments. I support this amendment because such state confiscations would be an economic mistake and a deeply negative pressure on the possibility of land being brought forward voluntarily. I look forward, albeit with some scepticism, to hearing the Minister’s response to this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cromwell]

217: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Compulsory purchase for planning and development: code of practice(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice to be followed by all bodies or individuals exercising powers of compulsory purchase for the purposes of planning and development.(2) On publication of the code of practice, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish—(a) an enforcement mechanism for the code of practice, including establishing a responsible body or individual for monitoring compliance,(b) penalties for non-compliance with the code of practice, and(c) a system for appealing against findings of non-compliance with the code of practice.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to ensure that all acquiring authorities, and their agents, are bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice exercised by a willing seller to a willing buyer.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have added their names to my amendment; they both apologise for being unable to be present in the Committee today.

This amendment would introduce a code of practice for compulsory purchase. It is widely accepted that, provided it is carried out appropriately, the state should have the right to acquire people’s homes and businesses in the interests of the nation. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that this amendment will not reopen the whole debate around that issue—I hope that buys me a few extra minutes.

Compulsory purchase was established on three assumptions: that it would be a quicker way to acquire land in the public interest; that it would make it possible to do that at a cost below market rates; and, importantly, that it would be a last resort if a voluntary sale could not be agreed—or so the theory went. However, anyone who is familiar with the process and practical realities of compulsory purchase will know that it is not at all quick or cost effective, with timelines running into years and with the costs of public inquiries, surveyors, lawyers and other actors on both sides.

It is widely acknowledged by professional agents—regardless of which side they work for—that, contrary to the original theory of compulsory purchase, the costs are always considerably higher if the party is being forced to sell rather than doing so on a voluntary basis. A consensus is often achievable, but only if the acquirer’s agent works with the seller rather than acting, frankly, as a bully boy for the Government.

The related issue of hope value was addressed in an earlier group. I will not cover it again beyond saying that the ability to compel property to be given up—I will not use the word “sold”—at well below its market value is, of course, attractive to those with the compulsory power but brutally costly and disruptive to those on the receiving end.

So how does this work in practice? The actual exercise of compulsory purchase powers has been devolved by the Government to a growing number of agents. These powers enable the agents to force people to leave their homes, to give up their businesses and their land, and to do so below market prices. Agents receiving these aggressive powers are commercial entities governed by financial and time-related performance targets.

Perhaps inevitably, these incentives and the imbalance of power between government-backed agents and ordinary citizens have created a real, growing problem around the behaviour of agents acting for the acquiring government authorities. Agents’ ability to compel a sale means all too often that they ignore normal conveyancing practices and refuse to recognise the justifiable concerns and interests of those whom they are forcing to sell, who are all but powerless and cannot realistically afford to challenge them. Noble Lords should be under no illusion: the lack of proper constraints means that a culture has widely grown up of the strong-arming and intimidation of those who are forced to sell by government-appointed agents.

There is also the profiteering practice that agents and authorities are sometimes shy of talking about, some of which has been referred to by others, of the acquiring authority then selling on the land for commercial purposes as a whole or in parts at full market value and pocketing the profits—with the agents, of course, paid to arrange the disposals.

To make the situation more real to anyone struggling to believe what I am saying or who is not involved in compulsory purchase, here are three quick live cases that I am aware of and, for clarity, in which I have no interests to declare. In the first case, both sides of a transaction had already agreed voluntarily to sell one field and give a right of access over an adjacent one. But at exchange the agent for the acquirer presented out of the blue a plan that included further land that was not part of the agreement. When this was pointed out, the acquirer’s agent immediately cut off communication and went to use compulsory purchase on all the land.

In the second case, a farmer was approached by an infrastructure provider for initial surveys. As the land was designated ecologically sensitive, he instructed an agent to prepare a bespoke licence agreement to give access to the provider. The infrastructure provider abruptly cut communications partway through the drafting process with no reason given and served a compulsory notice for access. The notice, and the developer’s subsequent trespass, then went on the wrong property and was not subject to discussion. Legal proceedings followed, which were inevitably costly for both sides and created substantial delays.

Case 3 is a simple quote from one forced seller:

“The bypass went straight through the middle of our farm taking 36 acres and all the buildings. Eight years after the bulldozers went in, we are still owed £136,000. When that is eventually paid, we will have to pay capital gains tax (at the new increased rate) on that compensation. How can it be fair that the government can destroy our farm and pay us in return a fraction of what it’s worth? … capital projects need to be built for the benefit of the nation, but surely in a decent, fair country, those concerned should be compensated with 100% of the value of the asset taken and paid before the land is occupied”.


I remind noble Lords that they were still waiting eight years later. I underline that there are many similar stories across this country.

Finally, I cannot resist mentioning HS2. Even on the northern section, which was cancelled two years ago, farmers still have barren strips of land through the middle of their farms, commandeered by HS2 but still not yet handed back. Matters are made worse with HS2 by the splitting of responsibilities between the Treasury and Department for Transport, with neither taking responsibility for the poor behaviour of agents. There are cases where farmers are not being paid for years and householders, having been given three months’ notice to get out, then not being paid for up to nine months. As one affected party put it—this is a different case—

“7 years after they unilaterally took our land we are still waiting for payment at just 70% of the value of the land and the matter is now being dragged through the courts”.


So what rules are there? The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has published baseline standards that it considers should apply to people acting for the acquiring authorities and the claimants. While I urge the Minister to look at and publicly endorse these standards, RICS has jurisdiction over its members only—not, for instance, over a non-member profession or a project management team.

Furthermore, crucially, these and other existing guidance rules do not cover two things that loom large in practical compulsory purchase experience: defining and preventing bullying tactics, and failure by agents or the acquiring bodies themselves to make prompt payment when due. We cannot go on in denial of this problem. That is why this amendment proposes the introduction of a proper code of practice for compulsory purchase: to negotiate and agree values et cetera in good faith, with the possibility of compulsion genuinely as the last resort rather than the starting point, and to pay full value in advance of taking possession, as is systematically the case in the commercial world.

I pose two questions to the Minister. First, does she share my belief that no one should be expected to give up their house, land or business only to find themself with no money to buy another house due to non-payment by the acquirer, or to have part or all of their business forcibly removed from them before payment? Secondly, does she agree with me that the Government’s announcement that they will issue financial penalties to persistently late-paying businesses should include penalties on late-paying agents and other authorities when exercising the powers of compulsory purchase on behalf of the Government?

This amendment, by making the conduct of compulsory sequestration of land subject to an agreed code of practice, would provide a check on the current abuses and the practical problems that I have outlined. As noble Lords will know, I am always concerned not just about our making laws that make us feel happy but with enforcement, and it will therefore come as no surprise that part two of the amendment addresses this squarely.

I look forward to the Minister’s reply to my two questions, and I ask the Government to accept this simple but urgently needed and positive amendment, particularly before handing out additional compulsory purchase powers to Natural England. Finally, I should mention that this is very likely to come back on Report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, before I introduce my amendment in this group, I say that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has raised some very challenging aspects of compulsory purchase, particularly that of late payment. I will wait for the Minister to respond to that. There is no purpose in having this balancing act, which the noble Lord explained, between individuals and the state if the state does not play fairly by the rules.

Amendment 219 in my name and cosigned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is on the face of it quite radical. In fact, however, all it would do is put pressure on housebuilders to fulfil the planning permissions they have obtained. Planning consents already have a standard three-year period in which to begin construction. Where development is seen to be more challenging, a longer period of five years is sometimes available. Those time periods are not unreasonable. If a housebuilder is seeking to develop a plot of land, they have three years in which to implement or at least to start construction.

Members on all sides know that there is a desperate need for more housing. All political parties have made the case for more housing, in different numbers per annum, but this is not about the numbers game; it is the building of them that is important. The ONS has estimated that there are already 1.2 million outstanding permissions for housing units, as yet unbuilt. I will not use the term “land banking” because there are plenty of arguments out there, and investigations have been made by public lobby groups to point out that land banking is too broad a term for what is going on. Obviously, the reasons are quite varied. Some depend on national and local economic outlooks; nevertheless, 1.2 million units have not been built when we need new homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their comments on and support for my amendment.

I am also very grateful to the Minister for her thoughts. However, given that the amendment’s intention is to assist the Bill’s effectiveness, I had hoped for a rather more supportive approach. The Minister’s reference to a “period of uncertainty” for those affected was an understatement. The reality of the behaviours of agents acting for authorities with the power of compulsory purchase behind them is a good deal more combative than that. Existing standards are simply not adequate and not sufficiently enforced. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I anticipate returning with it on Report.

Amendment 217 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have had a number of conversations with developers over the course of the past month or two. Their universal conclusion is that Part 3 makes it much harder to build houses. It adds huge levels of risk and uncertainty. It tears up the arrangements that they were half way through making—in order to get things done and deal with the environmental impact of housebuilding—and substitutes them with a regime where they just will not know what is happening. It will be really difficult to make commitments because so much could change if an EDP is imposed and because of the timescale of imposing an EDP. What will the consequence of an EDP be? It will make the whole business anti-business.

I really hope that the Government will take the chance of a change in the Secretary of State to look at this aspect of the Bill and say, “Even if it’s a good idea, we need to take it slowly and carefully, and we need to make sure that people can rely on it”, because, if you are setting out to build houses on any scale, you are taking a long-term decision. You need to know how the landscape will be for years in advance.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has kindly organised meetings with Natural England. I have been to two of them, in fact; I was late to one but, for the first one, I was there almost the entire time. One rather excited official from Natural England described what is going to happen as the most exciting thing that had happened in his career. I am not surprised—I mean, all its Christmases are coming at once. It is getting to have a role at the heart of planning and development; to design schemes across the country; and to run the authoritative model to determine where, how and when EDPs will be implemented. I have noticed several references tonight to the Soviet Union, an area with which I have worked extensively. I had exactly the same thought when I read this Bill. This is real Gosplan in action. The idea of some apparatchik sitting at his computer in Westminster and saying, “Bang—we will do that over there”, is absolutely what went wrong with the Soviet Union.

A lot of rude words have been said about Natural England tonight, many of which it deserves. My only real encounter with it was when I tried to put a catchment scheme together up the river—noble Lords may remember the days when we had environmental programmes that were still open. I was looking at doing one of those. The Natural England person said to me, “You know, it sounds like a lot of work, and it’s awfully complex. Are you sure you really want to do it?” These are the people who will be designing EDPs across the country and inflicting them on us. In our debate on the next group of amendments, there will be this question: why is it written as though Natural England is the only solution for all time? Why can it not be more general? I will leave that for others to talk about in the next section.

Two things came out of my latter meeting with them. One was that—noble Lords may or may not be aware of this—if you are a developer, you have to do biodiversity net gain, BNG. That is additional to the levy that you are going to be paying. I just think that everybody should be aware of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned, over and above nutrient neutrality, the biodiversity net gain levy, but has he also considered the other levies, which will apply in addition in an astonishing layering effect? There is the GIRAMS, the green infrastructure recreation avoidance and mitigation strategy, and the SANGs, which is special areas of something—there are so many of these different levies, each of which layers over and above. The cumulative effect of all these is so great that what has to give is the affordable housing, the community infrastructure levy and all those other wider improvements. Has he made some sort of consideration of that in his research?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The noble Lord asked me to say something before I sat down. I will now sit down, but he has thoroughly ruined my evening. Thank you.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, please bear with me. I only have 20 minutes. It has been a very long debate and, because of the clause stand parts, I need to go through everything. I will do my best to cover everything off, but anything I do not, I will get back to the noble Lords in writing.

Our vision is for a planning system that delivers for both nature and people. The reforms in the Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious housebuilding targets and fast-tracking the planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. But we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not and will not come at the cost of the environment. It is this ethos that sits at the centre of how we have designed the nature restoration fund.

The new system is not simply about streamlining how environmental obligations are discharged but about using funds more effectively to secure better outcomes for the environment. We know that the status quo has not been working, neither for development nor for nature. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned concerns that have been raised. We recognise the concerns about establishing an alternative approach. We have worked closely with stakeholders and have taken their views on board, which has culminated in the package of government amendments laid in Committee that noble Lords have mentioned. I would like to particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for recognising the improvements that they have brought to the Bill.

I want to set out how this new approach is going to work. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, produced a very helpful diagram at the recent drop-in session on the Bill. We are working on that to make it fully accurate and we will share further information in a letter that will help noble Lords to better understand our new approach and provide reassurance on what we are trying to achieve. I hope that that will clarify a number of questions that have been asked today, including around the mitigation hierarchy and other concerns that were raised regarding developers by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I apologise that they have not been ready for today’s session, but hopefully we will have them ahead of Wednesday.

It is important to highlight that the NRF establishes an alternative mechanism to discharge existing environmental obligations. It does not create any new obligations or repeal any existing environmental obligations. Where an EDP is put in place, it will remain open to developers either to use the EDP or to discharge the relevant environmental obligation under the existing system. This is baked into the design of EDPs, which will set out the capacity of development they can support but can scale the delivery of conservation measures according to the amount of development that comes forward.

This highlights another important feature of this new model in that Natural England and, ultimately, the Secretary of State would not prepare an EDP where it was not necessary to support development and the environment. These are targeted tools that will be used only where there is both a clear need from development and an ecological case that the EDP could materially outweigh the negative impact of development.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, raised concerns about the role of Natural England. I am pleased that the noble Earl now has a meeting arranged but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, the next debate will be an opportunity to get into more depth around Natural England’s role.

I want to clarify that, before the EDP comes to the Secretary of State, it will be subject to proper scrutiny through public consultation. Only then would the Secretary of State consider whether the EDP could be made in line with the overall improvement test. This consultation is vital, because it is the stage when people can test the approach being proposed, in terms of the design and efficacy of the conservation measures. This is also where Natural England will set out whether it is proposing to include planning conditions to drive action on the part of developers, as part of the EDP. In the limited circumstances where conservation measures benefit a site different from the one impacted by development, the EDP will set out the ecological justification for these measures and how they are more beneficial to the environmental feature in question than on-site measures.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Would the Minister clarify? I will be very brief. The EDP is designed on the basis of offsetting some environmental damage, but at what point do the developers choose whether or not to pay the levy into it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

This is what we are trying to do with the diagram and the note; they will clarify all that.

If, after the consultation and consideration of the overall improvement test, an EDP is made, developers would be able to make a payment into the EDP which would, subject to any conditions, discharge the relevant environmental obligation. The responsibility for delivering conservation measures and the overall improvement would then move to Natural England, which would use the money received through the nature restoration levy to secure the necessary conservation measures. These would then be supported by a thorough regime of monitoring and reporting to ensure that the outcomes are delivered, with the government amendments clarifying the actions that must be taken were conservation measures not to perform as expected. Once in place, the EDPs will deliver a streamlined approach for developers while improving the conservation status of the environmental feature.

This is part of Clause 53, so I will address the first amendment in this group, because it is relevant to this clause. Amendment 227H, from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would change the name “environmental development plan” to “environmental harm mitigation plan”. I think that we have different ambitions for the nature restoration fund. We are clear, both in our aims and through the legislation, that EDPs will go beyond simply mitigating harm and will more materially outweigh the negative impact of a development. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw that amendment.

Clause 54 sets out the requirements for what an EDP must include in relation to area, type of development, volumes of development and duration of the EDP, providing clarity on the scope and setting clear expectations for Natural England on what needs to be included when preparing an EDP.

Clause 55 introduces the concept of conservation measures, which are the measures to be funded by an EDP. It also introduces the concept of the environmental feature, which is a protected feature of a protected site or species that is likely to be impacted by a development that the conservation measures seek to address. It establishes the framework of the rules.

While we are on Clause 55, Amendments 302 and 303, tabled by the noble Lord, Roborough, seek to limit the disapplication of the habitats regulations to the specific nature and specific impacts identified in the EDP. This is important and I am pleased to be able to provide clarity and assurance on this point. As drafted, Clause 55(1) defines an environmental impact as

“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”,

as identified by the EDP. This means that the disapplication in Schedule 4 already applies only to the specific impacts of the development identified in the EDP. Of course, there could be circumstances where it may have multiple environmental impacts and, if only one of those was addressed by the EDP, the remaining environmental impacts would still need to be assessed through the existing system.

Clause 56 requires Natural England to produce charging schedules, which is critical as that will establish the rates that developers need to pay to rely on the EDP. The clause makes it clear that different rates can apply for different kinds of development covered by the EDP. Clause 57 sets up further detail around the information that Natural England has to include in an EDP; for example, an underlying environmental condition. That is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each environmental feature, so that we can set a baseline for improvements and how they are measured.

Looking at the procedures, Clause 58 sets out the requirements that Natural England must meet. The Government have tabled an amendment to replace Clause 58 with Clause 87A, which extends and broadens the duties it contains to other functions of Natural England and the Secretary of State in relation to this part. I will speak to this amendment in due course but, in the light of that, the Government are not seeking to support the inclusion of the current Clause 58.

In introducing the restoration fund, we have been clear that this new approach will be expert-led and ecologically sound. Clause 59 is therefore central. It secures the effective scrutiny and has a consultation process to lead to better EDPs informed by relevant experts and local communities, but also provides the Secretary of State with the assurance that he needs to approve an EDP. The nature restoration fund is, as I said, not just about streamlining but about using funds more effectively, which is why Clause 60 requires that the Secretary of State may approve an EDP only once satisfied that it passes the overall improvement test. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the importance of the overall improvement test. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that it will be delivered by the end date of the EDP. EDPs are therefore focused on the timely delivery of environmental outcomes.

I move on to the reporting, amendment, revocation and challenge requirements. Once an EDP is made, it is crucial that Natural England can effectively monitor the performance of the conservation measures and progress made. It is vital that key information, such as performance of conservation measures and the remaining development capacity, are made available. It is important to have transparency so that proactive steps can be taken if an EDP is underperforming. It also allows the Secretary of State to amend an EDP if required.

Clause 62 has the reporting requirements and also looks at how the levy is being set and the transparency around that, so that developers, the local community and environmental groups can continue to engage during the EDP’s lifespan. Clause 63 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend EDPs in specific circumstances where it is necessary to do so; for example, to reflect new environmental information or to accommodate additional development. Crucially, the Secretary of State is bound by the same overall improvement test as when making an EDP.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who talked about the process for revoking; the circumstances on how that would be used are established in Clause 64. Of course, this is the option of last resort, and the Bill includes various safeguards to ensure that we do not reach this point, including the ability to amend and to deploy back-up conservation measures if monitoring indicates underperformance. Development that has relied on the EDP prior to revocation is not affected by the decision to revoke. The Secretary of State must then consider appropriate actions to ensure that the negative effect of development on environmental features where a developer has already committed to pay the levy before revocation are suitably addressed. Obligations discharged through an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration at the point of development consent, so we recognise that it is important to provide a route to challenge EDPs. The route of challenge is in Clause 65 and enables a claim for judicial review to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date that the EDP is published.

I turn to how the nature restoration levy operates. Clause 66 sets out the framework. If a request is accepted by Natural England, the developer is then committed to making the relevant payment, which will be set out in the charging schedule, which will be published. Once the developer has committed to paying the levy, the environmental obligations are altered in line with the EDP. Ensuring that Natural England can secure the funds to deliver the conservation measures through the nature restoration levy is central to this approach and provides certainty. The positive outcomes for nature that the EDP will deliver will be realised only if the developer chooses to make them. Therefore, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the cost of the levy does not make development unviable. The regulations will be able to deal with a range of technical matters relating to the ability to pay, such as cancellation or withdrawal of such liability, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.