Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I declare that I am on the boards of Peers for the Planet and the Conservative Environment Network. I also chair the Built Environment Select Committee—although the members who are here will be pleased to hear that I speak today purely as a Back-Bencher. I thank the Minister who will be responding, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for the time that she has given me, not just on this Bill but on the wider issues of housing and planning. It is both generous and genuinely appreciated.

This Bill is the most exciting legislation in this Session, as someone else has said, not because it is perfect—far from it—but because it opens a vital and long-overdue national debate. It is about not just housing but life, communities, connectivity; places to raise families, work, grieve and make friends. It is a chance to nationally plan land use more strategically, aligning homes with infrastructure, jobs and nature. I wish to raise three things.

The first, as has been discussed already, is planning committees. A poll found that 53% of people do not trust councils to act in their best interests and that 59% want more information on, or a greater say in, local decisions. I acknowledge that, as the Minister has said, a consultation is under way. But if the Government plan to remove a democratic element from planning, whatever the threshold, they must ensure that people still know who makes decisions, on what basis, and how they can make their voices heard. Democracy works only if people are involved. If you remove that local input or accountability, you damage that democratic link entirely.

I would like us to explore how we can front-load the planning process, using better data, earlier engagement and stronger design codes that secure local support from the outset. If you combine that with the brownfield passports that the Government are looking at, you reduce the need for repeat committee debate, you save time and you provide long-term clarity. All of this is already possible in current legislation.

The second area is Natural England. If it is to take on a stronger regulatory role, we must ensure that it is transparent and accountable. Who scrutinises its daily decisions? Who steps in when something goes wrong? Does it have the right skills and resources? Should it be the sole delivery body?

The third area is Part 3. When I looked at it the other day, it reminded me of when I put questions into AI when I am bored and out pops something which is very clever but sometimes lacks human intuition. This section of the Bill may have started with nutrient neutrality in mind. Perhaps it should have stayed there, as has been said. If it is put alongside the broader noise on biodiversity net gain and nature-friendly farming, I cannot help but feel a growing apprehension. This section risks undermining protections and creating new problems when first we should be fixing what is not working.

The fund must be for nature, not “administrative expenses”, as in in the Bill. As it stands, it risks becoming a bureaucratic cash cow, with too few guarantees of results. There is nothing about mitigation hierarchy, no requirement to embed green infrastructure and no assurance that the funds stay local. Maintaining and improving nature is not addressed. You pay the levy and the problem is offshored. Added to this, EDPs last only 10 years. What happens then? Some habitats and species cannot just be cut and pasted elsewhere.

I hope that the Bill sparks a deeper national conversation about the kinds of places we want to build and the kind of country we want to be. Growth does not have to make things worse. On the contrary, it is essential, but people must see and feel the benefits. We need to better deliver the infrastructure and services that people expect and fix this crazy situation of billions sat there in Section 106 waiting to be spent. Scrutiny and criticism of the Bill must not be mistaken for nimbyism. You can care deeply and passionately about nature but still want more homes and businesses. That is not cakeism. It is smart planning.

Recently I went to Aylesbury, where Barratt and the RSPB have partnered on 2,500 homes. Since then, the number of sparrows has risen by 4,000%, goldfinches by 200% and bumblebees by 50%. This is despite not just Brexit but the presence of roads, homes, shops and schools, and all because nature was put in at the outset. They are not alone; others are doing it. Nature is not a blocker to growth but a part of growth. It creates jobs, as my noble friend on the Front Bench knows all too well. It revives places and helps to make healthier and happier communities.

I welcome the Government’s aims, but the rhetoric must change. We must stop framing housing and nature as adversaries, where one must lose for the other to win. I have spoken to campaigners and young people who care about the environment yet want more homes. Many developers building at scale are putting nature in because it works. It is this energy that I want us all to channel, not to kill the Bill but to improve it, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to push for a more measured, more national and more ambitious plan that delivers for both people and nature.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

59: After Clause 47, insert the following new Clause—
“Water infrastructure project licencesOmit sub-paragraph (a) of regulation 4(3) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to remove the “size and complexity” test for the awarding of a licence for a water infrastructure project, meaning that projects would be considered on value for money alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said in the last group that he was running out of energy, so I reassure him that he is not hallucinating: I am not my noble friend Lady Coffey. However, I am moving Amendment 59 on her behalf. I refer noble Lords to my interests on the register and declare that I am on the board of the Conservative Environment Network—although I speak completely independently of it.

I am sure that whenever I stand to speak, many of my colleagues on this side and on the Front Bench think that what I have to say is full of excrement. I am pleased to satisfy them today because when it comes to sewerage, it is not often that it can be associated with good news. But Tideway is the good news story in the UK. It was officially opened by His Majesty the King earlier this year, and London’s super-sewer is now fully connected and has, to date, captured over 7 million tonnes of sewage, which would historically have spilled into the River Thames. That is enough storm sewage to fill Wembley one and a half times. While I was waiting today, I was trying to figure out how many times it would fill this Chamber, but I will leave that to brainier folks than I.

This super-sewer is a marvel of modern engineering. It spans the length of London from Acton in the west right through to the Beckton sewage treatment works in the east, passing under iconic London landmarks as it goes. Having taken many years to build, it will continue to serve Londoners for generations to come, helping to protect our precious natural environment from sewage at the same time.

However, ambitious infrastructure projects such as Tideway do not come cheap. That is why, in 2013, the specified infrastructure projects regulations were created. I do not want to go too much into the weeds of this but these regulations made it possible for the Tideway project to be paid for using a novel financing mechanism. This reduced the political and financial risk for Tideway’s investors, reduced the cost of capital, and spread the costs over multiple generations of Londoners who will benefit from that infrastructure. The incurred debts are repaid over the long term by Thames Water bill payers, much like a mortgage.

Before work started, it was estimated that the project would cost customers between £20 and £25 per year, and that was in 2014-15 prices. The cost has remained well within that range since, which in itself is a remarkable achievement. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this makes Tideway a good news story.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, it was of course a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, introduce these amendments. He referred to the success of the Thames Tideway project, and there were a number of references to who did it. The person in charge of that project is Andy Mitchell, who has done an extraordinarily good job, so it is quite right that his name should be referred to next to the project itself.

The amendments seek to insert new clauses specific to water infrastructure. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to remove the size and complexity test from the specified infrastructure projects regulations, known as SIPR. The Government are resisting this amendment because we have already committed to reviewing the SIPR framework. That was set out in the Chancellor’s New Approach to Ensure Regulators and Regulation Support Growth policy paper, published in March 2025, which confirmed that Defra will amend the SIPR framework to help major water projects proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. It is important that the planned review goes ahead so that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry. Removing the size and complexity threshold now would pre-empt that process and risk creating a regime that does not reflect the sector’s diverse needs or long-term priorities.

We will continue to work closely with stakeholders to ensure that the specified infrastructure projects regime remains targeted and proportionate and delivers value for customers. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked by when this review will be completed, and I can assure him that it will be completed in this calendar year. I therefore thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling the amendment, but I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, to withdraw it on her behalf.

Amendment 61 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to introduce enabling regulations for milestones and enforcement for various delivery phases of all water undertakers’ reservoir proposals. The Government have already taken urgent steps to improve water security. This involves action to improve water efficiency and to reduce water company leaks alongside investing in new supply infrastructure, including new reservoirs and water transfers. We are taking action to speed up the planning process for new reservoirs. For example, we recently revised the National Policy Statement for Water Resources Infrastructure to make clear that the need for the proposed reservoirs in the water companies’ statutory management plans has been demonstrated.

Ofwat’s price review final settlement in December 2024 for the water sector has also unlocked record investment, around £104 billion of spending by water companies between 2025 and 2030. This includes £8 billion of investment to enhance water supply and manage demand, such as enabling the development of nine new reservoirs. As part of that, leakages will reduce by 17%. We have taken steps with Ofwat to improve water company oversight by increasing reporting and assurance requirements on companies’ delivery, improving protection for customers from companies failing to deliver the improvements by returning the funding to customers, and encouraging companies to deliver on time by applying time-based incentives.

The Government, as the Committee has already heard, also commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead the Independent Water Commission, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise the water industry and deliver resilient water supplies. The Government are grateful to Sir Jon and the commission for their work and will carefully consider their findings and recommendations, including those that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to.

We will provide a full government response to the commission’s report in the autumn, setting out our priorities and timelines. The Government will introduce root and branch reform to revolutionise the water industry. Working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, the Government will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system so that it is fit for decades to come. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is therefore reassured that the proposed new clause is unnecessary, and I kindly ask him not to move his amendment.

Amendment 62, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is not necessary. It is a probing amendment to encourage the consideration of measures to facilitate the construction of small reservoirs. The Government are already encouraging building both small and large reservoirs. That improves resilience to climate change, sustains food production and water security and supports economic growth.

Reservoir safety legislation does not prevent new reservoirs being constructed but does ensure that structures are well built and maintained. The streamlining of the planning system will make them quicker and easier to build in the future. However, it is important that new reservoirs do not pose flood risks for local communities by being built in the wrong locations and that existing reservoir dams are structurally safe.

Reservoirs that store water above ground level pose risks to life, property, businesses and the environment, and could cause economic disruption to local communities if the dam structure were to fail. These risks are managed through reservoir safety regulations. Reservoirs that store water below ground level do not pose the same risks and so are out of scope of the reservoir safety regulations. Current advice to farmers and landowners who wish to build reservoirs is to consider options for non-raised water storage. The Government intend to consult in the autumn on proposals to improve reservoir safety regulations, including making the requirements more tailored to the level of hazard posed and bringing some smaller raised reservoirs in scope. These proposals do not alter the need for more reservoirs, nor prevent new ones being built. They are to ensure that reservoir dams are structurally sound and that flood risks for communities down stream are effectively managed.

I appreciate the interests of noble Lords in tabling these amendments. However, for the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am conscious that the hour is late and already the two Chief Whips are conspiring to tell us that we need to rattle through.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

Wind up!

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

Exactly—that is just what my Chief Whip says.

I am grateful to the Minister and everyone who has participated. I obviously cannot do justice to what my noble friend Lady Coffey would say on Amendment 59 in this group, but it has been a good discussion, albeit short.

I think it was my noble friend Lord Lucas who made the correct observation that this is not just about water infrastructure in itself. It is about the importance of it linking into housing and the need to build more homes. My noble friend Lord Lansley made a very good point about the Cunliffe review as a whole and the need to have a broader discussion about what was said in that review. I am sure that will happen.

I am conscious that we are heading into Recess. I am grateful for the many brainy points that my noble friend makes about the issues within the regulations and this legislation. For now, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

60: After Clause 47, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on planting along highways(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, issue guidance for developers, local planning authorities and other relevant parties on the planting of trees, shrubs, plants or grass alongside highways constructed as part of—(a) any new transport infrastructure;(b) any other development for which consent has been granted.(2) Guidance issued under this section must outline how licence conditions under section 142(5) of the Highways Act 1980 (licence to plant trees, shrubs, etc., in a highway) are to be applied and complied with in a way which—(a) is not unreasonably burdensome on applicants for licences, and(b) does not prevent or discourage the planting of trees, shrubs, plants or grass,and must provide model licence conditions, standard designs, and planting palettes.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the planting of trees and other plants alongside new highways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, yet again I have the two Chief Whips staring at me. I will be brief, but also, I hope, very cheery—this will be a cheery discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for tabling this amendment. The Chief Whip on our side is no longer present, but I can hear him saying, “Get on with it”, so I shall.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion. The Government agree that planting schemes can mitigate the environmental impacts of new highways and make existing ones more pleasant. However, this amendment is not necessary as there is already relevant guidance on this matter, produced by a number of relevant stakeholders, that local highway authorities and others should have regard to. This includes the well-managed highways infrastructure code of practice, which provides guidance for local authorities on managing highway networks; the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; the Manual for Streets; and local authorities’ own street adoption and street works guidance documents. Some local authorities go further and encourage local residents to look after street trees—including my own. When I am not in the Chamber until late at night, I am nurturing a small but growing tree in my locality by taking it a bucket of water every so often, and it will be a pleasure to do so this evening when we finish.

Planning applications for highway development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are already subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain, and we are currently consulting on the application of biodiversity net gain for nationally significant infrastructure projects, with the aim of mitigating any environmental impact. Requiring additional or new guidance would be an administrative burden and could merely duplicate the guidance that already exists, so I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister and everyone who participated in the debate; it started on a high then slowly descended. I have said many times in this Chamber that I massively respect the Minister, but I think he mentioned about five different sets of rules or guidance, and that is precisely why there should be some clear documentation that sets out the different issues and how to tackle them.

I am grateful to my own Back Benches, the Greens and the Lib Dems for their comments and support. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the perfect point that this is also about wildlife, which is often accused or neglected, and the fact that we have the 2030 targets, which we should aim for and this can play a part in that.

I am conscious of the time, but there are various things I could say to my dear and good noble friend Lord Moylan. I will take him up on the offer to engage with him. I will make three very quick points. First, while trees do not improve your driving, it is a fact that having trees on streets slows down drivers in urban areas; someone made that observation in mainland Europe, where, sadly, they have more trees than we do. It therefore improves driving, even if it does not improve the quality of the driver.

Secondly, my noble friend mentioned the issues with his mulberry bushes. That is exactly why there should be guidance on new development—that is its purpose.

Finally, I was googling frantically what sort of tree my noble friend Lord Moylan could be. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but one that I found was the great white oak. I am told that it is big and majestic in many ways, but it is also quite stubborn. I say respectfully to my noble friend: please, let us have this journey; I will come and help him clean up his mulberry bush.

For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, with the amendments in this group being supported all around the Committee, it suggests to me that there is a strong opinion that the Bill should not be so silent on green spaces. My Amendment 121 seeks to make it mandatory that provision for green space must be included in any application for new housing developments. It does not seek to be prescriptive as to the type of green space but leaves that open to community consultation.

Noble Lords will be aware that the revised National Planning Policy Framework recognises that green space is important, and it includes in its golden rules, where it refers to

“the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public”.

Where residential development is involved, the objective is that:

“New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces”.


The problem with that is that the wording is rather vague, and the green space is only an objective, not a requirement. At worst, that requirement could be fulfilled through off-site provision. We must learn from past developments and ensure green space provision is integral to the developments. It must be there at master-plan stage.

Let us look at some of the advantages, which I am sure noble Lords are very aware of. The BBC suggests that approximately 28% of people live more than a 15-minute walk from their nearest public park, and the Green Space Index reports that 6.1 million people have no park or green space within a 10 or 15-minute walk. The thing is that a 10 or 15-minute walk with a couple of toddlers or for an elderly person is a round trip of 30 or 40 minutes. Later in the Bill, we will get to the issue of mitigation, so I will not discuss that here except to point out that, if local delivery of mitigation is prioritised, then high-quality, nature-rich green spaces will be baked into the plans.

These are all positive things that we need to look at. There is the boosting of mental health and overall well-being. A long-term study by the University of Exeter found that living in greener areas significantly reduces mental distress and increases life satisfaction. I am sure we can all remember the disparity in access to green space during the Covid-19 lockdowns, particularly for those without gardens. It really became starkly clear, and it really intensified the public’s demand that parks are valued, because people suddenly really realised the value of their local park, be it big or small.

Then, of course, there is tackling physical inactivity. Proximity to parks and open spaces encourages physical activity. People living within 500 metres of green areas are more likely to take at least 30 minutes of daily exercise, and it has been estimated that access to quality green and blue spaces in England could save £2.1 billion a year in health costs—and that is before we get on to the environmental benefits.

Green space—trees, grass—is involved in carbon sequestration and air quality issues. Trees, shrubs and grasslands absorb CO₂, acting as carbon sinks. The vegetation filters out air pollutants—for example, particulate matter—which is important with respect to ozone in urban areas. It improves urban air quality, again reducing health burdens. Green spaces tend to reduce the local temperature when it is hot in summer through shading, and cooler microclimates lessen reliance on energy-intensive air conditioning, cutting emissions from electricity use. Green spaces are win-win in every way.

Noble Lords have just been talking about flood risk reduction and water management; green spaces, with their permeable soils, vegetation and sustainable urban drainage, absorb rainwater and reduce runoff. During the debate we have just had on water management, we did not mention, for example, the city of Philadelphia, which had a very similar issue to the one that we in London have solved through the Thames tunnel. In Philadelphia, they solved it by creating masses of green space; they spent less money, yet they have the win-win situation already.

That is a lot of advantages, without mentioning the biodiversity and ecosystem services that we can get through those plantings. Strategically planted trees provide shading in summer, which I have mentioned, and wind protection in winter, improving thermal comfort for people in those areas.

Masses of research and dozens of statistics make the case for accessible, quality green space. I have read a lot of this research in the papers, but I make this case because of the sheer joy and relaxation that I personally experience from a walk in the park, whether here in London or at home in Devon. I want to ensure that that is our contribution to this Bill.

I certainly support the other amendments in this group from, for example, the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Gascoigne, who are right to put green into spatial strategies. I have also added my name to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on allotments and community gardens, which are particularly special green spaces and great promoters of community cohesion, but I will resist going on about that as I am looking forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The final two amendments in this group seek to give development corporations a duty to provide green space—again, an extremely correct ambition.

The Government must see that there is a lacuna in the Bill, as nowhere does it place any mandatory duty for the provision of green space as an essential. It is not—and should not be regarded as—an optional extra. Given the large number of Peers who have tabled amendments on this issue, I hope that the Minister will bring forward some constructive wording before Report to fulfil the aspiration all around the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 138 but first, if I may, I will join in the love-in from the previous group for the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who was momentarily with us. I wish him all the best. As the Minister can testify, he was my shadow, alongside my noble friend, on the Front Bench when I had the honour to sit on that Front Bench. As an east Lancastrian comrade, I wish him all the best with whatever he goes on to do.

My Amendment 138 seeks to insert green spaces, allotments and community gardens into the considerations of the spatial development strategy, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson for adding his name to it. Fundamentally, I see this as quite a pragmatic proposal. It sets out that these amenities should be considered in developments. It is not onerous; it is not stipulating a percentage or proportion; it just says that they should be considered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it sits alongside a number of other amendments all of which push in a general movement for more green space and all of which I support. I support Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I am keen to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, on her Amendment 206, because she broadens it out to include not just green infrastructure but blue infrastructure, which is good. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, all these together are saying that, where possible, we should try to put more in.

I am conscious that there is a whole raft of groups to go, so the Government Whips need not worry, because I will not repeat things I have said previously nor pre-empt the words of what will be said by far more articulate people than me in this group. But I want to echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was saying. I say respectfully to the Minister that we are seeing a group of people from across this House who are keen to put more into this Bill. I am sure that when the Minister responds there will be many words arguing why this is supported but not necessary, because it will be in the NPPF and this is great, but I hope what she will understand when we all speak and from what is down in the amendments already is that it does not need to be onerous or stipulating anything specific. Even just a hat tip will be enough. I think the Government can support it, because it is in the revised NPPF. It is something that I think developers will want us to do, and it is not onerous. This is not just about nature, as important as that is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it is about building communities and developments that people will enjoy living in. Before we go to the next stage of this Bill, I hope that we can find some way of coming together and some language to put in the Bill that the Government can support.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 206 in my name, I declare my interest, as in the register, as chair of Peers for the Planet. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Sheehan, for their support in adding their names. I will also speak to Amendment 138B. I also wholly support the other amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 138 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and Amendment 149 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to which I have added my name. All seek to put in place ways to legislate for greater access to green and blue spaces in urban landscapes and the multiple co-benefits this can bring to people, climate and nature.

My Amendments 206 and 138B are similar in intention and are a two-pronged approach to future-proofing existing commitments into legislation, adding provisions that ensure that access to green and blue spaces is incorporated for both spatial development strategies and development corporations, and to ensuring that our planning system contributes more to the delivery of these vital spaces. Without statutory requirements, the reality is that opportunities to include green and blue spaces—things like urban water features, ponds and wetlands—from the design stage are often missed. The evidence is quite strong on that. These two amendments would ensure that when developers build new towns they design access to such spaces from the outset.

At Second Reading, I made this precise case for access to green and blue spaces. I made the point that the Government made a commitment to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework established at COP15 in 2022 and in their Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, which is currently under review, that every citizen should be within 15 minutes’ walking distance of a green or blue space. I take the point that that might not be enough, especially with small children, but we need to think about the 15 minutes. In her response, the Minister indicated that further legislation was not required because this was already part of our planning system through the NPPF.

I propose two counterpoints on this issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out further clarity about what further strengthening measures the Government envision so that this commitment is realised. The first, as a number have already said, is that the NPPF is only guidance and is subject to interpretation by decision-makers and change by current and future Governments. Time and again we are seeing the loss of urban green space because there is a view, even in some of our current laws, that it is fine to build over green space and move it outside the city, because it is better for nature outside the city.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

170: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Community infrastructure levy and section 106 obligations(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations amend the legislation in subsection (2) to ensure that— (a) local authorities publish annual data on the use of planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) and Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) funds, including—(i) the purpose of the planning obligation or CIL fund;(ii) any amount of money committed under a planning obligation or CIL fund which is left unspent;(iii) the reason for any unspent money;(b) the Secretary of State has the power to require the local authority to undertake the planning obligation or works under a CIL, in the event that adequate efforts to do so have not been made;(c) if the local authority has not spent the developer funds during an agreed timeline, then the local authority must contact the developer to explore joint working to deliver the agreed service or improvements.(2) The legislation this section applies to are—(a) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) the Planning Act 2008, and(c) the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/948).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Banner is doing reverse declarations, I should probably just check; I think I have made them at this stage, but just in case, I declare that I am a director of Peers for the Planet, although I speak entirely independently of them on this and on all the amendments I have tabled to the Bill.

It is a pleasure to kick-start this group and speak to Amendment 170. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Parkinson, who, sadly, is unable to speak to this amendment today but has assured me of his continued support despite his absence. I am grateful to all the other noble Lords who have spoken to me of late to support me on this and to the external organisations that have been in touch too.

The amendment has a series of parts to it. First, I will set out the context of why I feel something is necessary before talking through what the amendment seeks to do. The amendment relates to two aspects of planning law where a local authority receives funds through development. These are Section 106, which is part of the planning law that allows councils to negotiate money from developers in exchange for granting planning permission to offset the impact of new development and fund specific improvements in the area, while CIL, the community infrastructure levy, is a charge for infrastructure in the broader area.

For background, I first became interested in support of these forms of investment many moons ago when I worked in London City Hall alongside another noble friend who is sadly not with us, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. It was amazing to see, alongside many other developments across the capital, things that were being delivered through this funding. In particular, I was always struck by the work that was taking place in Vauxhall Nine Elms and the extension to the Northern line, and how that unlocked the wider development in that area.

I was blown away only recently when the Bill started when someone mentioned in passing that, last year, the Home Builders Federation did an analysis in which it calculated that around £8 billion-worth of unspent money is sitting in local authorities across England and Wales. I say that again: £8 billion. I know in today’s age of Monopoly money that may not mean much to some, but it certainly means a hell of a lot to me. Within that, there is money for affordable housing, which could unlock around 11,000 affordable homes, and an estimated £1 billion for highways and roads—I know we have elections next year; let us just dream of all those leaflets where we could have candidates pointing at the potholes being filled. There is £2 billion-worth to go towards schools and education and an estimated £850 million that could go towards recreation and play areas. In the same report, the HBF estimates that

“the total amount of unspent Section 106 contributions has more than doubled”

since the year before, suggesting a growing backlog of undelivered infrastructure. I think everyone would accept that obviously it takes time to deliver and build, but it is worth noting that

“around a quarter of the unspent contributions have been held for more than five years”,

and some councils

“admit to holding on to funds for more than 20 years”.

How did HBF get that information and is it easy for any of us to gather? It is not, and that is another part of the problem. There are, as I am sure the Minister will say, the infrastructure funding statements that each receiving authority has to publish annually. Much of the information is mandatory and some information is advisory, but it could be clearer and more transparent. The statistics that I have used earlier, where there is a breakdown, do not have to be sought through the FoI process, which is what the HBF had go through. The same goes for how long the funds have been held and why there has been a delay. In today’s data age, there is no reason why this information could not be readily accessible and available. 

Turning specifically to the proposed new clause in the amendment, noble Lords will see that it contains a number of parts tackling the challenges I have laid out. The first relates to transparency, and seeks to ensure that the data which is published through the infrastructure funding statement has even more information—information which the local authority will already have—setting out the purpose of the original funding, the amount which has been unspent and the reason for it not being spent. If there is readily accessible information, the public can see what is expected and not have to put in FoIs to understand why it is not happening.

This in itself can help the local authority deliver, but I want to explore what more can be done. The second part relates to delivery. If the government department deems that the local authority has not done enough to attempt to deliver this improvement, the Secretary of State would be able to require an authority to get on with the job, or at least make steps to deliver what has been agreed. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, nodding—I will come to her in a moment, but it is good that I have her support already. This in itself is not radical. It says only that the local authority should be doing what it said it would do. For the public, it would mean additional accountability.

Finally, the third part would require that, if the developer’s funds have not been spent during a previously agreed timeline, the local authority must contact the developer to ensure that it is possible to work together to deliver this service. I did contemplate, when I was drafting this, including another line in the amendment which would effectively mean that, if a local authority had failed to deliver the agreed improvement during the agreed timeline, the funds would be handed back to the developer, as I know has happened in some circumstances. I took it out in the end because, ultimately, I thought that it would be the local communities who would be losing out on the benefit and it would let the local authority off the hook. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would agree with that, given her Amendment 220.

I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my good and noble friend Lord Lansley sat here. This was, I think, touched on two days ago, when we last convened on this Bill. As ever, my noble friend made the customarily brainy observation that, ultimately, this is a contract with the developer. Further, it is something that the National Audit Office looked at in only the last couple of months.

I want to be clear that I am moving this amendment not because I want us to debate the virtue or otherwise of such measures on development. I am not suggesting that we change how these charges are levied, or indeed whether they should be reduced or made higher. Most people would say that we need to be acutely aware of not making development so burdensome and costly that it happens even less than it already is. I am merely trying to find a better way to deliver what is in the existing law.

From every aspect, this seems to me to be an absolute no-brainer. For example, many developers say that they want something like this—they want people to know not just about the development that they have built but that they are contributing something to the community. Local people too want it; rather than the money sitting in a council—perhaps they do not even know about it—and gathering dust in someone else’s account, local people would actually benefit from it.

Some may think that this would put additional pressures on the local authority to deliver when it is, as we all know, facing many pressures. Obviously, we respect everyone who works in a local authority, from the leader down. I just need to look around the Chamber to know that we recognise on all our Front Benches the importance of local authorities. But these funds should be spent as they were intended. It cannot be right, to my mind, that up and down the land £8 billion pounds is sat there when it is meant to be for the people.

Without adequate information, it is not possible to ascertain why this money has not been spent in every location. In some cases, it has been made clear that it is for a multitude of reasons, but there should be an element of pressure on an authority to deliver. If it does not, it should be compelled to go back to the developer to explore what else is possible to make it happen. I am not suggesting that the developer should therefore contribute even more again. The authority should have secured enough to deliver in the first place. It may be that the agreement needs to be revised, or it could be that the development can deliver something in collaboration with the authority, or that the intended amenity is no longer required as previously intended. While that money is in limbo and not being spent, it is not delivering for the people who felt the impact of the original development in the first place.

I start from the position that growth and development are good. We need good-quality homes, more business and the economy to grow. I know some do, but I do not see growth as a bad thing. At the same time that we say that growth is good and we need it, we must say that need people to see the benefit. Yes, there will be more people buying things in shops and milling around, with more money going into the general pot.

Equally, people in those communities will have had some upheaval with the development that was there first. As a result, people may be concerned about the extra demands on local services and that their trains and roads may be busier. At Second Reading, everyone said that they broadly support growth and development. If the Government are serious about changing the public’s views on growth and development then giving communities better visibility of the benefits of that development is essential. Recent polling from Public First, published in the last few days, found that 55% of people generally support development in their area. Some of the reasons for that are that they want to see regeneration, jobs, investment, and more shops and amenities. But by far the biggest reason for people opposing development is concern about pressures on local infrastructure. That is what I am trying to fix.

This amendment is not political—it is certainly not party political. It would help the Government, as they would be able to demonstrate that growth is good and that they are on the side of the people. It would not be onerous because it would not put anything additional on to a developer. It would not stop development; in fact, I genuinely think that it would be good for development and would improve accountability and transparency. Because of that, I want it to be there for people, to deliver what they expect and deserve. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 185K, 185L, 218 and 220 in my name follow on well from the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which these Benches fully support. The noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight the importance of community benefits coming from development and ensuring that they are delivered. The amendments in my name would add to those that the noble Lord has just introduced.

Amendments 185K and 185L would insert new clauses after Clause 52 providing a duty to compel a complete local infrastructure. Amendment 185K seeks to make legally binding agreements associated with development consent orders or SDSs. Community benefits are the elements of a consent order that will be the last stage, almost inevitably, of implementation of a scheme. Without legal enforcement, it is possible for developers to significantly delay that implementation. Amendment 185K would empower local planning authorities to resist such moves and ensure that community benefits are fulfilled.

Amendment 185L would provide a further safeguard for local communities where a developer has signed a Section 106 agreement for the provision of a local amenity. If the amenity has not been built, the relevant local authority will have the power under this amendment to take over that responsibility but, crucially, will not be able to use that land for any other purpose, and neither will the developer. Those amendments relate to development consent orders and SDSs.

Amendments 218 and 220, although they have identical wording, relate to later parts of the Bill concerning compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 218 seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 106, relating to compulsory development orders. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of land value capture. This is a policy concept and a way of raising funds, where public authorities recover the unearned increase in land value, often created by public investment in infrastructure or planning permissions, then reinvest it in public services and projects. This ensures that the benefits of public development—I emphasise that it is public development—are shared with the community, rather than solely accruing to the private landowners. That seems fair to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to do that. As I explained, I fully understand the intention behind the amendment. I hope my explanations have reassured noble Lords sufficiently and I kindly ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am genuinely always grateful when the Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, as well as to all those who spoke in this group. It has been a good, illuminating discussion, and I like the ambition of my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Jackson and my noble friend—I will call her that—Lady Andrews, my fellow committee member. I cannot remember what she subsequently said, but I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, called this an odds and sods group, but it did have two key components.

I liked that, at the beginning, it felt as though we had rediscovered the 2010 rose garden treaty, when the Lib Dem-Tory alliance was going strong—though my noble friend Lord Jackson should not worry. We are hand in glove on Amendments 220 and 170 and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lord Banner was very good. I wholeheartedly support it; you have people with real experience who understand the complexities of the issue but, for those who need it most, it is worth trying to find a way to make it possible, and a load of work has been done on this already.

I think we should explore my amendment. I accept that some will say that it should be bolder and some that it should be weaker. I am afraid that I am not sure what the position of my Front Bench was—it is not the first time I have had that problem. I know that local authorities deliver and are under pressure, but 20 years is a very long time. As my noble friend Lord Banner said, it seems odd that, during this period, local people do not even know what is happening in their area. As I said, I know that there are infrastructure funding statements but, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, when 17% of them are not even being delivered we cannot say that the system is working. There must be some way that we can work together to find something to give the system a little nudge and remind and show people that there is some benefit beyond what is being put through development. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 170 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her clarification. That is a bit of a relief, to be frank, because most MHCLG Secretaries of State are not appointed for their depth of ecological knowledge, nor indeed are the civil servants in that department.

However, that does not overcome the principal problem that the way it is drafted rather implies that it is based on the Secretary of State’s judgment and consideration, rather than the evidence. Existing environmental law is effective because it requires that, if an adverse effect on the integrity of an internationally important site cannot be avoided, then changes that would impact it would be consented to only where there are imperative reasons of “overriding public interest”. That is a technical term which is well-based in case law, and there is long-standing case law as to the evidence base required to demonstrate overriding public interest.

Clause 63 seems to make the new overall improvement test a much more subjective decision of the Secretary of State for Defra, in that it is about his or her consideration, and the test is passed solely on the basis of whether or not the Secretary of State considers that it is passed. Therefore, it is not a requirement in the Bill for the opinion to be underpinned by evidence. We understand that, frankly, it would be crazy for the Secretary of State to make some wild, unevidenced decision, but the way the Bill is currently framed means that the decision is unlikely to be legally challengeable if they did.

My amendment proposes deleting

“the Secretary of State considers that”,

which would remove the subjective element and, I hope, establish that the Secretary of State’s decision on the overall improvement test would be more about objectivity and evidence. It would give scope for the Secretary of State’s decision to be challenged in court if it is clearly flawed or runs contrary to the scientific evidence, whereas, at present, the drafting of the Bill places the Secretary of State’s judgment in primacy over the evidence.

I repeat that this is, thank goodness, going to be done by a Secretary of State who may have a sporting chance of knowing what they are talking about, but it would be good to hear reassurance from the Minister as to the basis of the evidence on which the Secretary of State will make the decision about the overall improvement test in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 60.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 286 and 300, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, who, alas, gives her apologies that she is unable to speak today. I have signed the amendments, alongside other noble Lords, and hope I do them some justice.

As noble Lords will see, these two amendments—and pretty much this whole group—seek to improve the overall improvement test and ensure that EDPs deliver significant improvements. I echo the opening the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and welcome the letter this morning and the amendments put forward previously. That demonstrates movement.

I am afraid I will deviate a little. I do not think it has been incredible or extraordinary. I am glad that the Ministers—as I always say, my two favourite Ministers —have their doors open for us, though they may regret making that promise, as I have some concerns still with this. It is not just what has been expressed in this Chamber; it goes beyond this Chamber, on all sides of the debate, from ecologists and conservationists to developers, lawyers and so-called yimbys.

To turn to the specific amendments, Amendment 286 intends to strengthen the overall improvement test, and I welcome Amendment 286A from the Government, which seeks to do this. However, there are still questions. We hear that it is up to the Secretary of State for Defra and their judgment, ahead of any evidence to the contrary. Amendment 300 is related, and seeks to ensure that significant, measurable improvements to nature are achieved by the EDP. While I recognise and welcome what the Government have sought to do by putting in place back-up measures, what is the baseline evidence that the Secretary of State for Defra is looking at when making that judgment? It sounds like this is a recent development, but what are the so-called good reasons that it may fall outside the remit of the Secretary of State for Defra? If, hypothetically, it is just the Secretary of State for Defra—to park the “good reasons” wording—is it envisaged that that would be done in consultation with other departments, such as MHCLG or even HMT?

Overall, it is important that we put in checks and balances, and these amendments seek to do that. They would not wreck the Bill but seek to ensure the improvements that we all, including the Government, want. They would, I hope, ensure that development continues.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 289. Before I do so, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, as he came to what I think is the nub of this group and what the question really is. In my mind, it is this: are we content with the Government’s amendment, which changes the overall improvement test so that the wording is “materially outweigh”, or do we want it to be, as in the amendment from my noble friend and others, significant and measurable? As it happens, I agree with my noble friend and others that “measurably” and “materially” probably have meanings that are alike, but “significantly” should tell us something about the nature of the guidance.

However, we need to think very carefully about putting in “significantly”, because there will be material improvements that are not regarded as significant. Would that mean that there would be environmental delivery plans that could not be made because they would not pass the overall improvement test, even where they would lead to a material improvement? We need to think about this carefully. There is no simple way to use particular words in legislation. They have their plain meaning, and if we were to say “significantly and measurably”, we mean that there is something beyond measurable that is significant. The guidance would need to say that. I raise this point because, if I were looking for the plain meaning, “materially” helps us a lot because it shows that there must be something where you can literally distinguish between the present situation and the future situation.

On Secretaries of State, I am confused. I always thought that, conventionally, we just put “the Secretary of State” into legislation. As a former civil servant, I remember people who sat in the same office, behind the same desk, working for Secretaries of State whose titles and departmental boundaries regularly changed. Therefore, trying to specify the Secretary of State for anything in legislation is a mistake—you just put in “the Secretary of State” and work out which one it is subsequently.

My Amendment 289 is about the conservation measures that are identified but not expected to be needed. This is quite interesting because, if they have been identified but are not needed to secure the overall improvement test, they wait there, as it were, until we reach the point at which the Secretary of State is making the decision.

If the Secretary of State determines that the overall improvement test has been met but in doing so has had to take into account conservation measures that were not expected to be needed, as referred to in Clause 55(5), my amendment would require that determination to make it clear that those conservation measures have been added, just so there is transparency and clarity. Of course, that flows into what is required in terms of the levy and the obligations that have to be met out of the nature restoration fund.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

245: Clause 55, page 92, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) comply with the principles of the mitigation hierarchy.”

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to kick-start this group, not least after the great discussion we just had on the previous group. Equally, I am delighted and honoured to have the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter, for my amendment.

Amendment 245, which is in my name, seeks to specifically set out the importance of the mitigation hierarchy, which has reared its head on various occasions throughout the entire passage of the Bill. Most should already know what that means but, in short, it is the well-established common principle in development that there are a series of steps to go through on a site when it comes to the environment. These are: first, to avoid, then to minimise, then to restore, and then to offset.

As we just touched on, the problem with EDPs in this Bill is that we simply fast-track to compensation. In effect, developers can ignore the first three stages and pay into some pot to offset whatever it is they are doing. Here, the only obligation is the payment; your role is then done. I am not normally like this, but that is a pretty dystopian view. I know that, with many, that will not happen, and some will seek to follow those steps when working on development, even if the law does not stipulate it, but that would not be enforced and would be down to good will.

Amendment 245 would fix that and insert the mitigation hierarchy as part of the EDP’s conservation measures. Indeed, my amendment would be inserted into the subsection that explicitly states:

“An EDP must set out the measures (‘conservation measures’) that are to be taken by, or on behalf of, Natural England, under the EDP”.


It may be argued that it is not needed because of the mitigation hierarchy. The Minister is not in her place, but she was just saying at the Dispatch Box that the mitigation hierarchy is already implicit and that it is common practice. I have the highest regard for the Minister, who I assume will be responding, and I am sure she will say at the end of this debate that, while the Government support the principle and the arguments behind what I am seeking to do, it is not needed because it is in the NPPF. However, if it is not explicit in the Bill, it leaves the door open to regression legally.

I know that some see the NPPF more as planning guidance than law, and that the NPPF is general rather than specific. An EDP is entirely novel, hence why we are rightly having this huge debate; it creates a new regime and, as a result, it is not in the NPPF yet. Despite what the Minister just said, as it is new, it is right that it should feature in the Bill because it is creating a whole new aspect of planning law. It would ensure that the Bill and the NPPF align coherently. That should be explicit in the Bill.

It is not just me who thinks that the mitigation hierarchy should feature; in the previous group, the Government set out some amendments themselves. If you look at the guidance when these amendments were set out, the Government said:

“These changes underline the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs, ensuring that local conservation measures are preferred unless there is a clearly articulated environmental basis to look further afield”.


I think that is pretty much what the Minister said in concluding the previous group so, when those amendments came down, I was relieved. As I said on the previous group, I am grateful that the Government have put some amendments down. When I kept hearing that the mitigation hierarchy is going to be maintained, I thought that that was great; it is a good step. However, when I look at the list of amendments that we are debating in this group, I am afraid that I cannot find exactly where the Government say that the mitigation hierarchy will take place. This amendment seeks to fix that and to put in what the Government say they support.

It feels like we were debating this only yesterday. It was literally yesterday, at 1 am, when we were talking specifically about species. It may well be that, even if there are no species to be protected on a site, we can all agree that it is right that any development seeks to minimise and avoid as much damage as possible. That in itself is conservation.

There are a number of similar amendments in this group from other noble Lords, all of which seek to address the same issue of putting specific references in, and I support them, especially Amendment 301 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, to which I have added my name. It seeks to ensure that the mitigation hierarchy applies, while allowing flexibility for Natural England. If we take the group as a whole, these amendments do not stop the EDP process and they are not political games, certainly not from me. It does what the Government say they support. I hope that it will feature at some stage as the result of these conversations, because it is not in the Bill at the minute. I hope that the Minister recognises that this improves what the Government seek and makes the EDP a win-win for nature and development. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Willis, for supporting Amendment 256ZA which I have tabled. I support Amendment 245 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. His eloquent promotion of it means that I do not need to explain what the mitigation hierarchy is all about. However, it is an important principle in conservation, and it has come to the fore in the biodiversity net gain policy. In the case of this Bill, it would require a developer or Natural England preparing an EDP to look first at how to avoid damage to natural features, or, if avoidance of damage is not possible, to mitigate—that is, reduce—the impact, or, as a last resort only, to provide compensation habitat for the damage.

Under the draft Bill, Natural England could be, subtly or otherwise, pressurised into writing an EDP that jumps straight to damage and compensation. That might be the lowest-cost option and therefore to be desired by developers and also perhaps by the Government in pursuit of growth, even where it would have been feasible for Natural England or a developer to implement measures to safeguard the original protected habitat. I know that the Minister does not like the Bill’s nickname of “cash to trash” but, if it is not to be portrayed in that way, I believe that it will need to be amended to encourage developers and Natural England to comply with the mitigation hierarchy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for taking part in this debate on the mitigation hierarchy. I have listened carefully and very much recognise the concerns that are being raised. These amendments seek to add provisions that require Natural England and the Secretary of State to apply the mitigation hierarchy when considering whether to produce an EDP, and in its production and implementation. By introducing a more strategic approach to addressing the impact of development, the Bill deliberately provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to Natural England to design conservation measures to deliver improved outcomes for the environmental features that are subject to an EDP. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, when he introduced his amendment, noted that the NPPF includes consideration of the mitigation hierarchy in respect of individual planning applications. I was not going to mention it, but because he did, I thought I had to.

As we have set out, the NRF is a strategic model. While I want to reassure noble Lords that the mitigation hierarchy lives in this model and is integral to the model we are trying to get across, it cannot be considered in the same way as an individual planning application. Again, I stress that the NPPF is a statutory model. You cannot just ignore it. It is part of the application process. So, we would expect Natural England to consider this throughout the process and use tools such as the ability to request planning conditions to avoid and reduce impact as key elements of an EDP. In preparing an EDP, Natural England will always be mindful of the benefits of avoiding impacts before they occur. Taking action locally which benefits the same protected feature that is being impacted by development will be the default under an EDP. This places a kind of ecological lock on the use of network measures, which can be used only in cases where it is clear that taking action elsewhere would be more beneficial to the environmental feature.

In addition, when making the EDP, the Secretary of State will have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, in line with the Environment Act 2021. This will ensure that important principles, such as the precautionary principle and the rectification at source principle, are considered. Ultimately, the overall improvement test will require that each EDP demonstrates how the conservation measures will secure an environmental uplift that goes beyond the offsetting that is achieved under the current system.

Returning to Amendment 245, as I said, the principles are already incorporated into the existing provisions and further reinforced by the amendments we have tabled. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, Natural England can request that planning conditions be imposed on development, ensuring that impacts are minimised. As I have explained, network measures can be implemented only when doing so would lead to greater improvement. The noble Baroness asked for future information. Let us get together before Report; I will get that information for her and share it with noble Lords.

Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP, and the Secretary of State may make one only if it meets the overall improvement test. Therefore, the additional flexibility provided for by the nature restoration fund can be used only to deliver better outcomes for the environment.

I turn to Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 301 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who is not in her place. These amendments would require a developer to demonstrate that they have applied the mitigation hierarchy before Natural England can accept their request to use an EDP. The clear aim of the nature restoration fund is to deliver a win-win for both development and the environment. A fundamental element of delivering this is to reduce the amount of time and money spent on individual environmental assessments and refocus these efforts on strategic action to improve environmental outcomes at scale.

The EDP itself is required to consider the impact of relevant development on the environmental feature and propose appropriate measures to address and materially outweigh this impact. The plans will be underpinned by the best scientific evidence and will include actions to avoid impact, as well conservation measures to address and outweigh impact. As such, requiring developers to undertake individual assessments risks eroding the value of the EDP, adding costs to individual development, which we think would reduce the utility of relying on EDPs. Where an EDP is in place, the overall improvement test ensures that outcomes for the environment will be better than the existing system, so it is vital that we embrace the opportunity to streamline the process in order to deliver this win-win.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, tabled Amendment 275, which seeks to require that Natural England may decide to prepare an EDP for a protected feature only if two conditions are met: first, that Natural England has followed the mitigation hierarchy; and secondly, that the EDP would contribute to a significant environmental improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature at an ecologically appropriate scale. I have just addressed the first condition, so I will focus on the second.

The existing provisions in the Bill already require the Secretary of State to consider whether the overall improvement test is met once a draft EDP has been prepared and presented. Requiring Natural England to consider that same test at an earlier stage would not be possible because neither the detail of the proposed conservation measures nor the environmental impact of the development it is intended to address would be known at that stage. We think that the correct point to apply the overall improvement test will be after the EDP is drafted, not before.

The amendment also proposes a modification to the overall improvement test to require that conservation measures significantly and measurably outweigh the environmental impact of development. This was addressed previously, so I will not repeat it here, except to say that the Bill requires that conservation measures must address the environmental impact of development and, additionally, contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status. We have clarified that with the amendments we have tabled.

Turning to Amendment 256ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government’s amendments to Part 3 make it clear that network measures may be taken forward only when Natural England can set out how the approach will make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than an on-site measure. We are clear that the flexibilities will not come at the expense of action to avoid impact, and the Bill provides powers to address such actions and secure that they are taken through the use of planning conditions. There is also the opportunity to scrutinise the proposed conservation measures, including actions proposed to avoid impact, during the consultation on each EDP. The Secretary of State will also have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, and see that other important principles are considered.

Turning to Amendment 340, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the overall improvement test is central to the nature restoration fund. I have gone into some detail about how that is supposed to work, but the proposed requirement to apply the mitigation hierarchy rigidly would restrict an EDP’s ability to meet the overall improvement test strategically. As I said, an EDP cannot be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it will meet this test. Any flexibility in applying the mitigation hierarchy should be seen through this lens. The nature restoration fund does in limited circumstances allow Natural England to propose conservation measures which benefit the environmental feature in a different location.

Turning to irreplaceable habitats, the Bill does not amend or disapply the NPPF. Therefore, the existing policies remain unchanged. An EDP could be applied to an irreplaceable habitat only where it was also a feature of a protected site. Even then, an EDP could not allow for the loss of irreplaceable habitats, as it would simply not be possible to satisfy the overall improvements test in these circumstances. Finally, it is not clear what the proposed requirement to consider enhancing biodiversity would add, as the Bill is clear that an overall improvement must be achieved in relation to the protected feature to which the EDP relates.

Finally, on Amendment 346DF, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, we have recently concluded a consultation on improving the implementation of BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development. Among the options is a proposal to streamline the BNG metric process. We might be interested to pick this up and discuss it further, because the Government are currently considering their response, and we will be publishing our outcomes in due course. New legislation requiring government to lay a report on this matter is therefore not necessary at this stage, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

This has been a really important debate. It has raised a number of issues which I am aware that noble Lords would like to discuss further, and this is something we should specifically pick up in discussions ahead of Report. With these explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to that group, not least the Minister. I apologise for incorrectly prejudging what I thought she would say—I obviously got it completely wrong, and I apologise.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, got it right when he said that this group and the previous one are the nub of the problems with the EDP Part 3. I am not saying there are other things, but this goes to the heart of how we try and make the Bill a win-win for both development and nature. I do not want to dwell too long. I am grateful that the Minister said that we will come back to that. It is worth our coalescing and having another shot at it, if we may, but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 245 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Roborough’s Amendment 313 and will speak to that and to my Amendments 311, 316 and 318. I hope my noble friend’s Amendment 313 is an easy one for the Minister to accept or at least confirm that the situation will not take place at all when it comes to compulsory purchase orders.

On Amendment 311, I have three items I would like to see included in the regulations. Two refer to the mitigation hierarchy. We discussed that at some length on Amendment 245, so I will not say anything more about that. One of the items I would like to add to the regulations is that they should require Natural England to consider a delivery hierarchy, such that preference is given to those bodies and persons implementing the EDP. I believe that will encourage the private sector to take its appropriate share of the work of EDPs and keep the money with the people who actually manage the land, tend it and care for it, not just for 10 years of an EDP but for the future generations as well.

Amendment 316 seeks to clarify the legal obligations or liabilities of other parties, such as landowners and farmers, in accepting NRF funds delivered to the EDP. Amendment 318 seeks to provide further clarity on the involvement of an appropriate body, not just a public authority. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm exactly what is meant in the Bill on that point.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to a whole raft of amendments in my name in this Marshalled List: Amendments 307, 308A, 309, 310, 312 and 314. All are designed to ensure that the money raised through Part 3 for the nature restoration fund is actually spent on nature recovery rather than bureaucracy and process. This should concern us all because, as we have discussed repeatedly, Part 3 establishes what I see as an elaborate and quite ambiguous mechanism which does, in effect, carve out some developers from certain responsibilities.

Overall, my general approach to legislation is that it needs to be as comprehensive, clear and coherent as possible. We should not seek to keep things vague on purpose, because all that does is create problems, issues and delays down the line. Yet, as drafted, I fear that the Bill leaves a huge amount open to legal interpretation and case law. I am not speaking to any agency, body or department—perhaps it is more a reflection of human nature itself—but my experience is that where there is an ambiguous process, there is a tendency for government and others not to feel as much pressure on the need to deliver cost-effectiveness. On something as bold as this scheme, I fear that there is a likelihood of going through copious administrative procedure to mitigate litigation risk. Obviously, these copious administration procedures cost, and I suppose the ultimate question is: is it fair that nature pays that cost?

These amendments seek to limit the power of Natural England to take a cut from the fund at the expense of nature. I am sure that some will balk at this concept and ask where the money comes from, but that is not the debate here. I am seeking to ensure that the funds raised from developers are spent on their proper purpose. We should recognise that Natural England already has generous provisions allowing for it to charge fees for licenses and other work through Section 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Amendment 307 seeks to limit the amount that Natural England can charge in accordance with those existing provisions. Could the Minister explain whether they no longer see those existing provisions as sufficient to recover legitimate costs for Natural England?

Amendment 309 seeks to ensure that any charges taken are used to work within the same local authority boundary. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who, sadly, is not in his place, for adding his name to the amendment. The amendment makes it clear that the levy raised must be spent within the same planning authority from where the levy originated. I am happy to discuss my reason for tabling the amendment, and there can be debate about whether it is too narrow in its definition. As currently drafted, however, the money raised from one site can be spent anywhere. I am blessed, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will agree, to have been born in God’s own county of Lancashire. More recently, I confess, I have moved somewhere else. Hypothetically speaking, there is nothing in the Bill, as drafted, for a site to be taken out of where I live in Surrey now—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I know. There is nothing to prevent the EDP deeming that the money raised should not go to replace or improve something near what I have lost, but rather could be spent in beautiful Lancashire. As a result, while my family up there may gain from that benefit, people in Surrey would lose the benefit twice. They lose the site within scope of the development, and they lose the money that should be there to rectify that loss.

Finally, I will speak to Amendment 308A, which seeks to prevent other departments, but mainly the Treasury, effectively siphoning off money for non-related uses. Clause 71(5)(d) allows for Natural England to pass moneys collected under the levy to another public body. Indeed, it goes so far as to say that it would require Natural England to pass it to another public authority. A little later, the rather gloomy entry of Clause 72(7) says:

“The regulations may permit or require a public authority to collect any nature restoration levy charged by Natural England”,


the implication of which is worthy of debate in itself. Which public body do the Government foresee taking on this role if not Natural England? I will leave that to others if they wish to go down that route.

This amendment protects the funds to wherever these moneys may go. It means, ultimately, that their original purpose shall remain. I think everyone can unite around this, from sceptics of the Bill to those supporting it, because it means that money for nature should remain for nature and not be subsumed into a general pot. I am afraid I have the scars from working in government and know all too well what happens if things are not ring-fenced clearly.

As an aside, there is a precedent here. The other day—I cannot remember when—we discussed the community infrastructure levy, and the 2010 regulations include a ring fence to ensure that the income spent is on infrastructure, no matter who is doing the spending. That is in Regulation 59, if noble Lords wish to check. Ultimately, the nature restoration fund needs to be protected and clearly defined in the Bill, and not allowed to be open to interpretation or postponed to secondary legislation.

The remaining amendments in this group in my name, namely Amendments 310, 312 and 314, all seek to tighten further the accountability and transparency around any decision by Natural England to fund its own administrative activities from the nature restoration fund.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

It was a pleasure to follow the last two speakers, as they adroitly picked their way through the thickets of these various amendments. I will briefly touch on theirs before getting to mine. As regards Amendments 256 and 313, where land is CPO’d from its owner, it is manifestly unfair to include in the levy the cost of acquisition. It is reminiscent of the victim of an execution being made to pay for the bullet. As regards Amendments 307, 312 and 314, I support clear limits being set on the ability of quangos—particularly quangos in a monopoly situation—being able to overegg their charges.

Amendment 307A in my name requires Natural England to provide a proper budget breakdown for the use of levy funds requested from a developer. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how a required levy could be quantified in any other way. In the event that there is an underspend of the developer’s levy, then the amount not spent to meet the purpose of the levy should be promptly returned to the developer. It has always been my understanding that the specific purpose of the levy is to enable the offsetting of environmental degradation caused by specific developments. Such environmental degradation is to be defined, calculated and quantified by Natural England or its appointees to arrive at a numerical amount of the levy sum payable by the developer. Natural England has confirmed to me that that sum will in each case include an amount for contingency. That is a normal part of any budgeting process for what could be a complex project.

Where the system departs from normal practice is: what happens to any unspent funds once the quantum of environmental benefit that the developer has paid for is achieved? When I asked Natural England executives about this, they told me to my great surprise that any unused funds would simply be kept by Natural England and spent on unspecified further work. The levy amounts are likely to be substantial. It is not unreasonable to anticipate millions of pounds in some cases. To allow Natural England to retain any unspent funds for its own purposes flies in the face of standard contractual practice. It is also an open invitation to overprice the levy for any project as a means of generating revenue for Natural England above and beyond what is reasonably required for the agreed environmental benefits.