Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.

It is widely recognised that we need a simpler, more consistent and faster planning system that delivers higher-quality outcomes at lower costs. As others have raised, there has been a failure to deliver infrastructure, housing and commercial premises, particularly in London, Oxford and Cambridge, as well as a failure to deliver good environmental outcomes. The last Government made some good progress, with over 1 million new homes in five years and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—I ask whether this Government will seek to build on that rather than replace it.

Developers are equally frustrated, particularly with their inability to plan and invest for the long term due to the uncertainty of their most critical raw material: building land. We support many of the Government’s ambitions and there are some positive measures in the Bill, such as taking on board the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Banner on judicial review and reviewing the consultation process. However, it falls well short in many other areas, as many other noble Lords have pointed out earlier in this debate: the Bill takes a rather simplistic, overly centralised and blunt government-knows-best approach, rather than seeking to address the details, complexity and overlapping issues needed to improve the system, one that I believe the public would be more supportive of.

I have some questions. Strategic and local plans should be the fundamental base upon which to build development. However, the Government’s proposals are top-down. They are telling authorities what they need to achieve, with the threat of government intervention if they do not do it. Where are the tools to support authorities to achieve great outcomes for their areas and to make it easier to deliver these plans? If you give someone an impossible task, do not be surprised if they fail. Who determines the balance of achieving things such as environmental, infrastructure, affordable, commercial and housing numbers while seeking to meet the requirements of all those statutory bodies? How will these proposals make it easier to deliver a plan?

Local democratic accountability is crucial. Local residents should have a voice, as many have pointed out. There may be times when local councillors, under pressure from their electorate, are too willing to call something in, but there are far more times when it is important to have this option, particularly where developers seek to push the envelope. There are already measures in place to address this, and these need to be bolstered, not completely removed.

Environmental delivery plans are an interesting concept, but are the Government seriously giving this responsibility to an unaccountable quango that has no responsibility to deliver within a wider context, with tax-raising and CPO powers, and one that marks its own homework? Why not, for instance, through the strategic or local plans, work with a variety of providers? Why have the sensible proposals from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act on CPO and development corporations not already been taken forward?

While there are some positives on delivering infrastructure, will these really move the dial? Will they stop the delays and costs that we have seen for critical infrastructure, such as the Lower Thames Crossing? Will they improve biodiversity? Will they create a better environment? Why does the Bill encourage more development on greenfield and green belts? Why have this Government not continued with a strong material presumption in favour of brownfield development? What is the Bill doing to make processes simpler and provide consistency; for instance, setting national policy frameworks and standardising templates and processes?

While I can agree with many of the aims of the Bill, and there are some positive measures, overall, it is a missed opportunity. It could have built on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It could have supported councils and planning to move faster and be more consistent. It could have addressed many of the unintended consequences of the habitats directive and other nature and environmental legislation that is overlapping and in conflict. It could have done more to address the consequences of JRs. It could have turbocharged brownfield and urban generation. It could have addressed the roles of the many other public and quasi-public bodies needed to deliver. It could have a standardised process and paperwork, driving consistency. It could have set clearer priorities and ranking against which development is judged. As I said, it is a lost opportunity.

I hope the Government will engage positively on the Bill as it makes its way through the House of Lords, working with Peers across the House and the many good suggestions I have heard to address the issues in it and make it something that will deliver for our country and our communities.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to which I have added my name. I emphasise the points he made, in that I think the biggest risk with this Bill is that it will not deliver for large infrastructure, in the sense that it will not address the concerns around environmental regulation.

Part 3 is very well set up for housebuilding, but if we look at the high-profile issues with environmental regulation that we have seen with some of our large projects, such as the HS2 bat tunnel or the acoustic fish deterrent—the fish disco, as it is called—we find that those were all habitats issues that were uncovered when the developers started to assess the site and figure out how they were going to operate their specific piece of infrastructure. Those are not the kind of things that would have been addressed through the proposed environmental delivery plan mechanism or the nature restoration fund. It simply does not match up with the timescales of how the EDP process would work. That is something that we will come back to later in Committee.

However, there are some welcome things that the Government are looking at, and I welcome the amendment from the Government to remove the statutory requirement for a pre-application process on NSIPs. What the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has proposed sits alongside that really well, in setting out maximum deadlines and no-response provisions. This measure would be helpful to emphasise that and help speed large infrastructure through the system by making it a statutory requirement.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for leading this group on national policy and for his advocation for speed and simplicity, taking away two of the points that I was about to make. This goes to the heart of what our planning system needs to have: clarity and speed. Policy needs to be clear and consistently implemented, so that developers, planners and local councils understand what is required and how decisions will be made in a way that reduces risk and cost to all parties, while being clear and transparent to the public.

On timeliness, projects need to move through the system efficiently and effectively so that they are delivered on time and to avoid unnecessary, costly delays. How does the Minister intend to provide further detail about the review of national policy statements and ensure that clarity, consistency and timeliness are truly embedded in that process?

Amendment 9, to which I have added my name, seeks to probe the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” in the context of reviewing or amending national policy. Its aim is to clarify the intent behind the term, while still ensuring that Ministers retain the flexibility that they need for genuine national emergencies. My concern is that an amendment to the national policy statement, as required by new subsection (5A), could be delayed if the threshold for what constitutes “exceptional circumstances” is vague. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what she considers would fall within the scope of that phrase and whether the current wording risks introducing unnecessary uncertainty or even a shift in overall approach.

We need to strike a careful balance, avoiding the risk of judicial review while maintaining sufficient ministerial flexibility in genuine emergencies. Governments must be able to act swiftly when needed yet, if a decision is justified solely on the basis of exceptional circumstances, it becomes difficult to test or challenge that rationale. Courts often defer to such open-ended terms, which can weaken accountability, and your Lordships’ House may find it difficult to challenge the use of powers in this area. I would welcome reassurance from the Minister that the wording achieves the right balance.

Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her carefully considered and valuable contribution to this group. Her insight and experience will be vital in improving this Bill. In particular, I highlight Amendment 13 tabled by my noble friend. This amendment is vital, because it would preserve parliamentary accountability by requiring the Government to formally respond to any resolutions or recommendations from Select Committees. That, in turn, would help to clarify policy direction early, reduce uncertainty for developers and ensure timely engagement with concerns before they can cause delay. Stronger scrutiny at this stage can help catch potential issues before they escalate.

I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Mawson and Lord Ravensdale—in particular on the continuing issue of EDPs and their fitness for purpose, and the role of Natural England, which is something that I am sure we will come back to again and, possibly, again.

The amendments we have just discussed are small but significant measures. I hope that the Minister can provide your Lordships with the answers to these questions and engage the knowledge the Committee brings to ensure that we get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I offer my strong support for the entire presentation from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and her amendments. I cannot top her example of unknown mines underground, but the example that I was thinking of is on a much smaller scale, and it addresses the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. She said that those mines, et cetera—the physical infrastructure—should be on the record; I think we all know that very often they are not.

However, there is also the question of the local community and how it works, which is never going to be written down. The example that I was thinking of comes from central London, from Camden borough. I was at a meeting where the council came along very excitedly with the idea that it was going to knock down a community centre, build housing, and build a new community centre on what most people from the outside thought were some pretty unpleasant, small, raggedy corner shops—a little row of shops which you get typically in suburban areas. The council officers and the local councillors were visibly astonished when local people, mostly elderly, were up in arms and horrified about the idea of those shops being demolished. They said, “We’re not mobile enough to get to Camden High Street and we’re scared of the traffic on Camden High Street and the speed at which it goes. Even though these shops are probably both very expensive and don’t have a great range of goods, et cetera, we hugely value them”. That is just a small-scale example of how only communities themselves know the way in which they work. If they had had input earlier on, there would not have been lots of very angry pensioners at that meeting, as we saw.

Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is really important and picks up the use of technology, and potentially its positive use, and sets out rules for it. Again, I am afraid that my next example is also from Camden, because that is where lots of my planning stories come from. The Crick centre was imposed on the local community—I declare a retrospective interest in that I was the chair of the St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action committee that opposed it, a long time ago. When it was finally built, people said, “But that doesn’t look anything like what the pictures looked like”. I think that is something that we are all extremely familiar with. The idea of creating some standards and rules—they already exist, but we should put them into statute—seems an extremely good one.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, first, my apologies: I should have mentioned my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire earlier in the debate.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her leadership on this important group of amendments. Clause 4 systematically removes several pre-application requirements. I will focus first on Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. This amendment seeks to retain Section 47 of the Planning Act: the duty to consult the local community. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Ministers have previously stated that the Bill does not in any way reduce local democratic input. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the duty to consult communities is being removed? How did the Government arrive at the decision to remove Section 47 of the Planning Act, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised, and what are the specific problems they are trying to resolve in doing so?

We know from experience that when local communities are given genuine influence over planning through mechanisms such as neighbourhood plans, they are often more supportive of new housing and infrastructure—we have heard cases from the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, where the local input added significant value—especially when it reflects local needs such as affordable housing, safeguards green space or comes with vital local infrastructure improvements. Indeed, neighbourhood plans introduced under the Localism Act 2011 have in many cases led to more housing being approved rather than less. This suggests that working with communities delivers better outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is a further iteration of the debate we had on the previous group about pre-application consultation, but this time with the specific purpose of consultation with owners and occupiers of land. I still hope that we can get to the point where the Government have a rethink about reforming the pre-application process without removing it altogether.

We are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with Clause 4. I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and, as with the previous group, there are important points to be made. Informing people about an application is important, along with the community on which it impacts, particularly with regard to information to owners and occupiers of land. It is just rude not to, quite apart from the legal responsibility. Even with an ordinary application, though not an infrastructure one, the requirement is to notify the owner of the land that something is being proposed—even if you do not own the land, as we heard earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I urge the Minister to think about reviewing and reforming pre-application rather than removing it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and supported variously by my noble friend Lady Coffey, speak to the important principle of consulting those who will be affected by changes, who are often best placed to provide information about development ahead of time. I appreciated the Minister’s comments on consultation in the previous group. The Government themselves are going to a consultation on providing the optimum guidance for consultation in the future. That is a positive, despite the multiple consultations.

At this stage in our deliberations, it is important to consider what “consultation” means. We are not talking about wreckers or blockers. These Houses of Parliament—indeed, your Lordships’ House itself—are constitutionally tasked with consultation and review. That is what we are doing at this very moment: reviewing the Government’s proposal in detail and providing feedback with the intention of making a proposal better and more workable in practice.

As we have heard, category 1 and 2 persons are definitions that refer to persons with significant interests in affected land. They know, literally, the lay of the land, the conditions, the constraints and the opportunities that could be faced by any development in advance of a project being started. The benefit of the knowledge and experience that these parties have must not be understated. One obvious way to prevent bad development is to promote good consultation.

We are keen to see spades in the ground and development starting to get under way, but there is no point if we get bad developments in the wrong place and where they are not appropriate. We have a duty to deliver, but we also have a duty to deliver responsibly. Removing requirements to consult key parties means that the Government increasingly run the risk of championing bad development.

There is also the question of buy-in. The Government will find that the public do not appreciate being done to, rather than being done with. Does this not strike to the heart of what the Government are trying to do with the Bill? The Government will find that if they do not undertake this policy programme carefully, with close reference to the very people they are intending to exclude from the consultation stage—I note the Minister’s previous comments, which are much appreciated—they will not be thanked for it. Consultation with stakeholders is, as noble Lords who are business-minded will know, an important way to build support, gain approval and deliver projects that work.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 26, 27, 32, 35, 39 and 42 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I am grateful to her for her amendments, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock, for their comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I am afraid that, in this instance, the baby has become so fat that it cannot even get out of the bath, never mind be thrown out.

As I have outlined over the course of this debate, these amendments seek to undo a number of amendments tabled by the Government in the other place to remove the statutory requirement for applicants to consult in the preparation of an application. Given that this significant change was introduced during the Bill’s passage—a point I accept from all noble Lords who have mentioned it—I will outline again the Government’s motivations for making the change.

A particular aspect of concern has been the increasing length of time spent at the pre-application stage, resulting from the way that statutory requirements are being complied with. As outlined, consultation has become a tick-box exercise—the very one I was referring to earlier—that encourages risk aversion and gold-plating. We have therefore concluded that these requirements are now serving to slow schemes down rather than speed them up, and that the consultation taking place is not meaningful to the people involved. It just becomes that tick-box exercise.

In bringing in these changes, we want to speed up the typical period taken to submit applications and further save money in this Parliament’s pipeline of projects. We are committed to sustaining a planning system that encourages high-quality applications and delivers benefits to the nation and local communities. We all know that high-quality applications are those that have been developed through early and meaningful engagement with those impacted, including local authorities, statutory consultees, communities and landowners. Affected individuals will, of course, still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of impacts on them and participate in the process through which applications are examined.

As I have explained, in making this change the Government are clear that this signifies not that consultation and engagement are no longer important but just that the current system is not working well for either developers or communities. Guidance will be forthcoming on how engagement can be undertaken so that applicants can produce high-quality applications. We look forward to engagement on this matter. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about consultation on consultation—he is right—but, in this case, it is necessary.

The Planning Inspectorate will continue to consider whether an application is suitable to proceed to examination and be examined under statutory timeframes. The guidance will outline best practice—to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I cannot give her any absolute detail yet because, as we said, we are consulting on it, but it will outline the best practice, which will involve pre-application engagement. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, will continue to issue advice to applicants under Section 51 of the Act and have regard to the extent to which applicants have had regard to the advice. These changes will provide flexibility so that applicants can undertake engagement in the way they consider best for their proposed development in accordance with that guidance. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Krebs. It is interesting, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Pinnock, that we keep coming back to this issue of prioritisation, hierarchy and the role of regulators. I particularly note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we need to start resolving this issue. I am sure that on this side of the House we shall come back to it as we progress through the Bill, but I want to focus on this amendment.

There is no doubt that we have to address the issue of low-carbon energy and low-carbon infrastructure. It will be essential to hitting our zero-carbon targets and addressing the challenges of climate change. Although we support the efforts to advance clean energy, we must also guard against an unbalanced approach, particularly one that risks compromising the reliability and resilience of our energy systems. Low-carbon generation should not be considered in isolation, as I believe the noble Lord mentioned, or privileged above all other forms of infrastructure. The grid as we know it is undergoing rapid change; the Government’s ambition to rebuild it around renewable sources within just five years is rooted in ideology. Solar and wind are by nature intermittent. They cannot provide the stable backbone that the grid requires.

The stability of our electricity system depends on what is known as inertia, the capacity to resist sudden fluctuations in frequency. This essential property is delivered by turbines in energy-dense technologies such as nuclear, hydro and gas-fired power stations. It is not delivered by wind or solar farms. Without sufficient inertia, we run the risk of system destabilisation, leading to the worst case of failures and blackouts. We need a serious, detailed plan to safeguard the resilience and sovereignty of the UK’s energy supply. That means ensuring a mix of technologies, including those that deliver system stability and resilience, as well as decarbonisation.

On the amendment, we have a number of questions which we hope noble Lords can address. First, it refers to “sustainable development”, a term that invites interpretation. In planning, there is already a well understood definition of sustainable development in relation to planning applications for housing and commercial development, but I do not believe that that is intended here. What precisely is meant here and how is it to be applied in practice? How do we avoid confusion with the existing interpretation of sustainable development?

Secondly, on the list of regulators, why were these specific bodies selected and by what criteria? We welcome collaboration, but it must be clear and consistent.

Finally, there is the matter of the Secretary of State’s powers to prescribe other relevant bodies by regulation. That is a significant authority, and I would be grateful for clarity on how it would be exercised and scrutinised. Although we support the spirit of this amendment, we urge caution and a desire to have a balanced approach.

Briefly, on Amendment 46A tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, she raises an important point, so we will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply. Ensuring that planning consent has considered environmental protections is of course vital and must not be overlooked.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lords, Lords Ravensdale and Lord Krebs, seeks to ensure that in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects for low-carbon energy, relevant authorities such as the Environment Agency should have special regard for the need to contribute to certain government environmental targets when making representations as interested parties under the Planning Act 2008.

The amendment refers specifically to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting; adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts under the Climate Change Act 2008; achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021; and achieving sustainable development. As we have heard throughout the debate today, and at earlier stages of the Bill, it is vital that we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure that we need, not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. As my colleagues in the other place noted, the Bill can deliver a win-win for growth and nature. Developments such as clean energy infrastructure are key to tackling the climate crisis and supporting nature recovery.

To pick up on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, regarding the Corry review, which was important, the review recommended that the Government publish a refreshed set of outcomes and strategic policy statements for regulators, with the aim of restating the Government’s priorities and mandating regulators to use constrained discretion to deliver them. This might answer some of the noble Lord’s questions about this. The Government have accepted this recommendation, one of the nine Corry recommendations being fast-tracked. We are moving quickly to publish the first set of strategic policy statements. I hope that this is helpful.

I thank the noble Lords for their constructive and helpful proposals in this amendment, which seeks to ensure that input from specific statutory consultees is given with the wider context of government targets in mind. The Government agree with the intention behind the amendment. I reassure noble Lords that the Government already have the tools they need to guide public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process.

The national policy statements for energy infrastructure take full account of the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and to ensure that the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. In particular, these national policy statements grant critical national priority status to low-carbon projects. This means that the types of projects that the noble Lord is most concerned with have additional weight in the planning balance. Through the Bill, the Government are introducing a duty on public bodies to have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State in making those representations which are referred to in the noble Lords’ amendment.

The Government will consult later this summer on what guidance about consultation and engagement on the NSIP process should contain, as I have already outlined. As we review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider, alongside government policy in national policy statements, how we can support the intent of this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is reassured and will withdraw the amendment.

On the request from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the definition of sustainability, I will consult further and come back to him.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I was repeating the request from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise. I took the liberty of popping out of the Chamber for five minutes. We will reply on that.

Amendment 46A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to ensure that when determining whether planning consent should be granted for a nationally significant infrastructure project, the Secretary of State must take into account any environmental delivery plan applying to the land that will be developed. The Committee will be scrutinising Part 3 of the Bill in a later sitting. I look forward to that, but I am happy to speak to this amendment today.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill creates a new type of plan: an environmental delivery plan—EDP. Within an area defined in an EDP, Natural England will identify the impact that relevant development is expected to have on a defined environmental feature or features. These can be features of protected sites or a protected species. Natural England will then set out a package of conservation measures that will outweigh the impacts of the development on the relevant environmental feature.

This process for developing EDPs and the wider set of safeguards across the NRF will be subject to further discussion under Part 3. However, in respect of this amendment, the crucial point is that once an EDP is approved by the Secretary of State that covers development of the type in question and in the location in question, developers will be able to make a payment through the nature restoration levy, which would discharge the relevant environmental obligation being addressed through the EDP. Where a developer chooses not to utilise an EDP, they will need to address these environmental obligations under the existing system. As a decision for the developer, it would not be necessary to require the Secretary of State, when considering a development consent order, to have regard to an EDP that the developer might choose not to use. In these circumstances, the decision would need to consider whether the application was in line with existing environmental obligations.

Further to this, mandating that the Secretary of State takes account of an EDP removes flexibility for the developer on how to discharge environmental obligations. This could impact on the viability of a scheme and would undermine the Government’s commitment to decide 150 infrastructure planning consents during this Parliament, as well as wider growth objectives. I appreciate that there are still some questions in there about how EDPs will work, but that is not the subject of today’s discussion—we will cover that under Part 3.

Furthermore, while the content of an EDP is not intended to be relevant to the planning merits of a determination, if the Secretary of State determines that an applicable EDP is material, they can have regard to it. That is already the case: under Section 104(2)(d) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must have regard to any other matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision. This could include any relevant EDP. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has brought before us his own Bill. It is worthy to stand alone and provoke a significant discussion about how different procedures could deal with large-scale infrastructure applications. I am not in a position to know whether it would work or not. It is an attempt to provide an alternative, and I am looking forward to the Minister, with all the civil servants behind her, being able to explain why it will or will not work.

I always start from a different starting point, which is that, first, we are a small island. Comparing us with Canada and its vast expanse, or even with France, which is significantly geographically larger than the United Kingdom with a similar population, makes for poor comparisons.

That is the first of the challenges anyone in this country has with large-scale infrastructure. The second is this. No case was made to people about the benefits to them from either of the large-scale infrastructure projects that have been mentioned, HS2 and the A303. HS2 was never about shaving 10 minutes off a journey between London and Birmingham or 20 minutes off a journey to Leeds—though it will never get there. It was never about that. It was about congestion on the railways, but that case was never made. So it is no surprise when the public do not respond to the project in that way. Why are we going through the destruction of our villages and favoured landscapes for the sake of 20 minutes? That was the argument. You have to make the case and the case is not being made. It was the same with the A303 and various other major projects. That seems to me to be a difficulty.

I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, using the word “radical”. That word is always used by developers when they want something that the rest of us do not want. We might want its outcome, but we do not like what it is going to do to our environment. I think we have to try harder.

As for the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, calling planning “sclerotic”, this element of infrastructure planning is very difficult, but let us not label the whole of the planning process as sclerotic. Local planning authorities do not hold up development; the statistics demonstrate that. The issue is with infrastructure planning. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has brought forward his alternative procedure for it. Whether or not that would work, I will leave to others with more detailed backing from the civil servants to decide.

The issue with planning applications, big or small, is always that if you do not involve the public and tell them what it is for, what it will do and what the downsides are, you set yourself up for a big fight, and that is what happens. As for the judicial review, what do I know about it except that it seems to go on for ever and achieve nothing—and costs a lot of money as well. If you resort to the legal process to resolve applications which should be decided between elected people and the community, you are never going to get an answer. I look forward to the reply and a judgment on this one.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments, all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath. The amendments in this group all relate to the role of appeals and the judicial processes involved in national policy statements. As many noble Lords have said, the current system for critical national infrastructure does not work. We need to get a move on, but we also need to protect the environment and nature. I quite liked the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. He alluded to the absurdity that Stone Age man could build Stonehenge quicker than 21st-century man can build a bypass round it. This just does not make sense.

It is no secret that the court system is facing a severe backlog. This is a point we have made from this Dispatch Box on numerous occasions during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill. As we argued then, there is simply not enough capacity for courts to hear endless challenges. Continual judicial reviews of decisions made by planning bodies clog up the courts, causing significant delays to the planning and building process. If we are to have an effective programme of infrastructure development and housebuilding that will boost economic growth, we must ensure not only that vexatious legal delays are kept to a minimum but that the threat of these—which, as we have heard, cause delays and lorry-loads of paperwork—is avoided.

Amendment 52 seems to present a paradox. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is understandably seeking to speed up the planning process through his Amendment 48, which is, we believe, a somewhat reasonable proposal, although we do have concerns regarding the risk of the Secretary of State having even greater Henry VIII powers.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. We cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of moving forward in this vital area. There has been discussion before, under the previous Government. Some questions have already been raised on the Floor this afternoon. The longer we delay, the more difficult life becomes. Carbon capture and storage is fundamental to what we need in this country. I commend the noble Lord who tabled the amendment. Amendment 91 is self-evident in any case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to his colleague’s amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the sentiment behind the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath. It is clear that, if we are to meet our net-zero targets, there is a need for long-term sustainable technologies such as carbon capture and storage. They must be part of the conversation. The potential of CCS to decarbonise sectors such as heavy industry are—I cannot quite remember the phrase used by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in referring to those that could not be done in other ways—really important and significant.

We on these Benches also recognise that infrastructure plays an important supporting role in innovation and low-carbon growth. Allowing certain carbon capture projects to be designated NSIPs could offer a more streamlined path to planning approval, removing unnecessary barriers to strategically important developments. However, like my noble friend Lord—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Grayling?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Grayling. As was pointed out earlier, it has been 184 days. Some of us are just getting a little tired. Like my noble friend, I must also offer a note of caution and a bit of a “but”.

Although CCS is a promising technology, it is not without its challenges. It is expensive, it is not a silver bullet, and it is somewhat untested. Therefore, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, we need closer scrutiny to make sure that it can be done commercially and at scale, which, to date, has not been done. It has not been proved to be viable. We do not want a technology that will cost the taxpayer money, and there are other technologies that could also potentially achieve this aim.

We should also consider this as part of a broader strategy. We must continue to prioritise clean energy, in particular dense technologies such as nuclear. It is our duty to ensure that the costs of decarbonisation are not unfairly borne by households and businesses already facing significant financial pressures.

So, while I support the broad intention of the amendment and agree that enabling clarity in planning and law is important, we must proceed with care. Our route to net zero must be grounded in economic and technical reality.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of King’s Heath for tabling these amendments, which relate to carbon capture and storage designation. Amendment 51 would amend the Planning Act 2008 to enable the designation of

“carbon dioxide spur pipelines and carbon capture equipment … as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects”.

As my noble friend knows well from his time as Minister of State at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, this Government recognise the pivotal role of carbon capture and storage in securing growth, achieving their climate goals and transitioning to a low-carbon economy. That is why we have committed to substantial investment to support the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage across the UK.

However, although the Government are committed to the deployment of carbon capture, transport and storage, this amendment could lead to confusion for developers, as it would, in effect, provide a choice for developers in consenting routes. Onshore electricity generating stations with a capacity exceeding 50 megawatts, including those using carbon capture technology, are classified as NSIPs under the Planning Act 2008 and require a development consent order—a DCO. Onshore carbon dioxide pipelines over 16.093 kilometres in length also classify as NSIPs and require a DCO. However, smaller pipelines and industrial carbon capture facilities sit outside the NSIP regime, and applications for development are determined by the local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This is consistent with the consenting process for pipelines and industrial facilities more broadly and, as far as we are aware, experience from the planning process for the first carbon capture and transport projects has not identified significant issues for projects determined by the local planning authorities thus far.

Nevertheless, carbon capture, transport and storage remain nascent sectors in the UK, and officials in my department are working closely with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to ensure that the full range of consenting and permitting regimes for carbon capture, transport and storage remain effective and appropriate.

Amendment 91 seeks to amend the Pipe-Lines Act 1962 to disapply the requirement for special parliamentary procedure in relation to pipelines or lengths of pipeline that are to be repurposed for the conveyance of carbon dioxide. It should be noted that, as drafted, the amendment would not legally achieve its intended purpose as a relevant subsection of Section 12A allows a Secretary of State to revoke a compulsory rights order rather than grant one.

Nevertheless, even with that to be addressed, and while I certainly sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, it would not be practical. Section 12A of the Pipe-Lines Act allows a Secretary of State to make an order for the compulsory acquisition of rights over land that are necessary for the conversion and use of a pipeline to convey carbon dioxide. The making of such an order is subject to special parliamentary procedure.

The Government recognise that it can be more efficient to repurpose existing pipelines for use in a carbon capture, transport and storage project compared with building new pipeline infrastructure. Where the pipeline infrastructure is considered suitable for reuse in this way, the Government support this. For example, we have recently legislated to remove a tax barrier that oil and gas companies have told us would prevent the transfer and repurposing of suitable assets from use in oil and gas, such as pipelines and platforms for use in carbon dioxide, transport and storage.

However, as the works involved in the repurposing of pipelines for the conveyance of carbon dioxide could impact local communities and landowners, enabling the compulsory acquisition of rights over land to remain subject to a special parliamentary procedure would ensure proper scrutiny of such proposals.

The Government support the repurposing of onshore and offshore infrastructure for use in carbon capture, transport and storage projects as part of the UK’s drive to net zero. We are already seeing this in practice, where the HyNet carbon capture and storage cluster in the north-west will be served by a combination of new and existing infrastructure. We are committed to ensuring that the right support and mechanisms are in place to enable the repurposing of suitable onshore and offshore infrastructure, and I hope with this reassurance my friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Before I sit down, I want to refer to the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, which I take seriously. I note that consideration of Part 3 and wider environmental issues will take place after the summer. We will consider his points over the summer, as requested. The points the noble Lord is making are mainly being debated in September, so we can pick them up in response to similar amendments, including in relation to Part 3. For the reasons I have just outlined, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I briefly and with pleasure offer support for the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who is the House’s acknowledged expert and champion in the area of whistleblowing. Reacting to some of the comments made, the noble Baroness said she would prefer to see an overarching system rather than operating within the frame of this Bill. With the huge changes the Bill is potentially making, it is clearly very important that, if things are going wrong, we are able to see them and whistleblowers can safely speak out.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the health service. It is useful to reference our earlier debate on the infected blood scandal. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, went through a very long list and ran on a theme she has long been running on; we have this cascade of continuing scandals and crises with all sorts of harrowing outcomes. I do not think she mentioned this, but issues such as sodium valproate and vaginal mesh are quite recent and possibly ongoing. There is a systemic problem with the structure of government and the way it is working. We are potentially giving the Government much more power here.

I want to fulfil my traditional Green role and add to the thoughts about the impact on the environment and when environmental issues go horribly wrong, as they potentially will. I note that since we were last in Committee the Government have brought in some changes to the highly controversial Part 3, which the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, referred to. In response to those changes, the Office for Environmental Protection has said:

“We are clear that even after the material amendments the Government proposes, the Bill would, in some respects, lower environmental protection on the face of the law”.


The OEP is saying that if we are lowering environmental protections, there is a real risk—“environment” usually means human health impacts as well—and environmental whistleblowers need to be able to speak up and point out what is happening. These are people from within organisations who may be the only ones who really know what is happening.

Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for mentioning HS2 so that I do not have to.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for tabling this amendment. It is a clear and well-intentioned proposal that raises important questions about how individuals can share concerns relating to NSIPs. We on this side of the House recognise the value in exploring such concerns and that they are heard and addressed. Clarity in that process is undoubtedly important. However, at the same time the question of establishing independent bodies through amendments is not straightforward. There are practical and structural considerations that merit careful thought, particularly around proportionality, as my noble friend Lord Grayling mentioned.

I want to focus on what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said: this is an issue of culture. No bureaucracy can overcome the wrong culture, and we need to fix the culture if we are genuinely going to have people listening to whistleblowers. So, while we welcome the opportunity for Ministers to set out how the concerns will be raised and responded to—and clarification will be helpful in understanding whether further mechanisms are needed—it will be most interesting to hear from the Minister how he will change the culture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we fully recognise the need for nuclear power and nuclear generation to be part of our baseload capacity, which is needed to combine with renewables as we transition to clean power. I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, his work and everything that he has done for energy transition. However, I am surprised that he calls these regulations “ludicrous”, “arcane” and “wasteful”. It may be that the broader landscape needs reform and he is able to raise his points with an amendment, but clearly an amendment is not a way to look at the reform of this stuff.

I worry that, were we to rip up regulation in haste, we would repent at leisure. These measures are completely different from the planning process. They are designed for new types of nuclear generation technology, to check whether new designs are safe and fit for purpose. I do not see them as duplicative; they are separate to the operation of the planning system and fulfil different functions. My worry is that, were these two to go ahead in this way, they would serve to undermine confidence in the safety and security of the nuclear processes that we have in this country. Indeed, this is an international standard that is recognised by the ICRP and in the EU and is used around the world.

It takes up to 18 months to undergo these processes, but they start before planning. I do not see exactly how, even if this amendment was successful, it would do much to speed up the new nuclear generation that is needed. The noble Lord’s central argument is that these are duplicative—I do not agree; I think that they are separate—and that passing this amendment would speed up the process of getting new nuclear power. Since the process at issue happens first, I do not think that is the case either.

We will not support the noble Lord’s amendment. Obviously, all regulations need to be kept under review and, if the Government want to do that, we are open to it. However, I do not think that an amendment here is the way—other than to pressure the Government—to look at these things with a broader scope, so we will not support the noble Lord on his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 53B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, proposes a sensible and pragmatic change to the current requirement that, before a nuclear power station is built, an assessment must be made as to whether the social, economic and other benefits outweigh the health detriment caused by ionising radiation. The amendment seeks to disapply this requirement in cases where planning consent has already been granted.

This change is both timely and necessary. We must look carefully at how to prevent nuclear power projects from being blocked or delayed, especially in the context of a wider energy landscape. Notably, the Government are currently presiding over the highest prices for offshore wind in a decade, which highlights the urgent need for diverse, affordable, reliable and resilient energy sources. Nuclear power stations provide that critical alternative—one that is essential to the UK’s growing demand for electricity in a cost-effective and secure manner.

Noble Lords across the House can agree on the vital importance of nuclear energy to our energy strategy. Nuclear energy remains a cornerstone for delivering a cheap, stable and low-carbon supply of electricity. It is crucial not only to meet our ambitious climate commitments but to safeguard energy security in an increasingly unpredictable world. The reliability of nuclear power provides a steady backbone to the electricity grid. As such, it is an indispensable part of our efforts to build a resilient energy system.

We acknowledge that we need rigorous planning and regulatory processes, but these are already in place for nuclear projects. These processes thoroughly assess health and safety concerns, including the risk posed by ionising radiation. While I might not go as far as some other noble Lords today about “wasteful”, “useless” and “byzantine” regulation, I certainly believe that it is duplicative. We therefore do not need to do it again, if planning consent has already been granted and has already assessed those risks. It would create unnecessary complexity and delays, without delivering any meaningful public benefit.

Where planning consent has already been obtained, following comprehensive scrutiny, it is entirely reasonable to disapply this further requirement. Doing so would streamline the development process, reduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and support the timely delivery of vital infrastructure projects, which are so central to the UK’s energy future. For these reasons, we hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised in relation to this amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 53B would have the effect of removing the need for nuclear technologies that generate electricity or heat to undergo regulatory justification. Regulatory justification is derived from international standards. Its purpose is to ensure that all practices involving ionising radiation, including nuclear technologies, must first be assessed to determine whether the individual or societal benefits outweigh the potential health detriment from that practice. It is a key pillar of radiological protection.

That said, I am aware that there are concerns around the process of justification for nuclear reactors and that it is considered administratively burdensome—I heard that argument loud and clear from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. That is why I am pleased that it forms part of the nuclear regulatory task force’s review of nuclear regulation.

The Government are committed to stripping out ineffective, overlapping and unduly burdensome processes, but as we move forward with new nuclear, it is vital that we maintain high standards of health and environmental protection and fulfil our international obligations. The nuclear regulatory task force is examining all aspects of nuclear regulation, including regulatory justification, environmental permitting and nuclear licensing and planning. We expect it to come forward with recommendations that will streamline the regulatory processes and reduce unnecessary burden.

I believe that more effective solutions can be found to improve the process of regulatory justification by including it, as the task force is doing, in a holistic review of the nuclear regulatory framework. Therefore, we unfortunately cannot support this amendment. I hope that my noble friend Lord Hunt is satisfied with my response and will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The report also says that the role of water companies in the planning process should be strengthened. I hope that, when we get to strategic development strategies and plan-making, we will make sure that water companies are involved, that the water resources plans coming through from, for example, Water Resources East, are reflected in the strategic development strategies, and that we make sure that water companies, water resource management plans and the infrastructure delivery programmes of the water undertakers take full account of where the strategic development and the new homes and new employment will be delivered. I hope that we will be able to come back to that further on Report.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will address these important amendments concerning water infrastructure, each of which touches on the future resilience and efficiency of our water sector. These amendments reflect a shared desire to ensure that the regulatory framework keeps pace with the demands of modern infrastructure delivery while safeguarding value for money and service quality for consumers.

Amendment 59, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, proposes to remove the size and complexity test currently embedded in water regulations. This is a timely and helpful amendment, particularly in the light of the Cunliffe review published on Monday. The review highlights that, under specified infrastructure projects regulations, this test can apply only where projects are of such scale and complexity that they risk threatening the water company’s ability to provide services and value to customers. The Government have recently signalled their intention to relax this criterion. In this context, will the Minister clarify when the Government intend to relax it by? How will they do so? Could the opportunity presented by my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment be used to implement such a relaxation? We need a regulatory environment that is more flexible and better suited to facilitating timely delivery of much-needed infrastructure projects without unnecessary procedural hurdles that can cause delays and cost overruns.

Amendments 61 and 62 relate to reservoir construction and regulation. We recognise the importance of the delivery of new reservoirs, and we acknowledge their vital role in enhancing water security and supporting our long-term infrastructure goals. While I would like to support my noble friend Lord Lucas on his Amendment 61, we have a concern about whether introducing new, possibly burdensome regulation is necessary or whether it would risk creating delays or have unintended consequences.

In contrast, Amendment 62 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, seeks to deregulate low-hazard reservoirs. We believe that this approach could streamline processes where the risk is minimal, allowing resources to be focused on the highest-risk infrastructure.

Water infrastructure is a critical national priority. In the light of these differing proposals, I ask the Minister to give the Committee a clear answer on the Government’s position. How do the Government intend new reservoirs to be built? What regulatory approach will be taken to balance safety, efficiency and the urgent need for water infrastructure? I look forward to the Minister’s response on these important matters.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

69: After Clause 47, insert the following new Clause—
“National Lane Rental Scheme: establishment(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Lane Rental Scheme (“the Scheme”).(2) The Scheme must ensure that—(a) local authorities are able to grant lane rental permission to utility companies as standard,(b) the Secretary of State is only involved in the granting of lane rental when utility companies appeal to the Secretary of State about the local authority’s actions under paragraph (a), and(c) any public highway may be subject to lane rental provisions, irrespective of size or level of sensitivity.(3) The Secretary of State must—(a) consolidate existing regulations which provide for local authorities to grant permission for lane rental to utility companies for works, and(b) ensure that any orders made under section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which may contradict the provisions of the Scheme are repealed.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument vary provisions in the Scheme.(5) 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 amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward a national scheme for Lane Rental during road works with the intention of developing a simpler, less bureaucratic, and more flexible scheme replacing the existing scheme of individual applications by transport authorities to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on the two amendments in my name relating to utility works on roads. Constant disruption to our roads from roadworks—in the majority of cases, related to utilities works—is a huge frustration to all drivers, often causing significant traffic delays, economic damage and environmental impact. It also impacts householders, pedestrians and cyclists caught up in or impacted by the noise and fumes of idling cars. Local businesses are hugely impacted from loss of business, as customers stay away to avoid excessive journey times and, when it is on major roads, excessive traffic on smaller roads.

The frustration of drivers is doubly so when they see no work being carried out. Sometimes that is for good reason, but often it is for the convenience of the contractor. I give the example of traffic lights put out on a Friday afternoon for roadworks starting on the Monday and completed on the Thursday, but the traffic lights are removed the following Monday, so for three or four days of work the road is impacted for 10 days. While we recognise that utility and other works are essential, they should be done in a way that minimises disruption.

While councils and Governments have sought to address this through measures such as permitting regimes, and councils often do this proactively, enforcing them to keep roadworks to the permitted time, this does not stop utility companies and contractors seeking an extended time. There is also a lane rental scheme under the 2012 lane rental regulations. Four county councils and Transport for London have applied for this. However, it is a cumbersome process and, with the exception of London, can be applied to only 5% to 10% of roads, and only to those that are highly sensitive. It involves lots of consultation, specific identification of roads, applying to the Secretary of State, needing to draw up an SI and so forth.

There is a better way: there should be a national scheme, with appropriate protections and so forth but also enabling a wider range of highways to be included, that councils could simply opt into. This amendment would not only reduce the time during which our roads are held up by roadworks but reduce bureaucracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, in respect of lane rental schemes, the Government are committed to reducing disruption from street works and improving the efficiency of our road networks. Lane rental is an important tool to help highway authorities reduce the impact of works taking place, but it is important to recognise that such schemes may not be suitable for every area. Many local authorities do not experience the level of congestion necessary to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. However, the Government recognise the value of empowering local leaders and that is why we have consulted on devolving approval powers for lane rentals to mayoral combined authorities. We will be publishing the results of the consultation and next steps in due course. So I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to beg leave to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for speaking to the amendment on litter. I agree with him that we must find the best way of tackling this problem. I know that the amendment has been tabled in that spirit. At present, National Highways is responsible for the collection of litter on England’s motorways, but there are other roads—trunk roads and A roads—where National Highways is responsible for the maintenance but local authorities are responsible for litter collection. The question is therefore whether we should relieve local authorities of those duties and transfer them instead to National Highways.

That sounds like a simple solution, but it is in fact a little more complicated. The collaboration methodology works well: for example, National Highways looks for opportunities to enable litter collection to take place safely when roads are closed for other reasons, such as resurfacing or maintenance. Those partnership arrangements provide the best way of tackling litter on the strategic road network, and we encourage and expect National Highways and local authorities to work closely together on them.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for tabling the amendment on extending the guarantee period following road reinstatement. He and I both recognise that high-quality reinstatement is highly desirable. It is important to note that, under the existing Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways guidance, the guarantee period begins only once the reinstatement has been completed to the required standard.

In 2023, a performance-based inspection regime was introduced that means that utility companies with higher defect or failure rates are subject to more frequent inspections and, as they pay for each inspection, this creates a strong financial incentive to maintain high standards. We are closely monitoring the recent changes in Scotland, where the guarantee period has been extended to six years, to assess whether that leads to improved standards, before considering any changes in England. For the reasons outlined, I kindly request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Liddle will now have reached the end of his journey to Carlisle, and I celebrate the noble Lords who have come on the journey for this part of the Bill by remaining in the Chamber. I wish all those who have stayed this long a happy and restful recess.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I look forward to seeing more on the rollout of the lane rental scheme to mayoral authorities, but I ask, as we do not yet have mayoral authorities right across the country, whether he could extend it to all authorities. I also look forward to the review of the practice in Scotland and hope that we will move to a five-year guarantee here. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 69 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 70. I see the Chief Whip on the Bishops’ Bench praying for a short introduction to this exceptionally important amendment.

My noble friend Lady Coffey seeks to transfer Ofwat’s functions relating to planning, infrastructure and development to the Secretary of State. Of course, she was ahead of her time; the Cunliffe report is now before the House and it will be debated at significant length. Whether the functions go to the Secretary of State or, as Cunliffe suggested, form part of the remit of a new regulator is a matter for your Lordships’ House in due course. We now face the biggest overhaul of water management and, above all, water regulation since privatisation. The Government have offered to fast-track five recommendations and I hope they will take my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment to heart when considering how best to move forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment, which is pertinent, as has just been mentioned, given the announcements this week, including that Ofwat will be abolished. The future of water regulation is clearly in flux. We on these Benches seek clarity on the way forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise: I prematurely terminated the journey of this part of the Bill. I will seek to be very brief.

The Government are committed to ensuring effective planning, development and management of water infrastructure. To that end, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs formed an Independent Water Commission. We oppose the amendment put forth by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to transfer Ofwat’s planning, infrastructure and development functions to the Secretary of State because it would pre-empt the results of the independent review. As mentioned, we will provide a full government response to the commission’s report in the autumn, setting out our priorities and timelines, and the Government will therefore introduce root and branch reform to revolutionise the water industry. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, we are in the final stretch, and I will not be at all insulted if people choose to vacate at this stage of proceedings, recognising that we are past the usual hour. But the future of energy infrastructure matters. It matters where it is in the country; it matters for national security. That is why I have tabled Amendment 94C.

It is no secret to those people who have been in this Chamber or the Moses Room when I have talked about energy that I have recognised that part of Suffolk has a huge number of NSIPs relating to energy. I will talk about various issues in the three different groups; I have done this somewhat deliberately to try to make sure that Ministers and officials from each of the different departments really consider what they are signing up to and what is happening with the progress of electricity infrastructure across this country.

I am not in any denial that we need to consider carefully the transition to a different sort of grid. This needs to be considered carefully in recognising what is happening on concentration. In about 10 years’ time, it may have gone down a little, but about 30% of the country’s electricity will be generated in quite a small part of the country or it will act as the host point for interconnection from the continent. That will be concentrated in an area not of 50 square miles, as I referred to in my amendment, but considerably smaller. That is happening through the continuing generation of Sizewell B, the future generation of Sizewell C and interconnectors coming in at various points along the Suffolk coast—interconnectors to the continent and to the offshore wind farms that are already operational and currently being expanded.

One of my concerns—I appreciate that this is another issue of which I never managed to persuade my former colleagues, but I am hoping that the Government will listen—is that it is a huge matter of national security that we are concentrating so much of the energy in this country in a very small part geographically. I will not call that overemphasis a sitting duck, because I am very conscious of all the security that goes into nuclear power stations and the like, but it is an overconcentration. We think about the impact that a breakdown of resilience can have, and it could end up depriving the rest of the country of desperately needed energy.

It is for that reason I genuinely believe that, strategically, the Government should be thinking about spreading our principal electricity generation around the country. I will come to other reasons why I think the cumulation does not help, but it is that sort of threat which we should be considering right now. I am aware of the concerns in continental Europe about the deployment of certain grades of weapons by foreign actors. I am aware of the risk that has to be monitored and assessed, and we should be doing that in this country as well. That is why I genuinely believe the Government should reconsider their accumulation of projects and be far more strategic in where all these different energy sources are being placed in the country.

To that end, I believe that we should be looking to reflect the fact that we have opportunities in different parts of the country where, by the way, the Government already have land—they do not need to acquire more land. Too often, it is the Ministry of Defence refusing to take on some of these projects, because it wants to do various practices and different things like that. At the same time, plenty of agriculture is being sacrificed, but I am conscious we have already had that debate, so I do not want to dwell on it.

It is for those reasons I hoped that, by tabling this simple amendment, DESNZ would consider, with other parts of government, whether it is really treading down the right path in concentrating energy production and whether it should be more strategic in its thinking. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee, in particular the issue of concentration of power supply and potential implications. This amendment would limit the consent for electricity infrastructure within a 50-square mile area where the cumulative capacity is more than 10% of the country’s total. This raises several important questions for the Government. What assessment has been made of the cumulative impacts on a local area already hosting significant infrastructure? Additionally, how will fairness between different regions be measured and maintained? What mechanisms are in place to prevent overconcentration in certain areas at the expense of others, given, as my noble friend mentioned, the potential strategic risks to the country? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 94C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would create a new local area test, designed to limit the consenting of electricity infrastructure by reference to a percentage of the national total. In other words, it is addressed at the overconcentration of infrastructure in particular places.

The Government agree with the noble Baroness that the siting of electricity infrastructure should be considered carefully. While the Government are taking a strategic view, they are doing so via the strategic spatial energy plan and the centralised strategic network plan, due for publication by the end of 2026 and 2027 respectively.

It is unclear how exactly the amendment is intended to work in practice, given the complications of concepts such as cumulative capacity. It is not in the national interest for individual applications to be assessed or prevented by reference to a subjective threshold. They must be judged on the need case for the infrastructure weighed against local impacts, and that is precisely what the current system achieves. For projects designated as nationally significant, known as NSIPs, there is already a national policy statement, approved by Parliament, which sets out in detail the need case for this infrastructure and all the considerations that must be applied when consenting it.

This amendment would add further complexity to the consenting system, which could lead to a slowing down of the decision-making process for low-carbon and electricity infrastructure projects, which are crucial for this country—although, in practice, the threshold of 10% of the entire country’s electricity capacity is so high that it is highly unlikely that any project would in fact reach such a threshold.

The Government agree that infrastructure planning should have a special element. The strategic special energy plan will support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, land and sea, between 2030 and 2050. It will do this by assessing and identifying the optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage to meet our future energy demand with the clean, affordable and secure supply that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I specifically wanted to speak to the funding of issues such as energy projects. This issue, probably more than anything else—perhaps the fact that the national grid is part-owned by American private equity owners may wind people up a little bit more—is the one that, fundamentally, makes communities around the country, and I have seen it much more locally, consider the planning system, when it comes to energy projects, a complete and utter joke.

It is already decided, regardless of what happens in the planning system, that these projects will go ahead. It does not matter if they do not quite fit the planning law, because a few tweaks could potentially be made. It does not matter what the community thinks. It does not matter what Parliament thinks, because Ofgem has already made the decisions and determinations that these projects can go ahead and money can start being spent on them before planning has even started.

I give your Lordships the example of Norwich to Tilbury. Ofgem came up with its early construction funding in April 2025. Its planning submission was submitted only on Friday. Sea Link, a project that I will continue to fight for as long as I can, had its ECF announcement made. Normally, Ofgem’s policy is that only 20% of the funding can be granted, in effect, through early construction funding. Ofgem has given 48% to the national grid—NGET—to proceed with Sea Link. Planning had to be delayed because there was an error in the planning process, so that got going only last month as well. This is what the people in communities in various parts of the country see. What is the point?

That is my huge frustration: in effect, there is a predetermination that planning applications are going to be made. I am still slightly surprised that people have not been successful in certain aspects of getting this JR-ed at some point. So here we are. We have projects going when they have barely started, or in some cases have not even started, the planning process.

I have proposed this new clause to restore some credibility to planning, to restore some credibility to the idea that it is not just a commercial deal or a done deal. Ofgem should be restrained from granting this sort of funding process until at least the planning document has been submitted and ideally been given consent. For what it is worth, a lot of this kind of scepticism would go away if there was a genuine belief that the planning system meant anything at all.

I am conscious that, to try to get to 2030 on this accelerated timetable, we need to get on with these projects. I have already referred to previous ones where planning processes are still under way when we have already reached the consented capacity for a series of energy projects, and yet they keep coming.

No wonder people are desperate and tabling JRs, or pre-action protocols and the like. They are so frustrated with a machinery that says, “Yeah, we’ll sort of do the basics, but it is done”. This is the reason that I felt particularly strongly and wanted to table Amendment 94D: just to be a voice for people who want to believe that our country respects law and respects that there is not a predetermination. God alone knows how many consultations I went through as a Secretary of State when I was told, “Be very careful, you can’t come to a predetermination in all of this”. Yet Ofgem, of course, gives the game away.

I will not say any more. To be candid, I do not expect a huge response from the Minister. I am not trying to be rude in advance; perhaps I am predetermining what I am expecting to hear. Nevertheless, I am saying this for people right across the country: let us do the right thing; let us make sure that we are not allowing money to be printed for developers who have not even started the actual planning process. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to talk to Amendment 94D, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. This amendment concerns constraints on grants delivered by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. I simply ask the Minister whether he can clarify how the Government intend to ensure that such grants are awarded in a way that is both transparent and consistent across different technologies. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 94D tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to prohibit the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—GEMA—from granting or considering early construction funding or accelerated strategic transmission investment unless planning consent has already been secured.

While I understand that network companies should not be given excessive funding for projects where procurement or construction costs are not yet incurred, I must urge noble Lords to consider the unintended consequences that this amendment would have for our energy infrastructure and our collective ambition to deliver a net zero-ready grid.

Let us be clear: the mechanisms in question, early construction funding and ASTI, are not blank cheques. They are carefully staged investments, including stages designed precisely to support the preparatory work that enables planning consent to be sought in the first place. This includes environmental assessments, route design, stakeholder engagement and technical feasibility studies. These are not luxuries; they are prerequisites for any responsible and successful planning application.

To deny access to funding before planning consent is granted creates a paradox. Planning consent cannot be obtained without preparatory work, and preparatory work cannot be funded without planning consent. This amendment risks trapping vital transmission projects in a bureaucratic cul-de-sac.

We are not debating theoretical infrastructure; we are talking about the backbone of our future clean energy system—projects that will connect offshore wind, solar and other renewables to homes and businesses across the country. These are the arteries of our economy. Delaying them risks not only our clean energy mission and net-zero commitment but the security and affordability of our energy and wider economic growth as grid capacity is needed to power new investments.

Moreover, GEMA already operates under a rigorous framework of accountability and oversight. Funding decisions are not made lightly; they are subject to scrutiny, cost-benefit analysis and alignment with strategic national priorities. To impose a statutory constraint at this stage would not enhance that process but hinder it. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support this set of amendments, particularly Amendment 135HZE, which I think my noble friend is just about to wrap up on.

Noble Lords will recall that I have been a councillor and sat on a local planning committee for 23 years; I was the leader for 17 years. It was one of my privileges to appoint the committee and choose the chairman. I always explained to my members that the purpose of planning was not an administrative function that existed as an end in itself—although this Bill sometimes treats it as if it were so—but to arbitrate between the private interests of the applicant and the public interest. I use the word “arbitrate” purposefully, because people who sit on a planning committee have a difficult job. They must weigh up so much conflicting information within an adversarial system and, ultimately, either the proposer or objector wins.

Much of this Bill is established under the false premise that local planning committees are blockers of development and that the ranks of officials will not rest until every square inch of our nation is concreted over. But this is nonsense. The premise is that officials bring none of their prejudices to bear, but that is simply not true. We have Natural England, which leaves no stone unturned in blocking development. We have the railways, which ballast every proposal with ridiculous costs, such as £5 million for a footbridge to cross between two platforms. We have the highways authorities, which tie themselves in knots under the misdirection that personal transport outside development boundaries is unsustainable. That is before all the other bad actors in many other quangos that increasingly advance their own narrow self-interests rather than the public interest.

I do not deny the importance of some of their representations, but the problem with these quangos is that they all claim a veto—it is their way or no way. It is from these vetoes that we have got the £100 million bat bridge, to which I expect my noble friend Lord Howard may refer. It is from these vetoes that we get this mitigating trade in natterjack newts or whatever they are, organisms that are rare in Europe but commonplace in every English village pond. And then of course there is the insanity of nutrient neutrality, as if building a bungalow in Bristol is going to somehow clean up the River Wensum.

Given the way planning works, in many cases it takes only one of these vetoes from just one of the statutory consultees to block the entire proposal. That is especially the case when officers advise members to refuse an otherwise acceptable proposal on the overly precautionary grounds that an adverse decision could be grounds for appeal or expensive judicial review. We need the planning committee to cut through the undergrowth, and to stop looking over their shoulder and being fearful of challenge.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Banner, who is not in his place, on his report in which he made several recommendations. But those will count for nothing if there is nobody without the mandate, duty and courage to get those applications to committee. In my experience, it is the committees populated by the accountable councillors that do more to get Britain building than the faceless dead hand of the state quangos.

We need elected people who know a self-serving veto or spurious objection when they see one. We need people on the ground who know the importance of building homes, economies and places that enhance communities to arbitrate those competing interests. That is why this amendment is so welcome and necessary. It is absolutely right that the chair of the planning committee, working with the senior planner, should be able to revisit otherwise fatal objections to get that balance, to enable the local champions who populate those committees to take all the evidence into account, to listen carefully to objections, to balance the private and public interest and to get Britain building, and not pander to the self-serving quangos sometimes interested only in pursuing their own ideologies to the exclusion of all else.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 135HZF and to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook’s Amendments 103A and 103B before addressing the other amendments in this group.

Local democratic accountability must be protected. Local people should have a say in the decisions that affect their daily lives. These amendments seek to ensure planning decisions remain the remit of elected councils which are accountable to their communities. It is important that large or controversial applications should be considered through local debate so that all views are sufficiently represented.

Delegation of decision-making to unelected planning officers not only deprives local people of their democratic voice but compromises the entire planning framework. Public planning committees allow for transparent and easily accessible forums for residents, ensuring that their voice is heard in the planning process. Enforced delegation of important planning decisions or controversial ones would make the whole process more opaque, weaken community engagement and disfranchise those most affected by the decisions. With a loss of local trust in the whole planning system, how do the Government plan to maintain community engagement and trust in the planning system if they are not involved?

By ensuring the Secretary of State does not have sweeping powers of delegation, local autonomy would be preserved, empowering those best equipped to make decisions about their local community. Amendments 103A and 103B question the Government’s decision to make guidance on the scope, size and composition of the national scheme, subject to delegation rather than primary legislation.

Amendment 135HZE enshrines the right for an application to be determined by a planning committee where there are objections to the application and both the head of planning—or, potentially, the chief planner—and the chair of the planning committee have agreed that these are on valid planning grounds, which is best practice, currently. While some have raised the risk of spurious arguments causing delays, the above protections and subsequent amendments in my name on finality should address these concerns, enabling us to get on with housing delivery while retaining the democratic voice. This is the right balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Scott and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Lansley and Lord Cameron, for their amendments. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Fuller, for their contributions to this discussion. This group of amendments relates to Clause 51 on the national scheme of delegation, which was debated extensively in the other place and during Second Reading in this House.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her recognition of the need to develop greater consistency and equity in the planning process. Of course, the other motivation is to ensure that councillors can focus their attention both on local plans, where they can really make a difference to place-shaping, and on those local applications that genuinely benefit from their input. Having been a councillor for 27 years, sitting on the planning committee listening to a two-hour debate on whether a fence should be four feet high or five feet high, I think there is a good case for focusing attention on what matters.

I turn first to Amendments 103A and 103B. I understand that these are probing amendments to understand the rationale for the Secretary of State’s powers to issue guidance on the national scheme of delegation and composition of planning committees and why they are not subject to the regulatory procedures which can be scrutinised by Parliament rather than setting it out in primary legislation itself. These powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance are auxiliary to the main powers to make regulations about the national scheme of delegation and the composition of planning committees. The regulations will set out the key requirements and the guidance will supplement them.

As many of us know, the planning system is very complex and nuanced, and there are often calls for clear guidance to complement planning regulations. In line with other powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance within the planning system, we do not propose to make this guidance subject to regulatory procedures. However, there is a clear requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on the guidance along with regulations before reissuing it. This enables all stakeholders, including local planning authorities, to comment and feed into the draft guidance.

On Amendment 104 from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, he asked about national parks authorities—which includes the Broads Authority. They are a special class of local planning authority which make planning decisions for their area. Due to the different governance arrangements and the nature of development in these areas, they were deliberately excluded from the national scheme of delegation provisions, which applies only to conventional local planning authorities. Development corporations and Homes England, when acting as the local planning authority, were also excluded for similar reasons. The justification for intervention in the reform of committees includes creating a more consistent approach to applications for housing development and delivering more predictable outcomes in the planning system in order to achieve growth and support the delivery of 1.5 million homes. There is less imperative to intervene in national park authorities, where we do not envisage large-scale housing developments.

Amendment 105 seeks to make regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure, as just commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I am not convinced that this amendment is needed. It is common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure. I also draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report and has not raised any concerns about either this power or the proposed procedure. Of course, this does not mean there will be no further scrutiny of the proposed regulations. We have included a safeguard in the Bill to require the Secretary of State to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals to ensure that they will work effectively in practice.

Just to pick up the point the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made on NDMPs, it is the intention to publish the NDMPs—I am going to say “in due course”; he knows I do not like that expression, but that is where we are—and I will follow up in writing to him about whether these will automatically be delegated. I think that is under consideration, but I will respond to him in writing on that. However, we do hope to publish them as soon as possible.

I will address Amendment 103ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and Amendments 135HZE and 135HZF, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, together as they both deal with the types of application which should go to committee. Taking Amendment 103ZA first, it would require applications for development not included in the local plan, or for a housing density lower than that specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. The Government also want to ensure that the right development happens in the right areas, and our brownfield-first policy is designed to achieve that. However, there are many applications involved in development which do not conform with a local plan. That does not mean they are all controversial—many are not—and therefore I do not believe that they all need to be considered by committee.

Amendments 135HZE and 135HZF from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, deal with whether certain types of applications should go to committee or not. Taking Amendment 135HZE first, as the noble Lord will know, it is very common for there to be valid planning objections to an application. This amendment would give free rein to committee chairs and chief planning officers to take a great many more applications to committee. As such, it would undermine the whole purpose of the national scheme of delegation, and therefore the Government cannot support it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to interrupt. I am slightly curious: the Government trust a planning officer to make a decision on something, but they do not trust them to determine whether there is a genuinely valid objection to an application? I find that slightly curious.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We trust planning officers, but we do not want to undermine that scheme of delegation.

Amendment 135HZF seeks to ensure that any applications by the council itself or any of its employees or councillors where there are no objections do not need to go to committee. While I understand the noble Lord’s reasons for tabling such an amendment, I again think that this is a matter best dealt with in the regulations rather than in the Bill. Indeed, the recent technical consultation on planning committees sought views on the treatment of such applications. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that we will consider his suggestion alongside the formal responses to that consultation.

To conclude, I assure noble Lords once again that Clause 51 is not about taking away local democratic oversight. It is about improving the system to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities and to give them the time to focus their attention where it really matters.

I now turn to a series of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seek to remove the requirement to create regulations needed for the framework for a mandatory national scheme of delegation and would replace this requirement with a power to make statutory guidance. They would also remove the ability for the Secretary of State to control the size and composition of planning committees.

The Government have been very clear: we want to see a national scheme of delegation introduced to ensure greater certainty across the country and to speed up decision-making to support the delivery of 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. I emphasise that these reforms are a real priority for this Government. We need to ensure that the legal framework for the national scheme of delegation is robust and clear, and that is why we need to legislate for it through regulations. Statutory guidance is not sufficient to provide the certainty and consistency that we want to see.

I also disagree that we should not legislate to control the size and composition of planning committees. I fully accept that many planning committees have slimmed down in recent years and are nearer the optimal size for effective engagement and debate. However, there are still too many which are unwieldy, undermining the quality of decision-making. We firmly believe that there remains a strong case to have powers to regulate the committees’ size and composition. With these explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I support this amendment and thank other Lords for their support. One thing the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said is that if we had had a digital twin model earlier, the bat tunnel we talked about would probably never have been necessary in HS2.

Clearly, there are issues around this on data privacy, keeping information up to date, legacy systems and so forth. But one of the positives is that once you have a model, you do not just discard it once the project has finished; you continue using it into the future and update it. It allows you all the benefits into the future.

We on these Benches are very interested to hear where the Government are in the development of this area, which I certainly hope is an area where the UK, with its IT prowess, will move ahead of our competitors and use it for the kinds of not very successful infrastructure projects that we have had in recent years.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I am also greatly pleased to say that we seem to have broken out into a spirit of co-operation. As noble Lords will know, modelling and simulation are used to drive efficiency in infrastructure and planning projects. I recall, as a project engineer more than 30 years ago, using simulations and realising just how valuable they are in avoiding mistakes and bringing people on board with exactly what you are proposing.

Therefore, they have the potential to reduce costly mistakes in the planning process, deliver infrastructure that is better, more adaptive and more resilient and, as Members have commented, bring residents and others on board because they can see what is there. They would also, I hope, allow developers to modify their plans to reflect what the public want because it can be done so much more easily through a model.

This technology is moving at pace, as are other technologies such as AI, and it is therefore likely that legislation will be required in future to keep pace with changes. Ensuring that the law remains sufficiently flexible and future-proof and does not inhibit development is going to be important, as is how this is integrated into the planning system as opposed to being a stand-alone, nice little model that you look at. If we are going to look at amendments and how changes can be made, we have to think about whether that means we need to produce a volume of paper documents or whether there is some output that we can integrate. It is a complex issue that we need more thought on, but it is a great opportunity. How do the Government intend to ensure that this planning law evolves, and how can it be integrated so that planners are able to realise the full potential of technology? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her amendments relating to modelling and simulation technologies and commend her forbearance for waiting this long to get to this important group of amendments. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his tour de force on the use of twin modelling. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Cromwell, Lord Teverson and Lord Jameson, for their welcome comments.

Amendment 107 seeks to require applications for development consent orders to provide and publish a digital twin model as part of the consultation process. This digital model would need to meet building information modelling level 3. We agree that there is great potential in the development of new technologies, such as digital twin modelling, to support the planning system. The Prime Minister recently recognised the great achievements of planning AI exemplars in speeding up the planning system in local authorities. We also recognise that the use of digital twin modelling could make the potential benefits and impacts of a large-scale infrastructure project more accessible and transparent to the communities affected.

While there is great potential here, we do not think it is proportionate to require it of every applicant at this stage. The purpose of this Bill is to speed up the process by which nationally significant infrastructure projects are consented to deliver the infrastructure this country needs. Requiring digital twin modelling at an early stage in a project’s design is likely to add cost and delay for applicants, particularly given that schemes are likely to change during the pre-application stage.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill also removes the statutory requirement to consult before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. If the Government wish to mandate this innovation on applications in future, they already have the power to do so. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act gives the Secretary of State, and by extension the Planning Inspectorate, powers to request additional digital products when applicants submit applications.

Amendments 195, 196, 198 and 199 would provide development corporations with the power to undertake modelling and simulation to building information modelling level 3 standards in order to evaluate the impact of the activities. As noble Lords will be aware, development corporations deliver large-scale development and infrastructure projects that take years to deliver. We expect robust and up-to-date modelling and simulation to be undertaken by development corporations to plan and deliver each stage.

However, we believe these amendments to be unnecessary. Development corporations already have broad-ranging powers to do anything that is necessary to achieve their objectives. There is therefore no legislative bar to development corporations undertaking this level of modelling and simulation. None the less, where appropriate we encourage development corporations to make good use of digital tools to promote greater information sharing and collaboration across the projects they deliver. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Flooding causes immense distress. It is not just the year it takes for a house to dry out or the stench that lingers long after; it is the mental toll of the trauma, the fear every time the rain falls harder than usual and the sheer impossibility of selling or insuring a home that has suffered from repeated floods. The Bill, as it stands, seems silent on these matters. If we are serious about building homes that are safe, resilient and insurable, the amendments in this group are really important. For the sake of millions of families and millions more in decades to come, as we face up to the tragic reality of the climate emergency, I ask the Government to take this opportunity in the Bill for flooded communities right now and for the ones, I am afraid, that we will see in the future.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will discuss the serious issue of flooding risks. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their hard work and amendments to the Bill, which I shall discuss in further detail in a moment.

Flooding threatens our communities and livelihoods with increasing frequency and severity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned, some 6.3 million properties in England are located in areas at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea or surface water. I am experiencing—and I am sure others have experienced this as local councillors—ever-increasing incidences of flooding on our patches.

Flooding negatively impacts many aspects of people’s lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned some examples, and I can attest to examples in my own area and to seeing people flooded out of their homes two or three times in the space of three or four years. It upsets their health, finances and mental health. Can the Government confirm that protecting communities most at risk of flooding is a priority for them?

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has rightly tabled Amendments 108, 109, 155 and 156 to help ensure that the consideration of flood risk is not overlooked in the planning permission decisions. We support her in her objectives and hope the Government will take this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her Amendments 135B and 135C, on having regard to a development’s impact on the flooding and flood resilience in the broader area. There are, however, concerns regarding the potential scope and practicality of the broader point of assessing the impact on climate resilience.

On Amendment 227A and the incorporation of flood resilience in new buildings, this should be done on a risk-based approach. As we enter the autumn and winter months, it is imperative that the Government are well prepared for the flood risks soon to be faced by millions up and down this country. What procedures do the Government have in place to fulfil their duty of ensuring that strategic flood-risk assessments are up to date? Can the Minister take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that the Government’s flood preparedness is adequate and that Ministers stand ready to implement flood recovery measures rapidly where flooding occurs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Grender, for their amendments on flood risk and resilience in the planning system. I also thank many Members of this Chamber. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I had lots of discussion about flooding during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. I know that lots of Members in this House worked very hard to draw these risks to the attention of the House and the wider public.

I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said about the devastation that it causes. I visited Calderdale—I was doing a peer review there—very shortly after the terrible flooding that the area experienced in 2020. The impact of that was still very live; in fact, some of the shops were still shut because they were still damp. One thing that particularly struck me was that the only way of communicating during that flood, which, from memory, happened over the Christmas period, was to go back to pinning notices on the village noticeboard, because all the infrastructure—IT and everything—had gone down. They could not use phones and could not travel, so they were pinning notices on the old village noticeboard. These are terrible events.

The amendments raise very important issues about how we plan for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in the context of climate change. I can assure all noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, specifically asked me the question—that the Government take these issues very seriously. We are acutely aware of the misery, disruption and costs that arise from flooding, of the increased risk associated with climate change, and of the need to maintain a robust approach to managing these risks. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson: we cannot overestimate the impact not just of flooding itself, which is awful, but of the fear of flooding when people live in properties subject to it. My area is not flood-prone, but we occasionally get flash floods when there is a big storm, which causes water ingress to people’s properties. I remember talking to a constituent about their terrible fear. As soon as it started to rain quite heavily, they would worry that it would happen again. How much worse that must be if you live in a flood-prone area, I can only imagine. It is not just the flooding itself; it is the fear of floods that impacts people.

The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, mentioned the work being done by the Environment Agency. It has commissioned an independent review of property flood resilience. It is not just an untargeted review of this, but a specific review around property flood resilience. The review will seek to identify current gaps and opportunities to grow the property flood resilience market, resulting in a new action plan. That review will report to the Environment Agency and Defra in autumn 2025.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who referred to the investment the Government are putting into flood resilience and maintaining flood defences. She is correct: we are investing £2.65 billion over two years—that is, 2024-25 and 2025-26—to build and maintain defences. That includes an additional £108 million that we are reprioritising into asset maintenance, ensuring that an additional 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored. I repeat that because it shows, I hope, that the Government take these issues seriously.

Amendment 108 proposes a statutory ban on residential development in areas that fall within flood zone 3. Although we fully recognise the importance of directing development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, this amendment would prevent development in large urban areas already protected by robust flood defences. For example, significant parts of Hull and central London lie within flood zone 3 but benefit from engineered flood protection. Under this amendment, development in these areas would be prohibited, even where it can be made safe for its lifetime and does not increase flood risk elsewhere.

The National Planning Policy Framework already includes strong protections which make it clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. I understand the scepticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, about the NPPF, but I do not think that any planning inspector would accept a local plan submitted by a local authority that did not conform with the NPPF in terms of placing houses in flood risk areas, unless significant mitigation measures were put in place to prevent flooding.

Our policy means that new housing and most other forms of development are not appropriate in a functional flood plain where water has to flow or, importantly—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned this—be stored in times of flood. Where development is permitted, it must be demonstrated that it will be safe for its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users.

I turn to Amendment 109, which proposes mandating property flood-resilience measures in all new homes at high risk of flooding, and Amendment 227A, which proposes introducing a requirement for specific flood-resilience features in all new homes. Improving resilience in properties subject to flood risk is an important objective. Reflecting this, the building regulations already support flood-resilient construction in areas at risk of flooding, while ensuring that properties that do not require further flood-resilience measures are not burdened with unnecessary costs. Requiring flood-resilient construction for all new dwellings would be disproportionate, given that many are located outside areas of current or projected flood risk. Designers of new homes may also choose to follow the Construction Industry Research and Information Association code of practice, which includes installing flood-resilient features.

I turn now to Amendments 135B and 135C, which would require local planning authorities to assess both the flood and climate resilience impacts of developments and whether a development could increase flood risk to neighbouring land, alongside introducing an annual reporting duty for the Secretary of State. Assessing the flood risk implications of development, as well as climate mitigation and adaptation more broadly, is already a requirement under the National Planning Policy Framework. The framework is clear that for development to be acceptable it should not increase flood risk elsewhere and should be safe for its lifetime if located in an area where flood risk exists.

Similarly, Amendment 155 seeks to place other aspects of national flood risk policy on a statutory basis—namely, the sequential and exception tests. We can agree about the importance of these policies, but it is important that policy on complex issues such as flood risk is capable of being adjusted as new evidence and issues arise. As I mentioned—I will mention it again—the National Planning Policy Framework plays a powerful role in the planning system. Both plan makers and planning decisions must have regard to it. It is not guidance in the usual sense of the word; it is a very clear part of the statutory planning process. These amendments would not only replicate this but introduce unhelpful inflexibility in our ability to keep policy under review.

The proposed reporting requirement set out in Amendment 135C would also impose a significant reporting obligation on the Government. Local planning authorities are already responsible for ensuring compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action if necessary.

Finally, Amendment 156 on strategic flood risk assessment maps would require local authorities to ensure that their maps are based on the most up-to-date data from the Environment Agency. This is already expected practice. Local authorities are required to use the latest available data when preparing strategic flood risk assessments, and the Environment Agency regularly updates its flood-mapping tools. Mandating updates in statute could impose administrative and financial burdens, particularly for smaller authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 113, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, which raises an important and thought-provoking issue that merits the attention of your Lordships’ Committee and the Government’s consideration.

Amendment 113 concerns the use of termite-resistant wood in new-build homes. My noble friend Lord Lucas draws attention to the risks that they pose. Although historically more common in warmer climates, they may become prevalent here as our own climate changes and, as he mentioned, as they inevitably move further northwards from France. The damage that termites can inflict on timber structures is both severe and costly. In regions where infestations have taken hold, the consequences for home owners, insurers and local authorities have been profound. As temperatures rise, it is only prudent to consider the resilience of our housing stock to such emerging risks.

While I will not take a definitive position on the amendment, I commend my noble friend for raising these matters. They speak to the broader challenge of building homes that are not only fit for purpose today but resilient to the demands of tomorrow. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how the Government intend to engage on this important issue.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 113. He is right that I was not intimately acquainted with the procedure of termites in France. However, I do now know far more about the house longhorn beetle than I have ever known, and I will continue to look at this issue.

The noble Lord may have been in the Chamber on Monday when we were discussing wood being used in construction. I mentioned an office development I visited, which is just across the river from Parliament, and which makes extensive use of wood in its construction. We will see more of that; wood is a good building material and developments such as that are good uses of wood. It is therefore very important that we take these matters extremely seriously.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to prevent planning authorities from granting planning permission for new-build homes if timber construction products specified at planning stages are not termite resistant. Fortunately for us, termites are not endemic to the UK. Even though an infestation was recorded in the 1990s, that was subject to a successful eradication programme.

While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention, the Building Regulations, rather than the planning system, are the appropriate way of establishing minimum legal requirements in the design of new building work. The sanitary arrangements we have in place to regulate timber imports allow us to remain vigilant. The Government take the view that mandating termite resistance in any wood used for construction materials in new-build homes would be a disproportionate measure, leading to an increased cost for developers and consumers, and adding to local planning authority burdens. However, if a threat were to emerge, guidance on timber products for new development and suitable wood treatments could be included in Approved Document A, which accompanies the Building Regulations for structure.

I hope I have given some reassurance to the noble Lord; nevertheless, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, which my noble friend Lady Pinnock has signed, has the support of these Benches. I look the forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 114, 118 and 119, tabled, respectively, by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and introduced so ably by their deputies—sorry, substitutes. These amendments seek to improve the quality and accountability of consultation within the planning system. Amendment 114 seeks to make the Gardens Trust a statutory consultee for developments affecting historic parks and gardens. These are not just green spaces; they are vital heritage assets, and their protection should be part of the planning process.

Amendment 118 seeks to require pre-application consultation with the emergency services where developments may affect their operations. Too often, the fire and ambulance services are brought in too late, after issues arise, not before.

Finally, Amendment 119 addresses a more systemic issue: the need for meaningful consultation with communities. It would require the Secretary of State to consider how developers have engaged with local people before accepting applications for development consent. The message is clear: consultation should be early, serious and able to influence outcomes. It should not be just a tick-box exercise.

The role of a statutory consultee is important in the planning process, and it is right that appropriate bodies are consulted. However, it is also important that their responses are timely and pragmatic and do not unduly delay the planning process. Expanding the list of consultees may be justified but we must at all times have an eye on the risks of delay and overburdensome rules in the planning system, too.

Ultimately, these amendments are about restoring public confidence. When people feel genuinely listened to, development is not only more likely to succeed but more likely to be supported. Relationship building is intrinsic to successful planning. This helps everyone: communities, planners and developers alike. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who tabled these important amendments and their two substitutes for speaking to them. I thank all noble Lords for their patience in a very long Thursday Bill session; I am grateful to them all.

Amendments 114 and 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to designate the Gardens Trust and the emergency services as statutory consultees within the planning system. I begin by acknowledging the contributions these organisations already make across a range of functions. When you have been involved in planning, you know how important that expert advice is on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to make sure that we end up with good decision-making.

However, on 26 January the Chancellor announced a pause in the introduction of new statutory consultees, pending a broader review of the current framework. The Housing Minister subsequently issued a Written Ministerial Statement on 10 March, setting out the Government’s intention to reform the system to ensure that statutory consultees can provide timely and expert advice that supports high-quality development. The Government will be consulting on those proposed reforms shortly.

The Statement also set out our intention to consult on the impact of removing certain statutory consultees, including the Gardens Trust. This reflects a desire to streamline processes and address duplication, as Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher-graded parks and gardens. This is a consultation only, and no decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts.

The Government also intend to consult on their approach to the introduction of new statutory consultees, recognising that risks and responsibilities of course evolve over time. This consultation will reflect the fact that there must be a high bar to creating new statutory consultees if we are to avoid exacerbating current issues of uncertainty, bureaucracy and delay. We should be requiring consultation on a case-by-case basis only if it is not possible to address matters strategically. Input is often effectively secured through local plans, including engagement with the emergency services, such as designing out crime; and where case-by-case engagement is warranted, local authorities already have the discretion to consult these bodies on a non-statutory basis.

Furthermore, in considering potential additions to the list of statutory consultees, it is essential that the roles of existing statutory consultees should not be duplicated, and that functions already addressed through other regimes, such as building regulations, should not be duplicated either. The fire and rescue service, for instance, already must be consulted on relevant plans as part of the building safety regulations, while the Building Safety Regulator oversees and approves work for high-risk buildings. Meanwhile, the Health and Safety Executive operates a hazardous substance licensing regime and is a statutory consultee on development applications which may be impacted by this.

Finally, although we deeply value the insights provided by a wide range of organisations during public consultations, statutory consultee status carries with it a legal obligation to respond within prescribed timeframes. That is a very significant responsibility, and sometimes even existing consultees—sometimes even upper-tier councils if you are in a district council—face challenges in meeting the requirements. For this reason, we believe the threshold for granting such status must remain appropriately high.

As I have set out, we intend to consult on these matters soon. If decisions are taken to introduce new statutory consultees, this can be done through secondary legislation under existing powers.

Amendment 119 proposes that the Secretary of State consider how community consultation has been carried out when deciding whether an NSIP application should be accepted for examination. It suggests specifically that the Secretary of State must consider whether the application has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during the early phases, obtained relevant information about the locality, and enabled appropriate mitigation through consultation.

We agree that engaging communities can support applicants to improve their applications by enabling them to identify issues important to the local community, to understand the likely impacts of the scheme, and to consider potential mitigations. However, as we have seen over our time debating these clauses, we know that the existing statutory tests related to consultation do not achieve that in a proportionate way.

We know this because evidence shows that existing statutory pre-application consultation requirements, the scale and specificity of which have been unique to the NSIP regime, have led to unintended consequences. Developers, keen to avoid risk, produce overly complex documentation aimed more at legal compliance than genuine engagement. They are reluctant to adapt their plans in response to feedback, fearing that they will need to reconsult if they do so, which slows down delivery and drives up costs—which in turn frustrates the UK’s ability to plan and deliver essential infrastructure.

I remind the Committee that, since 2013, the pre-application stage has doubled in length. Our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament by reducing delays across projects. That is why we have proposed removing statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage, including the adequacy of consultation test in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. Instead, we are introducing a clearer, more practical acceptance test: is the application suitable to proceed to examination?

This new test allows the Secretary of State to make a balanced judgment about the quality of the application and recognises that the NSIP planning process is a continuum from pre-application through to decision. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that the changes that the Government are proposing do not undermine the importance of consultation and engagement on applications, as my honourable friend Matthew Pennycook made clear in his ministerial Statement on 23 April. Applications are unlikely to be of sufficient quality to be granted consent if meaningful engagement has not been undertaken on them.

Instead of statutory requirements, the Government have now issued a consultation on guidance which will seek to help applicants understand what good engagement looks like. That consultation is open until 27 October, and we are looking forward to receiving responses. The Planning Inspectorate’s advice will also continue to emphasise the value of early issue resolution. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this important group of amendments relates to the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods, the role of planning in promoting well-being, and the standards and accuracy of housing development. I thank the noble Lords who tabled these amendments; their recognition of the need to place health and well-being at the heart of housing policy and planning is both welcome and timely. In doing so, I wish to express our appreciation of the sentiment behind the amendments, and the desire to ensure that development is not just about numbers and units delivered, but about the quality of life of those who will live in them.

I note the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Taken together, these seek to integrate health and well-being considerations into housing and planning through duties on authorities’ reporting requirements and potential enforcement provisions. The link between housing and public health is well recognised but, as with many such proposals, the issue is one of balancing aspirations with the demands of regulation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has also brought forward a thoughtful proposal: Amendment 124 on advertising. This raises an important issue of public health and the role of advertising. The noble Baroness mentioned gambling advertising, but I would also add that for junk food, particularly in areas close to schools, for instance.

Amendment 132 on the disclosure of environmental performance in marketing materials and Amendment 227, clarifying local authority enforcement powers, raise important questions about consumer protection and transparency. We look forward to the Government’s reply.

I wish to recognise the valuable contribution of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and speak to his Amendment 138A. As he often emphasises, creating space for sport and physical activity can deliver wide-ranging benefits, not only for an individual’s fitness, but for community cohesion and long-term public health. His amendment would add the promotion of health and well-being to the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies. This raises an important and thought-provoking point, and we look forward with interest to the Government’s response.

Lastly, I return to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. We have already underlined the importance of respecting local vernacular and design in planning and development. The spirit of her Amendment 185SA is, I believe, a constructive one: namely, that there should be a preferred approach to the consideration of architectural style grounding in sound plan-making principles, and framed by an appropriate, locally distinctive context for building design. Where that is fitting, such an approach ensures that development is not only functional but reflective of the character and heritage of the community it serves.

That is why the previous Conservative Government set up the Office for Place: to ensure that good design was part of building. Unfortunately, this current Labour Government have closed the office. We should not just be building units; we must build homes that are well designed and form part of successful communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how this Government will ensure good design.

Across this group of amendments, there is a unifying theme: that housing should not merely be about shelter, but about creating places that sustain life, health and community—whether through high standards, clearer duties, better design or fairer advertising. These amendments challenge us to raise our ambition, but ambition must be tempered with practicality. The central question is how we embed these principles in a way that is workable, proportionate and does not risk unintended consequences for housing delivery, affordability or local discretion. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government intend to respond to these important proposals, and how they will ensure that the planning system and housing policy place health and the well-being of people and communities at their heart.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments tabled in this grouping. We have had a very useful and interesting debate on this topic this evening. I am very grateful to the noble Lords who put forward amendments, who have deep expertise and are great advocates on the issue of health, housing and communities. That is greatly appreciated.

The Government agree that the quality of our homes, and the wider environment around them, are intrinsically linked to the creation of healthy communities. Taken together, planning policy, guidance and building regulations tackle these important matters and collectively promote the creation of healthy communities and homes for the people who reside there. It may be helpful if I quickly outline some of these provisions at the outset to show the interaction between the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, the National Model Design Code, building regulations and the Future Homes Standard—that sounds more like a PhD essay than a quick intervention, but I will do my best—in collectively promoting healthy homes and communities.

First, the NPPF has the goal of achieving sustainable development at its heart, which includes supporting a strong, vibrant and healthy community, and ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations. I am not sure about the 70 years that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about, but we will do our best. The framework sets out that development plans should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which promote social interaction, and enable healthy lives, through both promoting good health and preventing ill-health, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs and reduce health inequalities. That is all set out in the National Planning Policy Framework; it is very clear what is expected.

The framework also recognises the importance of open space, sports and recreation facilities in supporting the health and well-being of communities. It is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need for these spaces and facilities, and seek opportunities for new provision. Further considerations on healthy and safe communities are also set out in Planning Practice Guidance, which supports the implementation of the NPPF in practice.

Secondly, the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code are part of the suite of Planning Practice Guidance. They illustrate how well-designed, healthy, inclusive, social and green places can be achieved. They provide detailed advice on creating safe, inclusive and accessible homes, buildings and public spaces, prioritising walking and cycling, and green space and biodiversity in new development that promotes activity and social interaction.

All new homes delivered under permitted development rights are required to meet the nationally described space standards and provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. While under the permitted development right that allows for commercial buildings, such as shops and offices, to change use to homes, local authorities can consider the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers during the decision-making process. All new homes, whether delivered through a permitted development right or following a planning application, are required to meet building regulations and fire safety requirements.

Lastly, building regulations set out the minimum legal performance standards that all new homes must meet to ensure that they protect people’s safety, health and welfare. We continue to review and strengthen these standards. For example, this autumn the Government will publish the Future Homes Standard, which will increase the energy efficiency requirements in building regulations. New homes will be equipped with low-carbon heating and, in most cases, solar panels, making them fit for the future, comfortable for occupants, and affordable to heat. At the same time, we will publish our response to the call for evidence on the new overheating requirement, which has been in effect since June 2022. This requires that new homes are designed to minimise overheating and thus remain resilient as our climate changes.

Amendment 123 is on health and well-being in development plans. Amendments 138A, 185SC, 185SD and 185SF are on ensuring adequate provision for spaces and facilities for sport and physical activity and making sure they are appropriately considered in the planning system and in new spatial development strategies. The provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework I have outlined mean that these matters will already be taken into account. Within Clause 52, new Section 12D(1) enables spatial development strategies to include policies relating to access to green space, active travel, and sports and physical activity facilities, providing that they are of strategic importance to the area.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is in the other place at the moment. Clause 43 of that Bill is a general duty which applies to all the duties that combined authorities have to have regard to—the need to improve health inequalities between people living in their area. It is not a specific planning duty, and we believe that in the case of planning we should deal with those matters through the National Planning Policy Framework.

Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to include environmental impact and public health as additional considerations to take into account in regulating advertisements. The advertisement consent regime is designed to ensure that outdoor advertisements are in the right locations. It is a light-touch system concerned with only two issues: the impact of the advertisement on amenity and public safety. Amenity includes oral and visual amenity and relevant factors such as the general characteristics of the locality. Public safety is largely concerned with the transport network: for example, distractions to road users or safety on railway lines. The content of advertisements is subject to a separate regulatory system—I know the noble Baroness is aware of this—which is overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority. To widen the scope of matters which can be considered through the advertisement consent regime, particularly in relation to public health, is likely to bring the focus more on to the content of the advertisement. If that were the case it would create an overlap between the two regulatory regimes where at present there is a clear distinction, which would risk causing uncertainty and confusion. Therefore, while I understand what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, we think the current scope of the advertisement consent regime remains appropriate.

Amendments 132 and 185D would introduce a purpose of planning and provide that anyone exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with that purpose. I must reiterate that the pursuit of sustainable development is at the heart of what the planning system seeks to achieve. Reflecting this, it is a principle which is woven through our National Planning Policy Framework, from the overarching objectives which it sets, through to the specific policies for achieving them. For example, the national planning policy sets out how to plan for good design, sustainable modes of transport, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses, essential community services and facilities, and the vital role of open space, green infrastructure and play in supporting health and well-being and recreation. It is clear that local plans should meet identified needs and seek opportunities for new provision. It also supports a transition to a low-carbon future and promotes renewable and low-carbon energy, and requires plans to take a proactive approach to climate change. These are all important principles, and we should not underestimate the role of the National Planning Policy Framework in translating these into practice. But I wish to resist these amendments, not just because they would impose significant burdens on any individual or body exercising a planning function in order to gauge compliance, but as inevitably these provisions will become a focus for challenges to plans and decisions.

Amendment 185SA seeks to introduce a code of practice for design. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Levitt on her well-deserved promotion to the Front Bench and thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for speaking to her amendment—I suspect he may have a few more occasions when he has to say, “Yes, Minister”, but I do not want to interfere with that part of his life. I agree with my noble friend that we have a role to play in setting clear expectations for design and placemaking to support local authorities to demand better through the planning system, and a responsibility to ensure that they have the tools necessary to do this. I thank her very much for meeting with me to discuss this. As I have mentioned, the National Planning Policy Framework already emphasises that the creation of high-quality and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what planning and development should achieve. The framework is supplemented by national design guidance. I gather from this amendment that my noble friend believes we could go further, and that is exactly what we intend to do. We are consulting on national policies for decision-making, including on design, later in 2025, and we are also in the process of updating national design guidance and will publish this later this year.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale; I think it is very important. I want to pick up what my noble friend said: many local authorities are very keen to develop policies in relation to climate change, particularly on this very important issue of adaptation. My noble friend will have seen recently that some local authorities have put into reverse any commitment towards net zero and climate change policies. My question to the House is: what do we do about this? It is not fashionable at the moment to mention climate change, for some remarkable reason, but I think it is the most important and biggest issue we face. What are we to do if local authorities are saying, “No, we’ll turn our backs on this. We’ll commit ourselves to fossil fuels. We will develop policies that are very distinct—in opposition almost—to issues around climate change”? My advice to the Government is that this is not acceptable. If we are really serious about net zero and if we are serious about climate change adaptation as well as mitigation, we have to have a much greater concerted effort, in which local government clearly has to play an important part. That is why I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is so important.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on this important group of amendments, which touch on the crucial matters of climate change and, more specifically, overheating, energy efficiency and net-zero carbon developments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who have tabled these amendments. Their recognition of the pressing challenge that climate change presents and the role that planning and development must play in addressing it is both welcome and timely. In doing so, I wish to express our appreciation for the sentiment behind the amendments in their name and the desire to ensure that our built environment is resilient and sustainable in the face of changing climate.

We on these Benches recognise the need to address climate change and overheating risks in our built environment. However, it is also essential that we balance these aims with the need to avoid introducing overly burdensome mandates and excessive regulation that could hinder much-needed housing delivery, achieving the 1.5 million homes and economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address these important and pressing issues, ensuring that we both protect our environment and support sustainable development and homes that are much needed.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords who have tabled amendments relating to climate change and overheating. It is obviously the biggest issue facing not just the Government and the country but the world. I turn first to Amendments 125, 126, 181 and 216, which concern efforts to adapt new homes and buildings to account for the risk of overheating and the need to drive energy efficiency in new homes. The Government agree that action is needed to address these risks, but we must be mindful of the existing regulatory and legislative regimes that underpin action in these areas.

The building regulations already set specific performance targets for new homes and non-domestic buildings. Compliance with these regulations is mandatory. Aspects of building construction concerned with heating, energy efficiency and cooling are best addressed through these regulations, which the Government are using to make progress on these vital issues. For example, in 2022, a new part of the building regulations was introduced, part O, which is specifically designed to ensure that new homes are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. We are already considering whether part O and its associated guidance can be improved, having run a call for evidence as part of the consultation on the future homes and building standards to seek views on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I am going to point to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said—how close we got, and a really bad decision was made. How do we make good decisions really quickly?

Okay, I will come to what the Minister said. It relied on building regulations and compliance with those, but we know what is being built now is not complying even with the inadequate regulations we have now, and that issue needs to be discussed. The final point I want to make is this: the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said that we cannot do anything to interfere with much-needed housing delivery. We have to build houses that people can safely live in. That has to be an absolute prerequisite. But, in the meantime, I—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I do not think I said that we cannot do anything. It is all about having a balance.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I accept the point made by the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I accept that it has been agreed by the usual channels, but this is a revising Chamber and we are supposed to be looking at a serious Bill and taking its provisions seriously. If the Government want to get through 20 groups today then it will take the time it takes. None the less, when it comes to Amendment 135G, I shall be brief.

The main reason I hear for planning processes taking longer than they should is that planning authorities take longer than they should. The Government should have the power to do something about that, and that is what my amendment seeks to achieve.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing their amendments to the attention of the Committee. They have raised a number of important points, and I look forward to hearing the Minister addressing both noble Lords’ concerns.

I turn to the amendments in my name. The purpose of Amendment 135HZG is to reduce costs and delays in the planning system by putting beyond doubt in legislation the principles that currently rely on case law. Where planning permission has already been granted and remains extant, decisions on subsequent planning applications relating to detailed matters, whether determined by an officer or a committee, should not reopen issues that were settled in the original planning permission. This matters because uncertainty in the system not only increases costs for applicants but creates unnecessary duplication of effort for planning authorities and applicants. Greater clarity will enable both sides to proceed with confidence, efficiency and speed.

Amendment 135HZH, in my name and that of noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, is a probing amendment intended to test whether the planning system provides sufficient certainty once a permission has been granted and to explore how necessary changes prompted by new national legislation might be handled without reopening matters that have already been settled. The principle of finality is essential, particularly where significant work has already been undertaken and applications are well advanced. This amendment invites the Government to consider whether clearer statutory guidance on finality could help improve efficiency and reduce delay.

Finally, Amendment 185SE, tabled in my name, aims to provide clarity to the planning system, so that project delays are minimised where legislative changes necessitate modifications to an already approved permission—for instance, as we discussed earlier today, legislation that might require solar cells on all new homes.

In such circumstances, such modifications should be deemed to have planning permission in principle. It is vital, because projects can be significantly delayed and costs increased, and developers are required to seek fresh planning permissions simply to comply with new legislation that has come about after they receive their original planning permission. By ensuring that those modifications are covered in principle, we can safeguard progress while maintaining the integrity of the planning system.

If we are to achieve the Government’s objective of 1.5 million new homes, the planning system needs to deliver. These three amendments are guided by the same underlying principle. Clarity and certainty in planning law reduce unnecessary delay, avoid wasteful duplication and allow both applicants and authorities to focus their energies on what should be their priority, which is delivering high-quality developments of high-quality homes that support our residents and our communities.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I had not realised what the noble Lord was going to say from the Dispatch Box, but I wish to support his Amendments 135HZG and 135HZH What he could have said—but did not—was that there is almost an interaction with the previous group, in that sometimes there is a perverse incentive to add delay to a process to run down the clock. However, in this case, the noble Lord could have said that, as a result of those delays, a whole series of new studies would need to be remade. For instance, ecology studies may last for only two or three years so may be triggered once more, and they in turn can only be created at certain times of the year—in the spring, for example. The combination effect, in respect not just of the previous group but of this group, means that the delays could be even longer, so I strongly support the noble Lord. Finality and certainty are important, and I support him not only for the reasons he gives but for the avoidance of interference with the previous set of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I would not accept that. It has to be a balance between what we can do to make things more flexible and ensuring that we have the right kind of infrastructure to lead to the growth we want in the local economy. We need a flexible system and what we are trying to devise here is that.

Amendments 135HZG and 135HZH cover the important but technical issue of decision-makers revisiting matters which have been established through the grant of planning permission when determining applications for supplementary consents, such as reserved matter approvals. I recognise that these are probing amendments, and I understand the concern about matters being revisited when they should not be. We want to see supplementary consents determined as swiftly as possible. Case law has long established that supplementary consents must focus on the specific matters directly related to the consent and not revisit wider matters which have been addressed by the original grant of planning permission.

However, we are sceptical about the merits of putting this case law on a statutory footing as suggested by Amendment 135HZG. The principle is well established among planning officers and putting it on a statutory footing will not speed up their decision-making. Indeed, it could create new grounds for legal challenges to planning decisions, which we want to avoid.

Similarly, I am not convinced that we need a review on this matter.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I gratefully appreciate the answer the Minister has given, but I want some clarity. He made two comments there. The reason for this, and I accept it is a probing amendment, is to bring into the planning process absolute clarity that a decision has been made and cannot be revisited. That certainly seems to be the case with case law. But the reason we have case law is because people are making decisions in the planning system which then have to go to court. By making things much clearer, it will enhance the role of those who are saying, “Hold on, we have already decided that there is planning approval for x”. Just because you are now changing the colour of the door, that does not mean you can revisit the original planning permission again. I am slightly puzzled why he is saying that, by making that clarification, it may even result in more legal processes. I am not necessarily expecting an answer tonight, because I appreciate he has valiantly stepped in at the last minute, but if he could think a little more about that and maybe we can have a conversation afterwards.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I could write to the noble Lord on that specific point. But it seems to me that the principle is well established among planning officers and putting it on a statutory footing will not speed up the decision-making. Similarly, we are not convinced that we need a review on this matter. We, of course, are always looking at opportunities to improve the planning system and if there is evidence that supplementary consents like reserved matter approvals were unnecessarily revisiting matters, we would want to take action, but we do not think a review would be proportionate.

Finally, Amendment 185SE seeks to ensure that changes required to extant planning permissions to comply with changes in legislation would benefit from automatic planning permission. I can say we share a common goal, which is to ensure that developments are not delayed by new legislative requirements. When the Government introduce changes to planning legislation, they are usually not applied retrospectively to avoid the uncertainty this would cause, but we recognise that changes to other regulatory regimes, such as building regulations, can impact on approved development and this may require subsequent amendments to the planning permission which can be frustrating for developers. However, we do not think this amendment provides a solution. It is too broad, and some regulatory changes can have a material impact on approved development which warrant further consideration from a planning perspective.

Instead, we are keen to ensure that, when new legislation is developed which could impact on development, the consequences for planning are recognised and minimised. There are already a number of mechanisms available within the planning system which allow changes to planning permissions in a proportionate way, such as light-touch applications for non-material amendments under Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and we are keen to see these mechanisms being used to address the consequences of any wider regulatory changes on approved development. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will beg leave to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. With the Government’s ambition to increase the supply of social and affordable housing and the reforms to improve the capacity of the planning system, now seems the right time to reform PDR. The Government have rightly made the quality and safety of housing a priority, but conversions to PDR are not subject to the same standards compared to developments going through the full planning system.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, in its report on the impact of extending permitted development rights on public authorities and communities, found that the quality of office-to-residential conversions was significantly worse than those which had been brought through the planning process. Other than the nationally described space standards and requirements around natural light, there are no minimum standards for these converted homes relating to safety, facilities, communal space, or connection to amenities.

It is essential that the housing that is developed is the right housing to meet local needs and make a positive impact on the lives of residents. It is necessary to make it a viable solution for addressing the housing crisis. At a minimum, conversions should meet the healthy homes principle brought forward by the Town and Country Planning Association’s Healthy Homes campaign. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these points.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for bringing these matters to the attention of the Committee. Permitted development rights are a significant area of policy as they play a crucial role in both the supply and the quality of new homes. It is important not only for the delivery of more housing but also for ensuring that those homes meet the needs of the communities in which they are built. The rules which govern permitted development therefore deserve careful consideration and the contributions made in today’s debate have highlighted the balance that must be struck between delivering more homes and protections for local communities and ensuring quality homes.

My noble friend Lord Lucas has raised a point of particular frustration for many homeowners in his Amendment 185A, and this reads across to other areas of government policy. I know owners of heritage properties and homes in conservation areas face particular challenges with increasing the energy efficiency of their home, and my noble friend is right to put this challenge to Ministers. I also note that the Government have announced that as of 2030 all private landlords will be required to meet a higher standard in their properties, with energy performance certificates of C or equivalent, up from the current level of E. Given the fact that many heritage and listed properties, including those in conservation areas, are often not permitted to instal double glazing—I refer to my comments in the previous group—can the Minister confirm that the new EPC requirement will not apply to listed and heritage properties? We look forward to hearing the Government’s view on these amendments and to understanding how they propose to address the concerns that have been raised.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before I address the amendments in this group, I want to correct an error that I made earlier when I was responding to the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has kindly pointed out my error. When I said the £39 billion allocated for social and affordable housing was for this Parliament, it is in fact a 10-year pledge of funding. I want to make sure that is corrected in Hansard.

All the amendments in this group tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to amend permitted development rights. Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the general permitted development order, generally following public consultation. This ensures that the views of the public are taken into account, including those that would benefit from or otherwise be impacted by the rights created or removed. We will continue to keep permitted development rights under review and I am grateful for the views that have been put forward by noble Lords in this regard.

Amendment 134 seeks to revoke the nationally set permitted development rights that deliver new homes through a change of use or by extending upwards and that allow dwelling houses to change use to a small house in multiple occupation and vice versa. The sustainable solution to the housing crisis is to accelerate the delivery of affordable, safe and decent purpose-built housing. I understand the intent of these amendments, with which I have a deal of sympathy. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill will know, we are in a housing crisis and these permitted development rights have provided over 113,000 new homes in the last nine years. Permitted development rights are subject to prior approval by the local planning authority to allow for local consideration of specific planning matters. We acknowledge the concerns that exist about the quality of some of the residential units created through permitted development rights, particularly those created from commercial-to-residential conversions. We have all seen booklets with pictures of horrendous examples of those conversions and I would not want to advocate that type of practice.

All new homes delivered under permitted development rights are now required to meet nationally described space standards and provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. All new homes, whether delivered through permitted development rights or following a planning application, are required to meet building regulations.

We all know that small houses in multiple occupation can play an important part in providing low-cost accommodation. The permitted development right for a change of use from a dwelling house to a small house in multiple occupation helps to provide flexibility. The permitted development aspect of that can be removed by making an Article 4 direction where the local planning authority considers it necessary and in line with national planning policy. The amendment would make it harder to create new homes from existing buildings at a time of acute housing need. I have not seen the letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to and I look forward to receiving that. But, for all the reasons that I have explained, I hope she will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it seems to me that we are getting ahead of ourselves. We are yet to reach Part 3, but these seem to be mostly considerations relating to the content of Part 3 and how the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy are intended to work.

I understood my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment to be grouped where it is and say what it does because nowhere in Part 3 is there something that otherwise tells us how the making of an environmental delivery plan affects a local planning authority in making its decisions. It seemed to me that she had tabled a rather useful amendment that did precisely that.

I do not think it is relevant whether a developer has to pay the levy or not. It can request to pay the levy, or, as we can see in Clause 66 and Schedule 4, Natural England can make it mandatory that it pays the levy. Either way, it does not really matter. The point is that, if the environmental delivery plan is made, a local authority should clearly take it into account in determining any planning permission, in the same way as it would be required to have regard to all the legislation relating to protected sites and protected species. Schedule 4 simply tells us that when the local authority makes planning decisions it may disregard them because there is an environmental delivery plan in place. What my noble friend Lady Coffey is saying would be at least a useful addition, in a technical sense, to the Bill.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his thoughtful ongoing contribution to our debate on this Bill. His amendment raises some significant questions about how biodiversity information is gathered, shared and used within the planning system.

This sparked a few questions that we wish to ask the Minister. First, can she clarify how the Government see the balance between requiring robust biodiversity data and avoiding unnecessary burdens on applicants—particularly smaller developers or individuals making household applications? Secondly, what consideration has been given to the readiness and capacity of local environmental record centres or other organisations to provide such information, should regulations of this kind be introduced? Thirdly, has consideration been given that this be addressed as part of the spatial development strategy or local plan? Lastly, how do the Government propose to ensure consistency and standardisation in biodiversity data collected so that it meaningfully informs local and national policy in the future?

Amendment 135, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that environmental delivery plans relevant to the land in question are considered when making planning decisions. This seems to be an eminently sensible and pragmatic measure that joins up the EDP process with planning decision-making. However, this amendment also raises the important point that I raised at Second Reading: the chicken and egg question. How can you develop an EDP without knowing what the spatial development strategy is that it is seeking to mitigate? Conversely, do you need an EDP to make a spatial development strategy deliverable? It would seem sensible that they are done in parallel. If so, why would an EDP not be part of the spatial development strategy? Can the Minister please provide a clearer answer than at Second Reading?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for their amendments in this group. There will be a very full debate on the wider issues around EDPs, the role of Natural England and so on next week. I will answer the specific points today and, in view of the hour, we will leave the wider discussions until next week.

Amendment 135A seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan is taken into account by a planning decision-maker when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. Although it is crucial that EDPs are fully integrated into the wider planning system, I assure the noble Baroness that how EDPs work in practice means that the amendment is not necessary. Where a developer makes a payment into an EDP, the making of that payment discharges the relevant environmental obligation. This means that the planning decision-maker will not need to consider the specific environmental obligation covered by the EDP when deciding on an application.

To respond to the points about the differences that came forward after we had met with the environmental NGOs, and the response of the OEP, the government amendments make changes explicit in the Bill which were only implicit. We met with noble Lords to discuss this.

Amendment 135F seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about the biodiversity information required for applications for planning permission and enable specific bodies providing this information to applicants to charge for it. The Government agree it is critical that developers reduce and mitigate their impacts on biodiversity. We also agree that to achieve this, robust biodiversity information should be provided with planning applications where habitats and wildlife are affected by development proposals. However, I am not convinced that we need further powers to achieve this or that we should specify precisely where and how such information needs to be sourced.

Since 2024, subject to certain exceptions, biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in biodiversity value. As part of this framework, developers are now required to provide a baseline assessment of pre-development biodiversity value of the site using the statutory biodiversity metric published by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Natural England provides considerable guidance and support to developers and local planning authorities on the use of this metric. The biggest infrastructure developers will also be required to do so from May 2026 when BNG is extended to nationally significant infrastructure projects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, ensuring that planning meetings can be held when they are needed and that they are accessible is of real importance. Equally, the clarity of outcome is critical, and the transparency. Applicants, the public and those participating need to see that proposals have been properly considered with clarity of decision-making, otherwise confidence in the system will be undermined. I therefore ask the Minister what consideration has been given to how these provisions will operate in practice. Linked to this issue, what safeguards can the Government provide to ensure that the decisions reached in local planning meetings are both transparent and understood by all? I hope the Minister can reassure your Lordships’ House on these points.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady McIntosh, for the amendments relating to planning authority meetings. Amendment 135E would require councils to stream their planning meetings online, to publish records of those meetings and to allow members of the public to speak at them via online participation.

I have to say “well remembered” to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the levelling-up Bill—I think all of us who worked on that Bill deserve a badge to say that we survived. I indeed supported this issue, and the Government are committed to legislating to allow councils to meet remotely in response to our consultation. We are working with sector representatives such as the Local Government Association and others to clarify how this would work in practice, including how to ensure that existing rules around meetings are applied appropriately to remote and hybrid meetings without undermining democratic accountability or procedural integrity. We want to get this right and that might mean taking a little longer to work through the detail of the proposal to make sure that the changes are legally robust, practically workable and aligned with the expectation of both local authorities and the public.

We are committed to ending this micromanagement of local councils from Whitehall. Decisions about how councils run their day-to-day affairs should be taken locally. We do not think it is appropriate at the moment to make streaming meetings compulsory, as this amendment proposes. Councils can already stream their meetings online and can, if they wish, make arrangements to hear representations from the public online. Indeed, many councils already do this. The Government encourage councils to consider how they can make local democracy accessible to their residents, and that includes for reasons of disability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out. Streaming meetings may be a helpful step to make local decision-making more transparent. However, making that a locally operational decision and not because of a diktat is important.

Amendment 135HZA would allow planning committees and subcommittees to meet remotely or in hybrid form in circumstances to be specified in regulations. Outdated legislation has the implied effect of requiring all local authorities to hold their meetings in one physical location only. This was confirmed by a court case several years ago. As I mentioned earlier, all local authorities are independent bodies with their own democratic mandate, and as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has raised several times in this House in recent years, they should be able to decide how they want to organise their own meetings and Parliament should not stand in their way. That is why the Government have committed to allowing councils to make decisions themselves about whether to hold their meetings in person, to do them fully online, or to have a hybrid form.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

150ZA: Clause 52, page 74, line 14, at end insert—
“(12A) Any local plan prepared after the spatial development strategy is in place must not be inconsistent with, or (in substance) repeat, any policies in the strategy.(12B) Where any local plan is subject to representations under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/767) (preparation of a local plan), or a subsequent stage of preparation process, it may continue on the basis existing at the time of that stage of the preparation process.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the principle of finality. This amendment seeks to ensure that local plans are aligned with spatial development strategies, while allowing transitional arrangements for local plans already at an advanced stage of preparation.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in my name, Amendments 150ZA and 150ZB, concern coherence in the planning pyramid. Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner covers similar ground.

The Bill rightly proposes that spatial development strategies should be aligned with national policies. That is entirely proper, but it is equally important that the whole planning framework—the pyramid, you might say—of national policy guidance, spatial development strategies, local plans and neighbourhood plans is coherent. We must not have a situation where they contradict one another: where an application complies with one part of the system but is rejected for failing to comply with another. That is an issue that—I declare my interest as a member—the previous Government’s London Plan review identified. The conflicts between the London Plan and local borough plans caused issues.

Amendment 150ZA makes it clear that a local plan must not be inconsistent with the relevant spatial development strategy. This does not mean a top-down approach. It does not mean that local plans have to be identical—quite the opposite. They will be tailored to local areas, they may go further in key respects, and they will provide much of the detail that a high-level spatial strategy cannot and should not cover. Equally, those developing a spatial development strategy should be building on existing local plans, not cutting across them.

I also know from my experience as a councillor, having borne the scars of a local plan that took eight years to deliver, that one of the greatest challenges in plan-making is the constant shifting of the planning landscape: new regulations and guidance arriving part-way through the process, forcing local authorities to retrace their steps and start again, causing serious delays. My amendment therefore proposes a point of stability: that once a local authority has reached Regulation 18 stage—that is where you go out and consult on the broad strategy with residents and others on the plan, and that is typically about halfway through to submission—any subsequent changes resulting from a new spatial development strategy should not require the authority to start again; in other words, the clock stops. Obviously, when the local plan is reviewed again in five years, it would take into account the new spatial development strategy. That gives certainty to the council to complete its work.

Amendment 150ZB follows the same principle for neighbourhood plans. Again, it would require that neighbourhood plans not be inconsistent with the local plan, but again, this is not a top-down instruction. Neighbourhood plans will, rightly, reflect local priorities. They may also choose to go further—for instance, by allocating more housing where there is a specific local need, or by setting local priorities that speak to the character of the area. Local plans, in turn, should build on the work already undertaken by neighbourhood forums and parish councils. Here too, there needs to be a fair transition. Where a new local plan is adopted part-way through the preparation of a neighbourhood plan, my amendment provides that there should be a 12-month window in which that neighbourhood plan can be completed on the basis of the previous local plan. That strikes the right balance. It gives communities certainty, avoids wasted effort and ensures that local plans and neighbourhood plans can evolve in step.

Let us be clear, these amendments are not about diluting localism. On the contrary, they are about safeguarding it, ensuring a coherent planning pyramid that does not weaken distinctiveness but strengthens trust in the system and ensures that local voices are heard within a coherent framework where national, strategic, local and neighbourhood priorities reinforce rather than contradict each other. That, I submit, is the only way that we can achieve genuine consistency in housing delivery, infrastructure planning and sustainable development while preserving the vital principle of local voice and local choice. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 150ZB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, which he has very helpfully introduced, takes us into the question of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development plans. My amendments in this group—Amendments 154, 161 and 163—all relate to neighbourhood plans, plus one additional issue, which I will raise in a moment.

We are in the territory of revisiting questions which we debated during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Amendment 154 relates to what is presently in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act at Section 97 and Schedule 7. It is a part of Schedule 7. Noble Lords will recall that Schedule 7 has a wide range of planning and plan-making provisions. I think none of them has been brought into force.

With Amendment 154, I have extracted the provision within Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 that allowed for the production of neighbourhood priorities statements. Neighbourhood priorities statements would enable neighbourhood bodies—parishes, town councils, neighbourhood forums—to provide views on local matters such as development and nature. For the purposes of this Bill it would include, for example, environmental delivery plans as they emerge, the distribution and location of housing, facilities and infrastructure, all of which will be relevant to local plan making.

This is intended not to be a neighbourhood development plan as such but to enable neighbourhoods to comment on what are wider plan-making issues and to be a more accessible format for neighbourhood views on development and not require neighbourhoods necessarily to have incorporated their comments on issues in their neighbourhood development plan. It is to allow neighbourhoods to have their priorities stated in relation to the wider development issues. Neighbourhood priorities statements would not, for example, be subject to independent examination or require a local referendum. They would be a means for neighbourhoods to engage with the spatial development strategy and local plan making and the processes involved. They would potentially ensure an overall increase in the engagement of neighbourhoods with plan making.

I keep coming back to the central importance of the plan-making process. We are all, in our various guises, as councillors, council leaders and Members of Parliament, disappointed—and often find it incredibly frustrating—that so many individuals, and sometimes even parishes and communities, have not engaged thoroughly with the plan-making process but subsequently wish to object to what development proposals are brought forward consistent and in accordance with the development plan.

This is an important opportunity to have neighbourhood priorities statements. It is also thoroughly consistent with emerging government policy. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill presently in the other place, in Clause 58, provides:

“Local authorities in England must make appropriate arrangements to secure the effective governance”


of a neighbourhood area. That Bill provides for a structure of governance for neighbourhoods It gives us no detail on what functions may be conferred on such neighbourhood government structures. This amendment would positively equip the forthcoming English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill with a very clear function for such neighbourhood governance to provide such a key function. I commend it to Ministers as consistent with their emerging policies in support of neighbourhood governance. They can start to fill in the detail of what neighbourhood governance can achieve.

Amendments 161 and 163 relate to the provisions in Sections 98 and 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Those sections have also not been brought into force. Section 98 had the effect of providing detail about the content of a neighbourhood development plan. Some noble Lords who follow these matters about development plans will be aware that the legislation as it stands at the moment, which is essentially Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, includes processes around the development of a neighbourhood development plan but no information about the content of a neighbourhood development plan.

My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on the Front Bench will recall taking these measures through the House. The purpose was a very clear one, which was largely endorsed—that it would be extremely helpful to parishes, town councils and the like, when they are preparing a development plan, to know what content it should provide for. I will not go through it in detail, but it principally includes the amount, type and location of development, related land use, infrastructure requirements, the need for affordable housing and the importance of reflecting on design. These are all considerations which in our debates on this Bill we have determined are very important. This provision would allow the neighbourhood development plan to contribute to exactly these issues.

Amendment 163 is about bringing Sections 98 and 100 of the levelling-up Act into force. My Amendment 161 would amend Section 100 to make it consistent with this Bill by including powers to require assistance with spatial development strategies and neighbourhood development plans when plan-making.

--- Later in debate ---

Thirdly, having different plans potentially in conflict can serve only to reduce clarity for those proposing development and preparing, commenting on or determining planning applications, especially if those plans have all been produced in the recent past, as these amendments would allow. Fourthly, there is established planning practice guidance that provides useful guidance for the preparation of neighbourhood plans where a local plan is emerging at the same time. This advises that plan-making bodies should take a proactive and positive approach, sharing evidence and working collaboratively to minimise any policy conflicts and produce complementary plans. We expect the same approach to be taken where SDSs are being prepared at similar times.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am just seeking clarity. As the Minister knows, many of us in local government bear the scars from changes. The implication of her response is that, in practical terms, someone would not be going to regulation 18 stage in a local plan until they were very clear about what the spatial development strategy was going to be. That potentially means that you end up having a cascade of plans that are entirely dependent on the spatial development strategy, and that will delay local plans and, potentially, neighbourhood plans.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope I made it clear that, as an SDS is in preparation, the evidence base and policies being used will become apparent. It is the collaboration between the different elements of the plan-making process that is critical here. Suggesting that we might hold up the provision of a plan is not correct. Regulation 18 stage is a quite an early stage and we do not want to weaken the production of the SDS, given the time it would take to produce the next local plan to be consistent with the SDS. So the evidence for the SDS will be very clear and, if there is good collaboration between all parts of the system, they should not need to wait for the SDS to be finalised even before or after they get to regulation 18 stage. I hope that is clear. If the noble Lord wants to talk about that some more, I am happy to do so.

Amendment 154, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would create a power for neighbourhood planning groups to produce neighbourhood priority statements. As the noble Lord knows, provision for these was one of many measures first included in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. We are mindful of the scale of reform to the planning system with which we are asking local authorities to engage. Later in the year, we intend to set out the detail of our reforms to the system of local plans, and we are wary of introducing further complexity into the new system before it has been allowed to become established. If we were to do so, we would risk undermining both the local plan reforms and the neighbourhood priorities statements, with overstretched planning authorities potentially failing to give statements the consideration they would deserve. For this reason, the Government’s current priority for the neighbourhood planning system is maintaining the existing rights for communities in the new context of strategic and reformed local plans—that is what I was talking about just now. We will consider whether there is a need for reform to neighbourhood planning, including whether to commence the relevant provisions in Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, once our wider reforms have taken effect.

Amendments 161 and 163 propose to amend the power to require assistance with certain plan-making in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and to commence the power in Section 98 which makes provision regarding the contents of neighbourhood plans. The noble Lord will, I hope, be pleased to hear that, so far as spatial development strategies are concerned, we are entirely in agreement. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Bill gives effect to his proposal to add spatial development strategies to the list of plans where assistance can be required.

When it comes to neighbourhood plans, I am afraid I must disappoint the noble Lord. This power was not designed for neighbourhood plans. It is intended to cover plan-making at far greater geographic scale and to obtain assistance on issues with which no voluntary neighbourhood planning group could be expected to grapple, no matter the extent of the assistance. His point about provisions for support to neighbourhood governance in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is noted, but I believe they are intended for a much wider remit than planning—no doubt we will debate what that might be during the course of that Bill. Neighbourhood plans are not supposed to be local plans in miniature, and they should not be treated as such.

As far as commencement of Sections 98 and 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act are concerned, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that these provisions will be commenced alongside our wider reforms, which we think will allow all the legislative changes to be viewed in the round, rather than having to be pieced together over time.

I turn next to Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am grateful to him, as always, for his constructive engagement and for all his amendments, including this one. He raised important concerns at Second Reading around the potential for neighbourhood plans to conflict with national policy, especially in relation to development on grey-belt land. I assure the Committee that neighbourhood plans cannot be used to prevent housing development and they cannot designate grey-belt land, nor can they unilaterally ignore national policy.

The test of “have regard to” is a well-established one—I hesitate to discuss this with a lawyer of such eminence as the noble Lord—across planning and beyond. It requires serious consideration of the policy and its objectives, and a rational basis for any departure. The starting point for any such test, including in neighbourhood planning, is that the regard should normally see the policy being followed. This point, among others, should be rigorously tested by the examiner during the public examination of a neighbourhood plan. We think this is the right balance. National policy is designed to be flexible. It must be, because local circumstances and needs vary widely, and so it is important that flexibility is maintained.

Amendment 185M, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to insert a requirement into the development consent order process for a Secretary of State to consider neighbourhood plans when making a decision on a nationally significant project, and to allow her to limit variations to neighbourhood plans—that should be “him”, sorry; this was obviously a note written before the change of the Secretary of State. While I agree it is essential that neighbourhood plans inform the Government’s decision-making on these projects, this amendment is not necessary to deliver that outcome.

As the Housing Minister said in the other place, the DCO process has been designed to enable timely decisions to be taken on nationally significant infrastructure projects, taking account of national need and priority, as well as local impacts. Neighbourhood plans give communities the ability to shape and direct development and the use of land at a local level, and play an important role in the planning system. For NSIP applications, national policy statements are the primary policy framework; they set out the need for NSIPs, guidance for promoters and assessment criteria, and guidance for decision-making.

The Planning Act 2008 process provides ample opportunities for input from local communities and local authorities, which I know is the noble Baroness’s key concern. As part of the decision-making process, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters considered both important and relevant; this can include matters of local significance. Local communities can make representations as part of the examination process, which can address whether proposals comply with or otherwise impact on issues of concern set out in relevant neighbourhood plans. Local authorities are fully engaged in the DCO process and are invited to submit local impact reports setting out the potential impacts of the project on the local area. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the local impact report in deciding an application.

As a matter of law, the Secretary of State must decide any application for a development consent order in accordance with any relevant national policy statement, except to the extent that any limited statutory exemption applies. Where there is no relevant national policy statement in effect, the Secretary of State must have regard to specified matters, including the local impact report and any other matters which the Secretary of State considers both important and relevant to the decision. These safeguards, which are already embedded in the statutory process, are sufficient to ensure that Secretaries of State take account of existing development plans, including neighbourhood plans, as appropriate. Where there is a relevant national policy statement in effect, this amendment could serve to frustrate the clear legal requirement on the Secretary of State to determine an application in accordance with the NPS.

This amendment would add another unnecessary requirement to the DCO process, which is contradictory to the Government’s ambitions of streamlining the planning system and the DCO decision-making process. Furthermore, the Secretary of State currently has no role in approving neighbourhood plans. It would therefore not be appropriate to enable him to make variations to them, as this is, rightly, a decision for communities. For these reasons, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. I will take it back and reply to him in writing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I start by thanking the Minister for her reply. I reiterate what my noble friend said earlier: it appears that she has had regard to our comments but her response is not consistent with our proposals, and hence I am disappointed with that response. We will take some time carefully to consider these areas of disagreement. Our focus will be on how the planning system can deliver the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised, and how these can be quality homes that people need and that are part of communities and serve them.

Amendments 154, 161 and 163, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, concern the benefits of a neighbourhood priority statement. I completely agree with his comments: producing a neighbourhood plan can be quite onerous, but coming up with a statement of priorities can be done much more readily and be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I wrote to the noble Lord during the course of a previous Bill to set out which provisions would be implemented, with rough dates for when they would come forward. I hope he has received that letter.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I will review my correspondence; I may have missed it, but I will double-check. I apologise if that is the case.

As I acknowledged earlier, Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner covers similar ground to my own amendments. We are grateful for my noble friend’s contribution and for his determination to drive forward housebuilding and ensure consistency across the planning system. We will continue to lean on his wisdom on these issues.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Through the mechanism of interrupting my noble friend, I say to the Minister that it would be jolly helpful to have sight of those details about when some of the commencement orders might be made. As my noble friend said, we could save ourselves an awful lot of trouble on Report if we knew that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before I comment on Amendment 185, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I will describe my view of a pyramid. A pyramid needs foundations and is built from the ground up; I tend to take that view rather than the helicopter view. The amendment requires that neighbourhood plans be given consideration in the local plan. That is a similar point to my own—that local plans should build on neighbourhood plans. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Amendment 150ZA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments, and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Candour, co-operation and transparency are key issues in planning.

Amendment 158, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to impose a duty of candour on local planning authorities and their officers when carrying out planning functions. This Government completely support the principle of this amendment. It is important that local authorities and their officers act with candour when carrying out their duties. I hope that I can provide the noble Lord with assurance that this amendment is not needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, this is a crucial amendment, not least for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Young, put forward. We are going to go on about this until we have an overall demand that this is how we think about matters. We have to recognise that unless we make all our decisions in the context of recovering our biodiversity and protecting our nation and the world against climate change, we are going to make a mess of the decisions we make. That is absolutely central.

I know the Government will be inclined to say it is already there—it is in the guidance, and it is all very proper—but I am afraid that there are many in local authorities who do not see this as the priority it ought to be. I really must ask the Minister to think seriously about the fact that every local authority at least must know that it has to think about things through this lens, because it is the most important lens for all of us.

I live in, and used to represent, a very agricultural constituency, and anyone who has seen the effect of the drought on all our farms at the moment will realise just how desperate the effect of climate change is, particularly for farmers who, only 18 months ago, could not get their crops out because of the water and could not plant because it was still too wet to do so.

People do not understand the impact of climate change today—it is amazing. I am upset and concerned that the good common view of all major political parties is beginning to be eroded. Only by working together are we going to solve these problems. It is no good just saying, “Oh well, we can put it off. We can’t do it by this or that time”. I congratulate the Government on sticking to the fact that we have to do this very quickly indeed. The trouble is that the timetable is not in our hands. We have allowed the timetable to be led by the fact that nature is now reacting to what we have done, and doing so in an increasingly extreme way.

I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and consider an overall view of this in a whole lot of other areas, so that we do not have to have this discussion on a permanent basis. Frankly, it ought to be the given for everything we do that we look at in the light of the fact of climate change. If there are Members of the Committee who have still not seen this, I remind them that it is necessary for growth. If we do not do this, we will not be a country in which people will invest, and we will not have new jobs or the kind of society, nature and climate that will be suitable not only for our children and grandchildren but for us. At my age, I can still say that we have to do this, otherwise the climate in which I will go on living will be increasingly unhappy for me, and for my children and grandchildren. Please accept this amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Amendment 187A, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to probe the practical meaning of the new definitions, particularly the “achievement of sustainable development” and “mitigation” of climate change. Repetition signals importance; the fact that the same definition appears three times in such a short clause suggests it would carry significant legal and practical weight. That makes it vital that Parliament understands precisely what is meant. These terms, though laudable, are broad and open to interpretation. Without clear parameters, they risk being applied inconsistently by different authorities. If undefined, in unmeasurable or unenforceable terms, they could slip into the realm of aspiration rather than action, undermining their purpose as guiding principles for planning and infrastructure decisions. Ambiguity would not only weaken decision-making but could result in delays, disputes and costly appeals.

I appreciate that the Government’s Amendment 187 is not grouped here, but it is relevant. That amendment creates a new clause clarifying the relationship between different types of development corporation, ensuring that any overlap is resolved in favour of the higher tier authority. Will the Government consider committing to something similar in relation to these definitions, so that we secure the same kind of clarity and consistency?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for that short but important debate. Climate change affects everybody. Like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I live in a rural area and when taking the dog out for a walk during the summer I could see that the crops were not what they should be. We know this affects everybody in their everyday lives. It is something that this Government, with our net zero policies, et cetera, take very seriously.

Amendment 164, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would place a statutory duty on local authorities to contribute to targets set out under the Environment Act and Climate Change Act and to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act, and achieve targets set out under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.

We already have existing tools and duties that support efforts to contribute towards targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, strengthened under the Environment Act, so there is already a legal requirement. The latter Act requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy, as well as to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England. Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, drive clean growth, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, and it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a statutory duty would bring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I very much appreciate what the noble Lord said, As I said, these requirements are a duty on all public authorities, and I am sure we will keep revising this. We know how important it is that we get this right. We will continue to press it with local authorities and all public organisations to achieve that end.

Amendment 187A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to probe the need to make additional climate change provision in respect of the new towns development corporation. This model is currently the only one that has any climate change objectives built into its legislation. Through the Bill, we are going further by including climate change mitigation and adaptation in the already existing aim to contribute to sustainable development and have regard to the desirability of good design. The same objectives will be replicated for all the other development corporation models which currently have no specific objectives in relation to climate change written into their legislative framework. Where development corporations are conferred the role of local planning authority for local plans, they will automatically fall under the planning legislation duties which place specific obligations in relation to sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, not all development corporations will take on the local planning role.

With this in mind, regardless of whether the development corporation takes on planning functions, they will all be required to meet this objective. The UK’s climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme weather events. The effects of extreme weather and nature loss are already here and have impacted all our lives. But there are small wins which can have a big impact. By updating the current framework and making it consistent across the development corporation models and the National Planning Policy Framework, our message is clear that we will place sustainable development and climate change at the heart of all development corporations and guide the use of their powers.

I hope my explanation has reassured the noble Baronesses sufficiently, and I kindly ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

To be clear, my point was about the clarity of those definitions and whether they could be somewhat better defined, referring in particular to “achievement of sustainable development” and “mitigation of climate change”. It was not about climate change in general, but rather our need for clarity on the definitions in those clauses, because they are fairly broad-brush.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We believe that what is already there is specific and offers clarity. It is fundamental to the planning regime that we want to bring in. If the noble Lord wants, I can write to him in greater detail about what is on offer here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington: he and I have shared a number of sporting events together. I had the privilege of playing rugby, cricket, squash, golf, tennis—I am not quite as fit as I was, I am afraid, coming up to 89.

On the preservation of playing fields, pitches and courts, I remember when, in 1968, amazingly, there was a change in the government of the London Borough of Islington, and I had the privilege of being the leader of the incoming party. The first challenge that was put on my desk was Highbury Corner: the change to the roundabout there would take away four tennis courts. I said, “Have we not talked to the GLC about this problem?” I was told that we had but had had no positive response. This seemed to me absolutely wrong for a section of London that, on the whole, is not at all well off, and Highbury Fields was fundamental to the people of Islington. I had to go to see the then leader of the Greater London Council and, after some fairly hectic and heated discussion—in which it was pointed out to me how many millions, allegedly, it was going to take to alter the planning of the roundabout—they agreed to look at it again. I am pleased to say that those tennis courts were never removed and are still there today.

We also have to realise that the numbers taking part in sport today have grown hugely. You only have to look at sport on TNT, on television. How many of our wives were as active in sport as our daughters and granddaughters are? A very small percentage. All women’s sport has grown exponentially. It does not matter what it is—rugby, football, cricket or tennis. All have grown hugely. Against that background, the fundamental point about this amendment is so important.

I now have to declare a specific interest: I am a member of Wimbledon. This is the most successful tennis tournament in the world. It has grown exponentially over the last century. It set up a foundation—and I was one of those involved in the very early stages of that—to help those who, for financial reasons, were less well off and needed help. It attracts visitors from all over the world, and it is the biggest sporting event in the UK economy—and I did not personally understand that until I double-checked it.

There is a tangential amendment to this, which is Amendment 227E. I see my noble friend Lord Banner is sitting in his place. Sadly, I had heart failure in late December; I cannot take part as much as I would wish in your Lordships’ House, and I could not be here for that amendment because of the problems and restrictions I have, which have to be looked after. I would otherwise have spoken to that as well.

I merely re-emphasise to the Minister—I probably do not need to, really—that sport in general, and tennis in particular, is growing all the time. How wonderful it is to see our young people, and young people from all over the world, taking part. I hope that, when the Government reflect on this, they will recognise the absolute importance of this amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments has given me something of a sense of déjà vu. This is not to diminish their importance—far from it. These are serious and considered proposals. They strike at an issue that has surfaced time and again in our debates: the protection and promotion of those spaces which enable sport, recreation and play. Only last week, in moving his Amendment 138A, my noble friend Lord Moynihan reminded us, as he so frequently does, of the profound benefits that flow from creating space for sport and physical activity.

It is not merely about fitness, although that alone would be reason enough; it is about community cohesion, opportunities for young people, the long-term health of the nation, team-building, learning to get on with colleagues and working together. Well-being should be among the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies.

I regret that the Government were not able to give more ground on that occasion, but there is a replay. We have VAR, and there is an opportunity for them to reconsider and give a clearer signal recognising the urgency of embedding health and well-being into the very fabric of planning. Perhaps today, in responding to this group, the Minister might move a little further.

Amendment 165, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is on the preservation of playing fields and pitches. They are not luxuries; they are the bedrock of grass-roots sport. They are where future Olympians take their first steps, but more importantly, they are where countless young people gain the habits of teamwork, discipline and healthy living. Once lost to development, they are rarely, if ever, replaced. It is therefore entirely right that a planning authority should be required to treat their preservation as a priority, not an afterthought.

In a similar vein, Amendment 179 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, reminds us of the importance of children’s play. A child who has a safe, stimulating play space nearby is a child who will grow in confidence, develop social bonds and establish the foundations of a healthy life. Deny them that, and we entrench disadvantage from the very start. I therefore commend both noble Lords for their contributions. I hope the Government will today recognise that without firm protection we risk losing something that cannot be rebuilt: our green lungs, our playing fields and the spaces where our children first learn to run, play and thrive.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for this debate on an issue that the Government take seriously. Amendments 165 and 179 are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am very grateful to them for raising these issues. There is nothing in the Bill that removes the strong protection for playing fields, especially the commitments in the NPPF. Play spaces are vital for supporting the health and well-being of local communities and as such are already considered through existing planning policy and guidance which collectively protect their provision. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that development plans should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. This includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal, including playing fields. Development plans then use those assessments to determine what provision of recreational space is required for local communities.

In December last year, the Government updated planning policy to make specific reference to safeguarding formal play spaces in the National Planning Policy Framework, enhancing the protection of those spaces where they may be threatened by other development types. The framework is clear that play spaces can be lost only if the facility is no longer of community need or there is a justified alternative somewhere else. Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework when preparing a local or strategic plan or making a planning decision is a legal requirement.  

 In recognition of the importance of play space provision for communities, we are also considering what more we can say about this important area as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision-making, on which we intend to consult this year. Further considerations on play spaces are set out in national design guidance that encourages the provision of such spaces and sets out how they can be integrated into new development.  As an aside, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are aware that there is now an APPG on play, which was established by Tom Hayes MP.

The Government are in the process of updating that guidance. A new version is expected to be published later this year and play spaces have been reviewed as part of the update. Play spaces can be funded by developer contribution, secured through Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy, the CIL, which play an important role in helping to deliver the infrastructure required to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening this system.

The Government have established the parks working group, with local authorities and industry specialists, to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces, including improving the number of playgrounds. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will help deliver funding to enable new neighbourhood boards across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. Upgrading play areas is a possible scheme that such funding will be used for, enabling the enhanced provision of public areas of play for many communities.

The Government also believe that the amendments may limit a local authority’s ability to respond to its community’s needs around play spaces by setting an overly rigid framework of assessments and legislative requirements.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, once more, and reiterate my acknowledgment of how important play spaces are for local communities and the role that our planning system plays in enabling and protecting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have already debated some complex topics in Committee and the issue of land value capture certainly continues in that vein.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Yes, it does.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Yes—maybe we need a review of the Committee stage of this Bill.

I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his amendment and agree with the spirit of his proposals. Greater transparency is positive, and most good authorities would have that information readily available. I can say that, for my own council, I could phone up and get a spreadsheet of exactly how much each development has contributed in my ward.

As an ex-chairman of the LGA, I just want to say something in defence of councils and the fact that there is a considerable sum, so to speak, sitting on the balance books. As an ex-leader, I know how difficult it is to get these big projects over the line. Even a good secondary school can cost £25 million or £30 million; you will be reliant on four or five different Section 106 payments for that, you will be waiting for grants, and you will have to get the land. These things can take three, four, five or six years. To go on to the topic of bypasses, that is an entirely different timescale. We should look not just at the quantum of money but at how difficult it is to pull these sums together and get things going.

I come to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, where I think that review might even address some of these timescale issues. The noble Baroness has raised a number of important issues, particularly around the delivery of infrastructure promised through development agreements, the use and protection of land set aside for community purposes and the broader question of how the public might benefit when land values increase sharply. I hope that the Government will reflect seriously on the principles raised and, in that spirit, I want to put a few questions to the Minister, which I hope she might be able to respond to today; if not, perhaps she could come back at a later time.

First, what assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of existing mechanisms, principally Section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, in ensuring that local communities receive the schools, highways, GP surgeries and other facilities promised? Too often, we hear of permissions granted on the basis that there will be improved infrastructure and then, over time, it is slowly whittled away and we find new housing without that infrastructure and communities having to cope with more traffic on the roads, more crowded GP surgeries, schools with portakabins and so forth. If residents see new developments going up without the infrastructure that they were promised, they will lose confidence in the planning system and will therefore fight every single development, which some of us do find. We need reforms that get trust back in the system.

Secondly, does the Minister agree that there is a risk that infrastructure commitments can in practice be watered down or renegotiated, leaving communities without these services?

Thirdly, on land value capture more broadly, does the Minister believe that the current system allows sufficient benefit from rising land values to be shared with the wider public, or does she see scope for reform, as envisaged in Amendment 218?

Fourthly, will the Government commit to reviewing international examples of land value capture—for instance, models used in parts of Europe or Asia—to see whether there are lessons that might be drawn for a UK context?

Finally, how do the Government intend to balance the need to secure fair contributions for infrastructure and community benefit while ensuring that development remains viable and attractive to investors? I appreciate that these are difficult issues, but it is important that we resolve them.

Moving on, Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raises a really important issue. We have a housing crisis and we need to look at all solutions that may resolve it. I commend her for once again placing the needs of young people at the centre of our deliberations. The question before us is a delicate but important one. It concerns whether planning authorities should be permitted to approve high-quality transitional accommodation for young people leaving supported housing or at the risk of homelessness in circumstances where our national space standards would otherwise disallow such provision. The case for doing so is strong. The housing crisis is not abstract; it is a real matter facing the young of today. Too many of them find themselves renting late into life, sofa surfing or returning to the parental home, not through choice but because there are no realistic alternatives. At precisely the stage in life when young people should be gaining independence, putting down roots, building families and contributing to the wider economy, instead they face barriers at every turn.

We are all familiar with the macroeconomic challenges of house prices that have outpaced wages, a lack of genuinely affordable starter homes and, in certain parts of the country, rents which are, frankly, extortionate. That is why the noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of stepping-stone accommodation, a flexible transitional model that can bridge the gap between institutional supported housing and permanent independence.

But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of the amendment, but I sound a note of caution. Our space standards were developed for a good reason. They exist to prevent the return of poor-quality housing, of rabbit-hutch flats, of homes that compromise health, dignity and long-term liveability. If we are to disapply such standards in certain cases, we must do so with clear safeguards in place. So, I urge that, if this amendment is taken forward, it is accompanied by precise definitions, strict planning guidance and a rigorous framework, to ensure that genuine transitional high-quality schemes can benefit from the flexibilities proposed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this group relating to community infrastructure, land value capture and space standards for stepping-stone accommodation.

I turn first to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which would impose new reporting requirements on local planning authorities and introduce new mechanisms to ensure that works funded through developer contributions are delivered. The stories about the delivery of Section 106 and CIL are legendary. My two favourite examples were a bus stop delivered in an area that did not have a bus route, which was wonderful, and a playground that had not been built to safety standards that would ever allow it to be opened, so it never opened—it got closed again before it even opened. We get some nonsense stories like this, and I accept that that is not acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough would shift the process for habitats regulations assessment from the level of individual planning applications to the local plan stage or, in the case of Amendment 185G, the spatial development strategy. I appreciate this amendment. It is in line with comments I made earlier about EDPs, which should be part of the spatial development strategy, rather than separate. The whole point is moving things upstream and doing them once for the whole area rather than having to have multiple assessments with each planning application. We had comments earlier about the sheer bureaucracy and the difficulty of some of these planning applications. My noble friend Lord Fuller is not in his place, but he made a point about smaller applications being burdened with large amounts of paperwork that could be done as part of the local plan.

The intention is clear: it is to guide developers more effectively towards sites most appropriate for development and to speed up and simplify the subsequent application process. That is a constructive alternative approach to how we currently handle habitats assessments, and it merits serious consideration.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, have the Government assessed the benefits of carrying out work earlier in the process? If not, will they commit to doing so? Secondly, how can the Government ensure that local authorities have the capacity to do that and that duplication is avoided?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Young for her amendments on habitats regulations assessments. Amendment 185F seeks to ensure that local plans are in compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and that the local authority preparing the plan carries out full environmental impact assessments when proposing sites for development. It is important that the environmental impacts of a local plan are properly assessed as part of their preparation, arrangements for which are set out in existing legislation.

All local plans are already required to undertake a habitats regulations assessment where they have the potential for impacts on a site or species protected under the regulations. In addition, all local plans are required to carry out an assessment incorporating the requirements of a strategic environmental assessment where a local plan will result in likely significant effects on the environment. This obligation is for a strategic environmental assessment rather than an environmental impact assessment, as the latter requires in-depth information about a specific development proposal—information that will not generally be available at the plan-making stage. However, any development that comes forward subsequent to the plan’s adoption that, due to its size, nature or location, is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will require an environmental impact assessment. With this reassurance about the way that environmental impacts are considered during plan preparation and in support of its implementation, I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

In Amendment 185G, my noble friend raises an important issue about how habitats regulations requirements will apply to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Bill already applies the assessment requirements under the habitats regulations to spatial development strategies. This means that strategic planning authorities will be required to carry out habitats regulations assessments where necessary, bringing new spatial development strategies in line with the spatial development strategy for London. The proposed amendment would require full assessment of specific sites allocated within spatial development strategies, yet the Bill expressly does not allow them to allocate specific sites. It will therefore not be possible for strategic planning authorities to undertake habitats regulations assessments for specific sites as part of SDS preparation. This would need to happen, where needed, later in the planning process.

Amendment 242A would limit the scope of environmental delivery plans to a narrow list of environmental impacts on protected sites: namely, nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I share my noble friend’s desire to ensure that EDPs are used only where they can be shown to deliver for the environment. This is why the Government sought to clarify their position in the recent government amendments, which highlight that the Secretary of State could make an EDP only where the conservation measures materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature. That ensures that EDPs could be brought forward only to address issues that would benefit from a strategic approach and would deliver an environmental uplift that goes beyond the status quo position required under the current system.

With the assurance that an EDP would be made only where it would deliver that environmental uplift, we feel it is right to allow EDPs to be brought forward to address the range of environmental impacts set out in the Bill. Limiting types of environmental impacts that EDPs can address would remove the ability for EDPs to respond to other environmental impacts that may result from development, where a strategic approach could deliver in line with the overall improvement test, especially to protected species. With that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He referred to two different utilities. Energy should, in effect, be unlimited in the resource available, but it is concerning to a number of communities that, suddenly, energy projects, substations and so on are popping up around the country and lots of planning applications are going in alongside them from solar farms and for other significant uses of data, including data centres and other AI infrastructure. As a consequence, what proportion of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3a land is now being taken up with planning applications, due to not only solar farms but all the AI-related infrastructure to which the amendments refer? I do not know whether the Minister has that information; if not, I would be grateful if she could write to us.

On Amendment 185P, unlike electricity and energy, water is very much a constrained utility in this country. The amount of water available to keep powering homes, businesses and other activities, including energy stations, is significantly under threat. That is one reason why there will be one of the most significant contractions in the amount of water available to the farming sector in just two years’ time. There is something to be said about the amount of water that we think will be used by AI data centres and the like. At the moment, there seems to be no thinking about how we prioritise the different industrial sectors across our country. Nor am I aware—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that we are necessarily considering this in planning guidance, although there will be something more widely about whether water is available. This is a really important activity and the Government should absolutely be looking at it, regardless of whether this goes into the Bill.

When I did the plan for water, on making sure there was a clean supply of water—that was part of the intention—and thinking ahead, I do not think that we had really given much thought to this sort of consumption that we are now due to have. To give an example, one reason for the major delays to Sizewell C was that, all of a sudden, the water company responsible said that it could not necessarily guarantee the amount of water to be used in the construction and operation of the nuclear energy plant. That has led to Sizewell C having to think about desalination plants and reservoirs but, at the moment, there are constraints on how some of these things can be spread across sectors in the generation of a nuclear energy station. It is imperative that we think about where else this could happen; to be serious, in terms of the building planned and business growth in the east of England, after Sizewell C was given its consent, no other business has been eligible to get or ask for any more water.

This is a genuinely critical area that the Government need to look at, which is why I welcome the amendment put forward by the noble Earl today. I hope that they will give it serious consideration and I encourage the noble Earl to bring it back on Report.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I suspect that many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House are not yet fully aware of the growth, scale and significance of what we call AI-related infrastructure—the hardware and software required to create, train and deploy AI-powered applications and solutions. If we are to fully harness the benefits of AI, unlocking these new efficiencies, fuelling economic growth and creating opportunities for infrastructure investment, we must be mindful of the practical impacts that come with it, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Coffey have pointed out, with the two key areas being energy use and water.

As the noble Earl has highlighted, the sheer computational power required for advanced AI models is immense, leading to rising energy demand. Equally, the cooling systems necessary for AI data centres can involve significant water usage. These are important considerations and it makes sense that our planning system and national guidance should take them into account to ensure that infrastructure growth is both sustainable and resilient. I do not believe it is the noble Earl’s intention that these amendments hold back innovation; rather, they call for statutory recognition of these impacts within the planning system, supported by a clear national strategy, guidance and reporting requirements. That seems to me both proportionate and sensible.

The noble Earl’s Amendments 185R and 185S rightly highlight the urgent challenge of climate change and the central role that planning and development must play in addressing it. Their emphasis on ensuring a resilient and sustainable built environment is both timely and welcome, and I place on record our appreciation of the sentiment behind them. At the same time, however, it is important to strike a balance, supporting sustainability while avoiding overly burdensome requirements or excessive regulation that could impede housing delivery or economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to respond to these concerns.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his amendments on AI infrastructure and community energy projects. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue of the water and power required by data centres. Before I respond, I should say that we need to be very proud of our AI in this country. We have the third largest AI market in the world. The AI sector was valued at £72 billion in 2024 and is projected to be worth over £800 billion by 2035. Over £44 billion of investment has been announced for data centres in the UK since July 2024, which is a very good record, but of course the noble Earl raises some very important issues that run alongside this.

Turning first to Amendment 185N, noble Lords will be aware that we had an in-depth discussion in Committee last week on overheating and climate change, and I appreciate the intent behind this amendment of considering this matter in the context of emerging AI technologies. During my time as a Minister—and until last week I had responsibility for AI in my department; it has moved on now—I had the chance to see some of the real opportunities that AI presents. It has the potential to transform our public services, secure growth and raise living standards, and not least to support our colleagues in planning in order to help them move things on much more quickly. It is this Government’s ambition to harness it for the good of our country, which is why we are actively monitoring the data centre sector and published the first government Estimate of Data Centre Capacity in May 2025, which includes measures indicating energy use.

Some data centre applications will have the option of being consented through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. Officials from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are in the process of developing a national policy statement to guide this process, which will also be treated, importantly, as a materially significant consideration in the local authority-led planning process. This statement will include an assessment of the sustainability of the sector, and we are aiming for publication in 2026. The Government have also, as the noble Earl mentioned, established the AI Energy Council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DESNZ, to provide expert insight into the energy needs of AI and the role of AI in an efficient and sustainable energy system. To do this, the council has established a sustainability working group which will explore options to accelerate the development of low-carbon energy solutions to power AI, tools to reduce carbon emissions from AI, and metrics to support energy efficiency.

Amendment 185P is focused on the water use of AI infrastructure. The Government are committed to reducing the use of public water supply by 20% by 2037-38, with a 9% interim target for non-household reduction by 31 March 2038. As part of this commitment, Defra is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Business and Trade and the Environment Agency to determine how water efficiency and demand in data centres can be improved. Data centres use a variety of cooling systems, with only a small proportion using entirely water-based ones. Water-cooled data centres can use water very intensively, as has already been highlighted, particularly at times of peak demand, such as hotter periods. In summer 2025, the Environment Agency conducted a survey with the data centre sector, through techUK, the trade association for data centres, to gain a better understanding of current water needs. As set out, the Government are developing a national policy statement to guide data centre planning applications, and the water efficiency of data centres will form part of this assessment, including options for water reuse and non-potable water systems.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked me about the use of agricultural land for data centres. The MPPF is, and the future land use framework will be, very clear that grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land should be protected and used only where there is no alternative. That is already set out in planning policy.

Amendment 185R, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require planning authorities to consider and support the inclusion of community energy projects in new developments. I agree with the noble Earl that renewable energy generation in households—we have already had a discussion on this—is a vital approach to help cut bills for families, boost our national energy security and deliver the clean energy mission. On the practicalities of increasing renewable energy generation in new developments, I am pleased to say that my department is working very closely with DESNZ on the future homes standard. The future homes standard will include renewable electricity generation on the majority of new homes through routes like rooftop solar. I therefore consider this amendment to be unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the whole purpose of listed building legislation is to ensure the integrity of the listed structure. The requirement to apply for listed building consent is in order to protect the building from inappropriate changes which would compromise the listing. Many people in civic society care deeply about retaining and protecting listed buildings. As listed building applications are free, as we debated on an earlier day in Committee, that helps those who own listed buildings—there is no cost to it. Heritage planning officers know that some buildings need a fundamental change of use if they are not to lie empty and decay. That is okay, as long as it goes through a listed building consent application.

I know that these are large changes, but I will give one example. In my own town, there is a grade 2* listed building which is a former united reformed chapel—there are lots of great methodist, congregational or united reform chapels in the north. It was altered to become an Indian restaurant, allegedly the largest in the world, with room for 1,000 people. Subsequent alterations to the access, inevitably with lots of stairs to reach the front, were given permission, but the listed building consent application enabled local people to know that a treasured building was not being changed without the appropriate permissions. Even if such changes are relatively minor in comparison to the structure as a whole, constant minor changes could nevertheless add up to a big change that would not be appropriate and compromise the integrity of the listing.

As your Lordships can perhaps tell from the comments I have made, I am not a supporter of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Coffey raises an interesting issue on exemption for listed buildings for internal repairs and renovations. I understand the desire for a lightening of the regulatory burden and that this a probing amendment, but there is also a need for balance. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

It is important to remember in these situations that the property being compulsorily acquired is a home and that the displaced home owner will almost certainly need the home loss payment to find a replacement home. Some modification of the blanket application of exclusions from such payments would make the proposed new clause fairer and more reasonable. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the principle behind this amendment is an important one and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, deserve careful consideration. It is a sensitive matter, particularly where an individual’s poor health or other infirmities are concerned, and we will want to look at this area closely. More broadly, we are concerned about the extensive nature of this section of the Bill, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for bringing us this amendment on compulsory purchase compensation rules. The amendment would ensure that home owners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO.

Under the current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with an improvement notice, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments is excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. This Bill amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. However, where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be entitled to compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation or other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. The provision introduced by this Bill will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring sub-standard properties back into use as housing and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.

The amendment would ensure that, where an owner can show that they did not deliberately allow their property—subject to an improvement notice or order—to fall into disrepair or to remain derelict and that it was the result of ill health, other infirmity or a lack of financial resources, they can still make a claim for a home loss payment. We believe that it is for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the Land Compensation Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the property owner. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 221 and 223, which are in my name. Before I do so, I should perhaps remind the Committee of the interest I declared at Second Reading: I have been the recipient of three party wall notices in the past three years. That has brought to my attention the whole issue of the practicality of the party wall Act.

Both amendments deal with the issue of party walls, which is particularly pertinent in London and other cities where residential buildings either adjoin or are close to other housing. Amendment 221 calls for a review of the party wall Act. However, I will deal with Amendment 223 first. This amendment is applicable mainly to residential buildings and stops any developer interfering with the structural integrity of somebody else’s house without their permission. That simply means that no one should have their foundations affected by the work next door.

The oft-used quote, “An Englishman’s home is his castle”, comes to mind. We all presume that we have property rights and, if we own a home, that we should be able to live in it without interference. I am not a human rights expert, and I know that there are many noble and learned Lords in the House of Lords who are, so I tiptoe into this issue with nervousness. However, it is my understanding that human rights law protects against interference with property. That is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 1 protects the right to

“the peaceful enjoyment of … possessions”

and Article 8

“protects your right to respect for your … home”.

Someone else interfering with the foundations of a house causes stress and anxiety to the owner, because it has the ability to undermine and/or badly damage the property. In fact, there have been cases of houses becoming unstable and, in some rare cases, actually collapsing. I understand that at least one fatality has been caused.

This is not the first time this issue has been raised in the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, put forward a Private Member’s Bill—the Planning (Subterranean Development) Bill—in 2015 to address this very issue. Most of the interference with other people’s foundations comes about because of basements being dug or floors lowered. Having personally been on the receiving end of this, I can attest to the huge distress, noise and interference that this causes, to which I and many others have been subjected. It is therefore time to stop others in the future being affected in this way. The development should not interfere physically with anyone else’s property without their permission.

This brings me to Amendment 221, which calls for a review of the Party Wall etc. Act. This Act was bought in as a Private Member’s Bill in 1996 by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I understand that it was meant to address circumstances where damage had occurred and to deal with this meant that the neighbouring house would also be affected. I understand that this was bought in with good intentions. However, it was in the days before the fashion for digging basements. The provisions in the Act are very one-sided and basically take away the rights from the adjoining owner so that damage—sometimes criminal damage—trespass and nuisance may occur.

Moreover, the party wall Act appears to take this work out of planning, so there is no mechanism to allow an adjoining owner to object. It robs the adjoining owner of any rights to stop the work, even where it may adversely affect their property. This unfairness is exacerbated by the way that surveyors have interpreted this Act. Although the adjoining owner is allowed to appoint a surveyor, unlike most professionals representing a client the surveyors choose to act neutrally, often refusing the adjoining owner any input or say about what happens to their property—while the surveyor to those doing the development is briefed by their client on what to do.

It is almost 30 years since the Act was passed. There has not been any post-legislative scrutiny and there has been no review. I tabled a number of Questions on this issue in October last year, asking whether the Government would conduct a review. In July 2021, Newcastle University’s School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape produced Bunkering Down, a report which cited that 7,328 basements had been improved in 32 London boroughs between 2008 and 2019, saying that these have now become

“as normal as loft conversions”.

The department has, by its own admission, received correspondence from parliamentarians and members of the public alike concerning the efficacy and application of the Act over the years. Any review or consultation must include this correspondence in its evidence.

I thank the Minister, who found time to see me about this. One of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have property rights. People need to be reassured that their home is safe and that all things are in line with the ECHR. I hope that, if the Minister does not feel that she can accept this amendment, she will commit to a consultation and a review forthwith. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling Amendments 221 and 223 regarding the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which is an important piece of legislation providing a legal framework to resolve disputes between property owners concerning shared walls.

Amendment 221 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the party wall Act and clarify whether it is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether it needs amending to update its position in planning and development processes. We should all recognise the importance in amending previous legislation so that it is consistent with current law and practice. I therefore hope that the Government take this amendment seriously.

Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that the structural integrity of homes is protected by requiring the permission of neighbouring property owners who may be affected by the development rights conferred by this Act. This amendment clearly aims to uphold people’s existing property rights and their structural integrity. This is an important principle which I look forward to the Government addressing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for her amendments relating to party walls and for meeting with me to help me understand the issues that she has faced relating to this.

Amendment 221 seeks to create a legal duty to review the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. The party wall Act provides a framework for preventing or resolving disputes between neighbours relating to party walls, party structures, boundary walls and excavations near buildings. While I have no objection in principle to reviewing legislation, it has been the view of successive Governments since the late 1990s that the party wall Act does, indeed, deliver what it was intended to do. It creates a framework for communication and agreement between adjoining property owners when work needs to be carried out to a shared structure, while the Building Regulations establish the minimum legal standards and functional requirements in new building work.

The party wall Act already requires that the owner of a building carrying out work under the Act must serve any adjoining property owner a party structure notice stating: the name and address of the building owner proposing the work; the nature and particulars of the proposed work, including, in cases where the building owner proposes to construct special foundations, plans, sections and details of construction of the special foundations together with reasonable particulars of the loads to be carried thereby; and the date on which the proposed work will begin.

Amendment 223 seeks to create a legal duty for building owners to gain permission from the adjoining property to carry out any works under the party wall Act. As I mentioned, the party wall Act provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, to protect neighbouring buildings from the impact of building works and hold those completing works accountable for any negative impact. Ensuring structural compliance when undertaking work is already regulated under Structure: Approved Document A of the Building Regulations. Any development work must comply with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. Amending the party wall Act will therefore have no regulatory effect on the structural safety of buildings beyond what is already regulated for. The party wall Act should therefore continue to provide a robust framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, party structures and excavations near neighbouring buildings.

I accept that there are occasions when things go wrong and I am very happy to continue the dialogue with the noble Baroness, but for all the reasons I have set out, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

That has enabled me to strike out much of my planned contribution—noble Lords may wish to cheer at this point—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Thank you. See you for breakfast!

On a more serious note, I ask the Minister perhaps to write to me to set out what these opportunities are, how they will be made available, and how the appropriate payment rates will be determined. I am not suggesting that she can quantify them now, but what is the process? I do not think the Bill makes that clear, unless I have missed it.

I will take the three amendments in my name as a group, as they are linked. They address the actual delivery of the conservation measures set out in environmental delivery plans, once those have been established. Clause 76(3) recognises that and says:

“Natural England may pay another person to take conservation measures”.


But the Bill lacks a clear, simple and manageable series of steps for Natural England to follow to achieve that. My Amendment 318B would turn the “may” into a “must”, meaning that third parties should be engaged. Incidentally, I do not think that those would be entirely commercial; they could be non-governmental organisations that are able to deliver.

My Amendments 320B and 325ZA set out a series of rational steps for delivering conservation works, which are: first, hold a competitive tender process; secondly, if there are no willing bidders, seek to buy the land at market value; thirdly, if that really proves impossible, proceed to compulsory purchase as a last resort. These amendments would strengthen the Bill by setting out a clear set of sequential and proportionate process stages for the all-important implementation of conservation works. This would be helpful both to Natural England and to those wishing to engage with delivering the EDP process. I hope the Government will recognise this as a helpful clarification that will support the effective implementation of the plans under Natural England supervision.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I believe this amendment has merit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just said, it is important that there is a comprehensive overview of the cumulative impact of a national strategic infrastructure project on a wider area than just the single project that is being considered.

In response to the first group, the Minister was very clear in stating that the Government wanted a more strategic approach to planning. I have issues with a more strategic approach, because it is often the details that matter most. But, if there is to be a more strategic approach, surely that must imply that it is not just on a single project but on the whole range of infrastructure projects—150—that the Government have in mind for the remainder of this Parliament.

For instance, there will be a cumulative effect of road infrastructure, and of the move to net zero, which we on these Benches totally support, and therefore more green infrastructure for energy creation. All of that requires an oversight of the totality of those projects, because it is important to understand the overall impact on local communities, rather than considering the impact project by project, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, explained, in terms of wind farms or solar farms, for instance. I support all of these, but we need to understand their cumulative impact on communities, the landscape and the environment.

So these issues are important and I am glad they have been brought up. I hope the Minister in her response will be able to satisfy those of us who have these concerns that the Government are not going to run roughshod over the needs of communities and the environment while making their rush for growth.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

First, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling her amendment and raising the issue of cumulative impacts. Under the Planning Act 2008, which governs nationally significant infrastructure projects such as major energy, transport and water developments, environmental and social assessments are already in place at various stages. However, my noble friend raises a very important issue: we should not look at developments just in isolation, whether or not they are nationally significant infrastructure projects, but consider their cumulative impact in an area.

My noble friend also raised what I refer to as consequential developments. If one were to build an offshore wind farm, by implication one would also have the consequential development of an electrical connection. Should this not also be considered as part of the planning process?

While we do not believe that this is the most appropriate mechanism—the Minister raised the issue of strategic and spatial planning, which is probably a more appropriate way to address this—we believe that it is an important issue. Depending on the Minister’s response, we may return to this at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we now have before us Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—which I thought was coming in the previous group—and there is much to agree with in what she said. The national policy statements set the tone and the content for the NPPF and then the further guidance on planning legislation, so they are the fundamental base of all further changes to planning law. They are very important.

For the Government to try to take out the opportunity for democratic oversight and scrutiny is not just regrettable but a centralising process which we should not support. Planning affects everybody’s life one way or another, be it major infrastructure projects or small housing developments. Planning affects people, and if it affects people, people’s voices should be heard, and so people’s democratically elected representatives ought to be heard. It is our role in this House to scrutinise legislation. That is what is happening now, and we are saying, “This will not do”. We cannot have more centralising of planning processes and removing democratic oversight in so doing. If the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, wishes to test the opinion of the House on this issue, as she has intimated, we on these Benches will support her.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

In Committee, I described this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, as vital because it preserves parliamentary accountability, ensuring that government must respond to resolutions and recommendations from Select Committees. The safeguard strengthens transparency, clarifies policy direction at an early stage, and reduces uncertainty for those affected by these statements. Robust scrutiny helps to catch potential issues before they escalate later. I appreciate that the Minister has sought to reassure us with a new, streamlined process for updating national policy statements, and of course efficiency is welcome, but scrutiny must not become the casualty of speed. This amendment strikes the right balance. It enables timely updates while ensuring that Parliament remains meaningfully engaged.

Clause 2 concerns the parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. While I accept that certain elements of the process could be accelerated, key aspects of the clause diminish accountability to Parliament in favour of the Executive. I struggle to understand why, given the enormous impact of national policy statements, the Government are proposing to remove such an important element of parliamentary oversight. We continue to support parliamentary scrutiny and as such, we will support this amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment.

Clause 2 introduces a new, additional streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements. National policy statements are the cornerstone of the planning system for our most significant national infrastructure. In the past, national policy statements have been too slow to reflect government priorities, planning policy or legislative changes, with some NPSs not updated for over a decade. As the National Infrastructure Commission has recognised, a lack of updates has created uncertainty for applicants, statutory consultees and the examining authority. It has also increased the risk of legal challenge and driven the gold-plating in the system that we are all trying to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know whether this is premature, but I wish to speak to Amendment 83.

The modern methodology of infrastructure planning is heavily dependent on the computer. Computer-aided design software has replaced the draughtsman’s drawing board. This has greatly expedited the design process. Moreover, CAD technology enables the design of houses and other structures to be made public at an early stage of development. The building information modelling standards are intended to facilitate the sharing of information, which can be consigned to the cloud to become accessible to all concerned, including the public at large. The transparent information is liable to be shared via a so-called digital twin model. Level 2 of the BIM standards was made mandatory for public projects in 2022. Level 3 was due to be made mandatory this year, but there has been a delay—indeed, more than a delay; there has been some backtracking.

The Minister’s response to the original version of the amendment was to declare that the requirement for a digital twin at an earlier stage of the development would impose extra costs and delays. This evinces a fundamental misunderstanding. It is precisely at the earliest stages of a project that modern technology is most efficacious. The question arises of what could have caused this misunderstanding. I am liable to attribute it to the civil servants as much as to the Minister. I imagine that one of the causes could be the experience of inappropriate applications of the BIM standards. There has been a minor change to the text of the original amendment. It now declares that the standards should not be imposed on projects concerned with limited extensions of existing buildings, or on those concerned with the restoration of existing buildings.

I have been told by an architect involved in the restoration of historic buildings of a demand to provide a fully dimensioned plan of a listed building, plus an inventory of all the materials involved in its original construction. The BIM standards were never intended to be imposed in this way. With this proviso, I propose the amendment as a serious attempt to promote a methodology of infrastructure planning, of which Britain is a leading exponent.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, were first brought forward in Committee, and I made the point then, which I repeat now, that Clause 4 systematically removes several of the existing pre-application requirements.

This amendment seeks specifically to retain Section 47 of the Planning Act, the statutory duty to consult the local community. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised, we have said throughout that it is only right and appropriate that local communities should be consulted and involved. Removing this requirement for pre-application consultation risks cutting communities out of the conversation altogether. It means local people may neither understand nor even be aware of the broad outlines or detailed implications of developments which, for better or worse, will have a direct impact on their lives and the local environment.

As I understood the Minister in Committee, the Government’s concern was not with the principle or value of consultation in itself, but rather with the potential delay cost that the current process might entail. However, delay and cost can be addressed through sensible reform of the system. That does not justify what feels like a nuclear option: the wholesale removal of the duty to consult. We remain unconvinced that the House has yet been given a satisfactory explanation as to why such sweeping change is necessary.

The Government have said:

“I am sure we all have experiences of the best in consultation—with a developer that not only consults but truly engages with communities over a period of time to get”


a better project

“and those at the opposite end that carry out a half-hearted tick-box exercise and then”

carry on regardless

“without changing anything, keeping a laser focus on”

minimising their costs, and that

“We want to encourage the former, not the latter”.—[Official Report, 17/7/25; cols. 2073-74.]

That is an admirable sentiment, but how is that objective served by the removal of the very mechanism that requires such consultation in the first place? These questions matter not merely as points of process but because they go to the heart of public confidence in the planning system.

The Government should provide clear and succinct guidance on pre-application consultation: that there should be genuine engagement with communities; that the relevant information should be provided transparently and in easily digestible form; that the issues and ideas from the consultations are reflected in the final application or a rationale for not doing so.

However, these amendments propose a much more prescriptive and, I might say, confusing and even contradictory pre-application process. While we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment in full, we equally cannot support the Government’s decision to sweep away the entire framework. A more balanced approach could have addressed legitimate concerns about delay, while enhancing the opportunities for local people to have their say on developments that shape their communities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing back these amendments, which we debated extensively in Committee. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to reinstate the statutory duty for applicants to consult during the pre-application stage of a development consent order application. While we absolutely recognise the value of early and meaningful engagement, we have been clear that the existing statutory requirements have become overly rigid and are now contributing to delays and risk-averse behaviours.

Removing the statutory duty instead allows developers to tailor their engagement to the scale and nature of their projects, supported by guidance. I repeat: the Government still expect high-quality consultation to take place. We have listened carefully to the industry and the message has been consistent. The current statutory framework is slowing things down, encouraging excessive documentation and making developers reluctant to adapt proposals for fear of triggering further rounds of required statutory consultation. We are confident that developers will continue to consult meaningfully and that communities will still have further opportunities to engage through the examination process. We are so confident, in fact, that this will not undermine the quality of applications brought forward that we are amending the Bill to make reasons for rejection more transparent, a point which I will come to later.

Guidance will be published to ensure that applications remain robust and responsive to local issues. The Government are currently consulting on proposals associated with this guidance and will take into account responses when it is developed. If these amendments were accepted, we risk reverting to the status quo and failing to address the very issues we are trying to fix: delays, complexity and confusion. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.

Amendments 11 and 12 seek to impose statutory obligations around guidance for pre-application consultation, despite the statutory requirement to consult being removed from the Planning Act 2008 through this Bill. The decision to remove the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation was not made lightly. It was introduced to tackle the growing delays and procedural burdens that have crept into the NSIP regime over time. We are trying to fix a system that has become too slow, too risk averse and too complex.

As we have discussed and recognised throughout the passage of the Bill, the current Planning Act requirements have led to rigid approaches, which are designed with the need to meet legislative prescription in mind, rather than the need to develop high-quality infrastructure schemes which are capable of improving the lives of local communities and delivering positive environmental impacts. I suppose my frustration here is that we all agree that we need to speed the system up but whatever we propose to do that, Members object to.

Over the last few months we have had the opportunity to meet a wide range of stakeholders and discuss the removal of pre-application requirements, including a number of bodies and individuals with valuable insight and experience of the NSIP regime since its inception back in 2008. We have seen a positive reaction to our proposals from those stakeholders. Speaking to local authorities and statutory consultees, it is clear that the existing requirements are not successfully driving constructive engagement and consultation.

Our discussions have reaffirmed our conviction that the existing approach is not working; changes are needed for the Government to meet the UK’s national infrastructure needs. These reforms will save time and money, benefiting everyone. This does not mean worse outcomes or poorer quality applications. Instead, it means resources can be focused on the main issues at the heart of the planning decision. It means there will be greater flexibility for applicants to innovate in how engagement is done when working through the iterative stages of an application during pre-application. It opens the door to more bespoke, targeted and effective engagement and consultation practices.

Requiring applicants to have regard to guidance about consultation and engagement, where the underlying legal duty to consult has been removed, would, we feel, be confusing. Moreover, the noble Baroness’s proposed amendment goes further by attempting to bind the content for future guidance to a fixed set of principles. While I understand these principles are well-intentioned, we do not believe it is right to legislate for them. The Government have already launched a public consultation on what the content of the guidance should be, and we want it to be shaped by the views of those who use guidance, not constrained by prescriptive legislative language developed before that process has even concluded.

All sides of the House agree on the importance of meaningful engagement and consultation; it is essential if we want to deliver infrastructure which is well designed and delivers positive outcomes for neighbouring communities and the environment. We expect developers to engage and consult proportionately and constructively, but we also believe that flexibility, not statutory rigidity, is the best way to achieve that. While I appreciate the spirit behind the amendments, they would undermine the very reforms we are trying to deliver, so I hope the noble Baroness will not press them.

Amendment 80 was a proposal previously raised in Committee. As the House will recall, the clause seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider how community consultation has been carried out when deciding whether a nationally significant infrastructure project application should be accepted for examination. It sets out a number of criteria, including whether the applicant has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during early phases, obtained relevant local information and enabled appropriate mitigation through consultation with the affected communities. As we discussed at length in Committee, the Government recognise the value of community engagement. Since 2013, the pre-application stage has nearly doubled in length. Our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament by reducing delays across projects.

I say this to remind noble Lords of the reasoning behind these changes, including the “adequacy of consultation” test in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. We had a system where applicants focus on defensibility rather than dialogue, and where consultation is treated as a hurdle to clear and not a tool to improve proposals. The reformed acceptance test allows the Secretary of State to make a balanced judgment about the quality of the application, recognising that the NSIP process is a continuum from pre-application through to decision. It incentivises applicants to engage with the objective of producing good-quality applications, as opposed to meeting prescriptive statutory requirements.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as I did recently in the Moses Room on the same issue of whistleblowing. The noble Baroness is our pioneer, expert and leader on whistleblowing. I signed this amendment because it is important to demonstrate that this is an issue of broad concern.

The noble Baroness made clearly the case that we have huge problems with effectively and cost-effectively delivering major projects so that they do what they say they will do on the tin. The people who are most likely to know that something is going wrong are people within the organisation. It is terribly important to ensure that whistleblowers feel safe and will not tear their life apart if they come forward to report the issue.

The noble Baroness, helped by other Peers, has come up with a creative solution for NISTA to pick up this role in this context. I therefore hope that we will hear some movement from the Government on the issue.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as we said in Committee, Amendment 22, from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is a clear and well-intentioned proposal that raises important questions about how individuals can share their concerns relating to NSIPs. However, as we noted previously, establishing independent bodies through amendments is not straightforward. The former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, addressed that point, and the Government have set out their enthusiasm to work with organisations that support whistleblowers. We will hold the Government to account on that assurance and continue to work with your Lordships’ House to ensure that whistleblowers are protected.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposes that the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—be given a new responsibility to receive, assess, investigate where appropriate and oversee whistleblowing disclosures related to nationally significant infrastructure projects. The amendment seeks to ensure appropriate protection for whistleblowers and co-ordination with relevant regulators and planning authorities.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue and have listened carefully to her remarks. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, I must say again that I do not share the view that there is evidence of whistleblowing being a current, widespread concern within the NSIP regime. As she will know, there is already a well-established framework of prescribed persons and bodies to whom whistleblowers may turn, independent of their employer, as provided for under the Employment Rights Act 1996. They include organisations covering areas such as environmental protection, health and safety, transport, utilities and local government, which are of direct relevance to NSIPs.

Adding NISTA to this list would duplicate existing functions already carried out by regulators, such as the Environment Agency, which have the appropriate expertise and statutory powers. Given this existing framework, we believe that adding another body to the list would create a duplication of roles and, in any event, would not require primary legislation to achieve, as new persons or bodies can already be prescribed through Section 43F of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In the light of this, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The parliamentary process proposed by the amendment includes a petitioning mechanism and Joint Committee scrutiny, ensuring that public concerns can be raised and considered, if not already considered during the DCO process. It includes safeguards that would enable meaningful public involvement in relation to points not raised during the DCO process. All these provisions are included in the lengthy schedule. This might still require some fine-tuning, which could incorporate the advice of various parties, parliamentary draftsmen, and so on. I urge Ministers and their officials to consider this amendment in the light of the very real challenges that large infrastructure projects face and that they will continue to face, even with the measures already in Part 1. I therefore commend my amendment to the House.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this is a significant proposed new clause, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke to in Committee, where he made broader remarks on the functionality of our planning system, which he has repeated today. I recall the comments about the length of time it was taking to get a bypass round Stonehenge, and my comment that it will take longer to build that bypass than Stone Age man took to build Stonehenge.

We agree with the issue that the noble Viscount is seeking to address: that the planning system does not work all the time for these large national infrastructure projects. They take too long, the costs go up and deliverability goes down. So I have immense respect for those who have taken the time to draft this new clause reflecting some of the comments made in Committee—I really appreciate the time that that has taken. The noble Viscount proposes that each order determining an application to be a critical national priority must be presented to Parliament as a full public Bill. Paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule then sets out a petitioning process, a counter-petitioning process and a reporting process. The remaining parts of this lengthy amendment provide a highly detailed description of how such a Bill would progress through a Joint Committee and then complete its passage.

However, we do not consider that presenting a Bill to Parliament with all the associated procedures would be a proportionate proposal. We are somewhat sympathetic to confirmatory Acts in areas such as nuclear, but this is a prescriptive amendment and therefore one that we cannot support, even if we understand the issue.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount for Amendment 23, which builds on a previous amendment tabled in Committee. It proposes a process for projects designated by the Secretary of State as “critical national priority”, where development consent orders would come into force only once approved through an Act of Parliament. This amendment seeks to bypass judicial review and insulate these projects from challenge and thereby speed up the building of infrastructure.

Although the provision does not directly alter the judicial review process itself, it uses parliamentary process to significantly reduce the public’s ability to challenge government decisions on these types of critical projects. This amendment proposes a mechanism for the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as “critical national priority”, based on identification in a relevant national policy statement.

It is important to remind the House that this status already exists and is actively applied—for example, to renewable and low-carbon energy projects through the energy NPS, to strengthen the need case for such infrastructure. However, this amendment seeks to go much further. I cannot support it for a number of key reasons. First, the proposed ouster in new Section 118(1A) would shield decisions from judicial review even where they were unlawful. For this reason, it is an approach which the courts have historically resisted. Given that this would be applied to some of the biggest and most controversial schemes, it is likely that challenges would be lodged in respect of the confirmed DCO, thereby undermining the time savings sought in the first place.

Secondly, the amendment would result in a constitutional confrontation between Parliament and the courts. This may result in questioning of well understood constitutional conventions, inviting further legal uncertainty.

Finally, there are serious practical impediments to the amendment. It would introduce a new, truncated parliamentary procedure for applicants to undertake after having completed the DCO process. It risks creating confusion and slowing the delivery of our most important projects by layering parliamentary procedures on top of an already rigorous regime. That adds more work and uncertainty for applicants—particularly detrimental for our largest projects—at a time when clarity and efficiency are essential. We recognise that the amendment is driven by valid concerns that lengthy legal challenges delay projects and add costs. However, the right approach to tackling this problem is by still enabling legal challenges but supporting the courts to handle them efficiently.

Further to our commitment to implement the Banner review and limit the ability for meritless cases to return to the courts, the Government recently decided to go further. On 15 October, they announced their intention to work with the judiciary to implement further procedural changes to ensure that NSIP cases are dealt with more quickly and consistently. The changes include introducing clear target timescales for NSIP cases in the High Court, aiming for a substantive hearing within four months of the application. We are also making it clear that NSIP cases in the Court of Appeal should be handled by judges with appropriate planning experience.

Together with the recent reforms, these further procedural changes will help make the judicial review process for major projects quicker, clearer and more predictable. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment and for the thoughtful debate that it has prompted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendment, which raises the important question of fire safety and long-duration energy storage. It is right that there should be a role for local fire authorities in looking at planning applications involving potentially highly combustible materials. It is clear that energy storage based on lithium batteries or other highly reactive materials, if not suitably engineered, could pose a fire risk.

This is still a relatively new large-storage technology, where councils and fire authorities are building their levels of expertise. In this context, having clear national guidance on safe installation and construction akin to building control, taking account of HSE, fire, industry and other experts would facilitate the assessment of these schemes. Do the Government plan to provide such clear guidance that councils, industry and others can rely on in assessing applications for LDES that would also streamline consultation and hence facilitate local engagement with fire authorities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his amendment. I start by apologising to him for the meeting date, which I understand is 30 October. He will know from comments made earlier that I have had a great number of meetings before Report, so I can only assume that it was a misunderstanding and apologise to him that it was not held before we got to Report.

The noble Lord said that over on this side we would not be shedding any tears about the price of Lamborghinis going up, but he obviously does not understand my guilty pleasure of fast cars—but then I come from the same town as Lewis Hamilton, so I have an excuse.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to require long-duration electricity storage—LDES—operators to consult the local fire authorities to assess the project’s fire risk before installation. In Committee, the noble Lord commented on the frequency and danger of lithium battery fires. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the distinction that he made between individual battery fires and these large-scale ones. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take issues relating to fire safety extremely seriously—I know that my noble friend Lord Khan gave the same reassurance—but we still do not feel that this amendment is proportionate or necessary, and indeed it could create unintended risks for fire services.

I understand that these concerns are largely in relation to lithium-ion batteries. Analysis from DESNZ suggests that fires at battery energy storage sites are rare. The latest available five-year annual average fire incidence rate for GB batteries is 0.7%, which is lower than that for wider non-domestic building fires in England, which is around 0.8%. We expect all LDES developers to ensure that their sites are safe, regardless of the technology employed. It is still, of course, vital that any risks are appropriately and proportionately managed to ensure that we maintain public safety and trust. We have spoken previously of the role that the Health and Safety Executive plays in regulating storage assets. Developers and operators of these sites have a legal duty to manage risks, and government expects them to engage with local fire services when drawing up emergency response plans.

Defra will conclude its industry consultation shortly on the modernisation of environmental permitting for industry, which includes proposals to bring BESS within scope of the 2016 permitting regulations. If introduced, EPR would require developers and operators to demonstrate to the Environment Agency how specific risks are being managed, while providing for the ongoing regulation of battery storage sites. While it is already the Government’s expectation that developers engage with fire services during the planning process, this amendment risks imposing additional administrative burdens on fire services which are not proportionate to the risks associated with this technology.

DESNZ is actively engaging fire authorities and the battery storage industry on the whole issue of battery fire safety. In fact, Minister Shanks hosted a round table today on battery safety, which included representatives from the National Fire Chiefs Council and battery developers, so I can reassure the House that Minister Shanks is taking this issue extremely seriously. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is satisfied with the reassurances and will agree to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 42 (to Amendment 41) not moved.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I speak slightly in awe. I am not the world expert on seismic arrays, so I will keep my comments brief. This is the practical bit. We recognise that the Government are trying to create a balancing act between the safe and critical operation of seismic arrays and the opportunity of wind farms. From this side of the House, without the technical knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, can we receive an assurance from the Government that they have that balance right and that we will not compromise those seismic arrays and the potential national security and treaty obligations?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with our colleagues in the MoD on this issue and will endeavour to make sure that the balance is right in both cases.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

58: After Clause 47, insert the following new Clause—
National Lane Rental Scheme: establishment(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Lane Rental Scheme (“the Scheme”).(2) The Scheme must ensure that—(a) local authorities are able to grant lane rental permission to utility companies as standard,(b) the Secretary of State is only involved in the granting of lane rental when utility companies appeal to the Secretary of State about the local authority’s actions under paragraph (a), and(c) any public highway may be subject to lane rental provisions, irrespective of size or level of sensitivity.(3) The Secretary of State must—(a) consolidate existing regulations which provide for local authorities to grant permission for lane rental to utility companies for works, and(b) ensure that any orders made under section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which may contradict the provisions of the Scheme are repealed.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument vary provisions in the Scheme.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) Any revenues raised through the National Lane Rental Scheme must be ring-fenced by local authorities and used exclusively for—(a) repair and maintenance of highways, including the remediation of potholes, and(b) measures to minimise future disruption from utility works.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward a national scheme for Lane Rental during road works with the intention of developing a simpler, less bureaucratic, and more consistent system.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response when I raised this in Committee and his subsequent communication. I am sure he recognises the problem that this amendment seeks to address, but I am afraid that limited tinkering does not solve the problem; we need to do something more meaningful.

As I said in Committee, we are plagued with constant disruption to our roads from roadworks. In the majority of cases, these relate to utilities works. It is a huge frustration to all drivers, often causing significant traffic delays, economic damage and environmental impact. It also affects householders, pedestrians and cyclists caught up in or impacted by the noise and fumes of idling cars. Local businesses suffer, as they lose business when people can no longer come to their pub, shop or whatever because of the excessive journey times. When these delays are on major roads, small country roads are often impacted by excessive traffic as people seek alternative routes.

Drivers are doubly frustrated when we see no work being done by these roadworks. Sometimes that is for a good reason but, often, it is for the convenience of the contractor. Last time, I gave the example of traffic lights being put out on a Friday for work starting on the subsequent Monday. The work is completed on the Thursday, yet the traffic lights are not removed until the subsequent Monday, so we have traffic lights and a closure for 10 days when there is only three or four days’ work. There is also the example of work being done during the day but nothing being done overnight, with the opportunity to move these traffic lights to one side. We recognise that utility work is essential, but it really should be done in a way that minimises disruption and keeps road closures and traffic lights to the absolute minimum.

Councils and the Government have sought to address this issue through measures such as permitting regimes. Many councils do this in a proactive manner, enforcing roadworks being kept to the permitted time, but that does not stop utility companies seeking a two-week gap when they might be able to get away with a five-day or six-day closure. As we discussed last time, there is a lane rental scheme under the 2012 lane rental regulations. As my noble friend Lord Moylan can attest from his time in London, the scheme works well for Transport for London. However, TfL is an exception, as the majority of its significant roads can be covered by the criterion of “highly sensitive roads” and it has the resources to deal with the bureaucracy involved, which includes applying to the Secretary of State for a statutory instrument. Outside London, the scheme can include a maximum of only 10% or 20% of the road network. As such, only four county councils have applied. It does not work in rural areas in particular.

There is a better way. There should be a national scheme, with appropriate protections and so on, that enables a wider range of highways to be included so that councils can simply opt in without the need to apply for a statutory instrument. This amendment seeks to reduce not only the time during which our roads are held up by roadworks but the bureaucracy involved in getting a lane rental scheme. Can the Minister not tinker with the existing scheme but, as the Chancellor has promised, sweep away unnecessary red tape to enable growth by enabling local highways authorities to keep our roads open and our traffic flowing, for the benefit of motorists, residents, the economy and local businesses? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving this amendment on a new national lane rental scheme. As the noble Lord says, he and I have exchanged correspondence on this issue, for which I also thank him. This Government are committed to reducing disruption from street works and improving the efficiency of our road networks.

Lane rental is a valuable tool that enables highway authorities to charge utilities up to £2,500 per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. These charges incentivise quicker completion, off-peak scheduling and alternative locations to minimise disruption. Existing schemes, not only that in London with Transport for London—a scheme I happened to have the privilege of introducing in my time as the commissioner at Transport for London—but those in Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex and other applications that are in train, show that lane rental encourages more thoughtful planning and has proven effective in reducing disruption where congestion is most acute.

However, lane rental is not suitable for every area or every road. Many local authorities do not experience the levels of congestion needed to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. We remain committed to empowering local authorities but we must be mindful that there is a risk that extending lane rental powers universally could lead to an inconsistent and fragmented approach across the country. The Government recognise the value of local leadership. That is why, in our devolution White Paper, we committed—subject to consultation—to devolving approval of local lane rental schemes to mayoral strategic authorities. We have consulted on this proposal and will publish the results and next steps as soon as we can.

In relation to proposed revenue ring-fencing, from January 2026, highway authorities operating lane rental schemes will be required to spend 50% of surplus lane rental charges on highway maintenance, including the remediation of potholes, and the remaining 50% on measures intended to reduce the disruption or other adverse effects arising because of street works. These requirements will be set out in legislation and updated guidance, ensuring a balanced and targeted use of funds. For the reasons outlined, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I think we should have a national scheme that can be opted into—and so would still be very much a local scheme—but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which was moved ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. If he wanted to test the opinion of the House on this matter, we on these Benches would agree with them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which was moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Although I understand the good intentions behind this amendment, there needs to be a recognition that the planning process is a quasi-judicial process. We also support mandatory training for councillors; we would have supported training for officials and, potentially, for Government Ministers, had my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment arisen, but I will let that pass for now.

Such training must focus on the statutory duties of members, ensuring that those who sit on planning committees are fully aware of their roles; of the legal and regulatory environment; and of the procedures on which they need to make judgment. They need to make decisions based on the legal and regulatory aspects that pertain to the proposals brought to the committee. Climate change, biodiversity, ecology and so on are already embedded in national planning policy. There is guidance on them; that guidance will, and should, be part of the training process.

By expanding the scope of the training beyond the statutory duties—as well as ensuring that consideration of the relevant legislation, planning guidance and local policies occurs in determining an application—the proposals risk adding confusion to the training process and, potentially, undermining the quasi-judicial role of a planning committee. I would have been more sympathetic to proposals around ensuring both that the training is effective and that it covers all aspects of the guidance, policies and legislation—including those highlighted today. However, as I said, having training that is more generic risks confusion. Therefore, I cannot support these proposals.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I express my gratitude to noble Lords for providing broad support for the concept of mandatory training for members of local planning authorities.

I turn to Amendment 62, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. As I have set out previously, I am very sympathetic to the issues that were raised by noble Lords in Committee. I reiterate what I said at the time: it would be unthinkable that prescribed training would not include, for example, content on biodiversity net gain. The Government maintain, however, that such specific reference to the content of training should be reserved for secondary legislation. On that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for once; that is not always the case.

Let me respond to the point about the status quo continuing. This Bill brings mandatory training into force for the first time, so it does move us on from the status quo. Including specific details in the Bill would require the inclusion of an exhaustive list—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, gave some examples of what may or may not be in there—which would have to be kept up to date as we move forward, thus requiring valuable time in Parliament.

I will respond briefly to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on what is being done. The Government are working to bring forward the training package; we consulted on our general approach earlier this year. We will ensure that the training is comprehensive and based on both best practice and ongoing engagement with both industry and local government.

For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw this amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

That is why my noble friend’s amendment is so welcome and necessary. This, coupled with the other amendments that would fetter and restrict judicial review—I note my noble friend Lord Banner is not in his place, but it is his recommendations that I am referring to—is the right thing. To get to the nub of Amendment 76, the chair of planning should be able to revisit an officialdom’s otherwise fatal objections to get it to committee, so that local champions can take all the evidence into account, listen carefully to objections, balance that public and private interest, and get Britain building, and not pander to self-serving qangos that are only interested in pursuing their own ideologies to the exclusion of all else.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, it is pleasing to hear support for local democracy from around the House, which I can only endorse.

Amendment 63, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, concerns the first set of regulations made under the proposed national scheme, which, as drafted, would determine how local planning decisions are to be made in the future. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to ensure that these initial regulations are subject to the stronger form of parliamentary scrutiny, the affirmative procedure. That requirement is important, as the national scheme represents a major structural change in the planning system. It alters fundamentally the balance between decisions taken by elected planning committees and those delegated to officers.

Such a shift in decision-making authority carries significant implications for local accountability, democratic oversight and public confidence in the planning system. Given the scale and significance of these reforms, it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider, debate and explicitly approve the first set of regulations before they take effect. Therefore, my noble friend’s amendment seeks not to delay progress but to strengthen legitimacy, to ensure that this House and the other place have a proper role in scrutinising the framework through which these changes will be implemented. In short, the affirmative procedure would provide a vital check and balance at a moment of genuine structural transition in the planning system. I hope that the Government will look favourably on my noble friend’s sensible and proportionate proposal.

Amendment 76, tabled in my name, aims to ensure that the vital role of local democracy in the determination of planning applications continues, while ensuring that spurious call-ins are avoided, by requiring the head of planning and the chair of the planning committee to confirm that the objections are on valid planning grounds. This reflects best practice in many authorities today.

We believe in local democracy because we believe in local people. That means ensuring that the right homes are built in the right places, with the consent and confidence of the communities they affect. Committee chairs and chief planning officers are well placed to judge when wider scrutiny is needed. Retaining their discretion in this way would ensure transparency and trust, without dismantling the efficiency of a national delegation scheme.

Ministers may argue that the amendment would undermine the purpose of national delegation by allowing too many applications to go to committee, but that is simply not the case. It requires the agreement of both the professional planner and the elected chair, and only when the objections rest on valid planning grounds. That is a proportionate safeguard, not a free-for-all. This is about balance and maintaining efficiency in the system, while giving communities the confidence that genuine concerns will be heard and scrutinised. That is how we build trust in planning and how we deliver development that truly has local consent.

Finally, I will briefly speak to Amendments 62A and 87F, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey. Amendment 62A is in a similar vein to my own, as it proposes that an officer should not determine an application outside of an adopted local plan. Amendment 87F looks to the issue of the failure to build out, so can the Minister say why the Government have not moved forward with the parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that sought to address that?

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jamieson was quicker to his feet than I was. I will make a few comments on Amendment 87F, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey.

I served as a councillor for eight years on the unitary Medway Council, working for some of that time on planning, and had the benefit of representing a constituency in Kent in the other place. I am very aware that whenever a substantial planning application is put to the local community there is generally uproar and a lot of concern. There may be a lot of consultation and a lot of money spent by the developer. There are presentations to the local public and local councillors, and everything else that goes with that. It can be quite upsetting for local communities. In my experience, the Liberal Democrats are very adept at exploiting that concern, usually for political advantage.

Having gone through that process, we find that a lot of the planning applications never actually get built out—and at a time when we have a huge demand for housing. Developers then look again at somewhere a bit simpler to develop out. It is not for us in this place to dictate the market—that is obviously for developers—but the terms that my noble friend Lady Coffey has proposed are right. Perhaps we should start to recognise some of the names among the bigger developers that seem to be going for applications and not building them out. We hear, obliquely, about hundreds of thousands of planning applications that have been approved that are yet to be built out. I do not know the exact figure —I do not think that I have ever known it—but we are told that it is in the many hundreds of thousands.

If my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment were to be adopted, it would be very refreshing to know those numbers regularly. It could give local people some pressure to knock on the doors of the developers and ask, “Are you going to do this or not?” In addition, other authorities would be able to look at neighbouring authorities elsewhere in the country and, if they see similar developer names, they might start to wonder what those developers were doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, that was an interesting debate on these amendments. Believing in local people also means building the homes that they need and the infrastructure to support those homes. This problem with buildout did not commence in July 2024; it has been there for a long time, and this Bill is trying to do something about it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 62A, which would require applications for development not included in the local plan, or for a housing density lower than that specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment; however, it is common for applications to be submitted for development that do not accord with the local plan. That does not mean that all those applications are controversial or that they require committee scrutiny. To bring all such applications to committee would undermine the whole point of Clause 51. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 63 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to make initial regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. As I mentioned in Committee, it is common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report on the Bill and has not raised any concerns about either this power or the proposed procedure.

I recognise that the noble Lord has altered his amendment so that it applies only to the first set of regulations, but I still do not believe that the revised amendment is necessary. We already consulted on our proposed approach in May this year. The Secretary of State, under the Bill’s provisions, will be required to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations and the subsequent changes to them. That means that the Government will conduct another consultation on these very regulations before they are brought into force. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals set out in the regulations to ensure that they will work effectively in practice. They are the practitioners, after all, so I look forward to hearing their comments.

Amendment 76 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seeks to give the chair of a planning committee and the head of planning the discretion to allow any planning application to be determined by committee where there are objections on valid planning grounds. Noble Lords will recall that we debated an identical amendment in Committee, and I can confirm that the Government have not changed their position on this issue. The intention of the amendment undermines the introduction of a national scheme of delegation. Valid planning objections are a frequent occurrence on planning applications—anyone who has ever been on a council will know that only too well. This amendment would therefore mean that almost any application would be capable of being referred to committee. That is clearly something we would not want to support. However, I repeat that the intention behind the national scheme of delegation is not to undermine local democracy. It is simply to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87F relating to the buildout of development, which is a key issue. The amendment seeks to improve the transparency of buildout data by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information on a quarterly basis about the number of planning consents granted where building has not started or completed in each local planning authority. I start by reaffirming to the noble Baroness, as I did in Committee, that I fully support the aim of improving buildout and the rate of residential development. The Government remain committed to making sure that all planning permissions are translated into homes. That said, I remain of the view, as I have previously set out, that we do not need this amendment to achieve that.

When we debated buildout in Committee, I highlighted our publication in May of an important working paper, which sets out a more effective and comprehensive approach to speeding up buildout. It includes greater transparency of buildout rates, new powers for local planning authorities to decline to determine applications from developers that have built out more slowly and greater emphasis on mixed-use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty as a last resort. The working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. We have also set up our new homes accelerator, which will help to unblock some of those stalled sites and find out what is causing the problem that is slowing down buildout. We are now analysing the responses to that working paper, and we will set out our next steps in due course. I reiterate that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the buildout of residential development that we all want to see. Therefore, given our strategy to support faster buildout, I hope the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Can I ask for clarification? I asked a specific question regarding the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and its sections saying that a planning authority does not need to determine an application where the applicant has not built out elsewhere. I think the Minister was hinting that this is what the Government are doing, but will they implement that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We did consult on that very issue. We are still analysing the responses to the working paper. As soon as we have done that, I will inform the House of the outcome.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Are the Government not prepared to implement the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act sections as they stand now, despite having the power to do so?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can only repeat that, on the powers on which we consulted in the working paper, we want to look at the responses and then implement them.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to be extraordinarily brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has explained explicitly what this is about and why it is desperately needed. I add my name to all those who have spoken so passionately in favour of it and look forward to the Minister, with equal passion, agreeing to it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am going to try to be brief, but I am afraid I am going to be beaten by the Liberal Democrats—just occasionally one has to accept this. I offer our support for Amendments 71 and 82, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, it is a principle of fairness. If you are the one bringing change, you should be responsible for managing its impact. Yet, time and again, we have seen valued businesses, particularly in the live music, hospitality and cultural sectors, threatened or closed down due to new developments that arrive without sufficient mitigation and proper regard to the context within which they are being introduced. If you build a house on the edge of a cricket pitch, do not be surprised to see the occasional cricket ball flying into your garden.

The reality is that guidance, however well intentioned, is inconsistently applied. Local authorities are left without a clear statutory duty to uphold the agent of change principle. Amendment 82 extends this principle to a licensing regime we would also support. We see this as a constructive and proportionate improvement to the Bill that balances the need for new development with the equally important need to protect existing cultural, social and economic structures. We on these Benches are pleased to support this principle and hope that the Government will recognise the value of giving it a clear statutory footing. I ask the Minister for an assurance that existing businesses and community facilities will not be put at risk from subsequent developments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a very interesting debate on this topic. Next July, I will have the benefit of five days of Oasis concerts in the fantastic venue of Knebworth House, which is just about a mile away from my house, and this summer we enjoyed Old Town Live, a day-long festival for local bands including, I hope, some of the successors to Oasis—we never know. I can hear and enjoy both of these from my house, and they represent the important cultural role of music venues and their place in the ladder of musical talent that not only contributes so much to our culture in this country but makes an enormous contribution to our economy as well. I say that to show that I understand the issue here and the Government share the desire to ensure that new homes do not undermine the operation of long-established businesses in their local area, be they music or other cultural venues.

The agent of change principle is embedded into the planning system. Where the operation of an existing premises could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity, the responsibility lies with the applicant or agent of change to put suitable mitigation in place, whether that is engineering solutions, layout, planning conditions or mitigating the impact through noise insulation. This policy forms part of the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning authorities must already have regard to it where it is relevant to a planning decision.

We are exploring how we can make the agent of change policy in planning as clear as possible through our new national policies for decision-making, which we will consult on this year. We have recently launched a call for evidence, which seeks views on how we can better apply the principle in licensing. This will reduce inconsistent decisions, while ensuring that we have the flexibility for local authorities to balance the needs of businesses with housing growth. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I urgently request that, within the 1.5 million homes to be built, the Government set a fixed target for providing housing for children and their adult carers that is safe, suitable and enables children to develop both socially and through attending school. Amendment 85 deliberately does not provide solutions, because I recognise that this will require a multifaceted approach, but I ask that the Government commit to including the desperate needs of these children within the housebuilding programme.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we support the intentions behind Amendments 72 and 85 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pinnock, and others for bringing them forward.

There is no doubt that we need more affordable housing and more social rent homes. We also recognise that planning permissions must be followed through and that, too often, affordable housing secured at the outset does not fully materialise. Amendment 72 puts forward a clear principle that, if affordable housing is agreed to as part of a planning consent, it must be delivered, and that social rent should form a meaningful part of that. This is right and we are entirely supportive of that aim. There are, of course, practical and legal complications around how these obligations are enforced, and we would want to ensure that any new duty works effectively within existing planning and viability frameworks.

However, councils also need to have a degree of flexibility to meet local needs, which is why I have a concern about putting a specific figure in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, is well aware, I am particularly interested in housing for older people and specialist accommodation for those with disabilities. This is often more costly to build than standard housing. By taking a flexible approach at the local level on affordable percentages or mix, specialist but more expensive housing that meets local needs can be delivered. Imposing a national requirement may undermine that flexibility to deliver for local needs. That is how I, as leader of Central Bedfordshire, was able to deliver specialist accommodation for older people—freeing up family homes as a consequence—and for those with significant disabilities, as well as short-term accommodation. I would not want the opportunity for this lost because of an imposed national target in legislation. That said, let us make this absolutely clear: we are very strongly in support of the need for clarity and accountability for developers. They should and must deliver what they agree to when they get a planning permission.

Amendment 85 rightly highlights the needs of children and families facing homelessness or in temporary accommodation, a group whose experiences are often invisible in planning policy. Ensuring that local planning authorities take account of these needs is a modest but important step and we support it, but I refer to my earlier comments on the need for flexibility. Again, I am going to refer to my own experience, and to one of the proudest things I did when I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council. We had about 125 households in bread and breakfast; 10 years later, that was effectively zero. That was 125 households who had the opportunity to live in a proper home. There were two key reasons for it. One was that we built specialist temporary accommodation and converted some buildings for that; but the second is that we built homes they could move into. So, we also need to consider that we must build the quantum of homes that is needed if we are truly to address the issue of homelessness.

Both amendments speak to the same wider truth: housing policy must be about delivery, not just ambition. We hope the Government will take these proposals seriously and come back with measures that match the urgency of the housing crisis we face.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 72. I have to say that the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, when we are trying to sort out a housing crisis that his party created, are a bit rich. But I will park that for the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am pleased that the last Government delivered 1 million homes over the last five years. I will be delighted if this Government deliver 1.5 million, but at the moment, they are on track to deliver considerably fewer, increasing that crisis.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s Government left 130,000 children in temporary accommodation.

As noble Lords will know, the Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent, but we take a different view from the noble Lord on how to achieve this. The revised NPPF provides local authorities greater flexibility to deliver the right tenure mix to suit local housing needs, and planning practice guidance that supports the NPPF sets out that plan-makers should collaborate with the local community, developers and other stakeholders to create realistic, deliverable policies.

I understand the frustrations around the issue of viability, so the Government are also reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure that the system works to optimise developer contributions, and that negotiation or renegotiation of Section 106 agreements takes place only when genuinely necessary. Once planning obligations are entered into under Section 106, they run with the land and are legally binding on all parties to the agreement, so they can be enforced by the local planning authority. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing.

Turning to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, while we agree that we need to tackle homelessness, especially where children and families are involved, I will explain why we cannot support this approach. The planning system is already complex, and adding duties to have regard to particular matters, no matter how laudable, are not required in statute, given that national planning policy is a strong material consideration in planning decisions. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. Councils must, by law, make sure that any temporary accommodation placements are suitable to the needs of the people placed there. On World Homelessness Day this month, we announced £10.9 million to increase access to support and services for families in temporary accommodation. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to noble Lords for their support for Amendment 72. I thank my noble friend Lord Carlile for his eloquent words, and I offer the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, sincere thanks for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is unfortunately unable to support this amendment, which, without his help and that of his colleagues, I fear would not achieve the majority it needs.

I do not accept the noble Lord’s point that having a 20% baseline below which we would not go in terms of affordable housing, and social rented housing in particular, is necessarily a blockage to flexibility. The baseline of 20% at social rents—the typical housing association and council rents—would not put a great burden on the housebuilders negotiating with the planning authority that also wanted to produce housing for older people. I do not think it would entail an additional burden.

Sometimes the older people’s housing of the kind that the noble Lord has produced in his own borough—and I strongly congratulate him, as council leader, on achieving a disproportionate amount of housing for older people; he has done a great job—will be social housing and would count towards the affordable housing quota that I am talking about; sometimes it will be housing for outright sale, which would not be part of this equation so we would not worry about it. Having a baseline of 20% social housing as an absolute minimum is not going to impede—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

If I may just be clear, I apologise but I meant affordable housing that was for older people; I did not mean housing for private sale, when I talked about flexibility. I apologise if that was not clear.

[Lord Best (CB)]

Yes, well, I am sorry that we differ on this because it means that it would be pointless me taking this to a vote.

What I will say is that I am deeply grateful to the Minister for explaining that the issue of viability advice is now under consideration and that we will be getting new advice, which I hope will be much stronger and more positive than in the past. So I am grateful to her, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.