Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Randall of Uxbridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge]

212: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Building regulations: swift bricks(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) to make provision for the installation of an average of one swift brick per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.(2) Regulations must require the installation of swift bricks in line with best practice guidance, except where such installation is not practicable or appropriate.(3) For the purposes of this section—“swift brick” means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the common swift and other cavity nesting species;“best practice guidance” means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require the installation of integral bird nest boxes and swift boxes in developments greater than 5 metres in height. Swift bricks provide nesting habitat for all bird species reliant on cavity nesting habitat in buildings to breed.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

In the absence of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, I shall move Amendment 212, to which I have added my name. My noble friend sends his apologies to the Committee that he is detained elsewhere and cannot be here today. I am grateful, as is he, that my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Hintze have also added their names to the amendment.

At the beginning of our deliberations today, the Government Whip exhorted that we have swift debates, and I have moved a swift amendment. So, I am helping the Government yet again.

This is a subject we discussed in the levelling-up Bill and it was mentioned at Second Reading of this Bill. It is a simple amendment, which is probably why I am able to speak to it. It asks that a swift brick, which allows a swift potentially to breed in it, be added when a new build is made. This would apply only when appropriate. I point that out because some people have said that it may not always be appropriate.

I am sure that Members of this House know all about swifts, but here is a very brief résumé. They are migrants that come here quite late—normally at the end of April or in May—having flown all the way from sub-Saharan Africa or the Congo Basin. They do not stop flying. They mate on the wing. The only time they are not flying is when they are nesting.

These poor swifts have been declining in numbers. There may be a variety of reasons, such as a lack of insects and so forth, but one reason that has been identified is the success of insulation in houses. Cavity insulation means that the nesting areas that would normally be under eaves or wherever are not there. Imagine these poor swifts: they have flown all the way from the Congo, they are looking forward to going into the building that generations of swifts have been going to and they find that it is effectively blocked up.

The simple thing we are asking for is that the swift brick is placed in building regulations. I have a feeling that the Government might suggest that this could be planning policy, but I do not think that that is sufficient. I cannot understand why Governments—the previous Government were a little shy on this as well—will not accept this. I know that some people think it is perhaps overregulation or burdensome, and I heard it whispered, but I could not believe it is true, that there is lobbying from developers and builders. I cannot believe that that could in any way influence a Government, so I just ask the Government to reconsider.

This is in fact a great opportunity because, literally just a year ago, I think by a few days, campaigners, including my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, the swift campaigner the indefatigable Hannah Bourne-Taylor and others—I will not mention them all—met the then Secretary of State in Defra, the right honourable Steve Reed. He said that they were pushing at an open door because Defra has always been in favour—they are the friends of the environment—but sometimes other departments get in the way. This is therefore a great opportunity because we now have a convert to swift bricks in the ideal position to sanction this particular thing, so I am hoping that it can be done. It has been done successfully elsewhere, such as in Gibraltar. Some people might ask what happens if swifts do not come in. Other birds, including house sparrows, which are not as common as they used to be, can also utilise them, so it as a very good measure.

I say, finally, to the Government Benches that some of the measures in this Bill have not been quite to the flavour of environmental groups and members of the public who think that their language on bats and newts was a little bit extreme. So, in that same spirit of helping the Government regardless of the political party and in order to help them to get a win-win, this is the ideal time to allow this measure and put it into the Bill.

I support the other amendments in this group: Amendments 225—to which I have added my name—227GA and 338. I wanted to make sure that this is a swift debate. I beg to move.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I also support all the amendments in this group, which I think would support the Government’s stated aim to help nature in this Bill by making sure that the places that we build for humans at least minimise harm to wildlife and, in the case of swift bricks, actually help it.

I speak to Amendment 225 in my name and thank the noble Lords who have also put their names to it and support it. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on bird-safe design of buildings and to ensure that new buildings and significant changes to existing but not exempted heritage buildings incorporate this guidance as far as is practicable. Incorporating this amendment would not only bring the United Kingdom into alignment with what is seen in other jurisdictions around the world but would make the UK the first to introduce national bird safety legislation, which is something that could provide a welcome positive message for the Government to project.

I know that there are broader environmental concerns with the Bill, which we shall come on to later tonight, but the potential positive effects of this single amendment are enormous. Remember that the number of birds thought to be killed by flying into glass in buildings in the UK is over 30 million per year. The problems are simple. First, birds cannot see glass. Clear glass or glass that is reflecting nearby trees or sky is a hazard. Secondly, at night, artificial lighting, particularly in tall buildings, can disorientate migrating birds, making them end up circling the lights until they are exhausted and crash into a building.

The solutions are also simple, well researched and legislated for in many places. I have been able to base the wording of this amendment on that in many other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, which has mandated bird-safe standards since 2011, Washington DC, New York, Portland in Oregon, Toronto, Calgary, Hesse and Zurich. There are also bird-safe design guides based on 40 years’ worth of research that can provide an easy reference from the United States, Canada and Singapore. We have experts in the UK too. They all agree on some simple features of buildings to avoid—essentially, ones that make it look as though a bird can fly through safely to reach sky or a perch in a tree, but where there is actually a sheet of lethal glass. These can be removed through thoughtful architectural design, or you can use bird-safe glass. That is simply glass that is made visible to birds, either through patterns that we can also see or through patterns that reflect ultraviolet, which are invisible to us but visible to birds.

Research has shown that specific patterns, such as lines no thinner than two millimetres, spaced no wider than 50 millimetres apart, can effectively stop a bird flying into glass—a more than 90% reduction in collisions in tests. These test centres can therefore certify bird-safe glass, and there are many designs available from different manufacturers, including the UK’s Pilkington glass, which has a certified variety.

Then there is night-time lighting. Many cities around the world now have lights-out times. Even New York’s Twin Towers memorial beams get switched off for periods during bird migrations to help birds escape their fatal attraction. In the UK, awareness of this problem and its simple solutions is surprisingly low compared to North America. Experts I have spoken to around the world were delighted to hear from me, because they think of Britain as being so far behind in bird-safe buildings despite a world-leading status in so much animal welfare research and legislation. This amendment could put us back as global leaders in having the first national bird safety legislation, it would help put the Bill in line with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, as the Animal Sentience Committee has already pointed out, and it could save tens of millions of birds every year.

As for the cost, producing guidelines is easy, as I say, given the plethora of sources already available. Bird-safe architectural design is also easy once you know the guidelines. In a double win, many of the coatings and shades that help make glass less dangerous to birds also help with thermal issues and energy efficiency in glass buildings. The regulations on night-time lighting could help energy efficiency too. The cost of glass varies depending on specifications, but manufacturers that I have spoken to estimate that, at the moment, the cost of bird-safe glass in commercial buildings is about 5% more than normal glass and about 10% more for a domestic glazing unit, but all have said that those costs would come down quickly with scale. Not only that, but bird-safe glass apparently used to be made here in the UK, with 90% of it exported to projects in China, Europe and North America, driven by their legislation. With the market mainly being overseas, manufacturers have now mostly moved from the UK to Germany to follow demand, but could return if we caught up with global bird-safe legislation.

Amendment 225 seems to me an example of the much sought after win-win. Putting it into this Bill, alongside others in this group, would help demonstrate the Government’s stated commitment to helping nature and nature recovery, alongside helping British businesses and not slowing down any housebuilding. I very much hope that the Minister will agree.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, while I thank noble Lords for their amendments, there is existing legislation in place to protect vulnerable species and that, combined with the measures in the National Planning Policy Framework, means that we remain of the view that planning policy is the best mechanism to ensure that development proposals consider wildlife. Therefore, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I was a bit remiss in not congratulating the Minister on remaining in post. Prime Ministers make, from time to time, crazy decisions—I have seen it happen—but nothing would have been crazier than to remove the noble Baroness from her position. That is why I did not even think about it.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. It is a subject that I care very passionately about. I agree with my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Lucas, but I am testing the Government to see whether they can get one tiny thing through. I think the answer is no—not yet anyway.

Bird-friendly buildings is a really important subject. It does not have to mean that you switch the lights off all the time, it is about reflections and so forth. We may return to this.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra might speculate about where my noble friend Lord Goldsmith is, but I could not possibly comment.

I say to the Minister: in the same way as the swifts return every year, albeit in smaller numbers, this too will return on Report, albeit with greater numbers and more vehemence. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 212 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Randall of Uxbridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that the chances of the Government agreeing to an amendment are very slim. I remember being in opposition in the other place in Committee on the Bill setting up the Greater London Authority, and we discovered that there was a comma missing. We moved an amendment to that effect, which was rejected by the Government and brought back on Report—so we get the mentality of these things.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I am sorry, I will not take up the time of the House, but there is a precedent in this House, in that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, during the passage of the climate change Act in 2006, at one point threw his papers away and said not quite “Damn it”, but that he was going to agree to this one, despite what the department says, and it went through. However, I have never had another instance of that happening.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

The amendments I have put down are all about making sure we had scientific evidence and consultation. I am a bear of little brain—

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

There is no need to agree—it was meant sarcastically.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

It seems to me that the Minister and the department have shot my fox, except I know the Minister is not really keen on shooting foxes at all. In fact, although they have not agreed to my amendments, the very thing that I wanted is in government Amendment 346E. I think that is right. I will blame the fact that I have new glasses and cannot read things very well, but I assume that this is the case, and that is probably enough for me to say.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend who has just spoken, my amendments in this group are about challenging the EDP. We spoke about that on the last amendment; I do not think there is any need for me to repeat myself. I express my thanks to the Minister, who will probably go into this in quite some detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 258C, which seeks to ensure that EDPs are grounded in scientific evidence and on clear ecological baselines, so that they can be judged as genuinely delivering measurable environmental improvements. The Government’s proposed amendments are welcome as going some way, requiring Natural England to have regard to existing scientific evidence, but they are silent on what happens if there is not sufficient data or evidence. Perhaps the noble Baroness could say whether Natural England would at that point be required to collect new evidence to establish a baseline from which measures and outcomes would be judged.

This amendment would ensure that every EDP has a strong evidential foundation, so that the interventions can be judged on whether they are credible to make them defensible. I remind noble Lords that we are dealing in this circumstance with the most important and threatened environmental features in this country, which until now have been regarded as requiring the highest level of legal protection, so it is important that we get the scientific and evidential bases right.

To assess whether development has a negative or a positive impact, it is essential to know what the starting ecological conditions were. Without a sufficient baseline, it is not possible to evaluate whether an EDP is achieving the environmental improvements it is supposed to. Requiring a proper baseline and evidential base builds in transparency, increases trust in the whole system, and allows proper monitoring over time, and I welcome the noble Baroness’s explanation of the additional amendments on monitoring.

This amendment also requires Natural England to take account of the environmental principles in preparing the EDP and to publish a statement of how it has done so. The noble Baroness has already talked about the importance of the environmental principles, but it would be useful to get some clarification of how they would refer to Natural England’s role as opposed to ministerial roles, to which it is clear through legislation that they already apply. Requiring Natural England to consider them explicitly and to put that in the Bill would give clarity for developers, regulators and the public.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 285A commits to a new clause, which would require Natural England to undertake a baseline biodiversity survey for an EDP, very much along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has just said, and would require the Secretary of State to consider this when determining whether an EDP passes the overall improvement test. I am very keen on biodiversity. My noble friend Lady Coffey referred to me as a twitcher. I take that not entirely well, because “twitcher” is slightly derogatory. I would like to be called a birder, and that is reflected in my coat of arms where there are four examples of a particular species which she will probably know from her reed beds at Minsmere: the bearded reedling, which of course is more commonly known as a bearded tit.

The reason for this biodiversity baseline is so that, as the noble Baroness said, you can find out what is happening now. The previous information may be out of date. It is important for the future condition of the area and to see whether the EDP is working, and it would highlight risks. In the interests of time, I will leave it there to hear what the Minister says on this.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lord Randall. First, turning to baseline data and coming back to earlier discussions in Committee, I know that work is going on to improve what we have by way of baseline data, and I have been involved in extensive discussions with the local environment record centres and others. I would really appreciate being given an understanding, either now or by letter, of what the Government’s intentions are by way of giving momentum and a sense of determination to taking our current system and moving it on to the point where we gather all the environmental information, which we collect into one place, both that generated by the planning system and the extensive environmental data generated through high-quality amateur systems, and use for the benefit of understanding what is going on in local ecology.

It is all very well to do a baseline survey—it is traditional around us to do them in February—but doing proper baseline to really understand what is going on in an area requires presence throughout the year over a period of years. We have that data. We are collecting it. The world is full of seriously good amateur natural historians putting in a lot of work for free, and we are not taking advantage of that. We do not even use it to monitor the condition of SSSIs. Where the Government intend to go on this and how they will pick up on the discussions currently taking place and take them forward are important to understand before we get to Report. I will write to the Minister on that subject.

Secondly, when it comes to such things as water quality and nutrient neutrality, I am afraid that the monitoring system run by the Environment Agency has been run down to such an extent that we really do not have a good picture of what is going on in the average river catchment. As I have said before in Committee, my brother, Tim Palmer, is involved in the efforts that the Wylye Valley farmers are making. They have created their own laboratory. They are doing their own measurements, working with the Environment Agency, producing a much better quality of baseline data, and understanding where the problems come from and what can be done to deal with them.

High-resolution data makes it possible to resolve problems. The sort of stuff we have as the general flow from the Environment Agency just leaves us puzzling. Again, I very much hope that the Government will find themselves able to work with all the resources, interest and determination that are out there in the farming and other communities to get the data better and not just think that they have to pay huge amounts to environmental consultants to do it through the usual methods. There are better ways of doing these things by opening up. I hope that is the direction the Government will take.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Randall of Uxbridge Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak against Amendment 245. In so doing, I emphasise that I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his superb work as Environment Minister in your Lordships’ House, as well as respect for the other signatories to this amendment. My opposition may be surprising if your Lordships recognise that I am an emeritus professor at the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology at Oxford University —which is arguably the world’s leading ornithological research institute—as well as being a life member of the RSPB. So why am I against swift boxes? I am absolutely in favour of measures to halt the decline in swifts and in other species I will come to in a moment; my objection to this amendment is that it simply will not work.

The amendment refers to fitting swift bricks on houses or buildings over five metres tall. Let me describe the basis on which I suggest that this will not work. The Edward Grey Institute is home to the longest-running study of swift populations anywhere in the world: it has been running for 78 years. The first thing to say about this long-running study is that the swifts nest in the tower of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, which is not five metres tall but 58 metres tall. I will explain why that is important in a moment. I do not want noble Lords to think that this is my opinion alone. I consulted my colleague, Professor Christopher Perrins, who ran the swift study for many years and is a former director of the Edward Grey Institute. What he points out, and I agree, is that swifts are very specialised aerial feeders and flyers. They are superb flyers, and one consequence of their specialisation for flight is that in order to get into their nest, they need a very long, exposed flight path: like a jumbo jet landing at an airport, they need a long entry point. Equally important, when they leave the nest, they need a very large drop space in order to come out of the nest, drop and start flapping their wings to take off. That is why, when nesting in the tower of the university museum at Oxford, which is 58 metres tall, the swifts prefer to nest at the very top. Even boxes that are 15 or 20 metres from the top are not used by the swifts; only the ones at the very top.

This is a very well-intentioned idea, and I am all in favour of measures that will help reverse the decline in swift populations, but I do not think this is the right one. So what is the cause of the decline in swift populations in this country? We have to look at the fact that it is not just swifts, but other bird species that are aerial insect feeders: house martins, sand martins and swallows are all in steep decline. They all have very different nesting requirements. The swift is the only one that nests in a hole, as the swift brick amendment would suggest, or under eaves.

The real cause of the decline of these bird species is the decline in aerial insect populations. We all know, and it is an oft-repeated fact, that in the good old days when even I was young, if you drove down a country lane at night, your windscreen would be spattered with insect corpses. Now you drive down a country lane at night and your windscreen is completely clear. Yes, we should tackle the problem of declining aerial insectivores —swifts, house martins, sand martins and swallows—and declining insects, but swift boxes are really a bit player in this whole question. Although I support the intention of the amendment, I do not think it would deliver what is claimed and therefore, reluctantly, I do not support it.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I listened to what he said. I remember reading a book probably by one of his predecessors at Oxford, Swifts in a Tower by David Lack, which was a very interesting and useful piece of work. I understand exactly what the noble Lord is saying. There is not a simple answer; there is the matter of insects—it is not just the hirundines and swifts that we are talking about.

Swift bricks are well-intentioned things and, of course, would not be just for swifts. There are some other cavity nesting birds including house sparrows, which may not seem as exciting to people as swifts. They are in decline; I do not see many at all around in Uxbridge now.

As my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said, the Government seem to have done a reverse ferret or had a damascene conversion in reverse, but I am still hoping there may be another one. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has raised the point that we should be looking at all sorts of measures, and there may be an opportunity for the Government to look at higher buildings—perhaps not residential ones, but when new schools or hospitals are being built they could put in swift bricks; they can even be put under the tiles, I believe. I hope that by the time this amendment comes to a Division, if it does, or at Third Reading, there may be some thoughts about how we make this better. I think the Government would genuinely like to do it, but there are various things getting in the way. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has given them a perfect excuse, so I will take him aside and sort him out.

My noble friend Lord Goldsmith and many other noble friends and noble Lords have expressed their desire for something to be done, and this seems like a good way forward. It is something for us to digest.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I do not think anybody in this House does not want to achieve the objectives of this amendment and, indeed, others. We have to be realistic that our populations of native birds, and other flora and fauna, have been dropping for a long time. We, collectively, are partly responsible for this, because our involvement in land use and urbanisation naturally clashes with the requirements of birds such as swifts.

Without attempting to challenge in any way whatever the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, with his experience and background, nevertheless I feel that even if the swift population is not necessarily going to be dramatically affected or have its chances improved by this measure, other birds might find that they would be beneficiaries. I cannot see a downside to the proposal and, on balance, it is worth pursuing the amendment because if it does not affect swifts in some particular areas—their behaviour may obviously vary from one place to another —other birds would benefit.

It is surprising how many people are interested in this. In my own region, the Antrim area, a significant number of people are part of a swift group trying to help the native species recover. We should encourage that. I see no downside to the measure and I support it, albeit we have to accept the fact that no silver bullet will effect any one of these things; there is a combination of things. Their food source, insects, being fewer and farther between is always the biggest challenge for any native animal. But there is enough in this proposal to make it worth while, and I support it. I hope the House will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, we should make our homes and houses and gardens as supportive to the lives of other species as is feasible, especially where the solutions are so low-cost. I was very happy to add my name to Amendment 140, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

I refrained from wading into the swift box debate previously, but I consider this amendment to be swift box-plus, and I support it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Krebs about the behaviour of swifts—I have had the joy of filming them in the tower in Oxford. I also know that these boxes are heavily used by other species. Therefore, I support the use of swift bricks, nest boxes and anything that costs virtually nothing.

I recognise that the Government are not keen to change building regulations. I note that adding spaces is free and does not have to be under the name of nature. Perhaps we could change building regulations to add some spaces without specifically saying that it is for nature —for instance, leaving gaps under fences for hedgehog highways. We do not have to commercialise this; we can just say that leaving a gap is a good thing to do.

My Amendment 246, on bird-safe design, is supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and by the Animal Sentience Committee, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. I have spoken about this in Committee, but I remind noble Lords that an estimated 30 million birds a year are killed by glass windows in the UK, and free or cheap solutions exist which can reduce these collisions by over 90%. Bird-safe design is already legislated for in many other jurisdictions, all based on good research done at major centres in the US and Europe.

I have spoken about bird-safe glass and how its patterned or UV coating can make it visible to birds. I want to make the additional point that these coatings, blinds or louvres, which we see often in glass office blocks, also help with thermal protection, so bird safety can easily be combined with net-zero building requirements, at no extra cost. That is just a little thought: the regulations that deal with one could also deal with the other.

I emphasise that most bird-safe design is free and does not get in the way of house or office building. For example, if a bird hits the office glass and falls into those little ventilation shafts or drainage grilles that you get at the bottom of big glass offices, they fall through the grille if it is too large and then come round in a space that they cannot get out of and can starve to death. Simply mandating that the grille size is smaller than 2 centimetres can stop birds getting stuck in them in the first place. These are the tiny things that can help. They are already specified in guidance in Canada, the US, Singapore and Switzerland. We have no such guidance here.

In Committee and in a helpful meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government said that they were sympathetic to the principles but did not want to change building standards to encompass nature as well as humans. I have changed my amendment to specify an addition to the NPPF instead, as part of its updating. The NPPF already includes things such as swift bricks but does not address bird safety at all. This is a big surprise to people from other countries, where bird-safe building design is much higher profile. We have a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 not to recklessly kill birds. Given that a simple and cheap change to building design could so dramatically reduce the number of birds being killed by our buildings, adding it to the NPPF and issuing a guidance booklet, as is done in so many other countries, is really necessary.

I very much hope to hear something positive from the Minister tonight. If the Government agree with the principles but have a different way that they would want to implement them then I am all ears, but this is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I think that whatever their plans are should be in it. I reserve the right to ask the opinion of House next week if I am not satisfied with her answer.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I fully support Amendments 140 and 246.

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about having a level playing field. I remember organising a round table in No. 10 a few years ago with developers and builders who all said that they would love to do various environmental things but, “We’re not going to do it if somebody else doesn’t”. In that case, it was because it was a bit more expensive. It was very often to do with boilers and so on. The measures that we are talking about here are very low-cost. I can understand Governments being loath to implement this, but when everybody has to do it, everybody will be happy. There are extra things that could be put on, I am sure, and that is going to be a danger, but we must look at this very seriously.