Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Roborough and Baroness Young of Old Scone

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to my amendments, I will talk to them briefly. First, I welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, which improve Part 3 processes in response to the pressures in the other place on the Bill and the OEP verdict of significant environmental regression.

My Amendment 240A is a bit nerdy at this time of night but noble Lords should pay attention because there will be an examination at the end. It replaces “may” with “must”, in that

“environmental features identified in an EDP must”—

not may—

“be either a protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species”.

I think the clause as drafted could result in unintended consequences. For example, Natural England might identify an assemblage of species rather than a single species as the environmental feature covered by the EDP, such as the entire bat assemblage of a particular area—I use the word “bat” advisedly.

If this were done, the overall improvement in that feature could be said to occur if, say, half the species in that assemblage were expected to benefit, even if one or two of the rarest and most important species in the assemblage were to be driven to local extinction. It would risk this trade-off within a sort of bulk buy of species, and would definitely risk that species that are more difficult to make alternative provision for would be sacrificed in exchange for benefits being delivered to the easier species. My amendment would require EDPs to address species and features individually, not as part of an EDP bulk purchase.

Amendment 251A in my name is a separate amendment, which raises an issue that I do not think has been raised elsewhere. It seeks to establish what happens with the ongoing protection of habitats that are created by way of compensation under an EDP. It cannot be right that compensation habitats are created under an EDP to replace species and habitat features that currently have the highest level of protection when the habitat that is there to compensate for them has no level of protection whatever. That cannot be the right outcome but, from the way I read the Bill, after the EDP’s end date, there is no clarity about their conservation status.

In the past, there have been pretty notorious examples of compensation habitat subsequently being trashed, often by successive development, neglect or land-use change. When the extension of the M4 across the Gwent Levels was being proposed, we had the distressing consequence that the habitat that was created to compensate for the road extension was promptly put back up for grabs when the next road extension took place. That was fought off, mercifully, but the further road extension was going to go through the very compensated habitat that was put in place for the first road extension.

I was involved in the creation of the new village of Cambourne, just outside Cambridge, which had compensatory habitat designed into the development. The developers worked very successfully with Natural England and the local wildlife trust. I declare an interest as a former president of that wildlife trust. The habitat that was created was very valuable for wildlife and it offset the development impacts. It is now much loved by residents but, lo and behold, 20 years later, East West Rail is going right through one of the major wildlife sites that was created. That cannot be right: we cannot be providing compensation for it then to be up for grabs for any use.

So my Amendment 251A seeks protection in perpetuity. I cannot think of any other length of time with any logic to it, because the reality is that the sites being destroyed or damaged have protection in perpetuity, so the sites that are created in compensation for them should have protection in perpetuity.

I thank the Minister for taking an interest in this at her drop-in session last week, when I think I heard her give an undertaking to look seriously into what needed to happen on this as yet unaddressed issue.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 250 is an important clarifying measure that would ensure that, when Natural England seeks to impose planning conditions as part of an EDP, they must be directly related to developments that fall within the scope of that EDP. This addresses an important point of legal and procedural clarity. Without such a safeguard, there is a risk that conditions could be sought or imposed on developments beyond the defined remit of the EDP, which could lead to regulatory uncertainty and potential challenge.

By linking conditions strictly to developments within the EDP’s scope, this amendment would protect against regulatory overreach and maintain the principle of proportionality, ensuring that developers are subject only to conditions that are relevant, necessary and reasonable. This is not about restricting environmental protections but about ensuring that they are applied fairly and transparently, thereby supporting the credibility of the planning system and maintaining public trust.

Briefly, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 238 to 240 would sharpen the focus of EDPs by requiring that all relevant environmental features are identified and that the nature of any direct impact is properly addressed. This is not simply a drafting improvement; it is about ensuring the robustness and accountability of the system that we are creating.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her Amendments 240A and 251A. These would be important improvements in the Bill.

This short debate has highlighted that further tightening and improvement is still needed in this clause, despite the Government’s welcome amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond encouragingly.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Roborough and Baroness Young of Old Scone

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I hope that in writing this note, which I welcome, the Minister will give us an account of how GBE will report on the strategic priorities set by the Government, and that they will include not just climate but environmental and biodiversity targets. They are the twin crises that GBE is helping to solve.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

The noble Lord mentioned that the minimum requirement was the nine-month reporting window under the Companies Act. Could he give us an idea now of what he sees as a desirable reporting timeframe? If he would like to reflect, perhaps he could include those thoughts in his letter.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Roborough and Baroness Young of Old Scone

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105, which I have also signed. I first congratulate him on a polished and passionate introduction to his first amendments.

Amendments 67 and 104 would prevent GB Energy supporting renewable energy projects on, or owning, land that is grade 1, 2 or 3 to prevent the loss of good agricultural land. Amendments 73 and 105 would encourage GB Energy to pursue developments on land that has designations of grade 4 or 5 or on non-agricultural land.

The nationally significant infrastructure projects that have been signed by our Secretary of State have already had a detrimental impact on our best and most versatile farmland. In answer to my Written Question on 2 December about the agricultural impact of the Cottam, Mallard Pass and Gate Burton solar farms, the Minister—who is sitting in his place and is also doing such an able job of shepherding this Bill through this House and Committee—stated:

“For each of these cases, the Examining Authorities’ Reports have been published alongside the Secretary of State’s Decision Letters”,


so I had to find the answers myself. The examining authorities are clear that best and most versatile land, including grade 2, is being lost to existing solar developments. It seems hasty that some of the largest and most controversial solar developments appear to be being signed off with little or no weighting given to the quality of the land or food security. The justification seems to be that the land will be returned to agriculture after 30 or so years, as my noble friend pointed out. Unfortunately, we need to eat for those 30 years.

At Cottam, 5% of the area was best and most versatile land. The report said

“according to the ExA, the Proposed Development would not meet the requirements of the NPPF in this regard and subsequently accorded this a negative weighting”.

At Mallard Pass, 40.7% of this project was best and most versatile land, with the remaining 56% grade 3b —so captured by this amendment but not by “best and most versatile”. The report said

“the ExA acknowledges that there is a corresponding degree of conflict with the Government’s Food Strategy aim of broadly maintaining domestic production at current level, and that there is a potential higher agricultural yield and associated economic benefit from the farming of BMV land that would be lost”.

In answer to my Oral Question prior to Christmas, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, conceded that the Sunnica project had a negative albeit slight impact on farming. In answer to an Oral Question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the noble Baroness stated that grades 1 and 2 farmland were not being developed for solar. As my research has demonstrated, this is not entirely true for important grade 2 farmland nor for grade 3a.

It is clear from these examples that the Government’s goal of energy security from renewable energy trumps food security every time. I ask the Minister two questions: with so much land of grade 4 and below in the UK, including in areas with strong solar radiation, why is the Secretary of State so eager to approve sites which undermine our food security? Why are the Government not being straight that this is happening? I had to dig for some time to answer these questions after the replies I was given. Are the Government seeking to hide the embarrassing details of these actions? Research from SolarQ demonstrates that solar development is falling disproportionately on grades 1, 2 and 3 land, and underproportionately on weaker grades. Why is this?

The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework would remove the protection for agricultural land for food production, simply requiring that poorer land be preferred. Given that the current NPPF is already undermining best and most versatile land use, weakening its protection makes a bad situation worse and makes my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendments even more important.

At present, it seems that this Government will approve any renewable energy project development that anyone cares to put forward, without an overall strategy for where those projects are best placed. Our Government began development of a land use framework that would help inform and clarify this decision-making. The current Government have committed to continuing this work and publishing that framework in the not-too-distant future; I believe consultation is expected to begin at the end of this month. That would allow for an open discussion about our priorities and a rational process for determining where we want our solar and wind energy infrastructure to make sure that each of our limited and precious acres is put to its best use.

It is clear that our best farmland is not being treasured or protected by the Government and it is critical that we use every opportunity to protect it. In the Great British Energy Bill, we have the chance with these amendments to prevent at least part of the industry pursuing damaging developments that are not in our national interest.

I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of putting these protections in the Bill. Would he be willing in his department’s involvement in the land use frame-work also to ensure that renewable energy project development happens on our least agriculturally productive land?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments pick up the right issue but produce the wrong solution. There is no doubt about it: we need the land use framework to come forward very swiftly to avoid the sort of piecemeal decision-making that we are hearing about, not only on food security and energy but on all sorts of other issues.

To try to task GB Energy with this role is entirely the wrong approach, because the reality is that GB Energy is simply a medium-sized company aimed at investing in a comparatively small number of projects, and again would be a very partial solution to these big dilemmas about how we use the very scarce land we have at our disposition in this country. I want the Minister to press his colleagues in other government departments, because we require a multi-department land use framework that will take a multifunctional look at how we use land. We need not just to look at the strategic spatial energy plan, which will also talk about locational issues and land use in respect of energy; that spatial plan must be nested within the land use framework, and it is increasingly pressing that it comes forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked us to be gentle with him. I will say very gently that in this House we do not talk for 12 minutes on an amendment.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Roborough and Baroness Young of Old Scone

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 32, 39 and 40 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The case has already been put very well that there is absolutely no point in having these plans drawn up and published if there is no requirement for the companies to implement them and no sanctions if they do not. This seems a bit of a no-brainer. I suggest to the Minister that, if there is some legal impediment to these plans being implemented, we should do away with the requirement to draw up and publish them. That would be the most honest thing to do, if there will be no requirement to implement and no sanctions if they do not; otherwise, they are just dangling in mid-air, of neither use nor ornament.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing this group of amendments and for the strong case that she and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, have made regarding the importance of publishing and, crucially, implementing pollution incident reduction plans, or PIRPs. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 31; I would have published our own equivalent had the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, not been so swift with her pen. Without a requirement to implement, a pollution incident reduction plan would, frankly, be of little use.

Moving on to Amendment 34A, and declaring my interest as a landowner within Dartmoor National Park, while I approve of the sentiment behind the amendment, I would be reluctant to make our national parks a special case. We treasure our entire country. My preference would be for the water companies to focus on the worst pollution incident risks, which I imagine will be a consequence of their pollution incident reporting plans, particularly if compliance with those plans becomes strengthened through this group of amendments. We are committed to decreasing the impact of pollution incidents, and in government we committed to creating the water restoration fund, which would have seen the money collected from fines and penalties directly channelled into improving the water environment. We proposed a plan to improve water systems and, as such, we recognise the importance of creating and adhering to these PIRPs.