Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak on Part 2 of the Bill. I declare my interests in the register, as a former practising chartered surveyor. I certainly support the Bill. I like it very much. I wish to address just a few concerns this evening.

Most of the ground has been well covered. I will try not to repeat too much. First, I want to touch on housing. One and half million homes in a short window of time is a huge undertaking. It will not be done piecemeal. It requires many vast new-build schemes. These are going to be predominantly, I am sure, on green spaces. We must learn from the mistakes of the last 30 or 40 years, when acres of matchboxes identical to each other have been built with no thought whatever to the appearance to those passing by, or nearby, or living in them. What an opportunity this is to introduce some design vision to the process—style guides and development themes. Please, let us move on from matchboxes.

Introducing design at the outset is free. It is more expensive—only slightly more expensive—because it is cosmetic, but it costs nothing to the developer. It is factored into its appraisal, and it comes off site value. Living in an attractive, landscaped environment has a great impact on society as a whole and, of course, to the people who live there themselves. The Bill refers to design training for planning committee members. This is an excellent suggestion and will inform the design vision I refer to. The RIBA states that feedback from its members over the last couple of years suggests that 54% of local planning authorities lack any design expertise.

Secondly, I am very pleased the Bill refers to brownfield land, but it is not much more than that. The reference to passports to accelerate the development process is welcome and applauded, but I regret there is no single brownfield land clause in the Bill. It merits and deserves a clause of its own. It is of primary importance because tens of thousands of residential dwelling units could be built on brownfield land. They are usually in metropolitan areas. There is no need for the additional infrastructure services of schools and transport infrastructure, medical centres and shops—simply expenditure on expanding the existing provision in the metropolitan areas.

My third concern is planning departments. I will build on the excellent words of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and support the planning system as it was structured. I do not want to refer at all to the roll call of consultants who surround and influence the planning process. The system of local planning authorities itself is well designed, but it is broken. Years of under-resourcing have taken their toll. The Government’s Autumn Statement had £45 million for 300 new apprentice planners, which is a woefully inadequate addition to the cohort. It is fewer than one per local planning authority. There are 2,200 current vacancies in the planning system among local planning authorities and 13% of planning authorities are trying to operate with a shortfall of 25% or more in their numbers. Morale is understandably low. They are under-resourced and unloved.

It is a revolving door of employment. Case handlers change, sometimes twice, for an applicant. Knowledge of the file is interrupted. Site visits, meetings and relationships are destroyed as the faces change. Delays are inevitable. The Government must act and rebuild from the bottom up. Do not break the structure, but rebuild, recruit and retrain. Return professional pride to these wonderful teams of people. Let them take pride in their work again.

Finally, there is flood risk. The Bill makes no direct reference to flood risk management. There are too many homes being built with a one in 100 likelihood of flooding, which, as we all know, is accelerating rapidly with climate change. We should not build on flood-risk land; it is madness. The Bill could stop it. To conclude, this is a good Bill, but there are gaps which need filling.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Thurlow]

99A: Clause 50, page 64, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) Training for all members of local planning authorities must include specific training on the role of design for the external appearance of developments as it relates to their exercise of relevant planning functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that mandatory training for all members of local planning authorities in England includes training on design as it relates to their role in determining planning applications, particularly in the context of the built environment, character of the area, local materials, and variety of styles to break up monotony within larger housing developments.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to introduce the second group of amendments today and to speak specifically to my Amendment 99A. These amendments focus on the need for wider training in design for those involved in the planning process, particularly within local authorities. In doing so, I declare my interests as a surveyor and a consultant in the property sector and the occupier of a listed building, although that is not relevant in this group. These interests are set out in the register.

To understand fully the background to this group, it is important to have some awareness of the way in which planning applications are processed within local authorities. Anyone present in the Chamber today who has had experience of making planning applications in the past few years will be woefully aware of the difficulties that process usually involves. It has become something of a nightmare for applicants. There are difficulties in arranging meetings with senior planners, and receiving advice and guidance in any sort of a timely fashion is hopelessly slow. Non-controversial consents can be delayed for many months. My son George is currently waiting and waiting and waiting for progress to build a house. It is non-controversial, and there have been no objections, and he has had support from the local planning authority, but can he get his piece of paper? No, he cannot, and it is difficult for him to establish why.

As we heard eloquently in discussions on the first group, the teams are underresourced—in almost all cases, from what I can glean, critically underresourced. Morale is often low, and we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Banner, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, about this. The revolving door of staff leaving for better paid, more interesting work, usually in the private sector, is a constant drain on resources.

Planning officers receive a steady flow of new applications, each of which needs attention. They are often up against well-resourced applicants, frequently professional developers who are adept at using loopholes to optimise their objectives by working the system. This has the unfortunate effect of putting staff in planning departments on the back foot; they feel defensive, when they should be positive and playing a constructive role, working with applicants in all cases to produce the optimum fair and appropriate result. It becomes very difficult for them to perform this service. With the revolving door of staff, the file on any given project, particularly a larger one, may go through the hands of three different planners who have none of the history and embedded knowledge to work with. They are bound to be defensive. Proper training is vital for these professionals, but that training should not exclusively refer to the disciplines of health, safety, building control and knowledge of the wider body of legislation, let alone enforcement. Training for planners should involve a wider and more subjective brief.

Particularly with regard to the Government’s objective of 1.5 million new homes over the next few years, we must expect to see a large number of massive housing projects, which will be given some sort of fast-track treatment. Planning officers and members of committees need therefore to have an understanding of more than just the compliance with regulations and the fast-tracking, which other sections of the Bill address. Careful thought needs to be given to the impact of these new large housing projects on communities and the public at large. We must avoid the easy mistake of allowing hundreds and hundreds of lookalike matchbox developments to be built at the lowest cost, at the expense of appearance. These massive schemes—indeed, small schemes of several houses as well—should have regard to a wider design brief to overcome the relentless roadside appearance of almost identical buildings.

There have been some impressive exceptions, such as Poundbury, in Dorset, Chapelton, south of Aberdeen, and many others, but they are few and far between. This must change. It is not difficult to build row upon row of houses from a master plan with all the economies of scale for the principal elements of the construction process with a little more attention to interesting external elevations and the use of different building materials and finishes. In fact, this is cosmetics; while it will cost a little more, the benefit to local communities and society as a whole of an interesting streetscape, rather than relentless monotony, is an uplifting social service. I think it goes without saying that landscaping should be part of this.

This explains why planning officers should be carefully trained, to ensure that these simple but lasting improvements are introduced to larger-scale projects early on, for the wider benefits, not just for the residents—though they will be the principal beneficiaries. This training would require planning professionals, and in turn housing developers and their architects, to consider the impact of projects as a whole. It would require developers to display a carefully thought-out approach to the appearance of their completed developments and the wider impact of the finished product, insisting upon imaginative treatment when applied to external appearance. The process of continuous professional development, or CPD as it is known, would be a simple and rapid chance to deliver training to these professionals and to do so within months, rather than years. Bearing in mind the obligation within most professions for a minimum number of CPD hours annually, this really is an opportunity.

I firmly believe that this subject of imaginative design and external appearance applying to projects as a whole should become a required element of the training for professional planners. As the Government attempt to squeeze hundreds of thousands of housing units into a limited space, with lasting effects on the landscape and the quality of life of residents, it is an opportunity to kickstart a new era, with an intelligent planning discipline for the benefit of society as a whole. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and hope she will accept this proposal. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

To take the noble Lord’s last point first, my optimism and determination is to get to Amendment 135, but we shall see. I hope I have reassured him on the point about continuing to reflect on the issues around chief planning officers. I think I already responded to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that, so I hope that reassures him.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I am impressed with the advocacy standing behind the amendments in this short group. It has taken a lot longer than I thought it would. It is clear that there is a real concern regarding the crisis in provision in the planning process and the emphasis on training needs. All these amendments should be non-controversial from a political point of view. They are about supporting apprenticeships and training at all levels and improving the positive aesthetic, pride in planning and career opportunities.

I thank the Minister for agreeing, in her very first few words in winding, with all the amendments proposed—if I heard her correctly. Perhaps that was agreement in principle. I am particularly pleased that she does not recognise my reference to street upon street of matchbox lookalike developments. I think we have been travelling in different directions. As a surveyor, I do a great deal of travelling in the car and on trains. I think the objective is the same and, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think we have to make absolutely sure that the massive developments that will arise from the housebuilding targets the Government have announced do not descend to the lowest common denominator of design and appearance.

I am afraid I am nervous about the reference to addressing our concerns across the group by way of regulation and delegated authority. We all know where that sometimes leads. We will doubtless return to the Minister’s comments on Report.

Amendment 99A withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have not spoken in Committee so far, but in my four-minute contribution at Second Reading I raised two issues, which are the subject of these next two amendments. The first may be described as being in the weeds and the other in the stratosphere.

Perhaps I should begin with the weeds. Amendment 213 is about footpaths. I have three asks to make of the Government. The footpath issue is one that a cross-party group of Members of your Lordships’ House have been following—“chasing down” might be a better phrase—for many years. I am therefore grateful for the support of two of the group, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me to give an apology as she cannot be here this evening. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has left the Chamber because we had extensive debates on the footpath issue when she had her responsibilities as a shadow spokesman before the general election, and I wish her well in her new role.

However, one name is missing from the Government Benches, that of Lord Rosser. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I add a short personal note. Lord Rosser was a doughty supporter of the footpath cause over many years and, despite his increasing frailty and looking exceptionally unwell, he came, possibly to speak for the last time, in support of a regret Motion that I had tabled. It is of course quite right that when one of us leaves your Lordships’ House the water should close over us quietly and soundlessly, but I wanted on this occasion for one last time to record my thanks to Lord Rosser for his support over the years.

With that, to horse. First, I need to declare an interest, as I am a member of the Ramblers, which campaigns on behalf of footpaths and open access. I am currently making use of our footpaths by walking from Land’s End to John O’Groats—in stages, I hasten to add—and I am just reaching Inverness. In the 1,000 or so miles that I have so far covered, I have seen at first hand how our network of public rights of way provides physical and mental support. In effect, it lifts the soul, even if, after seven hours on the road, the feet and the muscles may be a little sore.

The background to this issue is as follows. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 required local authorities to provide and prepare official records of public rights of way, known as definitive maps. As a result, some 120,000 miles of rights of way were recorded in England. That leads me to my first ask of the Government: the reason for paragraph (c) in my amendment, “preservation”, is to get the Minister’s commitment that nothing in the Bill will be allowed to end the network of these paths in whole or in part. The key word here is “network” because, if a path can be brought to an end, even for a few hundred yards, the utility and value of the surrounding paths is greatly reduced. Can the Minister confirm that the provisions of the Bill will not put at risk this important national asset, which is the primary means by which the public can get outdoors?

There is a further challenge. While the recording of 120,000 miles of footpaths was a terrific achievement, research suggests that some 40,000 further miles were not recorded and therefore remain unprotected. There are over 3,000 miles in Cornwall and just under 3,000 miles in Herefordshire. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 attempted to bring this issue to a conclusion by setting a deadline for applications to be submitted to local highway authorities for adding these hitherto unrecorded rights of way to the official definitive maps. The deadline was set for 25 years later, 1 January 2026, three months from where we are now. After that date, applications for adding unrecorded public rights of way based on historic evidence will no longer be possible and any of those miles would be lost for ever.

Progress on recording those 20,000 miles was disappointingly slow: first, because local authorities had many other uses for funds and found it hard to justify putting additional resources into this activity, balanced against all those other pressures; secondly, because the actual process of recording is rather clunky and expensive, both financially as well as in management time and effort. I have first-hand experience of that because my family company owns a few acres of agricultural land in Shropshire, where we needed the diversion of a footpath; although it was not contested, it took over three years to achieve. I place on record my thanks to Shropshire County Council and Mr Rodenhurst, who is the county council footpath officer, but he too had to work to an existing system.

Some anecdotal evidence suggests that many councils can process only two or three applications every year. At one point, a working party of interested stakeholders was set up to streamline the system, but it seems to have gone nowhere. Therefore, my second ask of the Minister is whether that working party still exists and whether it has any role in the Government’s thinking on how to speed up this recording process.

Finally, as the deadline of 1 January 2026 became ever closer, I, together with a cross-party group of Members of your Lordships’ House, began to campaign for a better, permanent solution. At first, it looked as though we had had success. In February 2022, the then Conservative Government announced that the deadline would be abolished entirely, but a year later, in March 2023—presumably after lobbying by landowners and farmers—that decision was reversed and, instead, the deadline was extended by regulation by five years, to 1 January 2031. In my view, this is an exercise in pushing the pea around the plate, if ever I saw one.

On Boxing Day 2024, the new Labour Government announced that they would fulfil the prior undertaking of the Conservative Government to repeal the deadline but that they could do so only when, in that hallowed phrase, parliamentary time allows. This Bill provides parliamentary time within which the Government could fulfil that commitment, so my third and final ask of the Minister is whether the Government are prepared to bring forward amendments to the Bill to fulfil the commitment they have given to remove the recording deadline for ever. If the Government cannot accept and answer my questions, perhaps they could accept Amendment 213, which provides for a review in six months. That at least enables your Lordships’ House to monitor progress on this important topic. I beg to move.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, having heard such eloquent advocacy for swifts and other birds, I will make a case for humans in Amendment 213. I will explain. First, let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for tabling this amendment. I am very keen to support him.

My particular interest is actively to promote the case for the restoration of ancient rights of way—the unregistered ones that we have heard about already. I declare my interest as the owner of a property, a family farm, with a right of way laced right through the middle. I am also grateful to the Ramblers for its briefing.

In considering this, we should start from the premise that rights of way, whether registered or not, are a national asset. They belong to the nation—to citizens and individuals. No reasons were given except for the need for certainty as to whether these unregistered rights of way would be terminated or disallowed in future. The only certainty was that UK citizens would be stripped of their property rights because, in that rediscovered but unregistered place, these rights of way would have been disallowed. What possible benefit to the community arises from disallowing the registration of rights of way?