Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day)

Scottish legislative consent granted, Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 28th and 35th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.

15:35

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure,(b) improve the planning and consenting processes,(c) support nature recovery through more effective development and restoration, and(d) increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the purpose of the Act.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at the beginning of Report on this important Bill, I move my Amendment 1, which is to insert a new purpose clause at the beginning of the Bill to define what it is about. While this Bill aims to deliver significant change, without a clear guiding statement of intent we risk losing sight of the balanced objectives necessary to truly sustainable development. Amendment 1 sets out the core purposes of this Bill:

“to … accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure … improve the planning and consenting processes … support nature recovery through more effective development and restoration, and … increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development”.

This is not merely a statement of aspiration. It is an important mechanism for accountability and clarity that directs the interpretation and implementation of every subsequent clause.

In Committee, there was support from across the Committee for a similar amendment. The benefit of adding a purpose clause to the Bill is that it will enshrine in law the tension between the need for construction and the requirement for robust environmental and democratic safeguards. The necessity of explicitly stating the duty to support nature recovery, for instance, directly addresses those profound concerns debated in Committee on Part 3 of the Bill.

Equally, many have voiced concerns about the negative impact of these reforms on local democracy and community voices. The CPRE, for instance, has concerns regarding the “dangerous erosion of democracy” inherent in measures that increase ministerial powers, such as the ability to issue holding directions to stop councils refusing planning permission when they do not accede to the law. To prevent them by issuing holding directions is a huge step in denuding local voices and local democratic councils from making the decisions about issues that affect their areas and communities. The inclusion of, for instance, the need to

“increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development”

directly mandates that the Government and implementing authorities address these democratic deficits. It would transform community engagement from a burdensome hoop to jump through—a problem noted by the previous regime in the Planning Act 2008, which led to proposals removing pre-application consultation requirements—into a stated core objective of the entire legislative framework.

The Government’s stated objective for this Bill remains the right one: we must

“speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure”;

however, acceleration without clear direction risks unintended long-term consequences that undermine the very public good that the Government seek to achieve. By accepting Amendment 1, we would embed clarity, provide a crucial framework for legal interpretation and establish legislative accountability for all stakeholders, ensuring that this major infrastructure Bill delivers not just efficiency but genuine sustainable development and broad public confidence. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, so here we are again. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for focusing our minds at the outset on what this Bill is about. It is a welcome amendment because the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has at least attempted to bring some thematic coherence to a ragbag of proposals from a dozen departments, none of which appears to be talking to each other.

I have read the press notices and compared them to the Bill’s text—never has a Bill been more oversold by a Government. Belatedly, it now seems that the Government’s purpose for this Bill is to persuade the OBR that it will speed up the process of development so that its economic forecasts can help the Chancellor balance her books. But most of the proposals of this Bill will prove that Newtonian notion that, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It hands development veto powers to a self-serving quango and it talks about empowerment and streamlining processes, but it emasculates those with the local knowledge and mandate to unblock officialdom. Instead, it proposes a system whereby the Secretary of State is to become a one-person planning committee—good luck keeping to the 12-week determination deadlines on that one. It could have ironed out Hillside or introduced a proportionality test so that at least the little boys could get on, but there is boneheaded resistance there.

One talking head on the “Today” programme this morning bemoaned the lack of planning permissions, the number of which seems to be falling like autumn leaves, but failed to realise that it is the building safety regulator that has put the black spot on building in London, with a response rate of at least 44 weeks. On that, the Bill is silent. So, instead of unblocking the blockers, it creates an EDP process that is so ponderous that it is unlikely to unlock any stalled homes within this Parliament. It is three and a half years since we started the neutrality madness, and it will be at least another three and a half years before we can rip off that scab. So much for speeding up building; all it is doing is putting speed bumps in the way.

Of course, I welcome the important and critical proposals to free up the placement of roadside power poles to improve the electricity grid. But even this Government recognise that the potential of development corporations is something for the next Parliament—just at the moment that those structures and powers to unleash them are being thrown up in the air. For all the bluster and press notices, this Bill will slow development, not speed it up. By any measure, the Government’s purpose will be frustrated by their own legislation.

I come to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which would

“accelerate the delivery of new homes … improve the planning and consenting processes … support nature … and … increase community acceptability”.

This is what we will debate over four long days. But what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has done is laid out the functions of the Bill; they are not its purpose. The reason that this Bill is in such a muddle is that it has not been framed through the purpose lens that dates back to the Labour Government of the post-war period, when the planning system was established in the first place.

Quite simply, the purpose of planning is to arbitrate between private interests and the public good; everything flows from there, and that balance between private and public is what makes the system work. It makes the economy flourish and enhances the environment. This Bill gets that balance all wrong, with too much state interference and not enough private initiative, so I am sorry to say that it is bound to fail. That is a shame, because we need to get those homes built and those rivers cleaned up, that clean power flowing and those new towns going—but little will be achieved, because in this Bill all roads flow to Marsham Street, back home to the dead hand of the state.

15:45

I hope that the OBR is listening. Even at this 11th hour, it is not too late for it to make that call. Perhaps it will have more success than we have. In Committee, every single one of the 600 amendments tabled by noble Lords on all sides of the House was rejected. Perhaps the OBR is needed to clear the logjam—but I am not holding my breath.

This is a massive missed opportunity, because the Government did not spend a moment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, did, to work out for themselves what they wanted to achieve or set a purpose that works with the grain of the nation, rather than always kicking against the bricks that should be laid by the bricklayers—the ground workers, tilers and carpenters—who now sit idly as a result, until the moment when we get another planning Bill. I shall not stand against the noble Baroness, but I hope that she will reflect in winding that perhaps she could and should have gone a little further to frame her amendment in enhancing that delicate balance between the private and public interests, so that the economy can get going and these houses can get built.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward this purpose clause. It serves as a timely reminder of what the Bill is meant to achieve: the delivery of 1.5 million new homes and important infrastructure projects. It is increasingly hard to escape the conclusion that this goal is slipping further and further from reach. The problem is not simply one of ambition but of process and principle. The Government have tabled no fewer than 67 new amendments to the Bill, in almost 30 pages of legislative text, and have done so at a very late stage.

The media were briefed in advance, I note, yet this House received no explanation from Ministers when those amendments were laid until last Tuesday. Under normal circumstances, such sweeping provisions would warrant detailed scrutiny in Committee, not introduction on Report. To describe them as minor or technical, as Ministers have attempted to do, simply does not match the scale and significance of what has been briefed to the press. The Financial Times and others have reported that the Government’s own description of these measures is that they represent substantial reforms to the planning system, so which is it? Are these minor adjustments or a fundamental rewrite of national planning policy? It appears that we are witnessing a major talk-up—an oversell of provisions designed to mask the Government’s ongoing failure to deliver the homes. It is a conjuring trick, saying one thing to the press and quite another in this Chamber.

According to reports, the Prime Minister himself ordered a last-minute rewrite of the Bill, with Ministers working throughout the weekend to agree a package intended to speed up major housing and infrastructure schemes. That was on Friday 10 October. Earlier that same week, the Financial Times revealed that that rewrite forms part of a broader effort to boost growth and patch up public finances ahead of the November Budget—a Budget date already circled in the calendar of many families in this country and of businesses and pensioners, though not with much enthusiasm.

Monthly construction output fell by an estimated 0.3% in August 2025, after showing no growth at all in July. I therefore ask the Minister how the Bill will change that. Should not the Government instead focus on things such as modular construction, utilising 3D modelling and reviewing outdated regulations? No Act of Parliament can succeed if the construction industry itself is faltering under the environment the Government have created.

It is therefore fair to ask whether these amendments reflect deliberate legislative design or the political and fiscal pressures of the moment. By mid-October, the Treasury would already have seen the OBR’s preliminary focus and, I rather suspect, blanched at what it showed. It may be that in the face of deteriorating growth and revenue projections, someone in Whitehall decided that a hasty burst of planning reform might steady the nerves ahead of the Budget, but legislation made in haste rarely makes good law. The planning system must balance the urgent need for homes and infrastructure, with, as we have heard, the rights of local communities and the principles of democratic scrutiny. Bypassing consultation, local accountability and indeed proper deliberation in your Lordships’ House, the Government risk undermining the very trust and co-operation they will need to deliver their own housing ambitions.

The Government have clearly not learned. They crudely cut £5 billion from welfare in haste in the spring in pursuit of a green tick on the OBR’s scorecard. I fear that they are now making the same mistake again, rushing to legislate for the sake of appearance rather than outcomes for this country. That is why this purpose clause is so valuable. It brings us back to the first principles. What is the purpose of the Bill? Is it truly to build homes or to centralise power? We do not even know who is in charge of this legislation. Is it No. 10, No. 11 or MHCLG? The Minister knows that throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to offer the Government constructive support, but it becomes ever harder to do so when their approach borders on chaos: saying one thing and doing another; briefing the press with grand claims while sidelining Parliament and scrutiny. I hope the Minister recognises the depth of disappointment felt across this House.

In conclusion, whatever the Government’s intention, the manner in which these amendments have been introduced must not diminish the scrutiny they receive. The House has a duty to examine legislation carefully, especially when it touches on this delicate balance between local democracy and national authority. We will approach these amendments in that spirit—with diligence, patience and respect for due process—and we will not be rushed or intimidated into setting aside our responsibilities in the name of political convenience. The scale and consequence of these proposals demands nothing less than the full and thoughtful consideration of your Lordships’ House.

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

Well, well, my Lords, that was a wide-ranging debate for an opening debate on a purpose clause. Nevertheless, I thank those who contributed to the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank her for her extensive engagement between Committee and Report.

This is indeed an ambitious piece of legislation. It is our next step to fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. The Bill will support delivery of the Government’s hugely ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that his Government had 14 years to fix the sclerotic planning system that has hobbled growth in this country for over a decade, yet they failed to do so. Our Government are working across departments—yes, and I welcome that—to deliver what the last Government failed to do, which is to build the homes we need and the infrastructure that will support those homes, and to get our economy moving again.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I am afraid she cannot have it both ways on the amendments that the Government have tabled. She has accused me in this Chamber of not listening. Well, we did listen in Committee and some of the amendments are in response to issues that were raised then. A number of those amendments relate to the devolved Administrations and we rightfully had consultations with those Administrations between Committee and Report. There are some truly pro-growth measures that we feel are rightly pressing and need to be done to improve the delivery of infrastructure, and there are a number of technical, minor amendments.

The Bill is not the only step towards improving the economy and delivering against our plan for change. The noble Baroness will know that we have reissued the National Planning Policy Framework; we have provided funding and training for planners; and we have provided a huge packet of support for SMEs. I met the APPG for SME House Builders the other day and it was pleased with the package that is being delivered. There is more to be done in working with the APPG, and I will be happy to do that. We have also carried out a fundamental review of the building safety regulator. All these things will contribute to the growth we all want to see.

I outlined the core objectives of the Bill at Second Reading, and we also discussed these at length in Committee. I do not suggest that I do so a third time. I recognise that planning law can be a complex part of the statute book to negotiate and interpret, whether you are a developer, a local authority, the courts or even a member of the public. I also appreciate that where a Bill has one sole objective, a purpose clause could clearly articulate this, assist people with understanding the Bill and affect the interpretation of its provisions. This Bill has a number of different objectives, with much of it amending existing law. A purpose clause is not helpful in these circumstances and could create unintended consequences. It is simply not possible or prudent for all these objectives to apply equally to each provision.

I believe we are all united by a shared objective today. On whichever side of the House we sit, we all agree that this House plays an important role in scrutinising legislation to ensure it achieves the intended objectives and to maximise the Bill’s benefit. I firmly believe that the intention behind this amendment is noble. I understand that it is tabled to aid interpretation of the Bill. My issues with purpose clauses, and the reasons I cannot accept this amendment, boil down to two things: their necessity and the potential for unintended consequences. Well-written legislation provides a clear articulation of what changes are proposed by the Government to deliver their objectives. It is for the Government to set out in debate why they are bringing forward a Bill during parliamentary passage. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the intended changes to the law should speak for themselves.

The Government’s objectives are clear. They are also woven into this legislation through reference to a number of different targeted documents that set out the Government’s strategic intent in specific areas of policy. It is right that these objectives vary according to the topic—some of these objectives will be more important for one issue than another. If this was not the case, the Bill would lose its strategic vision.

The Government strongly support a strategic approach to planning. The word “strategic” is mentioned 196 times in the Bill, as amended in Committee. The Bill inserts a part specifically called “Strategic plan-making”, intended to ensure that planning decisions are undertaken at a more strategic level. Large parts of the Bill are drafted to take a more strategic, targeted approach to achieving the Government’s objectives. For example, this legislation gives regard to other strategic documents, such as the clean power action plan. This is all done with the intention of making clear how this legislation seeks to deliver the Government’s objectives.

Adding a purpose clause to the Bill is not the answer to addressing the complexity of the statute book, or even this legislation. In practice, it would do the opposite; it would add additional room for interpretation to a Bill intending to accelerate delivery and simplify a system. It risks creating additional complexity in interpretation, gumming up the planning system further. It risks reinserting the gold-plating behaviour we are seeking to remove. Developers and local authorities, for example, would feel obligated to show how they have considered priorities that are much more relevant to other parts of the Bill for fear of legal action. A purpose clause would provide a hook for those looking to judicially review or appeal decisions in order to slow them down.

The measures in the Bill should be allowed to speak for themselves. They have been carefully drafted to be interpreted without a purpose clause. The courts should be left to interpret the law without having to navigate their way through a maze of different purposes sitting on top of strategic objectives. A purpose clause would create ambiguity rather than clarity.

It does not appear to me, from the debate I have heard, that the House is confused by why the Government are seeking to bring this Bill forward. I think we all know that we seek to achieve the growth and the homes that this country deserves. We should therefore move forward to further debate how best to achieve them. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone involved in this short but important debate and those who have supported, in word at least, the objective of Amendment 1, which is to set out strategic purposes for the Bill. From time to time, parliamentary procedures have been considered and purpose clauses proposed, so I think the debate will continue on whether it is right and helpful to have purpose clauses at the outset of a Bill, as they do set out strategy. I understand what the Minister is saying about the strategy being throughout the Bill, but if you have it right at the outset it provides clarity on what the Bill is supposed to be trying to achieve.

16:00

Perhaps I should have expected the debate to move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, stating everything else that she does not like about this Bill and the bits of things that she does like. In the end, it is important that we keep in mind throughout this Bill that we are trying to balance democracy, sustainability, infrastructure being built and taking a proportionate approach to it. Sometimes that is lost in this Bill, but I accept that this amendment will not make a substantive difference to the Bill and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Clause 1: National policy statements: review

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) When carrying out a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects on—(a) the environment;(b) residents living in areas in which such projects are being developed.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to my Amendment 2 and, I hope, to extract a reassurance from the Minister in this short debate. The amendment looks at how it is expected that nationally significant infrastructure projects will operate in the planning process as set out in the Bill. I am not satisfied with the way that the process has been set out, and therefore the thrust of Amendment 2 is to call for a potential review, during the course of which the Secretary of State should assess the

“cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects on … the environment”

and, in particular,

“residents living in areas in which such projects are being developed”.

I first raised this issue on one of the statutory instruments giving effect to the clean energy Act. I was very grateful to the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for explaining to me how cumulative impact was meant to operate. It is clear that the cumulative impact of all the proposals set out in this Bill will be unexpectedly deep and wide for all those living in rural areas, yet their opportunities to be involved in the process will be curtailed if the Bill proceeds in its present form. This relates a little to the previous debate on the purpose of the Bill, because I believe that if the Bill is to function well—as I am sure the whole House would wish, having spent however many hours on it in Committee—it should ensure that it operates effectively.

I am deeply uneasy that the thrust of the proposals on nationally significant infrastructure projects are to benefit those living in the deep south of England and London, to the specific disbenefit of rural residents across the whole of the north of England. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that this amendment relates not so much to the housebuilding aspects of the Bill as to nationally significant infrastructure projects in the energy sector. I am thinking in particular of solar farms and the unimaginable scale currently foreseen.

This is not unique to this country. I follow developments in Denmark very closely. For the first time ever, a solar farm was going to be created in a deeply rural part of the northern mainland of Denmark, Jutland, but a very effective campaign, under rules in Denmark that are very favourable to this type of project, has been so successful that I am delighted to say that the project will not go ahead. I envisage similar concerns in this country once the full impact of the Bill is known.

My main concern, as the Bill is currently drafted, is this question to the Minister: should there not be a requirement that the cumulative impact assessment should be included in the local plan? My understanding is that currently that is not the case. If that is so, why is there no specific provision in either the planning applications or the Bill itself that such an assessment should be included in the local plan? Surely it is incumbent on developers, planners and the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that residents will see a joined-up planning application and that we will no longer see what we have seen historically.

For example, if there is an application for an offshore windfarm over here, people living in East Anglia think, “Well, that’s perfectly harmless, it won’t affect me, so that’s fine, it can go ahead”. Suddenly, the second stage of the planning application is to foist on them a major substation that they had no idea was going to be built on their doorstep. Then the third stage of the application is for overhead pylons, which is causing such great concern, particularly in East Anglia and other parts of eastern England: I am thinking here of east Yorkshire.

There have been two if not three Planning Inspectorate policy guidance publications, one in April last year and one in September last year. The Government are bringing forward their own proposals but, as I said earlier, the legislation is currently defective in this regard. What is most concerning about the September 2024 advice is that it specifically states:

“This advice is non-statutory. However, the Planning Inspectorate’s advice about running the infrastructure planning system and matters of process is drawn from good practice and applicants and others should follow our recommendations”.


So I have a further question for the Minister. If the advice published in September last year is non-statutory, how do we know that the advice and guidance will be followed? Surely it should be in the Bill, it should be statutory and it should be spelled out in plain English for all to see and understand, so that, when the fast-track process comes about, everyone knows. While the guidance was welcomed by civil engineers at the time it was published, lawyers were split as to how significant the changes would be for infrastructure developers. That makes me wonder whether it will have any effect whatever.

Therefore, in moving Amendment 2, I conclude by asking the Minister what assurance she can give the House that there will be joined-up planning applications in future. What checks will there be and what penalties will be imposed if the Planning Inspectorate’s advice is not followed in the fast-track procedure? I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, having attached my name to the amendment so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I will speak very briefly to explain why this is something the Government need to address and respond to.

We know that the Government tend to operate in silos and look at one project at a time, without taking a comprehensive view of the overall impact on the country. New paragraph (a) proposed in the amendment focuses on the environment. In the past 10 years or so, we have seen real progress in understanding that we need to think about the landscape on a landscape scale, rather than just going, “We’ve got a nice little protected bit here and a nice little area there”. This amendment starts to get to the issue of thinking on a landscape scale in terms of the environment.

It is not impossible to imagine. Recently, we have become very aware of the importance of corridors through which different populations of wildlife can be linked up. There could be projects where one on its own does not look like it will have a serious impact, but two together would effectively cut off and separate two populations of animals that might already be lacking in genetic diversity and not be able to afford that separation.

Then there are the humans: the “residents living in areas” where the “projects are being developed”, as the proposed new paragraph says. Over the recess, I was speaking to a couple of people very much affected by the Sevington customs facility and the impact of light pollution. This is the sort of thing that we do not think about nearly enough, but where we may see effects on people’s lives build up and up.

The other obvious area where the impacts may be cumulative is traffic. If there are projects for growing and linking together, the impacts of traffic could be absolutely disastrous on the lives of residents in those communities.

So I think this amendment is modest: it just asks the Government to think on a broader scale than I am afraid Governments—very typically—generally do.

[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.

16:15

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her Amendment 2. It would require the Secretary of State to assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—on both the environment and the communities in which such projects are being developed, when reviewing a national policy statement.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue. I wholeheartedly agree that cumulative impacts—particularly those affecting the environment and local communities—must be given due consideration in the NSIP consenting process. I am therefore pleased to reassure her that the existing regime already provides for such considerations. It is already a statutory requirement for the Government to undertake an assessment of sustainability when designating or updating a national policy statement. These appraisals of sustainability—which include the strategic environmental assessment process—play a vital role in shaping national policy statements by evaluating their potential environmental, social and economic effects and any reasonable alternatives that could be used.

The strategic environmental assessment regulations require that the effects assessment includes an assessment of cumulative impacts. Non-spatial national policy statements that do not identify the likely locations of NSIPs are strategic-level documents, which means that it is not possible to identify cumulative impacts in detail. However, cumulative impacts are addressed, so far as possible at this level, to meet the requirements of the strategic environmental assessment regulations at this stage.

It is important that detailed consideration of cumulative effects takes place at the project level. By virtue of factors such as their nature, scale and location, NSIPs are likely to have significant effects on the environment around them. Under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, an environmental impact assessment process must be undertaken, and the Secretary of State is prohibited from granting consent until an EIA has been carried out. The environmental statement must identify and assess the direct and indirect significant effects on specified factors, including environmental factors, population and human health. Cumulative effects are one of the required types of effects that must be identified and assessed.

In short, while the concern raised by the noble Baroness is entirely valid, the existing framework already requires the consideration of cumulative impacts, both in the preparation and review of national policy statements and in the assessment and consideration of individual development consent order applications.

The noble Baroness asked me about the local plan process. The whole process of local plans focuses on cumulative impacts. One of its purposes is to start off with individual policies and work through a process towards cumulative impacts. This will be enhanced by the addition of strategic level plans, giving a direct link from neighbourhood planning to local plans and then to strategic plans, allowing the cumulative impact across the whole picture to be assessed. In light of this, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful for that response. I most humbly apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not thanking her for cosigning the amendment in the first place, for which I am very grateful. I am grateful for her supportive comments, and for those from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock; they clearly set out why this is so important. I took comfort from the support from my noble friend Lord Jamieson on my own Front Bench, and from the Minister. I hope we can explore this further in the context of spatial planning.

I was a little bit concerned when the Minister used the expression, “This is addressed so far as possible”. She helps to make the case for me, but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Clause 2: National policy statements: parliamentary requirements

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

3: Clause 2, page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (3)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent the removal of a requirement for the Government to reply to any resolutions by Parliament or recommendations from a select committee.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I raised this issue in Committee. This is an identical amendment to that tabled in the House of Commons by multiple chairs of Select Committees, who were concerned about the reduced opportunity for the Government to at least reply to the parliamentary scrutiny rightly undertaken in terms of national policy statements.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said in Committee, and I have not re-tabled a whole plethora of amendments, as I would not want to be thought to be trying to hold up national policy statements unduly, because they are a good thing. I have re-tabled this amendment because when Parliament puts forward recommendations or has a resolution, the least we can expect is that the Government will respond, rather than removing that as a requirement of the law, as this legislation does. In a nutshell, that is why I think this matters.

This matters because we are starting to see an increasing number of national policy statements. There is a lot of merit in trying to give a clear direction to the country—residents, developers or whoever—to make sure that they can continue to consider future development in a measured and structured way.

Reading the responses of the Minister here and the Minister in the Commons, I am conscious that a lot of focus seems to be on the fact that a Select Committee might take a bit of time, or that we would table a resolution anyway. Actually, although this House has the opportunity to table a resolution and vote on it, it has become quite hard to table things in the Commons unless you have control of the parliamentary timetable. I notice that while this House had a debate on nuclear power—and energy Statements, for example—it did not happen at the other end. Maybe everybody was happy, but it is more likely that certain parties did not have the opportunity to look at the timetable.

One of your Lordships’ Select Committees made some recommendations in its report regarding the energy grid. I am not aware that the Government have yet replied—although they may have—recognising that a debate is to be tabled on that report as a whole. Overall, this issue does matter: when this House is minded to at least give some comments or thoughts on national policy statements, we should expect a response from the Government. That is why I am minded to test the House’s opinion on the amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend. When I was chair of the Delegated Powers Committee under the last Government, we published a report regretting the trend that over the last 30 years, more and more regulations have bypassed Parliament—not just by using the negative procedure rather than the affirmative, but through departments issuing guidance after guidance, none of which came before Parliament.

The point I want to make is a simple one of principle. We see in legislation Parliament being bypassed, in that case and in far too many cases. Parliament should not be bypassed, and necessarily so. My noble friend’s amendment simply makes the point that the Government should consider Motions by Parliament and what Select Committees say. They do not have to accept it, but at least we should have a chance to give that input. Otherwise, as I also see in cases, we will depend on various stakeholders to comment.

On the number of consultations issued by departments, there is a huge list of stakeholders, some of them great and grand organisations, royal colleges and organisations such as the RSPB with goodness knows how many million members. However, often the local MP is not listed, parliamentarians are not considered—and possibly not even the Select Committee which might have relevant views on it.

I believe my noble friend is on the right lines here, and I hope the Government will accept her amendment or at least give us assurances that Parliament will not be bypassed in the way she has suggested.

[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.

16:30

A central tenet of this Government’s reforms of the NSIP regime has been to ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date. Clause 1 of the Bill ensures that no national policy statement can be more than five years old without being fully reviewed and updated. To support this, it is vital that the process for updating national policy statements is proportionate to the change proposed. Currently the procedure is the same regardless of whether the Government are making a material change to a national policy statement or designating a new national policy statement. This cannot continue.

Clause 2 therefore introduces an additional streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements. Where a change to an NPS reflects relevant published government policy, the amendment, revocation or repeal of legislation, a change to a published document referred to in the NPS not otherwise amended as a result of changes under the previous categories, or a relevant court decision, the Government will be required to publicly consult and carry out an appraisal of sustainability on the changes sought. Where required, a habitats regulation assessment will also be undertaken. The updated NPS will then be laid before both Houses for 21 days, during which time the House of Commons can resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with.

These amendments would remove this new procedure, adding months to the timeframe for updating NPSs and undermine the Government’s commitment to drive quicker decision-making in the NSIP regime. Updated NPS policy assists applicants and the examining authority, and the Secretary of State can have regard to it as an “important and relevant” consideration in the decision-making process for NSIP applications, even if the application is examined against the previous version as a result of transitional provisions in the updated NPS.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned the role that Select Committees can play in scrutinising and improving policy. Recognising this role, the Government have committed to ensuring that they notify the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. The Minister will already have laid a statement before Parliament announcing the review of an NPS, regardless of the anticipated procedure to be used. The Government have also committed to making Ministers available to meet committees so far as practicable. Should a Select Committee publish a report within the timeframes of the public consultation period, the Government will take those views into account, before the updated statement is laid before Parliament, for 21 days, where it can be scrutinised by either House.

The new procedure cannot and will not be used to bypass due parliamentary scrutiny. Rather, we are adjusting the parliamentary scrutiny requirements when making certain types of updates to an NPS so that the process is more proportionate and enables NPSs to be updated more quickly. At the end of the reflective amendment process, the NPS as amended will still need to be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time the House of Commons can resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have heard the Minister but do not think that the answer has changed since Committee, which I regret. I am concerned that removing any requirement on the Government to reply to either House is not satisfactory when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

16:34

Division 1

Ayes: 235

Noes: 164

16:44

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

4: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Projects relating to water(1) Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008 (nationally significant infrastructure projects) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).(2) In section 27 (dams and reservoirs)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) in subsection (2)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In this section, references to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker include a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(3) In section 28 (transfer of water resources)—(a) in subsection (1)(a), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) In this section, the reference to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker includes a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(4) In section 28A (desalination plants)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) in subsection (2)(b), after “by” insert , or by a person appointed by,”;(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In this section, references to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker include a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(5) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a project where, before the day on which this section comes into force—(a) consent for the project was required, or otherwise provided for, by or under an enactment other than section 31 of the Planning Act 2008 (requirement for development consent in relation to development that is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project), and(b) any steps provided for by or under the enactment in question, to obtain that consent, had been taken.(6) In subsection (5), “consent” means any consent, approval, permission, authorisation, confirmation, direction or decision (however described, given or made).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties appointed by water undertakers to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project by virtue of section 14(1)(m), (n) or (na) of the Planning Act 2008, provided the other conditions in sections 27, 28 and 28A of the 2008 Act are met.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 4, I will speak also to Amendment 256. This proposal responds to concerns raised by Peers about the need to address water scarcity, particularly through easing restrictions on reservoir construction to encourage more reservoir development. Growing demand and climate variability have placed increasing strain on existing water resources, reinforcing the need for additional storage capacity. Without new reservoir capacity, we risk being unable to meet that future demand. Reservoirs are fundamental to maintaining secure public water supplies and supporting economic growth, yet delivery, particularly of major schemes, has been too slow under current processes.

This amendment removes a procedural hurdle, thereby streamlining the consenting process and enabling faster delivery of major water projects, after more than 30 years without new major reservoirs in England. Crucially, it enables third-party providers appointed by water undertakers to apply to deliver major water infrastructure, including reservoirs, transfer schemes and desalination plants, through the streamlined development consent order route. That will accelerate delivery of essential water infrastructure, help secure future water supplies, and unlock housing and economic growth, including delivery of new towns and our ambition for building 1.5 million homes this Parliament. Importantly, this change does not reduce environmental or public scrutiny: projects will continue to be subject to the full planning process, including statutory consultation and environmental assessment.

This amendment is an important step in responding to concerns about water scarcity and supporting the pro-growth measures contained in the Bill. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter to ensure that it is quicker and easier to consent and build the reservoirs we need so desperately, now and into the future.

The Government are content to accept Amendments 5 to 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I am mindful that water infrastructure, particularly reservoirs, has had a difficult history in parts of the United Kingdom. Communities still remember the loss and upheaval caused by past projects, such as at Capel Celyn. It is therefore right that, as we modernise and expand the routes by which these essential schemes can be delivered, we also strengthen the mechanisms that guarantee their safety, integrity and public accountability.

These amendments make a helpful clarification to government Amendment 4. They will ensure that where a third-party provider is appointed to deliver a large-scale water infrastructure project under the specified infrastructure projects regulations, that provider must be formally designated as an infrastructure provider under Regulation 8. This means that they will be fully subject to the statutory safeguards provided by those regulations. Those safeguards are vital. They ensure that any company delivering major water infrastructure is formally designated and operates within a framework of strict oversight and accountability. Ofwat’s supervision, the requirement for licensing and consultation, and the ability to challenge decisions through the Competition and Markets Authority, together provide a robust system to protect the public and the environment.

I also clarify that these amendments do not alter the position for projects delivered through direct procurement for customers, known as DPC, the other competitive procurement route for third-party delivery of NSIPs. Under that model, water companies competitively appoint third-party providers to finance and deliver major infrastructure. This mechanism also has a strong regulatory framework, with Ofwat oversight, competitive tendering, and measures to protect customers from cost and delivery risks. DPC is a useful option for less complex NSIP-scale projects, providing an alternative route for competitive delivery. Under both schemes, projects benefit from strong regulatory protections for customers and the public, with clear oversight, risk management and accountability built in.

By accepting these amendments, we will bring greater clarity and reassurance that the statutory protections apply fully to third-party providers under the SIPR framework. This means that these important projects can be taken forward with confidence—safely, transparently and in the public interest. Faster, flexible delivery of major water infrastructure is essential to secure resilient water supplies, support housebuilding and unlock local economic growth, while always ensuring that safety, environmental and consumer standards are maintained. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for tabling these amendments and for his engagement on this important matter.

I welcome Amendment 7A, which seeks to require that applicants for dam and reservoir schemes seek separate consent for the heritage impacts of their project outside the NSIP regime. While I recognise that there may be concerns about the future impact of these desperately needed water projects on heritage assets, the Government believe that the thorough process set out in the Planning Act already provides adequate protections. Applicants for all projects, including dam and reservoir schemes, are already required to include information relating to heritage impacts from their projects, including an assessment of any effects on such sites, when they submit their application.

Further, where the development is subject to environmental impact assessment regulations because of the likely significant effects on the environment by virtue of its nature, size or location, the applicant is required to undertake an assessment of any likely heritage impacts, including cumulative impacts, as part of the environmental statement. This is also set out in the water resources national policy statement updated in July this year. Moreover, concerns may be raised by communities or statutory bodies through relevant representations where the examining authority considers that more information is required before reporting to the Secretary of State, and it can require it from applicants and schedule hearings.

In determining applications, the Secretary of State will identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development, including affecting the setting of a heritage asset, taking account of the evidence. The Secretary of State must also comply with the specific decision-making obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments placed on the Secretary of State set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010. When making the decision, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historical interest that it possesses.

Requiring applicants to undergo a separate process to secure these consents would delay delivery of these critical infrastructure projects, adding additional process, complexity and costs. This goes against the intention of the Planning Act 2008 regime, which was introduced to provide a one-stop shop approach for obtaining consents for large-scale, nationally significant infrastructure. Moreover, it would also hinder this Government’s ambitions to speed up and streamline the planning process for major infrastructure projects.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling Amendment 7B. It seeks to provide that in cases where a dam or reservoir is already defined as a nationally significant infrastructure project and will result in the demolition of 20 or more homes, those whose homes would be impacted are notified and may make representations to the Secretary of State before the scheme enters the NSIP planning route, with a view to perhaps preventing the project being determined through the NSIP regime. I acknowledge the significant impact that NSIP projects have, and that dam and reservoir schemes, in particular, can have when numerous homes near each other are demolished. It is clear, and we all agree, that a thorough process must be followed that allows all these issues to be understood before a decision is reached. That is why the Planning Act is so important. We believe that there are already sufficient legal requirements that provide adequate opportunity for impacted persons to be heard.

I am afraid that the amendment seeks to insert discretion for the Secretary of State in a part of the process that does not exist. Dams and reservoirs that meet the threshold set out in Section 27 of the Planning Act 2008 are not directed by the relevant Secretary of State. They are automatically treated as NSIPs once they meet the threshold in Section 27. There is no other route to consent than via the Planning Act 2008. I understand that the amendment is driven by a desire to ensure that the voice of impacted individuals is heard throughout the process and before the Secretary of State makes a final decision whether to grant or refuse development consent. I say emphatically that this is already provided for by the Planning Act 2008.

All individuals who are impacted or whose land is proposed to be compulsorily acquired are both recognised as affected persons and notified of an accepted application under Section 56. This notification means these persons are treated as interested parties under Section 102 without having to complete a registration form. This allows them to play an active role in the examination by submitting written and oral representations to the examining authority, so that their views and specific circumstances can be heard by that examining authority.

These affected persons are able to submit notice to the Secretary of State requesting a compulsory acquisition hearing, which the examining authority must hold if a request is made by at least one affected person within the deadline set by the examining authority. Individuals who are not directly impacted or whose land is not being compulsorily acquired can also submit a relevant representation and complete a registration form to be considered as an interested party. This provides an opportunity for those living nearby to engage and share their concerns with the examination.

Finally, local authorities are invited by the Secretary of State to submit a local impact report, which gives details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority’s area. This may include the impact on individuals within that area. I do not agree that, in cases where there are significant local impacts, it should automatically be the case that local decision-making should be followed. This would remove the ability of the Government to make decisions in the national interest and ensure sufficient infrastructure is built which meets a strategic rather than a local need.

There is no easy answer to the impact of projects on individuals and communities. However, the Planning Act 2008 provides a means through which to balance the interests the nation has in building the infrastructure it needs, particularly water infrastructure, with the interests of those acutely impacted. Applicants will be expected to argue why alternative sites are not appropriate and how impacts, where possible, may be mitigated. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will not press her amendment.

On Amendment 56, the Government already take steps to facilitate the building of both small and large reservoirs, and £104 billion of private sector investment has been secured through Ofwat’s price review. We continue to support farmers to develop local resource options to secure water supplies. Reservoir safety legislation does not prevent new reservoirs being constructed but ensures that structures are well built and maintained. Reservoirs which store water above ground level pose a potential risk to life, property, business and the environment, and would cause economic disruption to local communities if the dam structure were to fail. These risks are managed through reservoir safety regulation. Reservoirs which store water below ground do not pose the same risks and so are out of scope of reservoir safety regulation. The Government’s advice to farmers and landowners is to consider options for non-raised water storage first.

The Government are intending to consult soon on proposals to improve reservoir safety regulation, including making the requirements more tailored to the level of hazard posed and bringing some smaller raised reservoirs into scope. These proposals do not alter the need for more reservoirs, nor do they prevent new ones being built, but are to ensure that reservoir dams are structurally sound and that flood risks for communities downstream are effectively managed. There is already a permitted development right which enables the creation of on-farm reservoirs where they are reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes. Under this agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on-farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions, to manage and control impacts of development. We have not got the exact numbers but I believe there are around 3,000, so people are already taking advantage of that.

Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation, as amendments to the general permitted development order, often following consultation. Carrying out a public consultation ensures the views of the public, including those who will benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. It also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and how these might be mitigated.

The Government will continue to keep permitted development rights under review. It is important that new reservoirs are built in locations where they do not pose a flood risk for local communities, and that existing reservoir dams are structurally safe. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment and ask that she does not press it, based on the actions already being taken forward to review safety regulations impacting small, low-hazard reservoirs, and the subsequent secondary route to make any necessary changes to encourage their creation. I beg to move.

Amendment 5 (to Amendment 4)

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

5: In inserted subsection (4) of subsection (2), at end insert “and is designated as an Infrastructure Provider under Regulation 8 of those regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 7 in my name. They are all designed to achieve the same purpose, which I will go on to explain, but happily I do not have to explain at any length because of the admirable way in which the Minister introduced Amendment 4 and explained her approach to Amendments 5, 6 and 7. I am most grateful for the time she gave for the discussion last week on the amendments and my proposals for amending that. Noble Lords will recall that there was no debate on this in Committee; these are amendments tabled just at the beginning of last week. I hope we all agree that the purpose is a beneficial one: to facilitate the pace at which we want to proceed with water dams and reservoirs as nationally significant infrastructure projects.

17:00

My point, when I looked at the amendments as tabled at the beginning of last week, was that it seemed to me that what the Government might have been looking for was that, when an undertaking has been appointed by a water undertaker to carry out an infrastructure project, that is sufficient in itself for the project to be designated as a nationally significant infrastructure project. But of course the 2013 regulations about specified infrastructure projects go on to say, after Regulation 6—which includes the point at which a person is appointed by a water undertaker—that there is a process, governed by Ofwat, for designating that person as an infrastructure provider under Regulation 8. That then gives rise to requirements for the provision of information and related matters under Regulation 9, and it links into Section 36D of the Water Industry Act, which provides specific powers and duties for Ofwat in relation to an infrastructure provider.

Looking at that, I was slightly worried that there would be a gap between a person appointed by a water undertaker to carry out a project and any subsequent point at which that person is designated as an infrastructure provider under the regulations. Indeed, perhaps they would not go on to be designated as an infrastructure provider, and there would then be serious legal risk associated with their position, since they would not be subject to the powers and duties related to Ofwat. So I am very happy that the Minister has agreed.

The worry is that this interposes a further delay. In practice, that need not be the case. For example, the 2013 regulations were brought in essentially to facilitate the Thames Tideway tunnel, and what happened in practice was that the financial close with Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd and the designation as an infrastructure provider happened on the same day. So there is absolutely no reason why these processes should not be able to be compressed. For example, on the Section 35 direction sought by Anglian Water to designate the Fens reservoir as a nationally significant infrastructure project, the letter to the department went in on 22 April and the letter from the department agreeing it was so designated was on 14 May. But the point that I noted when I looked at all these things was that the letter from the department says that, subsequently, whoever is the infrastructure provider must be designated as such under the 2013 regulations. So it all neatly ties together.

I hope there is no risk of delay, but certainly my Amendments 5, 6 and 7 would ensure that we avoid the possibility of a legal risk associated with a gap where somebody is appointed to do an infrastructure project of importance but actually is not subject to Ofwat’s duties and does not themselves have any information or other responsibilities.

I beg to move Amendment 5 and hope that, when the time comes, I can move Amendments 6 and 7. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting them.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I intervene very briefly. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, rightly pointed out, many of these matters were not dealt with in Committee, but they are arising now. The Minister referred to Capel Celyn and the controversy that arose in Wales with regard to what was known as the Tryweryn Valley scheme on that occasion. I would be grateful for some clarification as to whether the amendments being moved have any bearing whatever on the powers of Senedd Cymru to come to a determination on schemes in Wales—schemes that may be put forward by providers from outside Wales but which are located in Wales. Does Senedd Cymru have the powers, which it has always believed that it should have, to decide on schemes that may be regarded in Wales as being of national significance?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group of amendments and for the very helpful meeting that we had last week, particularly when we covered the role of smaller reservoirs. I said to the Minister then that, while I shall not stand against the creation of large reservoirs, I have some concerns about them. They are not always particularly efficient. Given the weather that we have had in successive summers with their intense heat, they can be inefficient as the water can evaporate quickly, as we have seen in north Yorkshire, where I think a hosepipe ban is still in place.

I do not know how many noble Lords remember the wonderful David Bellamy, who made his name when he was a professor of botany at the University of Durham—I see a number of alumni in the Chamber this afternoon. He was particularly concerned when a reservoir was due to be constructed at Cow Green in upper Teesdale, where I grew up, in the Pennines. The significance was that blue gentians grow in only some parts of the country, outside the immediate alpine regions of Austria and Switzerland, and upper Teesdale was one of them. We were all particularly grateful to Professor Bellamy at the time, as he spoke passionately against the need for creating such a reservoir.

That massive reservoir has meant that what was the highest waterfall in England at the time now has only one waterfall, in most cases, rather than the two, which were spectacular to see when the River Tees was in spate. It was not just about the tragic loss of a number of farms, which were flooded with the construction of the reservoir; it was the fact that the water was never actually needed. It would be helpful to understand how, in the process of these planning applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the need is felt to be so great at one stage—but then, when they are constructed, the water is never actually used.

There are alternatives to large reservoirs. We were asked to create a large reservoir for the “Slowing the Flow” project in Pickering, to prevent that town flooding to the extent that it had. I think that it was three times in 10 years but it may have been longer, perhaps over 20 years. Since it was deemed to be unaffordable to build the large reservoir required, a smaller reservoir was created along with other schemes, such as planting trees and creating smaller dams to soak up the water, which have proved extremely effective to date. Since the creation of the smaller reservoir, Pickering has no longer flooded.

Yorkshire Water also introduced a multimillion-pound project to transfer water from the water-plenty parts to the water-stressed part of the region. We now have the technology to do that across water regions. I hope that the Government may also look at that, rather than just considering the easy option of building a mega-reservoir.

My amendment looks at the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs and the case for smaller reservoirs. It was pleasing to hear what the Minister said as she set that out. I am sure she is also aware of the recommendations set out in 2019, some six years ago, following the Toddbrook and Whaley Bridge dam safety incident. My concern is that there is no sense of urgency and we have not seen anything happen since 2019 as regards a revision of the Reservoirs Act 1975. Currently, I understand that they are looking at not just amending that Act, which was the particular genesis of Amendment 56—the previous Government and I think this Government are probably pursuing that thinking. It would be good to have it on the record this afternoon that the Government’s intention is to replace the Reservoirs Act and to bring into effect the Balmforth recommendations, which were made as far back as 2019.

There are many pressing reasons for smaller reservoirs, both on farms and on sports clubs such as golf clubs. In the particular case of small farms, an excellent article recently in Farmers Weekly showed that because of the increasing water stress and water shortage owing to climate change, the many competing claims that farmers are finding, and the fact that water abstraction is to be curtailed in the future, it is particularly concerning that:

“Food is not seen as a public good when it comes to securing water supplies”.


If farmers face losing abstraction licences in April next year, this is a source of great concern to them. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on applications for smaller reservoirs on farms or on golf clubs, for the reasons that I have set out. For these reasons, I would still like to consider either testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 56 or bringing it back at Third Reading.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 7A in this group, which, like my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 5, is an amendment to government Amendment 4. I welcome many of the changes to the Bill that the Government have brought forward, particularly to Clause 41, which we will touch on later on Report. I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for their time over the Conference Recess to discuss the changes that they have made in that area of the Bill. But the 67 amendments which the Government tabled last week cover some significant new issues and it is regrettable, in many ways, that we have not had the same opportunity to discuss those, either in Committee or with the Minister and others in the intervening period.

Like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I agree in general terms with the Government’s intention to ensure that more reservoirs can be constructed, and more quickly. But just as with the Government’s original proposals in Clause 41 for infrastructure projects carried out under the Transport and Works Act, which they have, I am glad to say, brought forward amendments to alter now, the plans in the proposed new clause under discussion about projects relating to water give rise to concerns about the proper safeguards for our shared heritage. Noble Lords and, I am happy to say, the Government benefited from being able to discuss their proposals with regard to Clause 41 with a number of heritage groups. I am glad that those discussions fed into the changes that they have tabled later in the Bill, but of course the construction of a reservoir is a major undertaking as well. It is a significant and lasting intervention in our heritage—both our natural and built heritage.

I am almost the same age as Kielder Water, which was opened by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Northumberland the year before I was born. That holds 44 billion gallons and is the largest artificial reservoir in the United Kingdom by capacity. Like the manmade forest that surrounds it, it is a source of quiet marvel and pride across Northumberland, a county that is rich in an impressive array of civil engineering feats. Of course, there was a price to pay regarding displaced communities and lost heritage for that impressive reservoir. Some 95 residents lost their homes, a number of farms and a school were lost, and indeed the route of the former Border Counties Railway was partially submerged by the new Kielder Water reservoir.

17:15

Similarly, when Rutland Water was constructed in the 1970s—the largest reservoir by surface area, though not by capacity—a number of historic villages were lost below the waters there. The Jacobean old hall in Middle Hambleton, built in 1611 and home to the Barker baronets, now finds itself on the water’s edge, and several other dwellings find themselves underneath it. The historic church of St Matthew’s, Normanton, which was rebuilt in the classical style by Thomas Cundy in the late 1820s, at the behest of the Earls of Ancaster, on the foundations of a building dating back to the 14th century, was saved only because of a public outcry when the plans for Rutland Water were first mooted. When the plans were first introduced, a trust had to be hastily assembled to campaign to save this impressive place of worship. Thankfully, the trust was successful, and the church now stands on a sort of escarpment in Rutland Water, with an artificial causeway leading to it. But it was only because those civic-minded people had the opportunity—and, crucially, the time—to organise, campaign and propose an alternative scheme that the church was saved in the way that it is today.

In another time, we used to do these things by Act of Parliament; Thirlmere in the Lake District was brought in by the Manchester Corporation Water Works Act 1879, for instance. I do not suggest that we require full Acts of Parliament every time we build a reservoir—like the Minister, I am keen to see that these things can be built more speedily than they have been in the past—but I do worry about the watering down, if your Lordships will forgive the pun, of protection for our heritage through the Government’s sweeping new proposals introduced last week, which would allow third parties to be contracted on behalf of water companies. We may of course see new applicants that are not as familiar with making significant planning applications or dealing with affected communities as our water companies currently are. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked about the implications for Senedd Cymru and having a company that perhaps was not based in Wales but that could take a decision with significant effect for the community in Wales. I wonder whether some of these third-party companies might indeed be companies not based in the United Kingdom, which may make them less accessible, and it may be less easy for people to speak to them about their concerns. Maybe the Minister will be able to say a bit more about this.

I am grateful to the Minister for what she said in outlining Amendment 4 in this regard. She suggested that requiring consideration of heritage assets would slow the process down. I wonder whether she or her department has an assessment on how long they think we would be adding here. As I say, the significant church of St Matthew’s, Normanton, was saved only because there was a bit of time for the community to rally round and come up with a better scheme; it is now the location for many civil weddings, it is much loved by the community and it adds to the heritage and story of that part of the country, while we have made sure that we have the water we need for the future. I would be grateful if she can say more about that and understand the concerns that I and a number of heritage groups have about the proposals, which we only saw for the first time last week.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I speak on these amendments not with any great authority on them but because I had some experience of a heritage village being destroyed to create a reservoir when I was Member of Parliament for Penrith and The Border, a huge constituency in the north of Cumbria including the beautiful lake of Ullswater.

South of Ullswater, there is a reservoir called Haweswater, which was created in the Haweswater valley. In 1929, the Manchester Corporation took possession of the village. It moved out all the villagers, exhumed 97 graves and moved the bodies to Shap, and demolished the church and the pub. Then it flooded the village and created Haweswater Reservoir. That village in the Lake District National Park was called Mardale. We have no idea how beautiful it was—we have no photographs—but if it was in keeping with all the other villages nearby, we know that it was a superb heritage Lake District village bang-smack in the middle of a national park. We would hope that that would not happen these days, but that is why we need Amendment 7A to guarantee it. Wainwright said:

“Gone for ever are the quiet wooded bays and shingly shores that nature had fashioned so sweetly in the Haweswater of old; how aggressively ugly is the tidemark of the new Haweswater”.


I think the 1980s was the first time that, in a severe drought, the level of Haweswater dropped down to the bottom and we could see what remained. One reason that was interesting is that it destroyed the wonderful myth we had for about 100 years that on quiet, cold, still nights you could still hear the church bells clanging beneath the water level. When the village was revealed, the church tower was only about 10 feet high; it had all been removed and there was nothing left. How many houses were destroyed? We know how many bodies were exhumed, but we have no record of the number of people moved out. However, the ruins would suggest a village of more than 30 houses, including a wonderful church and pub.

Wainwright mentioned the ugly tide-mark. My constituency had Ullswater, the most beautiful lake of all in the Lake District, if I may say so. On occasions of drought in this country, the level of Ullswater is lowered by two enormous pipes, one 12 feet in diameter and the other eight feet, which pump all the water down to Manchester. I do not want Mancunians to die of thirst—the answer is to build more reservoirs there—but the damage it does to the landscape in the Lake District is extraordinary. We have these wonderful images of the Lake District and its lakes, but when you see the level in Ullswater 10 feet below normal, there is an appalling scar around the whole lake. The important point about the Lake District National Park is the landscape and the visual value of what you see. Lowering severely the level of Ullswater, with Haweswater pumping into it, causes enormous environmental damage, which is about not just oils, gases and pollutants but destroying the visual quality of some of our lakes.

On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Parkinson mentioned Kielder, which is superb. It is great for tourism and fish and really improves the quality of the landscape. I disagree with him on the tree planting. They planted millions of Sitka spruce around the lake but put them right down at the water’s edge, so you got acidic run-off. Now, as the forestry departments are cutting down those trees, they are replanting those nearer the lake with proper mixed English landscape trees which do not cause that damage. There is only one thing wrong with Kielder: it is in completely the wrong place in terms of where water is required.

Over my time as a Member for a constituency in Cumbria, every few years various schemes came up to build some huge pipes and pump Kielder down south. The cost was astronomical, not to mention the huge engines that would be required to do it. Then there were other wonderfully clever schemes to pump some of it into the Tyne, let it flow down, intercept it before it got to Newcastle, then pump it into the River Wear and intercept it before it got to Bishop Auckland—and goodness knows where it would go then. There were also ideas to pump it into canals and force them to be rivers. All these schemes have been reviewed and considered; they do not work and would not work even at enormous cost. The answer must be to build appropriate reservoirs where they are needed.

Reservoirs are needed in the south, and the problem with finding them “down south”—as we up in Cumbria would say— is that they will be in areas with wonderful villages and lots of people, and they are very difficult to construct because of the damage that may be done to those local environments. They may be in places with lovely villages and AONBs, or on the edge of a national nature reserve, or even taking in one of those nature reserves. I accept that destroying a village may be necessary, but in that case, the villagers must be consulted, and they must have a right to be properly compensated. It cannot be taken for granted that a national infrastructure project can overrule those requirements.

Turning to compensation, I will be very brief because it is not in the amendment. We can come up with compensation for people living in these places, but how do you compensate for the destruction of a wonderful 1,000-year-old Norman church or the local post office—buildings which, in some ways, are not owned by people, and involve no right to compensation?

In future, to create a reservoir it may be necessary to destroy villages, even heritage villages. In that case, we should have a protection, as my noble friends have suggested in Amendments 7A and 7B. I am happy to support them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that it was regrettable that these amendments were brought at this late stage. I have a feeling that it is unacceptable that the Government should, in the final throes of the Bill, introduce very significant amendments that will have a profound effect on our communities and the environment surrounding them. This is why we are having a long debate on this group of amendments.

The Government wish to find a different route for agreeing the construction of new reservoirs. While that is a laudable aim, the methods proposed in the Bill represent a huge backward step for environmental protection and democratic accountability, without considering perhaps more straightforward solutions such as water conservation. The Government’s proposals seek to shift the decision-making process from the local to the national. As a result, and in light of their amendments on removing pre-application—which we will come to in the next group—local residents, as the Minister has said, would have to register in order to speak against the decision or to make their comments heard. It is quite an ask for people to appear before the equivalent of a planning inspectorate examination, which can be quite daunting for residents to take part in. That is regrettable.

The other issue I have a problem with is that the Government intend that where a region has a water shortage and, as a consequence, housing is turned down because there is not enough water to feed the new estates, they will issue “holding directions” to stop councils refusing planning permissions and will consider call-ins to try to overturn those. How those people will get water is yet to be understood. We on these Benches believe that the Government, alongside pursuing some new reservoirs, ought to put greater emphasis on the solution to water scarcity, which should be about addressing demand inefficiency.

This includes getting water companies to reduce the scale of the leaks from their water pipes—which is approximately 20% of the totality—to 10%. That is achievable and, on its own, would solve the immediate issue of water scarcity. The use of grey water and black water—I hate those terms—within new developments also needs to be addressed by not requiring all water that is used in this country to be of drinking water quality, which is what happens now. When you get your car washed, the car wash uses water of drinking quality to clean your car, because all water produced is to that standard. There ought to be changes in that direction as well.

17:30

We also need to think about water transfers between water companies, which already occur from the great Kielder dam—44 billion gallons of it. It was built for steelworks that then closed, which is why it is so big. There is a huge volume of water there, which, if it was transferred down by pushing from region to region, could supply different areas of the country. That is possible already. How feasible it would be on a national scale is for the Government to resolve, but in my view it should be done.

The Government are clearly—and rightly—going to accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We on these Benches will support Amendment 7A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. With all the heritage issues that we have discussed in this planning Bill, we cannot always put speed and build ahead of heritage protection. We have got the balance wrong when that happens. Heritage is important to the pride of place that people feel. It is something we have heard about in the debate, and something we will support.

I am speaking ahead of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who has Amendment 7B. It is a pity she said 20 or more houses, because the loss of any number of houses to a large reservoir should cause us to stop and think. That will have a significant impact on people, on their family histories and on the whole way their little community works. If the noble Baroness pushes her amendment to a vote, we on these Benches will be inclined to support her.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 4—the new clause to be inserted after Clause 2—relates to projects concerning water. As I understand it, this amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties, appointed by water undertakers, to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project under Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008, provided that the other conditions set out in Sections 27, 28 and 28A of that Act are met.

While I appreciate the intention to streamline delivery and facilitate investment in critical water infrastructure, I must raise a number of concerns and questions to the Minister. First, what safeguards will ensure that the thresholds for NSIP designation—particularly those relating to scale and national importance—are still meaningfully applied? It is essential that this designation remains reserved for truly nationally significant projects, not simply those that happen to be large or, indeed, convenient.

Secondly, can the Minister clarify why the existing provisions—which limit NSIP status to projects undertaken directly by water undertakers—are now deemed insufficient? What problem, precisely, is this amendment intended to solve?

Additionally, are the Government considering similar extensions of NSIP eligibility in other sections of infrastructure? If so, it would be helpful for your Lordships’ House to understand whether this represents a broader shift in planning policy or an exceptional measure just limited to water infrastructure.

Finally, will the Government commit to a review of the amendment’s impact after, say, three or five years, to ensure that it has not led to unintended consequences, particularly in relation to accountability, environmental standards or the integrity of the NSIP regime?

I also welcome my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments in this group. I understand he has had many discussions with the Minister, and I thank the Government for their response on these amendments.

Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also raises important questions for Ministers about the ability of farmers and landowners to develop small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities. We know we need more reservoirs, and the Government have talked about this a great deal. We look to Ministers to show willing on smaller reservoirs too, and we encourage the Minister to listen to my noble friend on this important issue.

Finally, Amendment 7A in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson and my Amendment 7B are on introducing due process for communities and heritage threatened by reservoirs being delivered through the NSIP process. We tabled these amendments in response to the Government’s amendment tabled last Monday and we are keen to work with the Government to get a workable amendment into the Bill, if it is necessary.

I also say at the outset that we are fully supportive of the steps to get on with the delivery of critical national infrastructure, but where consultation of local communities and heritage protections are disapplied through the NSIP process, we have to be sure that is appropriate in those cases. As the Government seek to deliver more reservoirs, we want to ensure that communities, heritage and local individuals who have their homes, gardens and history invested in those areas are protected and that the Secretary of State takes proper account of their views. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay has spoken about a number of historical examples. If villages are to be flooded in the future, with all their history and heritage, we must make sure a proper process is followed.

It is not just in the north of England that we have reservoirs. I farmed near Bough Beech and I knew Bewl Water in Kent; both of these were where some communities were flooded. Decades and generations on, people are still talking about the community that is under that water.

We will therefore seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7B and ask the Minister to seriously consider making sure that future communities will be protected.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will keep my comments relatively brief, because I had a lot to say at the beginning of this group. I start my concluding remarks by pointing out to noble Lords that it was concerns about water provision that encouraged the Government to bring forward further amendments in this respect. I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in engagement both in the recess period, which I was very grateful for, and subsequent to that. I thank all those who met with me.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his contribution. He set out his concerns very clearly and we appreciated that. That is why we are able to accept his amendments.

On the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I understand the great and ongoing concerns around the Capel Celyn issue. I am afraid that the powers in this Bill are for England, but I will come back to him in writing about what powers the Senedd has to act in a way that might help with his concerns. If that is acceptable to him, I will write to him on those specific issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, discussed the efficiency of reservoirs. There have been recent improvements in that, but there is room for further improvement, and I am sure that colleagues in Defra are as exercised as she is in making sure that that is the case. I am very glad that she mentioned Professor Bellamy; that brought back some very happy memories. I will not try an impression—I am not very good at them—but he was a real character. His contribution to the natural world in this country was enormous, and I am very grateful for that.

The noble Baroness asked about how the need for water is assessed; the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to that too. Water companies have a statutory duty to provide a secure supply of water for customers efficiently and economically and to set out how they plan to continue to supply water through statutory water resources management plans. They are assessing that constantly. These set out how each company will continue to meet this duty and manage the water supply and demand sustainably for at least the next 25 years. There is therefore a constant assessment of that.

On the noble Baroness’s points about smaller reservoirs, I hope that I set out clearly in my comments that these can be undertaken currently under permitted development. We recognise the need to look at those permitted development regulations, and we will return to them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I understand that I bounced this idea into the debate and that the Minister was not aware that I would do so, but can she write to me on the state of the proposals to dispense with the Reservoirs Act and bring forth recommendations from the Balmforth review from 2019? That is an incredibly long time. Can she set out what the timescale will be?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am happy to do that.

I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, out of order, because, as he said, some of the issues that he raised could not happen now; the Planning Act 2008 means that many of those issues would not be the case now. I am making my response to the noble Lord out of order because I want to come back to the points about heritage issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. As the noble Lord said, my colleague from DCMS and I have now set up a very useful round table with heritage organisations, or organisations representing heritage issues. I will raise some of those specific issues with the round table; it is important that we do so. The National Policy Statement for Water Resources Infrastructure has a dedicated section on the historic environment, which sets out what applicants should do in their development consent order application.

The Secretary of State will, when determining applications, specifically identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development. All applicants for development consent, including dam and reservoir schemes, are required to provide information about heritage impacts from their projects when they submit their application. Where development is subject to an environmental impact assessment, the application is also required to take that assessment, as I pointed out earlier.

With the examining authority considering that as part of the examination, and the Secretary of State identifying and assessing the particular significance of heritage assets, I hope that that gives some reassurance that proposed developments must comply with specific obligations related to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments. That obligation is placed on the Secretary of State and set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the noble Lord.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, discussed some of the other measures that can be taken to conserve water; I do not disagree with her on that. Colleagues in Defra are exercised in ensuring that we make efficient use of water and that we are not setting up reservoirs unnecessarily. Because I come from one of the areas of great water scarcity in the country, I know what a huge issue this can be. I point out to her that, in contrast to where reservoirs were built for the steel industries and then the water was not needed afterwards, we are now looking at data centres as a new generation of economic activity. They need water, so I know that there will be new needs for water going forward.

17:45

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her contribution. She discussed how these projects can now be delivered. Only projects delivered by third-party providers appointed by a statutory water undertaker will be eligible to qualify as NSIPs under our Amendment 4. Those providers will have been successful in a competitive tender process run by a water undertaker. To address her question, the projects must also still meet the existing thresholds for classification as a NSIP, including criteria on size and capacity. That ensures that only genuinely large-scale, strategic water infrastructure qualifies, and that delivery remains under the oversight of regulated water companies or the water regulator.

All projects brought forward under the NSIP regime must still go through the full development consent order process, including consultation, environmental assessments and public engagement. Our amendment does not reduce scrutiny; it simply removes an unnecessary step to apply for a Section 35 direction for the third-party providers carrying out the development.

I recognise that the loss of homes or of heritage assets will be of great concern; I recognise the sensitivity of those issues. I hope that the steps that I have outlined, and the very detailed way in which the Planning Act 2008 applies, will have reassured Members and that they will feel able not to press their amendments. I commend the government amendments to the House.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I beg to move Amendment 5.

Amendment 5 (to Amendment 4) agreed.

Amendments 6 and 7 (to Amendment 4)

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

6: In inserted subsection (3) of subsection (3), at end insert “and is designated as an Infrastructure Provider under Regulation 8 of those regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.

7: In the text inserted by paragraph (c) of subsection (4), at end insert “and is designated as an Infrastructure Provider under Regulation 8 of those regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.

Amendments 6 and 7 (to Amendment 4) agreed.

Amendment 7A (to Amendment 4)

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

7A: After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) Part 4 of the Planning Act 2008 (Requirement for development consent) is amended as set out in subsection (8).(8) In section 33 (Effect of requirement for development consent on other consent regimes), after subsection (1), insert—“(1A) Paragraphs (f), (g), (i) and (j) of subsection (1) do not apply in relation to projects falling within section 14(1)(m) (dams and reservoirs).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that consent regimes for heritage sites apply in relation to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which involve the construction of reservoirs.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the further information she set out, and to noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their support for my amendment.

I am glad to hear that the Minister will discuss the issue further with heritage groups in the round tables that she and the Heritage Minister are jointly holding; that is a very helpful step. Of course, that comes rather too late in our deliberations on the Bill. If this were Committee, I would be able to withdraw my amendment and see what they made of it following those discussions—but of course I cannot do so. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said, we are very keen to work with the Government if this amendment is supported and put in the Bill; we are happy to work with them at later stages in a way that is workable. Given the support that it has received today and given its importance, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7A.

17:48

Division 2

Ayes: 216

Noes: 175

17:59

Amendment 4, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 7B

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

7B: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Projects relating to water which require the demolition of villagesAfter section 35(4) (directions in relation to projects of national significance) of the Planning Act 2008 insert—“(4A) Where a development falls within the definition in section 27 and requires the demolition of more than 20 residential properties the Secretary of State may not give a direction under subsection (1) unless the persons who live at, or otherwise occupy, premises in the vicinity of the land have been notified and given the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State.””

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. However, for future communities who may be affected by the issues we have been debating, and in order to ensure not just proper consultation but proper engagement in those schemes, I wish to divide the House on my Amendment 7B.

18:00

Division 3

Ayes: 227

Noes: 168

18:10

Clause 3: Power to disapply requirement for development consent

Amendment 8 not moved.

Clause 4: Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

9: Clause 4, page 8, line 22, leave out paragraph (a)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the provisions in the bill which remove the requirements for pre-application requirements for development consent.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the importance of pre-application as a formal part of the process in determining NSIP applications. They are all much of a muchness. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to retain the current statutory pre-application consultation; Amendments 11 and 12 are similar. Amendment 12, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, seeks to put an emphasis on the importance of pre-application to the NSIP and setting out the purpose of it. The emphasis we have had from our Benches and the Conservative Benches today is on the importance of hearing the voices of communities and protecting heritage and the environment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, in the last group of amendments, talked about the importance of engagement of communities in these very important national infrastructure projects. That is where pre-application is very important, because although we accept and support the Government’s aim to speed up decisions on national infrastructure projects, it is equally important that a consensus be built with the community from the outset, which you do not achieve if you eliminate upfront engagement. The key to building consensus is maintaining a statutory pre-application process. The cost of giving up short-term speedy decisions could be long-term stability and success. Amendment 12 seeks to have issues resolved early. Community influence is built into the process so that people have their say at the outset, before a planning application is submitted for examination, to ensure that the applications are technically sound and that mitigation is embedded at the beginning, rather than added in later.

All those issues are vital if communities are to feel that their voice has been heard, even if in the end a contrary decision is made through the NSIP process. Throughout my long experience as a councillor, it always struck me that if people have had their say, they are more likely to accept the consequences of a view to which they are opposed. In response to arguments in Committee on this issue, the Minister argued that it was a tick-box exercise and that others took a more constructive view in building consensus and did it well. The answer should be not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to ensure that all construction is done with a meaningful pre-app process.

18:15

We on these Benches feel that the democratic right of people to have their voice heard is very important. It will in the end benefit those big projects if they get people onside, understanding what is at stake and having their voice heard at the beginning of a process, rather than when it becomes much more of a legal test. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response, but if I am not satisfied I will—with the support, I hope, of the Conservative Front Bench—test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[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.

18:30

Reintroducing a statutory test of consultation at the acceptance stage would risk reinstating the very behaviours we are trying to move away from. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government’s proposals do not diminish the importance of consultation. With these reassurances, I ask her not to press her amendments.

Amendment 83 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. I thank him for his continued interest in this important area. We absolutely recognise the potential of emerging technologies, such as digital twin modelling, to support the planning system. I looked into this in some detail when I had the artificial intelligence brief for the department—sadly, it has moved on to another Minister now, but I did have it. I looked at places where digital twins are in frequent use, such as Singapore and some parts of Spain. These innovations help to make complex infrastructure proposals more accessible and transparent to communities, and we welcome the growing use of those tools across the sector.

For example, the Government are delivering the digital planning programme, which aims to enable a modern and efficient planning system in England. That programme is supporting our digital ambitions, working with local planning authorities to adopt common data standards. It will make the planning system more efficient by providing better access to planning data, improving the data quality and making the data more open. We are committed to modernising the planning system and to streamlining processes. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to mandate digital twin modelling for every applicant through the Bill. There are three main reasons why I say that.

First, we are repealing the statutory duty to consult at pre-application stage. This makes the amendment unworkable in its current form. Secondly, it is not necessary to legislate to achieve this policy objective. If an applicant for development consent considers that the use of a digital twin would be beneficial to their engagement, they are able to make this available. Moreover, if we were to require or encourage the use of such tools, we could do so through existing powers. The Government have the power to make regulations in relation to the processing and provision of planning data through Sections 84 and 85 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Finally, I understand that some industry experts have expressed concerns about the use of this technology, relating to commercial sensitivity and security considerations. Further policy development and engagement is needed before taking such an approach.

We are committed to encouraging innovation, but we must be mindful of the practical impact on applicants and the system as a whole when government requires and mandates certain approaches. For these reasons, while the Government agree that digital twin modelling is an interesting development and has great potential for engagement with the NSIP process, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to mandate it at this stage. Instead, I would be interested in meeting my noble friend and the noble Baroness to discuss the matter further so that the Government can more appropriately consider how we can encourage digital twin modelling.

In conclusion, while we support the principle behind the amendment, we do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to include it in the Bill. I therefore respectfully ask my noble friend not to press Amendment 83.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the careful consideration that she gave to my amendments during the Conference Recess. I have again listened carefully to what she had to say today and it appears that there is agreement across the House that pre-application engagement with affected communities is vital, but we disagree on how it should be achieved. The proposal in the Bill is to remove the statutory requirement for pre-application engagement. That leaves us with the good constructions engaging effectively and the poor constructions avoiding doing it well. The contention on our Benches is that all projects and constructions should engage well. The only way to achieve that is by making it a statutory requirement.

The other point about removing a statutory requirement and having a set of principles by which it should be undertaken is that, if the amendment is not accepted, we will be left with engagement that is designed by the developers and often for the developers—not for the community, as it should be. As these issues are important for those of us who care deeply about hearing the voice of people and being able to engage early in a big application, while I shall not press my Amendments 9 to 11, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 12.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Clause 5: Applications for development consent: changes related to section 4

Amendment 11 not moved.

Amendment 12

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

12: Clause 5, page 10, line 24, at end insert—
“(7A) In issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure pre-application consultation is meaningful, including, but not limited to, adherence to the following principles—(a) pre-application consultation should be open and transparent with information and evidence provided in a timely and straightforward fashion to provide affected or interested parties with objective and relevant information to enable them to make an informed response;(b) applicants should demonstrate a responsive approach to queries and challenges raised;(c) applicants should ensure consultation and engagement activities are inclusive and enable affected or interested parties to have a reasonable opportunity to participate;(d) applicants’ interpretation and representation of results should be fair and objective;(e) all pre-application consultation should be undertaken through meaningful engagement with communities and stakeholders, offering genuine opportunities to influence proposals;(f) pre-application engagement should be proportionate, with applicants providing the right level of information to enable positive outcomes to be delivered.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides principles which the Secretary of State’s guidance required by new section 50(2) of the Planning Act 2008 must have regard to, to ensure that pre-application consultation is meaningful.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I beg to move.

18:36

Division 4

Ayes: 61

Noes: 154

18:46

Clause 6: Applications for development consent: acceptance stage

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

13: Clause 6, page 11, line 14, leave out subsection (2)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the amendment made by clause 6 to section 37(3) of the Planning Act 2008, with the result that the test for acceptance of an application for a development consent order would remain unchanged.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 13 to 16, 18 and 20, which revise Clause 6. They are essential to ensuring that the Bill delivers on its core objective: to speed up the delivery of infrastructure by removing unnecessary complexity and delay from the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.

As noble Lords will know, Clause 6 was originally introduced to provide flexibility at the acceptance stage by allowing the Planning Inspectorate—PINS—on behalf of the Secretary of State to request minor changes to applications. It also introduced a new form of words at the acceptance test, requiring PINS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to determine that an application was

“suitable to proceed to examination”

before it could be accepted. This would have replaced the existing test, which is for the application to be of a “satisfactory standard”.

Although a decision not to accept an application at the acceptance stage is rare, the uncertainty that this may occur has contributed towards the growing delays at the pre-application stage. Clause 6 intended to address this in two ways: first, by reducing the risk of a decision not to accept an application by PINS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, by inserting a discretionary power for PINS to delay a final decision while applicants remedied minor issues; and secondly, by making it clear that the acceptance test should focus on whether an application is suitable to be examined.

Since that time, the Government have proposed more radical steps to streamline the system. In future, guidance for applicants will support them in their approach to engagement and consultation on national infrastructure projects. The Government also published a consultation on changes to consultation guidance over the summer.

Although Clause 6 was intended to speed up the system and provide greater certainty, feedback from the sector throughout the Bill’s passage has made it clear that these changes risk doing the opposite. There are concerns that the change of language on the acceptance test is unclear and subjective. One concern is that it may require PINS to routinely interrogate whether there has been sufficient agreement on key issues. There are also concerns that the acceptance test will be too vague and open to interpretation. There are justified concerns that this could lead to inconsistent decisions or even higher barriers to entry of the system. Equally, there are concerns that the new process whereby PINS could request minor changes to applications before they were accepted may be routinely used by PINS to delay applications, rather than being used on rare occasions to assist applications that would otherwise fall.

That is why I am moving amendments that listen to and seek to address those concerns. They restore the original, clear test for acceptance, requiring applications to be of a “satisfactory standard”. They remove the power to delay acceptance decisions through requests for further information and they strip out the consequential provisions that would otherwise support or reference these now removed powers. These changes are simple, targeted and effective. They preserve clarity, reduce uncertainty and ensure that the acceptance stage remains focused on what it should be: assessing whether an application is complete, clear and ready to move forward in statutory timeframes, not interrogating whether every issue related to the project has been resolved.

Although we want applications to be well developed at the acceptance stage, it is not right or realistic to aim for consensus or agreement between all parties at this stage of the process. At the acceptance stage, we want application documents to meet the required standards and we want applicants to be well prepared for the upcoming examination. This means having an awareness of the issues likely to arise and using pre-application to develop a high-quality application, but it does not mean that PINS needs to see that all issues have been resolved.

I can be very clear and say that we remain absolutely committed to high-quality applications being accepted into the NSIP regime. However, in the light of feedback, we no longer think that these select provisions in Clause 6 support achieving that.

PINS will still have tools available to request that applicants address clear gaps, correct deficiencies or provide additional information early on in the process, through either Section 51 advice prior to submission or making procedural decisions during the pre-examination stage. These mechanisms allow for clarification and improvements to documentation, but without creating uncertainty or additional process for applications which meet the acceptance criteria.

These technical amendments are pro-growth, pro-delivery and pro-certainty. They reflect what we have heard from noble Lords and the sector, and they align with the broader reforms we have already made. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting them.

Government Amendments 17 and 19 introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to publish reasons for deciding not to accept a development consent order application at the acceptance stage and clarify the point in the process when a legal challenge against such a decision can be brought. These amendments respond directly to concerns raised in Committee by noble Lords from across the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, who rightly highlighted the importance of and need for transparency and accountability in the early stages of the nationally significant project regime. A transparent process holds everyone to account, and applicants should be reassured that this amendment removes the risk of arbitrary or opaque decision-making.

While I disagree with the position that our pre-application consultation changes will create greater uncertainty in the system or allow poorer-quality applications to progress further, I am in favour of shining a light on the decision-making process and ensuring that the system is as transparent as possible. In other words, we are putting our money where our mouths are. The Planning Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to notify the applicant of their reasons when they decide not to accept a DCO application. At present, and in line with its openness policy, PINS, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, already publishes reasons for its decisions not to accept a DCO application. However, as noble Lords noted, there is no statutory obligation to do so. These amendments aim to improve the legislation to address this gap.

The amendments align the acceptance stage with the principles already embedded in Section 116 of the Planning Act 2008, which requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons when refusing development consent. The amendments ensure that applicants, stakeholders and the wider public can understand why and on what basis a decision has been made not to accept an application, supporting the integrity of the NSIP system. This is a principled response to concerns raised in Committee, and I hope it shows that we are listening carefully to noble Lords’ concerns about how our changes impact the system as a whole. I therefore commend this amendment to the House and urge noble Lords to support its inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened in Committee to the concerns that were raised about the acceptance process. I am pleased that there has been a rethink. The changes proposed in the amendments are not opposed by these Benches.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have before us the Government’s latest set of amendments to Clause 6—or should I say what used to be Clause 6 before the Government took a pair of legislative shears to it? This clause as originally drafted, as we have heard from the Minister, would have changed the test for when an application for a development consent order is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. The Government now appear to have decided that their proposal was, in fact, unnecessary, perhaps even unworkable, so we are back to the status quo: the clear, objective test that ensures that applications are accepted only when they meet the proper standards of completeness and adequacy. Thank goodness for that. The test protects everyone: developers, communities and the integrity of the process. It ensures clarity at the gateway stage, not confusion. I thank the Minister for making these changes to the Bill.

Amendment 13 agreed.

Amendments 14 to 20

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

14: Clause 6, page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (3)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 12, line 31.

15: Clause 6, page 11, line 25, leave out subsections (5) and (6)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 12, line 31.

16: Clause 6, page 12, line 1, leave out paragraph (c)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 11, line 14.

17: Clause 6, page 12, line 29, leave out from “must” to end of line 30 and insert “—
(a) prepare a statement of the Secretary of State’s reasons for that decision,(b) provide a copy of the statement to the applicant, and(c) publish the statement in such form and manner as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of reasons for any decision not to accept an application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

18: Clause 6, page 12, line 31, leave out subsections (12) and (13)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove new section 55A of the Planning Act 2008 which would have permitted the Secretary of State to require an applicant for a development consent order to provide further information before accepting the application. It would also make provision consequential on this.

19: Clause 6, page 13, line 33, at end insert—
“(13A) In section 118 (legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting development consent), in subsection (3)(b), for “notifies the applicant as required by subsection (7)” substitute “provides the copy of the statement of reasons for the decision to the applicant as required by subsection (7)(b)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the substitution of section 55(6) of the Planning Act 2008 by clause 6(11) of the Bill.

20: Clause 6, page 13, line 34, leave out subsection (14) and insert—
“(14) In consequence of the amendment in subsection (10), omit section 137(4) of the Localism Act 2011.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 12, line 1.

Amendments 14 to 20 agreed.

Amendment 20A

Moved by

[Lord Ravensdale]

20A: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Applications for development consent: low carbon energy infrastructureAfter section 35D in the Planning Act 2008 (timetable for deciding request for direction under section 35B) (inserted by section 3 of this Act) insert—“35E Representations by relevant authorities, net zero and sustainable development(1) In relation to relevant nationally significant infrastructure projects, relevant authorities should have special regard to the matters in subsection (5) when carrying out the activities in subsection (6).(2) The relevant nationally significant infrastructure projects are—(a) the construction or extension of a generating station within the meaning of section 14(1)(a) for the purpose of low carbon electricity generation, or(b) the installation of an electric line above ground within the meaning of section 14(1)(b) for the conveyance of electricity generated by a station in subsection (a).(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) it does not matter whether the electric line is also used or intended for use in connection with the conveyance of electricity generated from other sources.(4) The relevant authorities are—(a) the conservation bodies in section 32 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (UK conservation bodies),(b) the Environment Agency, and(c) such other bodies as may be prescribed in regulation by the Secretary of State.(5) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are the need to contribute towards—(a) achieving compliance by the Secretary of State with part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (Carbon target and budgeting),(b) the achievement of biodiversity targets under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,(c) adapting to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(d) achieving sustainable development.(6) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are any representations under Part 5 and Part 6.(7) In discharging their duty under subsection (1), the relevant authorities must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by Secretary of State.(8) In this section “low carbon electricity generation” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Energy Act 2013.””

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis.

I was reassured by what the Minister stated in response to this amendment in Committee, but I have a few additional points of clarification, hence bringing this back on Report. I am grateful to the Minister for her time last week in discussing the response to this amendment.

Moving in this direction is important for a number of reasons. The first is to help speed projects through the system by ensuring that regulators are aligned with the Government’s goals, in the case of this amendment relating to electricity generating projects and infrastructure. It is all about ensuring that regulators are concerned not just with the micro view, the local impacts of the project on the environment, but the macro view, the potential benefits that that project will bring for the country, whether that is net zero or environmental benefits—in effect, assessing the benefits as well as the costs. That will help some of the issues we have seen in the logjam of projects related to offshore wind and nuclear.

It will continue the work that Peers have undertaken to apply a consistent duty across regulators. We had the duty on Ofgem under the previous Government, on Ofwat under this Government, and on other organisations such as the Crown Estate. This takes inspiration from the Private Member’s Bill that is being taken through by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about a consistent duty across all regulators.

It is consistent with the output of the Corry review to help prevent, in the words of the review, the “regulatory overload” that has emerged over time. Simplifying duties on regulators is another key point in helping to speed projects through the system.

I shall not delay the House any further. I would be grateful if, in summing up, the Minister could provide answers to the following points. In Committee, the Minister stated that:

“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”.—[Official Report, 17/7/25; col. 2094.]


Can the Minister please provide additional detail on how duties on regulators are being brought within that guidance and national policy statements now that consultations in that area are under way?

There is still the point on the statutory duty. So far, the Government are going down a guidance route; we have had numerous debates on guidance versus statute throughout the Bill. What plans do the Government have to bring forward statutory duties on regulators to align with the work already done on Ofgem and other regulators? I believe that long-term strategic certainty and drive can be done only via statute.

Finally, on timescales, I would be grateful if the Minister could give an update on the strategic policy statements for all regulators—the commitment that was made by the Government coming out of the Corry review—and what that programme looks like. I beg to move.

19:00

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 20A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We welcome this amendment; it is a well-judged and timely proposal which will give practical effect to the commitments Parliament has already made in law to achieve net zero, protect biodiversity and promote sustainable development within the planning system and nationally significant infrastructure projects.

In essence, this amendment is about coherence—ensuring that the way we plan consents and deliver low-carbon infrastructure genuinely aligns with the environmental and climate obligations this country has already bound itself by. At present, there remains a troubling gap between our statutory climate targets and the machinery through which we approve major energy projects. The Planning Act 2008, however good it is, pre-dates our key climate primary legislation. This amendment would help bring the planning regime for major projects into line with a more modern legislative landscape. It would create a new Section 35E, placing a duty on the relevant authorities—conservation bodies, the Environment Agency and others—to have specific regard to four key objectives when they make representations on nationally significant projects.

I will not detain the House any longer, but we support this sensible amendment.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. It seems that all the experience we have is that there is not coherence where there ought to be. I thank the Minister for her earlier willingness to react to the House and show that she was able to make the changes the House asked for. I hope she will say to her colleagues how much it helps the Government if we feel that they listen on things which are not party political but about how best to organise ourselves.

With the range of regulators we have, it is crucial to get coherence. I believe that we all know we have not got it at the moment. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, may not be ideal—I do not think he sees it in those terms—but it seeks to get from the Government a coherent programme for coherence. We all know that every day the urgency that climate change forces upon us gets more and more obvious. I have just come back from Northern Ireland, where businesses right across the board were saying how important that was and—I have to say to my noble friend—pointing out how unacceptable it is to try to change the architecture we have to try to deal with this. That architecture will work much better if we get a greater coherence across the board.

Therefore, I hope the Minister will be kind enough at least to give us some understanding of the way in which the Government hope to bring about that coherence and, in that, give us something about dates and times. I was a Minister for rather a long time and I know perfectly well that it is very easy to promise in general about the future almost any nice thing but what really matters is when and how it is going to be done.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 20A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, was considered in Committee. A number of questions were asked, and I think a number of questions remain unanswered. While we fully recognise the importance of sustainable development, we are not persuaded that this amendment is necessary. It appears to us that the Government already have—or should have—the tools they need to guide public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process, and I think we are satisfied that these powers are sufficient.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for meeting me during recess to discuss this. His Amendment 20A seeks to ensure that, in relation to NSIP for low-carbon energy, relevant authorities should have special regard to the achievement of Government’s environmental targets and sustainable development.

The amendment is similar to one debated in Committee. It refers specifically to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting and adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts under the Climate Change Act 2008, the achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021, and achieving sustainable development.

As the Government made clear in Committee, we recognise the importance of this issue, but we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It is vital that we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure we need, not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. The Bill will 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. The Government also appreciate the important role that these bodies play in the planning system. That is why we have taken action in response to the Corry review to ensure that these bodies are joined up and aligned with the Government’s broader priorities. I will say a bit more about that in a moment.

As I did in Committee, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are already utilising the tools they have to guide the considerations given by public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process. The first of these relates to national policy. The energy national policy statements already 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. We are also strengthening national policy statements through this Bill by requiring that they are updated at least every five years, and by making it easier to undertake interim updates for certain types of material amendments. The Government have recently concluded consultation on drafts of EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5, which will be updated to reflect the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan.

The second relates to guidance. It is critical that public bodies engage fully in examinations so that the examining authority has access to their expertise and can properly scrutinise the application before reporting to the Secretary of State. Through the Bill, the Government are introducing a new duty on public bodies to have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State in making representations as part of examinations. This guidance will support government objectives by ensuring that these bodies engage effectively in the process and can provide the right information in a timely way.

We are currently consulting on reforms across the NSIP system to streamline the process. As well as consulting on what pre-application guidance to applicants should contain, we are seeking views on whether to strengthen expectations that statutory bodies attend hearings in person where relevant. As we then review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider how this, alongside government policy in national policy statements, can support the intent of the amendment.

As I have made clear today, the guidance the Government will issue to statutory bodies about their role in the NSIP process will play a vital role, I hope, in addressing noble Lords’ concerns. The Government are clearly in the process of developing policies to update, streamline and rationalise the operation of these bodies and that of regulators and their role in the operation of the planning system, in response to both the Corry and the Cunliffe reviews. My colleagues would welcome further engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and others in the House who have a particular interest in this area, as we undertake the important work.

Complex projects engage multiple regimes, and I understand that they find themselves batted backwards and forwards between Defra regulators. So we are piloting a lead environmental regulator model to provide a single point of contact for developers on the most complex schemes. We have already made a start, working with the Lower Thames Crossing on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked about the timescale for releasing strategic policy statements for Defra regulators in response to the Corry review. This is one of nine fast-tracked recommendations—and I mean fast-tracked. We will communicate on this very soon—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that I am sorry to use that term—and, when I say “very soon”, I am talking about days, not weeks or months; I hope that gives him some guidance. As the noble Lord knows, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters that are relevant and important to decisions. For all those reasons, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those remarks. I am reassured by what she said on timescales and the work that is being undertaken on the NSIP process and the guidance that will come out of that. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to work with her and her team on that guidance. There is more work to do here. The key is ensuring coherence, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said. But I am encouraged by the progress and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 20A withdrawn.

Clause 11: Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders

Amendment 21

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

21: Clause 11, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(4A) After paragraph 104(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) insert—“(ba) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment 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 EDP applying to the land which will be developed.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has just said potentially her favourite words. She spent a lot of Committee on this Bill saying that “in due course” was her least favourite phrase, so it was delightful for her to be able at least to say “very soon”. I wonder whether the same might apply to my amendment; sadly, I expect not. In Committee, I mentioned that I was not satisfied with the response of the Minister and that I would be minded to bring the amendment back on Report. It is somewhat clunky, but it is just the nature of the Bill that we are discussing NSIPs and, as a consequence, I have to speak to my amendment at this stage of the Bill.

So what does my amendment basically say? In essence, we will have environmental delivery plans; what I am asking is that, alongside other matters that the Secretary of State has to consider, they should consider the environmental delivery plan when it comes to an NSIP. For me, this seems logical. I am conscious that other provisions in Section 104 of the Planning Act refer to the need to consider

“any national policy statement which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates”.

It requires

“the appropriate marine policy documents … determined in accordance with section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009”

and consideration of “any local impact report” as well as—I am conscious the Minister may say this—

“any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant to the … decision”.

The reason why I believe the proposed wording merits being included in the Bill and put into legislation is that, in other parts of legislation, the primary duty of the Secretary of State for Defra is to achieve a variety of targets for nature recovery. But, as we debated in Committee, in reality what we are considering now is what the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will consider. Let us be candid: there has not always been a happy exchange between the two departments in previous history, especially with the new Secretary of State, having just been the Secretary of State at Defra, now talking about “Build, baby, build” and rolling out a whole series of reasons for why infrastructure is being held up—which could not necessarily be stood up properly.

Coming back to my amendment—by the way, I tabled a similar amendment on councillors’ consideration of matters that are not NSIPs—we are trying to get to the bottom of what the EDP will really do, which is still unclear to me. On the whole purpose of this, it is quite possible that an environmental delivery plan may cover land being used by an NSIP. But, according to the answer from the Minister in Committee—I appreciate that she did not use this phrase—it is the quintessence of cash for trash: “That will have already been considered and we don’t need to think about it ever again. There should be no reason for it to be even considered by the Secretary of State when they’re making their determination”. However, I believe it matters so much that it should be.

19:15

So one thing I am hoping to hear from the Government today is a little more detail, before we get to Part 3, about how decisions will be made in reality on significant areas of the country where some compulsory purchase may have been done, according to the powers in the Bill. Will that really not be taken into account? Should we not be trying to make sure that we achieve the primary aim of the Environment Act 2021 and our international treaties, which the Government are quite rightly very fond of? I am thinking in particular of the GBF, negotiated three years ago. Those are the sorts of issues that I would have thought the Government would welcome being in the Bill.

This does not mean that a variety of activity would be stopped, but at least the Government or the Minister would need to show that they had considered the environmental delivery plan against what may or may not be detrimental—it is more likely to be detrimental because that is the whole reason for having established EDPs in regard to how infrastructure is processed. This is sufficiently important that we should consider it as a routine, rather than on the whim of whoever holds office at the time.

As a consequence, I am conscious that we will get properly into EDPs in Part 3, and I do not anticipate that we will do that until sometime on Wednesday or next week. So the timing may not be right but, if I am not satisfied, although I might not press it today, I may consider other mechanisms for this to be considered before the Bill gets Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is right to raise this as an issue of importance. Equally, she pointed to the fact that the impact and effect of EDPs will be discussed at more length when we discuss Part 3. Although EDPs do have a significant part to play in any NSIP consenting regime, the essence of this is about EDPs. Therefore, I hope we can look to a further debate on the whole issue of EDPs when we come to Part 3 later on Report.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing forward Amendment 21. Ensuring that planning consent adequately considers environmental protections is vital and must not be overlooked. However, we are clear, and indeed passionate in our conviction, that the implementation of environmental delivery plans in their current form is deeply problematic. As drafted, the policy risks riding roughshod over our current environmental regime. We must also not forget the interests of farmers and land managers, who are, after all, the principal stewards of our natural environment. My noble friend Lord Roborough will speak in more detail on this topic and develop our position further from Committee in the coming days. My noble friend Lady Coffey is right to highlight how a local environmental delivery plan will interact with a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Government must be clear on how this will work in practice and what they intend to consider when reviewing the impact of these projects.

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

My Lords, Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan, or EDP, is taken into account by the Secretary of State when making a decision whether to grant permission to a nationally significant infrastructure project.

I can assure noble Lords that the way in which EDPs will work in practice means that this amendment is not necessary. Meeting the relevant environmental obligations with an EDP, just as when satisfying them under the current system, is a separate part of the process to the granting of permission. When a promoter commits to pay the levy in relation to an EDP, the making of that commitment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.

I emphasise again that it will, aside from in exceptional circumstances, be a voluntary decision for the promoter of a nationally significant infrastructure project to decide whether they pay the levy to rely on the EDP. This means that while the Secretary of State will need to consider a wide variety of matters, for the purposes of these decisions, the EDP will not be a consideration other than as a way of reflecting that the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature will have been addressed. It does not need to be considered beyond that in the decision to grant permission. This notwithstanding, the Secretary of State may already have regard to any matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision.

I therefore hope, with this explanation, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I was clearly hoping for a little bit more than that from the Government—but I am also conscious that we need to get into the real nuts and bolts of the EDP in practice, which we will consider later. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.02 pm.