Western Sahara Conflict
Lord Godson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent reports of increasing Iranian support for the Polisario Front; and what steps they are taking, in coordination with allies, to address the risks posed by Iranian influence in the Western Sahara conflict.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, regarding the allegation, the UK has not seen evidence of Iranian support for the Polisario Front. However, we continue to monitor Iranian activity in the region. The UK has long condemned Iran’s destabilising provision of political, military and financial support to its proxies and partners. We will continue to work with partners to tackle this destabilising activity.
Lord Godson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. However, there is much open-source evidence of a mutual admiration society between the present Iranian regime, the IRGC and the Polisario on the other side. First, and not least bearing in mind that we do not have as big a footprint in that region as we ought to, will the Minister commit to reassessing some of that open-source and other evidence? Secondly, in the light of the fact that the UK Government seem to be going in the opposite direction from many partners on Polisario—notably the United States, where bipartisan legislation is being introduced in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate to designate Polisario as a foreign terrorist organisation—will the Minister say more to the House about the journey which the present Minister in the Commons, Mr Falconer, has gone on in open meetings with the Polisario, given that its contribution to peace in the region has been, to say the least, slender?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I assure the noble Lord that mutual admiration is not something that we are engaged in. Minister Falconer did meet the Polisario on 5 August in the context of the declaration that we signed to recognise Morocco’s intentions in Western Sahara. The UK has not done this in the past, but we feel that it was the right, pragmatic way forward, given the length of time that this conflict has gone on and the situation that we are now in. It was the right thing to do. We remain incredibly close to our friends in Morocco and we hope that this can proceed in a way that brings peace and stability to the entire region.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Answer and explanation about the position on Morocco, a position which the Government have recently moved on. Is it not important, with a conflict that has been going on this long, that we do not just take sides but try to resolve the conflict before it degenerates into what could be a proxy war if malign parties choose to intervene? What can the UK do to try to ensure that the support Morocco is getting is turned into a practical result that the international community can support?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I could not agree more with what the noble Lord has just said—he is absolutely right. The way that the UK is conducting itself as we move on is with pragmatism and in accordance with the things we have signed up to and the commitments we have made, alongside Morocco. Importantly, we do this with full transparency.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Kurdish regions are the only areas that are committed to democracy, freedom and religious freedom? Does the Minister think we are doing enough to support the Kurds, given that they could have a major impact in setting the agenda in that region?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend and I could have quite a long discussion about our support for the KRI and for Kurds more generally. I would be very happy to do that, although perhaps not during a Question on our agreement with Morocco.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, could the Minister kindly comment on why the Minister met the Polisario Front, especially when we have been encouraging British businesses to move into the Western Sahara to work with one of our oldest allies, and that the Polisario Front has now withdrawn from the ceasefire that it agreed with the Moroccans?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend met Polisario and that was in no way in contradiction to the statements that we have signed up to, alongside Morocco. We feel that there is a resolution in sight here and everything we do will be with a view to reaching that resolution. This matters for the stability of not just Western Sahara but the entire region.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, recognising the important role the United Kingdom has played—and indeed the clarification provided by the Minister to my noble friend—is key. There is a UN resolution on the table which will be discussed at the Security Council. As a friend to both Algeria and Morocco, the autonomy plan provides a practical way forward. Let us be real. I know from my time as a Minister that the external influences over the Polisario of countries that do not hold the United Kingdom with great esteem, to quote my noble friend, is still a real danger. Now is the time to interject. The UK’s role, as we heard from my noble friend, is key to facilitate that dialogue and have a resolution which provides the pathway to peace.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think that is right, and that is what this Government are trying to do. This is a delicate and long-standing situation, and there is a need for absolute pragmatism at all times. That is what we have managed to do so far. As the noble Lord reminds us, there is an important decision to be made at the Security Council in the coming days. I will resist the temptation to get into a commentary about the politics of that. What matters is that we, alongside many others, take the opportunity—there is a window here—to see some progress and get the stability that people living in that part of the world so desperately need.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, the Moroccan Government have made massive investment into the Moroccan Sahara, as I will call it. I have visited Laayoune with colleagues and seen it. We know full well what the Iranians do: they destabilise wherever they can. To go back to the original Question from my noble friend, surely it is incumbent on the Government to support our allies against this destabilisation by the Iranians?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is exactly what we do. My response to the noble Lord was about his specific Question around evidence. We do not have that. What we understand, though, is the way that Iran seeks to operate in very many contexts around the world. We abhor what it does, and the way that it seeks to use its influence to destabilise and upend such processes is something that we are very well aware of.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does the Minister know why we turned down the Moroccan offer of about 3.2 gigawatts of green electricity from a colossal solar development in Morocco, for which they were prepared to offer very attractive prices, since we are certainly going to need it in due course?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I absolutely do not. I will resist the temptation to speculate from the Dispatch Box, but I am sure that I can get the noble Lord the information that he needs.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, returning to the Question, the Polisario Front has not renounced terrorism and violence. Despite what the Minister has said, there is considerable evidence that it has received training and military support from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Does the Minister think that it was wise of her colleague in the other place to meet with it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is important to have dialogue with parties to these conflicts in a way that is transparent, pragmatic and helpful, which is what has been done. The noble Lord says that he has evidence. We have not seen evidence. If the Conservative Front Bench in the House of Lords is in possession of such evidence, it would be very responsible to share it.
Undersea Cables: National Security Threat
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the national security threat to undersea cables connected to the UK.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest: I was a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy earlier this year when we agreed to hold an inquiry into this subject.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government keep the threat to undersea cables connected to the UK under close review, working to deter and mitigate identified risks. My noble friend will appreciate the limits to what can be said publicly, but the MoD constantly monitors activity within UK waters. This includes patrols conducted by Royal Navy assets, maritime patrol aircraft and the multi-role ocean surveillance programme. Following the strategic defence review, the Royal Navy will play a new leading and co-ordinating role, alongside the private sector, in securing undersea pipelines, cables and maritime traffic.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The House knows better than it did that undersea cables—not to mention the land cables under the City of London—are part of our critical national infrastructure because of the vital importance of the data they carry. The Joint Committee’s report said that “security vulnerabilities abound”. It recommended that we develop a UK-flagged sovereign repair ship, which the Royal Navy should practise escorting. Should we develop a seabed warfare strategy and, if so, what are the Government doing about it?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We certainly should develop one, and we are developing one. My noble friend is right to highlight that. We are undertaking a number of actions including surveillance aircraft from Lossiemouth, the ship “Proteus” looking at how it protects underwater assets, and the Royal Navy ship “Stirling Castle” looking at how it might operate drones from its deck to secure underwater pipelines, data cables and so on. We are doing a lot, but my noble friend is right to point out the importance of this.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, Ireland is a crucial hub for undersea infrastructure crossing the Atlantic, but it lacks the capabilities to defend against and be resilient to the destruction of that infrastructure. Moreover, its individual tailored partnership programme with NATO is coming increasingly under threat with recent political shifts in Irish leadership. What assessment have the Government made of the UK’s vulnerabilities to Ireland’s position, and what plans do they have for developing a resilience strategy in that regard in future?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. I wish to limit my answer, for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say that we talk with our Irish colleagues about some of these threats. Wherever a threat may come from, we take measures to defend our homeland from it. That includes surveillance aircraft, developing underwater technology and working with private industry to see what we can do. We are taking a range of measures. The noble and gallant Lord can rest assured that we take all threats seriously, wherever they come from.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
While most of the undersea cables are privately owned, much of the servicing and upkeep need to be carried out by Governments. What co-operation do we have with Norway, which is seriously involved in protection—not only regarding wear and tear but against sabotage?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We have huge co-operation with Norway, as we have with many other countries, to protect underwater cables. The noble Baroness will know of Baltic Sentry and Nordic Warden, specific things dealing with the Baltic and the North Sea and particular operations that we have undertaken to protect them. She is right to point out that Norway is a key ally for us in so many ways, not least in underwater provision. We work very closely with Norway.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, there is no doubt that our vital undersea infrastructure—including gas pipelines, internet connectivity and electricity interconnectors—faces an ever-increasing hostile landscape. I kindly ask the Minister to comment on the agreement signed last week with Germany that will see eight German P-8 Poseidon submarine hunters based in the UK, specifically for the purpose not just of hunting submarines but of adding greater protection for our industry infrastructure.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing that out. In answer to all these questions, the Government are doing a lot to tackle the threat that we face. He specifically references the meeting that took place between the Defence Secretary and Defence Minister Pistorius from Germany at Lossiemouth. He will know the crucial part that Lossiemouth plays in the support for our various aircraft and other surveillance that takes place. He will know that Germany offered to bring some of its aircraft to visit Lossiemouth to work with our aircraft with respect to underwater surveillance and other surveillance tasks. That is an important step forward for us all.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given that the Minister has confirmed that he has had conversations with the Irish Government in relation to the undersea cables, can he confirm that, given all the threats that are out there, Northern Ireland is a strategic place for the United Kingdom, particularly the Port of Londonderry?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I confirm that the MoD has had discussions with Ireland, rather than me personally. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK while the people of Northern Ireland want that. The noble Baroness’s point with respect to the importance of protecting that, and the important part that it plays for the whole UK, is really important, and we will certainly take that on board and keep it on board.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Disruption to cables would have potentially huge effects on communications, data and so on—so too, incidentally, would disruption to the satellite systems on which we all depend. The strategic defence review called for a national conversation about raising the country’s awareness of the threats we face. Is there any plan to have a national exercise, involving large businesses as well as government departments, local authorities and local voluntary organisations, to prepare for a major communications or data disruption?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There are certainly plans to do exactly as my noble friend asks. There certainly needs to be work on those plans, and they need some more detail to them, but there certainly are plans to do that. I have said a number of times from this Dispatch Box that the threats we face from others are now different in many respects from the threats we faced in the past. The disruption to data, the disruption to energy supplies and the disruption to communication are all part of the threat that we now face. Clearly, we are going to have to do more as a homeland to stand up against that. Part of it will require a conversation with industry, the public and the defence sector in order to protect ourselves.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, following the line just observed by the Minister, in recent months the principal threat to United Kingdom infrastructure has been from cyberattacks, notably against Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer, Co-operative Group and Heathrow Airport. Can the Minister confirm that the National Cyber Security Centre, currently located within GCHQ, is adequately resourced to deal with what it recognises is an escalating challenge? How does the National Cyber Security Centre liaise with the CyberEM Command, now sitting within the Strategic Command in the MoD?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There is a co-ordinating committee, whose name escapes me, that brings together all those various parts of government to which the noble Baroness has just referred to ensure that we have that co-ordinated defence and co-ordinated work that, as she rightly points out, we need. I would say, without going too far, that we see it as a major priority for the Government, which is why we have established that new command to defend ourselves against cyberattack, but we also need to work closely with private industry and private business to achieve that. Suffice it to say that it is a really important point and something we are working on very hard to ensure that we protect our country.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, following up on the question in relation to Ireland from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the Taoiseach set up a Ministerial Council on National Security earlier this year. What government-to-government conversations are going on to ensure either increased information sharing or that extra infrastructure investment for the security of those cables is more co-ordinated?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a really important point. Clearly, we are in conversations with countries such as Ireland to ensure that we work as closely as we can with our friends to try to ensure that we have the protection we need. Suffice it to say that we need 360-degree protection.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure what the dozen or so cables that are under the Atlantic between the UK and the US carry, but if you are a UK business, what should you be preparing for in case these are cut? How long will these cables take to repair if there is an incident of that kind?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The repair record for this country is one of the best in the world. This sits with DESNZ and DSIT, as well as with the MoD, but I think the average repair is eight days. There is also a co-ordinated plan to ensure that were a cable, for whatever reason, not to continue to work in the way that it should, the companies responsible for that can reroute whatever is flowing through those cables. In that sense, we have a pretty good story to tell.
As far as the MoD is concerned, we work to ensure that people know that should they threaten us, we have deterrents. In answer to my noble friend who sits on the Joint Committee, it was one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that we also operate a policy of deterrence, and we certainly try to do that.
Non-crime Hate Incidents
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are reviewing the measures related to non-crime hate incidents.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I remind the House that I chair Big Brother Watch.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are currently undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidents, working closely with the Home Office. The Government look forward to receiving the final recommendations of this review shortly and to working with police forces to ensure they have the clarity they need to focus on keeping our communities safe while protecting the fundamental right to free speech.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. The non-crime hate incident regime is being prolifically exploited by malicious individuals targeting people who merely disagree with them. The police are required to believe the complainant, contrary to the presumption of innocence. The target of the complaint may never know that a hate incident has been logged and that their future applications for sensitive jobs and visas may fail as a result. Now the police are saying that they will no longer investigate such incidents but that they will continue to be recorded. Does the Minister agree that we must stop secretly recording as fact what is often no more than scurrilous allegation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I say to the noble Lord that there is a review. My right honourable friend the former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, commissioned that review in December 2024 because, self-evidently, the non-crime hate incidents regime was not working effectively. Noble Lords who were in the House for the Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who chairs the College of Policing, examining that issue and saying that he would bring that review forward. There are a range of things that we need to do in the review. We should not lose sight of the fact that valuable information is gained by people reporting non-crime hate incidents, but equally we should not use it to pursue events which are fruitless when police should be focusing on real crimes.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union. To follow up on the noble Lord’s question, as I understand it, the Metropolitan Police is no longer going to investigate non-prime hate incidents, although it will continue to record them. That appears to be the direction of travel, so other police forces, at least in England and Wales, will take a similar position. However, if NCHIs continue to be recorded, can the Minister assure the House that they will not be disclosable in enhanced DBS checks when people apply for jobs as, let us say, teachers or carers? Given that these uninvestigated reports of involvement in non-crimes are going to be recorded, it seems indefensible that they should stop people getting jobs.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I genuinely do not wish to pre-empt the review being undertaken now. The review by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing will come forward shortly and I expect the interim findings to be published in very short order, but the point that the noble Lord made is a valid one. The Metropolitan Police has said that it will not pursue non-crime hate incidents any more but will still record information because it gives valuable information about potential disability crime, racial crime and crimes against transgender people and others. It is important that we get the balance right, and one reason why my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary ordered that review was to make sure that we do not waste police resources or take the actions that the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, rather than waiting for the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing review, is it not time that Parliament made a decision on this issue? The danger is that we have got to this position because those two bodies have allowed it to develop. Surely the time has come, as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, pointed out, for the police not to be investigating non-crimes, interviewing people who have not committed crimes and recording data on people who have not committed crime, with all the bureaucracy and timewasting that go with it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who brings great experience to this area. Parliament has had a view on this matter—it passed the codification of non-crime hate incidents in legislation in 2023 under the Government that I was not party to, not a supporter of and not a member of. That is why the police have the responsibilities that they currently have. The important point for the noble Lord is that this Government came in in July 2024, realised there were some challenges in the system, had representations from across this House and the House of Commons, and ordered a review. That review is being undertaken by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It commenced in January; it will be finished very shortly, and there will be an interim response. Then we can decide whether we wish to take any action on those recommendations as they affect individual police officers and in terms of whether there are any policy implications for the Government.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, the review is extremely welcome, and I welcome my noble friend’s remarks in relation to it. Would it also be helpful, on these kinds of issues, if politicians in both Houses of this place avoided making comments referring to people’s race, in particular the recent comments about advertisements on television?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important that we condemn the comments that were made about adverts on television. We are a multicultural society. It is quite right and proper that individuals from all parts of our society appear on television, because they are both consumers and producers of goods and contributors to society, so I have no problem in supporting my noble friend on that point. The key question on non-crime hate incidents, and this is where we stand, is the extent to which we use that intelligence reporting mechanism to gather intelligence about potential trends in difficult areas—maybe down to the micro level of a ward—versus the extent to which we take further action on those issues in a criminal context. That is what the review that the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, a member of the Conservative Party and chair of the College of Policing, is undertaking with the National Police Chiefs’ Council is looking at. I am expecting a report in extremely short order.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is very welcome that the Metropolitan Police finally took the decision to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents. They have clearly wasted officers’ time and had a chilling effect on free speech. Will the Government now follow through and support the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill from my noble friend Lord Young of Acton to abolish them in their entirety? Surely this is the way forward.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The short answer is no. The longer answer is we will wait for the review to see what action we will take. Again, I remind the noble Lord that the reason we are in this position in the first place is legislation that codified non-crime hate incidents passed by his Government.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
Does the Minister agree that care should be taken not to conflate crimes with non-crime hate incidents, and that this is particularly important in media reporting?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very sensible point. Ultimately, the bottom line is that the Government believe that we should focus on real crime as a priority. That is why we are putting in 13,000 new police officers, police community support officers and special constables over the next few years, and it is why we have asked for the review of non-crime hate incidents. But in reviewing those issues, we should not lose sight of the importance of intelligence-led information-gathering, as the Metropolitan Police has said.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Minister talks about—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I feel as though I am about to be issued with a non-crime hate incident.
The noble Lord the Minister talked about the importance of not speaking out ahead of the review yet stated that the police were collecting and recording valuable information. Can I challenge that? How does the Minister know that the information is valuable, as it is based on perceived, subjective versions of what is hateful, not illegal? That information could well be used to the detriment of people receiving references for jobs later on. Will the Minister clarify that, regardless, that information should not be used to stop anybody gaining employment, because it is based on subjective rather than objective criteria?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. Again, I fall back on the central point, which is that we have commissioned a review, the results of which we are expecting shortly. It will explore a range of issues, including how non-crime hate incidents impact on police resources, responsibilities, intelligence gathering and the issues she mentioned about individual responsibility or records. Having commissioned a review as a Minister, it is best that I wait for that review’s outcomes. We will report back to the House on what measures we need to take as a result.
Child Poverty Strategy: Migrant Families
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on child poverty of the application of the no recourse to public funds policy to migrant families with children and the implications of this for the forthcoming child poverty strategy.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government are committed to tackling child poverty, and the Child Poverty Taskforce will publish its 10-year strategy to drive sustainable change later this year. The Home Office has agreed that children whose families have no recourse to public funds will be included in the scope of the Government’s child poverty strategy.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend’s response is most welcome. Because of this rule, hundreds of thousands of children, including some British children, are at a disproportionate risk of poverty, especially deep poverty, to the detriment of their mental health and development. The former Work and Pensions Committee, under Sir Stephen Timms, stated that the deprivation they suffer
“should not be allowed to dominate any childhood”.
Does my noble friend therefore accept that an inclusive and effective child poverty strategy must embrace concrete measures to help this group, including through child benefit and childcare support and by limiting the number of children subject to the no-recourse rule?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that I gave her a very strong answer in my first Answer, which I hope met the objectives that she has set. Tackling child poverty is at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. Poverty scars the lives and life chances of all our children, whatever background they are from. Currently, the no recourse to public funds referral that children can access allows access to free school meals, funding for school support and development, early years entitlement, support for children with special educational needs and local authority grants. It is quite right that, in all those circumstances, that drive is there to ensure that we tackle the challenge of poverty in the United Kingdom today as a whole. My noble friend will know that the review is due shortly. When that review is published, there will be further information on how to approach this issue.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the cohort of refugee children in this country who are in child poverty is large, and the Government propose to extend the time at which people can gain indefinite leave to remain in this country from five years to 10 years, so there is an implication for that cohort who will be held in that position for much longer than they were expecting. Can the Minister indicate whether the health and mental health of these children will be paramount in the strategy which is about to be produced and that it will ensure that there are responses to that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have one simple answer to the noble Lord: yes. It is vital that all children have the best start in life, and children should not be impacted by the position of their parents. They deserve the opportunity to thrive in life. The child poverty strategy will deal with how we meet those challenges over a 10-year period.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend’s responses to the various questions are very welcome. I understand that the Department of Health launched a consultation last year to explore whether the families we are speaking about would be eligible for the Healthy Start scheme. I presume that the results of that consultation will be included in the new child poverty strategy. Can my noble friend confirm that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I find myself in the difficult position that I am not able to give details of the new child poverty strategy because it is not published as yet; it will be published very shortly. The points that my noble friend raised will undoubtedly be considered, but I cannot give her an answer from the Dispatch Box because that would pre-empt an announcement the Government intend to make in very short order.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the no recourse to public funds policy is a vital protection for the sustainability of the welfare system and ensures that those who come to Britain do so to contribute to society and not to become a burden. A migrant family should not come to this country if they cannot afford to support themselves, although there are existing exceptions for those granted asylum who would otherwise be destitute. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government will not loosen the rules or drop the policy?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are arguments around how we control the number of individuals, families and migrant children who come to the United Kingdom. That is an argument that we are having now to look at how we can tighten the rules to stop the flow of people who are coming here through illegal channels. But we still have a responsibility to ensure that a child of five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 years old does not suffer because of the trafficking—in many instances—poverty or war that has driven them to come to the United Kingdom in the first place, even sometimes by illegal means. The purpose of the strategy is to ensure we protect and develop those children so we do not create a whole set of different outcasts in the future. It is really important that, whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, children do not suffer as a result.
Conduct Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Alexandra Marks CBE and Sandra Paul be appointed as external members of the Committee with effect from 5 November 2025, in place of Cindy Butts and Andrea Coomber.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, as noble Lords know, the Conduct Committee is made up of five Peer members and four external members. Four new external members were selected following an open competition earlier this year, which was presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. It was agreed to stagger their appointment, and in June your Lordships agreed to the appointment of the first two new external members. I now ask the House to approve the appointment of the final two external members, Alexandra Marks and Sandra Paul. Biographical details of both are available in the Printed Paper Office, outlining the experience and skills they will bring to the work of this important committee. I beg to move.
Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney-General’s Office
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the Attorney-General has a duty to superintend the prosecution agencies and to be consulted about sensitive and high-profile cases. The practice for cases that are likely to be dropped, but of which the Attorney-General was initially informed, is that the Attorney-General is advised in advance of the risk of them being dropped. The public were initially informed that the Attorney-General had been told in August that the China spy prosecution case was at risk, and the Government have now stated that the Attorney-General met with the Crown Prosecution Service on 1 September. As the statutory superintending Minister for the CPS and the DPP, what action did the Attorney-General then take to satisfy himself that all reasonable evidential avenues had been explored before the decision to discontinue the case was taken? Can the Attorney-General confirm that his office reviewed the witness statement submitted on behalf of the Government?
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his question. May I just correct a few facts? I was not informed by the DPP on 1 September; I was informed on 3 September. Secondly, and this is an important constitutional point, in our constitutional framework politicians play no role whatever in prosecutions. I was not consulted by the Director of Public Prosecutions; I was informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions after he had reached his decision. That is an important distinction in our constitutional framework which is codified in the framework agreement between my office and the CPS, the current framework agreement being that signed by one of my predecessors, the right honourable Suella Braverman. That dictates that in cases such as this where the prosecution starts with the consent of a law officer, law officers must be consulted if the grounds for dropping a case are public interest grounds, but it draws a contrast where the grounds, as here, are evidential grounds. In those circumstances, the framework makes it plain, quite properly, that the Attorney-General is to be informed, not consulted, as soon as possible after the decision has been made. I hope that answers the noble and learned Lord’s question.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, some 50 years ago last month, I was junior in a trial that took place at Mold Crown Court, prosecuted by the then Attorney-General, Sam Silkin—they earned their spurs in those days by prosecuting in court. An ex-RAF pilot from Valley had knocked on the front door of the Russian consulate, trying to sell them secrets about the Vulcan bombers. The Russians picked up the phone and phoned the Metropolitan Police, and he got nine years. We were not at war with Russia at that time, but then, there was no war in 1911 when the word “enemy” was coined in the statute. By 1913, the courts had extended the word to include a potential enemy. Will the noble and learned Lord kindly tell us again who the Attorney-General was who consented to this prosecution? Was there evidence of the passing of any classified documents or information, as opposed to tittle-tattle, between these two idiots? Was there evidence of money changing hands? Without such evidence, Senior Treasury Counsel, who had the responsibility of presenting the case to the jury, would inevitably advise that the prosecution was weak and might very well fail. Nothing seems to have been discovered in the subsequent 13 months and the case was, very properly, dropped. I have no inside information, but is that analysis correct?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
Consent was given by a law officer under the previous Government to this prosecution. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go into the evidential details in this case. The decision was made by the independent CPS. In this case, the Director of Public Prosecutions also received the assistance of First Senior Treasury Counsel, our most experienced criminal barrister, who advised in the run-up to the intended trial and who will be giving evidence, together with the DPP, in the next hour or so before the JCNSS, where they will no doubt be able to give further evidence of the materials they considered. My experience is of the grave disappointment felt by the hard-working teams in the Crown Prosecution Service—including the Director of Public Prosecutions—and in the National Security Secretariat, all of whom were disappointed that the prosecution could not proceed.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble and learned Lord will know that the Court of Appeal recently stated that an “enemy” includes a country which poses a threat to the national security of this country. Is it the Government’s view that the People’s Republic of China does pose a threat to the national security of this country?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I will deal first with the Roussev case and the difficulties the Crime Prosecution Service faced in bringing this prosecution. The noble Lord is quite right that in Roussev, which was a rare case for the courts to look at—the meaning of “enemy” under the 1911 Act—it was said that it can include a threat to national security. That, however, will be a matter of fact and degree, and as the noble Lord will know full well, the jury still has to be satisfied that the country in question is an enemy. The threat is a question of fact and degree, but it still has to be an enemy. At the time relevant to this prosecution, which was between 2021 and 2023, the official position of the Government was that China was not an enemy. Your Lordships’ House will immediately see some of the difficulties that a prosecution would have faced if this had proceeded to trial.
As to the threats China poses to national security, this Government, as indeed did the last Government, set out fully the nature of the threat that it perceived China posed—that is, Mr Collins in his witness statement—as well as the need for this country to engage with China. But this Government will always put national security first.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, following on from that answer, the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that the prosecution required evidence that the information was linked to an enemy, based on the policy of the previous Government. The Director of Public Prosecutions on Friday said the test was not what the previous Government were prepared to say about China, but whether it was an active threat as a matter of fact. Which of them is right?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
There can be no doubt that for the purposes of an offence said to have been committed between 2021 and 2023, where the test is whether that was provision to an enemy, the question is, were they deemed an enemy during that relevant period, between 2021 and 2023? I do not understand the DPP to be suggesting to the contrary.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, there seems to be a lot of confusion about this at the moment. I respectfully direct attention to what the Director of Public Prosecutions said in a letter to the joint committee last week. He pointed out that on 14 August there was a meeting between the counsel team, the CPS lawyer and the Deputy National Security Adviser in which questions were asked to see whether the prosecution could proceed. The Deputy National Security Adviser told them that he would not state in evidence, if asked, that China posed a risk to our national security at the material time. Of course, as has been said already, the material time was not today; it was the time of the alleged offences, which, as it happens, was under a previous Administration. So, the view of the previous Administration on that was critically important. That is very important to understand, because criticisms have been made of the Crown Prosecution Service which seem to me to be entirely unjustified.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend. The test remained the statutory test: was China, beyond reasonable doubt on the criminal standard, an enemy between 2021 and 2023? The immediate difficulties will be obvious if I tell the House what the official position of the Government was during that period. The then Foreign Secretary, Mr Cleverly, said the following in his Mansion House speech—which was delivered a year before the men in these cases were charged—and obviously set out the official position of His Majesty’s Government:
“I’m often asked to express”
the UK’s policy towards China
“in a single phrase, or to sum up China itself in one word, whether ‘threat’, or ‘partner’, or ‘adversary’. And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”
One can immediately see, even though there was a CPS team who obviously wanted to get this prosecution across the line, the real difficulties because of the 1911 Act, which the Law Commission in 2017 said was no longer fit for purpose. Those difficulties give an insight into the problems faced by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this Government’s deal with the EU allows Europe to retain around 40% of the fishing rights in our exclusive economic zone and territorial waters for a further 12 years. This undermines the substantial expansion of the private tax-paying fishing sector that should have been possible. The fishing and coastal growth fund from taxpayers’ money’ is poor compensation and unfairly distributed, particularly as regards Scotland. Can the Minister explain how this can be in tune with the Government’s pro-growth agenda?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
The funding is being allocated using the Barnett formula, which is the normal mechanism used by HM Treasury to determine funding for the devolved Governments. That is the mechanism used and, while allocations are not directly linked to the size of each nation’s fishing industry—the noble Lord mentioned the Scottish fishing industry—devolved Governments have full flexibility to target this funding to best meet the needs of their coastal and fishing communities, so there is an opportunity. This is extra funding on top of other funding that has been granted, so it is providing a support to coastal and fishing communities.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Does the Minister agree that the botched Brexit deal that the Conservatives negotiated has done great damage to our coastal and fishing communities? Fish exporters have been wrapped up in red tape and penalised with extra costs for trading with our closest neighbours. To better support our communities, what steps are the Government taking to address the delays and implement the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement as soon as possible?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness mentioned the Brexit deal agreed by the previous Government, which provides de facto guarantees for EU boats to UK waters beyond 2026. What we have done is to secure a deal with the EU that ensures returns for our fishing community, including scrapping red tape and restoring shellfish exports to the UK. This demonstrates that we are absolutely committed to the long-term prosperity and sustainability of our fishing industry. On the SPS agreement, I am sure the noble Baroness knows that negotiations are due to start shortly. I cannot give any further details until we move further down the line, but we absolutely want a really good deal for our country.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister would agree that there is no point investing in our fishing industry if there are no fish to catch. The sad truth is that, according to Oceana UK’s latest report, Deep Decline, over half of the UK fish stocks are being overfished, particularly the top 10 species. What plans do the Government have to ensure that fishing quotas are set on a sustainable basis, so that the stocks can recover and provide our fishermen with livelihoods not just today but in the future?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: overfishing has been a real problem and we absolutely need to ensure that it does not happen in the future and that the fishing quotas that are agreed are sustainable. In fact, they are, in theory, sustainable at the moment, but we need to get the best data we can in order to make the best decisions in the future. Clearly, we hope that working with the EU more closely will enable this.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, before Britain left the European Union, the inshore fishermen, the under-10 fishermen, were promised an increased quota of cod and other fish—before the waters warmed up and they went elsewhere. Under the coastal fund, will there be anything for the inshore fishermen, who are now the largest number of fishermen in English waters?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to refer to inshore fishermen, who are a really important part of our industry. Regarding detail, we are negotiating with stakeholders. We are looking to work very closely with all the different groups that are interested or have an impact with this growth fund. Clearly, they will be an important group as part of our discussions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it has occurred to me that the noble Baroness might not have seen the Oceana report, Deep Decline. It is absolutely excellent, if a bit depressing, but it gives some very good recommendations, so perhaps I could make sure that she gets a copy.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I would be absolutely delighted to receive a copy from the noble Baroness.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, for a number of years, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, there were considerable complaints about the illegal landing of black fish. Are the Government satisfied that material quantities of illegally caught black fish are not landed in this country?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The kinds of issues that the noble Lord refers to are ones that the Fishing Minister is obviously aware of and will monitor, because we absolutely do not want to see illegal fish landed. It is really important.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, given that 80% of fish caught in our waters are exported, I ask, as the chair of the International Chamber of Commerce in the UK, what priority are the Government giving to exports in general? We hear about the economy and growth, but what about exports, including our fishing exports?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Exports, whether that is of fish or in other parts of our food industry, are a really important part of how we can continue to grow the economy in this country and support both our farmers and our fishermen. Exports dropped fairly significantly after Brexit, so one of the things we want to achieve with the SPS agreement is better export conditions to increase opportunities for both our farmers and our fishers.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this exchange of questions demonstrates a certain absence of knowledge about how much damage was done by the terms in which Brexit was embedded, which has resulted, as she says, in a sharp drop in our exports? Would the Government find it useful to put into the public domain a little bit more of the factual basis for the sort of questions we have had this afternoon in the House?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, one reason we want to do the EU reset and get an SPS agreement and a better working relationship with the EU is to ensure that we have the best economic growth we can possibly get in this country. However, it is also important that we can work efficiently and effectively with our closest trading partner. The noble Lord has made some very good points about the kind of information that should be available, and I hope that the EU reset will start to reset some of the difficulties that he is referring to.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I must say that I find this conversation surprising. The Government seem to have given 12 years of fishing away in a negotiation without getting any very clear benefits in exchange. Our fishing has been an enormous issue right across the country, so I am slightly surprised by the tone of this conversation. Can the noble Baroness, whose views I always respect, help me on this matter?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I do not see that this Government have “given away”. As I said earlier, we have secured additional funding, in addition to the spending settlement that the UK Government provide to each devolved Government, to provide more support for the fishing industry. I do not remember that the agreements made by the previous Government following Brexit were particularly welcomed by the fishing industry. As part of the reset, we are trying to improve our working relationship with the EU in order to continue to support our farmers, our fishers and our businesses more broadly.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 27th October 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (24 Oct 2025)
17:11 - Division on Amendment 86 - Ayes: 84 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 86 disagreed.
17:53 - Division on Amendment 87D - Ayes: 243 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 87D agreed.
18:43 - Division on Amendment 87FD - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 87FD disagreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the first group, I remind the House, as I did last week, of important guidance on Report, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly.
First, I note paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:
“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.
While debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, a number of earlier contributions strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny, while allowing us to make good progress in good time.
Secondly, I remind noble Lords of the Companion guidance in paragraph 8.82:
“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”
or pressing an amendment. Speeches appear to be getting longer, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we would be able to get on in a more timely manner.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify that 67 government amendments, I think, came in very late to the Bill? They have therefore not had a Committee stage. I hope he and the Minister will accept that some of those will need Committee, as well as Report, discussions.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
It is Report and all I would say is that, as long as the debate is relevant, we have no problem with that.
Amendment 84
Lord Inglewood
“Gardens Trust to be statutory consultee for planning proposals(1) The Gardens Trust must be considered for planning proposals as a statutory amenity society.(2) All procedures which apply to statutory amenity societies as planning proposal consultees shall apply to the Gardens Trust.(3) Powers conferred to the Secretary of State by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 may not be exercised to remove the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee in regard to any planning application.”
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, in rising to move Amendment 84, I ought first to declare my interest. Most unusually, it has been my lot in life to have lived in a listed building, in the midst of a listed park, for all of it. I am also president of Historic Buildings & Places, which used to be known as the Ancient Monuments Society, and a member of the Gardens Trust. Just to give more context to my comments, I am a member of the Bar, a chartered surveyor, and a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. I point out to Members that, according to many authorities, landscape is probably England’s greatest contribution to 18th-century European culture.
Your Lordships will recall considerable discussion in Committee about the education of planners. This is important because, in addition to what might be described as the core disciplines, there is a huge range of what you could say are very important and perhaps slightly esoteric, more peripheral matters which cannot really be considered part of the core knowledge or syllabus. I am thinking, for example, about listed buildings—we all know there is a crisis in the number of conservation officers in this country—and about manmade planned landscapes, battlefields, theatres, and so on.
The required expertise to deal properly with these things is not widely, easily and quickly available, either necessarily in local authorities or in other public bodies. We know that it is for this reason that a process of consultation with outside expert, specialised and respected organisations is embedded in the system to give access to often specialist, but very relevant, skill and knowledge.
The detailed system for doing this is not identical in each case, but that is not relevant to my argument. For my part, I am especially interested in—among other things in the context of this debate—the work of the Gardens Trust, previously the Garden History Society. Its focus is on manmade planned landscape, which includes public parks, but also the British versions of Versailles and, in a different direction, outstanding domestic gardens. These things can be quite extensive and are a crucial aspect of place, which is now becoming recognised as an important contributor to our general well-being and economic prosperity—something I became very aware of when I was a member of the Northern Powerhouse 11 for six years.
This is a specialist, discrete academic discipline, and the Gardens Trust is at its centre in this country. Many of the places it is concerned with are very fragile. After all, plants die and are easily lost. For example, if any of your Lordships wanted to go to look at Eastbury Park in Dorset—which was one of the great architect Vanbrugh’s most important commissions—they will find that when they get there and look over a farm gate, they will see a green field. It is all gone but it is still the site of it, and all the foundations and everything are there. As Thomas Browne, the 17th-century writer, aptly commented,
“green grass grows where Troy-town stood”.
I should add to what I said about my interest that my home has always been the focus of a listed park for over 300 years. However, due to abandonment and the planting of an epidemic of rhododendrons, supplemented by almost no family records because of disputes and problems with treason, almost all knowledge of everything has been lost. Despite inspections by English Heritage over the years and many other experts visiting the place, the knowledge of the place has more or less completely vanished.
Now, however, its full extent is becoming uncovered again, and it appears to be a large-scale, more or less intact, significant, albeit battered, very rare survival of a complete pre-Capability Brown park from about 1700-10. They are very rare, and it was completely lost. I mention this not to pat myself on the back or to tell noble Lords how perspicacious I may have been, but to make the point that important things do get easily lost and require genuine expertise to be identified and revived.
We all know that the theme of this legislation is growth—goodness knows, we urgently need it—and I support that. As part of this wider process, the Government have issued a consultation on the role of statutory consultees. Unhappily, that consultation appears to have been stained by the triumphalism of a notion of growth at all costs, everywhere, for anything, regardless of everything else—conveniently overlooking that in places such as Cumbria, where I come from, the environment is one of the most important aspects of promoting long-term growth, as I discovered when I chaired the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. If this is destroyed, the goose that lays the golden egg ends up as Christmas dinner. It has happened in many places all round the world, to nobody’s benefit.
The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the value placed on the “non-growth” aspects of the planning system is in no way diminished by the proposed procedural and process changes under way, which seem to be essential and of which, in very general terms, I am a strong supporter. On occasions, though, something else other than growth is more important than growth; otherwise, what is the point of the town and country planning system? The involvement of amenity societies harnesses a great deal of real expertise for more or less no money and takes pressure off some of our overworked and often underresourced public agencies that are having difficulty already in fulfilling their roles. Let us not argue about that point, because it is self-evidently the case now.
The purpose of the amendment is to focus on this general but very real problem in the context of the wider reforms being proposed, specifically in respect of the Gardens Trust, of which I said I am a member, and I know it and support it. I very much hope the Minister can confirm that the importance ascribed to what I might describe—I hope, without any disparagement—as some of the essential fringe disciplines in planning will not be eroded further.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will speak specifically to Amendment 84, to which I have added my name, although I support many of the amendments in this group.
We know how important public green spaces are to communities, and for nature, and that there is widespread public support for their protection. That is why, as I understand it, registered parks and gardens, along with battlefields, were given protection in the town and country planning order 2015. I thank the Gardens Trust for its briefings on this, and the Minister and her office for a helpful meeting and correspondence about it.
At the moment, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, registered parks and gardens are not considered statutory heritage assets, which would make them part of the same process as listed buildings. Instead, they have their own process of consultation, with Historic England as the statutory consultee for battlefields and grade 1 and grade 2* parks and gardens, and the Gardens Trust dealing with grade 2 parks and gardens, which is 65% of them. Importantly, three-quarters of registered public parks are grade 2, so the Gardens Trust is tasked with looking after most of our public parks.
The Gardens Trust appears to do this very efficiently. From its statistics, we see that it was consulted 1,842 times last year, and that 99% of the time it responded within the agreed deadline. It voiced an objection to planning in only 6.6% of its responses. Its government grant for fulfilling this consultee role—for giving bespoke responses to planning inquiries, on time and with expertise—was £43,963.
Clearly, there is no way that anyone else within the planning system could deliver this expertise for less money and with any greater time efficiency, and there is no evidence that it is causing a major blockage to housebuilding. Actually, not having heard of the Gardens Trust before this matter arose, I thank the charity for its service to this country and its public parks.
I understand that the Government are considering removing the Gardens Trust’s statutory consultee role—the slightly bespoke role that was created for registered parks, gardens and battlefields. We all, however, appreciate the work that it does, so this amendment aims to protect this service while making the administrative process simpler. It would put registered parks and gardens into the same planning process as other heritage assets, where there is an existing and well-understood statutory consent process, whereby the Gardens Trust would be the amenity society that would be notified if there were planning proposals that might affect registered parks and gardens, or, importantly, their settings.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has Amendment 109 coming up, which I believe would have a similar effect by commencing Section 102 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, in which this area of planning was already tidied up. That might be an alternative to this amendment. None the less, it would be very helpful if the Minister, in her response to this group, could indicate the Government’s intentions on making best use of the efficient role that the Gardens Trust plays in helping give advice on our much-loved grade 2 parks and gardens and their settings.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 107 in this group—I appreciate that I am jumping a little down the line.
I tabled the amendment because, at the moment, we are removing consultation from the planning process—or removing as much of it as possible—for the sake of efficiency. Sports fields are the most attractive things for a planner to see: a piece of reasonably flat and well-drained land. What better to put a house on? If we are to lose our sports fields, we will lose an asset that keeps on giving.
I thank both Ministers on the Front Bench for meeting me privately to try to convince me that I did not have much to worry about—but for all their courtesy and time, I have failed to be convinced. As I said, it is just so tempting for local authorities—or for anyone else involved—to say, “Let’s put a house on this sports field”. Some are, of course, owned by councils or schools, and schools can get rid of them as they have more independence now.
Can we protect sports fields? If we do not have somewhere to play a sport, that sport dies or becomes unavailable to a particular group. If some sports clubs own their own pitches, they may not own enough space to have a second or a third team. If you get rid of your second or third team, the first team is under threat and thus the existence of the entire club. It is that simple. There is that much pressure. If they do not get people involved every week, those people will do something else—they will leave—and we will lose this asset.
Community sport is one of the best community builders, because members are involved not just in exercise but in a community of its own that feeds into other communities. Let us remember that people who want to make sure that they can play the game will sit on committees and take on the legal responsibility of being a secretary or a treasurer for these groups. Everybody who has run a political party will know that people are just dying to do these roles all the time—are they not? Everybody really wants to have the legal responsibilities and the bank accounts—do they not? People do this willingly—well, they do it—to make sure they can get out there and play the game. These sports facilities allow that to happen. If we take away the defence of sports fields, which allow such a key activity, we will put that under threat.
Not every sports field will disappear overnight but some will—they will be moved and they will not be replaced. My amendment suggests that, if we go ahead with this, something must be put in its place. That is not too much to ask. I would like to vote on the amendment, unless the Government provide some great revelation, in which case I shall say, “Hallelujah!” and sit down.
In this country, these community activities are largely conducted without much government intervention. Private groups get involved and bring their own time and often money, but they need to be supported to allow these activities to take place. I suggest that my amendment—or at least something like it—would not be too much to ensure that something as important as community, grass-roots sports have their pitches defended, to give them a chance to continue to function as they currently do.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 88 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for their support in adding their names to the amendment.
The amendment very much builds on the amendment just discussed. It simply aims to ensure that spatial development strategies include provision for publicly accessible green and blue spaces for local communities. This would empower planning authorities at the strategic level to make accessible green and blue spaces routine rather than coincidental. Communities currently face a postcode lottery in being able to benefit from access to nature and sports fields. The reasons for access to nature and blue and green spaces in cities are well rehearsed. We know that they provide myriad social, economic and health upsides for people, as well as strengthening urban climate resilience and creating opportunities for wildlife.
In Committee, the Government made it clear that they recognise the importance of blue and green spaces, the benefits they bring and their intent to maximise them in cities, all of which is extremely welcome. However, in all responses in Committee, the Minister concluded that provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework and the yet-to-be-published national development planning policies are sufficient to provide green and blue spaces, therefore making a statutory footing unnecessary. But Peers made the point that it is not just about any green space; it is its accessibility to people that is critical. This is the point that is made in the Government’s own, really quite excellent accessible green space standard, published by Natural England in 2025. In this standard, Natural England—and the Government through it—made the point that it committed to providing access to good-quality blue and green spaces for every citizen within walking distance of their home.
The reality is, however, that without these strong provisions, developers often see the delivery and placement—and it is the placement I really want to emphasise here—of blue and green space as optional, with the voluntary provisions of the green infrastructure framework not leading to consistent delivery of quality spaces in the right places. In fact, Natural England’s own data shows that 87% of the UK population have no accessible local green space within 300 metres of their home.
In many cities, the emerging evidence indicates that the location of new green space provision is occurring, but it is making the inequalities in access to green space worse. Looking at the mapped evidence from the most populated English cities outside London—Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, for example—over the past four years, between 2020 and 2024, and using the most up-to-date land cover information, it is clear that significantly more areas of blue and green space have been created in rich parts of the cities. Up to 9% more have been created in categories 9 and 10 as measured by the index of multiple deprivation—the wealthiest parts—than in areas of high deprivation, categories 1 and 2. This is making already large inequalities in access to green space in these cities even greater. To put it bluntly, without a strategic steer in legislation, developers and local authorities are prioritising, intentionally or unintentionally, the delivery of green space in wealthier areas.
On such an important issue, we need to understand where the results from the Government’s own green infrastructure mapping database support the evidence and show us that the NPPF is actually working to protect and enhance access to green and blue spaces in the right places. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister could write to me, having asked her team to query this database to examine the change in doorstep, local and neighbourhood standards for green space over the past five years for the most populated cities in the UK: London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. According to the answer, I will then decide whether to bring this back at Third Reading to test the opinion of the House.
I hope the Government agree that this amendment is pragmatically worded: it continues to allow flexibility for local authorities to do what is best for their area and their communities. This simple amendment would cost the Government nothing, but it would provide a clear mechanism to deliver a commitment for accessible green space, ensuring, not least, that the Government’s own priorities for access to green space can be met.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I declare that I am chair of Sport Wales and president of the Local Government Association. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about those who volunteer for sports clubs. It is a tough job, but people do it because they know the impact that it has on people’s lives. It is a very sensible amendment.
We have to accept that we are living in an inactivity crisis. The World Health Organization has said that a third of adults worldwide do not reach the necessary levels of physical activity. Slightly closer to home, the Sport England active survey from last year shows, specifically around young people, that while the levels of participation are stable, without significant and sustained action we are going to hit a much bigger physical activity crisis.
Currently, between 5% and 6% of children have difficulty with movement skills, which impacts their ability to engage in physical activity. About 80% of women in this country are not fit enough to be healthy, which should raise a number of red flags. Playing fields are just part of the jigsaw of physical inactivity and how we should try to tackle it. We have to do everything we can to protect what we have. We also have to understand that we are in a cost of living crisis. Some sport participation has got much harder to be involved in. For a lot of people, this is a really cheap and easy solution for them to be active. If the noble Lord decides to take this to a Division, I will support him.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 118. I am slightly at a loss, because I expected the Conservative Front Bench to do a blinding speech on Amendment 96, to which my amendment is more or less similar. Obviously, I think mine is better because I mention biodiversity, reuse and such things, but I suspect that my amendment, which I had hoped to put to a vote, probably would not beat the Conservative Amendment 96. Both amendments are supported by the Better Planning Coalition as an obvious step forward on improving what we have already.
While I am on my feet, I will just say that I refute the concept of a grey belt. A grey belt is green belt that has been left to rot, and we should be recovering that grey belt and making it green belt again. The green belt is absolutely necessary for our health, as other noble Lords have said.
We need to protect the well-being of land, ecosystems, people, towns and villages, and we really have to remember that this is something—including farmland—that we rely on for ourselves. I am hearing from farmers all over the country that they are losing good farming land. Given climate change, we could potentially face some huge challenges in feeding ourselves, and the loss of farmland will be a disaster. I think my Amendment 118 is a great amendment, but I am prepared not to put it to a vote if Amendment 96 is moved.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 95 and 98. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support for the protection of good agricultural land. Amendment 95 is a broader application of the principle that was debated and rejected by Government and Liberal Democrat Benches in this House last week. We on these Benches believe that food security is national security and, unlike for this Government, these are not empty words: we intend to put that into practice.
We remain concerned that the principle of protecting the best and most versatile land—grades 1, 2 and 3A—appears to be trampled at will, for not just solar farms under NSIP but other developments. We must do better. This land is responsible for supplying the lowest-cost, highest-quality food produced in our country and is far more productive than weaker grades of land. Building without due consideration on the land that we need to feed us is, frankly, short-sighted.
Amendment 98 asks the Government to report annually on how much of our land is being converted from agriculture to tarmac, steel, photovoltaic panels and concrete, and provides the basis for a more informed national debate on how we treat our productive land. I will not test the will of the House on these amendments. However, I would be most grateful to receive an assurance from the Minister that the Government take this issue as seriously as they should. This was not entirely clear from the response to the debate on solar farms and BMV last week.
I also support of the concept of Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. Well-planned development needs to take into consideration access to green and blue open space, but also how this space can contribute to nature connectivity.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 121 is a vital step towards bringing clarity and scrutiny to the Government’s grey-belt policy. This amendment asks the Secretary of State to publish a clear framework for grey-belt designation within six months of Royal Assent and to lay it before both Houses. Its purpose is straightforward: to ensure that this policy is defined, transparent and subject to oversight. This concept has received remarkably little scrutiny or discussion during the passage of the Bill.
The concept of the grey belt has shifted since it was introduced in the Labour Party’s manifesto. It was first presented as previously developed land and disused car parks—which is largely brownfield land already. Since then, it has expanded in ways that raise serious concerns. Our party is not opposed to using grey-belt land sensibly, but we share the concerns of the Lords Built Environment Committee, which described the rollout as “rushed and incoherent” and unlikely to have
“any significant or lasting impact”
on planning or housing delivery, suggesting that the concept might be “largely redundant”. The current definition includes land in the green belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that does not strongly contribute to green-belt purposes.
The Local Government Association and many councillors, including in my home town of Solihull and my former constituency, Redditch, warn that this vague language contributes little and could invite subjective judgments and threaten green-belt protection in places such as Solihull and Redditch, with no other surrounding towns. The entire green belt could be vulnerable. Small housebuilders have warned that it will not help them, especially given under-resourced planning departments.
The risks are clear. Inconsistent criteria and monitoring could lead to uneven treatment and uncertainty. There is no plan to measure progress or success. In short, this policy has shifted without sufficient clarity or scrutiny. My amendment offers Parliament the chance to correct that, and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 88, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for all her work on this, and the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for meeting us to talk about this amendment.
Without this amendment putting green and blue spaces on a statutory basis, this will be a planning Bill for the privileged. We have heard evidence from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, this afternoon as to why this might be. There is also further evidence discovered by Wildlife and Countryside Link, which conducted regression model analysis, using official ONS datasets, for first-time buyers by local authority area in 2023. It compared this with the ONS data on the number of adults in each authority who were first-time buyers. First-time buyers are the people who will need green and blue space the most; they will have young families. Wildlife and Countryside Link analysed and mapped the percentage rate for those first-time buyers with in-depth green-space data. It found a direct, statistically significant correlation between lack of green space and higher numbers of first-time buyers. In other words, the first-time buyers are going somewhere because it is cheap: it lacks green space, it lacks amenities, so of course, things are cheaper. That is exactly what this Bill should be resisting.
When we met, the Minister said that she did not like this amendment because it was too prescriptive. She is right that local development plans should decide what green and blue spaces there should be; I do not have a problem with that. However, if there is no statutory requirement for a network of easily accessible green spaces, there will be far fewer of those spaces. This amendment is absolutely in line with Defra’s stated aims, and it would contribute substantially to sustainable urban drainage delivery. It would not tie the hands of local or regional planning authorities; it just points them in the right direction and makes sure they head in that direction. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his colleagues will bear in mind that swift bricks and other nature-friendly construction methods will not result in more swifts unless the network of green and blue spaces exists to provide food sources.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 88 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and various other Peers. I also very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson about sports fields. I just wanted to make a few points that somehow often do not come up about green spaces.
In 2008, when I worked for the then Mayor of London, Mr Johnson, we started a project called Capital Growth. It was a simple and madly ambitious idea to create 2,012 new community vegetable gardens in London by the time of the Olympic Games. It was a steal entirely from Vancouver, which had done something similar, but we counted each garden as one garden, whereas they counted each plot as a garden, so I think we won. In four years, we created 2,500 gardens, and all of them are still there. Supporting the notion that a lot of these spaces do end up in much more wealthy areas, once communities were given the chance and a tiny bit of money, in fact, 78% of our gardens ended up in the most deprived areas of London, because that is what people wanted. Very many things happened that we did not anticipate. One was that all the local police came and said that the gardens had transformed the area.
To give an example, you would be in a place where there was a high-rise block and an area designed back in the 50s where mums could walk with their babies in the midday sun; but it would be full of needles and beer cans, and people would not go there. They would stay in their tower blocks because they were frightened to come down. However, you took over the space and created a garden, and then, people got pride and came down. It altered things dramatically, and we saw that over and over again. The police were pleased, the doctors were pleased, the community was pleased, and people started to take ownership of their public space.
We set up a system whereby we challenged every borough in London to create 60 spaces. They all rose to the challenge, but my point in supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment is that, if we do not make this happen, nobody has a chance. It is not something that should be the privilege of people with money; this should be accessible to all, not just because it is healthy and makes you eat better. We had wonderful groups selling to local restaurants; we were having barbecues; they were feeding kids. The knock-ons are amazing, so please do not think of it simply in terms of one single thing. The point about plants and gardens and gardening is that it spreads dramatically.
I have one final point before I sit down. I was reading an extraordinary book the other day about heat in urban areas. During the heat dome over the west coast of America, the researcher had measured the heat in the middle-class areas in Portland, Oregon, where there were lots of trees, and in the poorer areas, where there was just concrete. The difference was 20 degrees. So we must have these spaces as the world’s climate changes, because they really work a lot better than practically anything else.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have put my name. This is a time of huge opportunity. We are going to be building an unprecedented number of houses and creating 10 new towns, and the value that can be added to that effort by open green spaces and blue spaces, delivering some of the benefits that have already been spoken of around the Chamber, is tremendous. It really is an opportunity we must not miss.
It is true to say that, at the moment, deprived communities do not get as good a deal on this as richer communities, and work that the Woodland Trust has done on tree equity has shown that the poorer communities have far less access to open spaces with trees. These are vital for health, mental health, well-being and air quality; we heard about heat, natural flood risk management and the huge range of things that, apart from allowing people to have room to enjoy open spaces, are also going to be delivered by these open spaces.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Before speaking to it, I have just two brief comments. First, in declaring my interest as chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 through to the London Olympic Games in 2012 and being a member of the London Organising Committee for those Olympic and Paralympic Games, I have to say that what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has said today is absolutely right. The work that she did at the time was exemplary and really important for the success of those Games, and the emphasis on environmental protection and the environmental work that went on in green spaces and the gardens were commendable. I hope that that is taken very much into consideration by the Minister when she comes to reply to that amendment.
I also want to offer the apologies of my noble friend Lady Sater who was two minutes late in arriving for this set of amendments and came from another important meeting. She is passionate about this subject, and has just whispered in my ear that she was strongly supportive of what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said in her speech, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in speaking to Amendment 107, and if he moves that to a vote I am sure she will be supporting him as strongly as I will.
In Committee—and here I take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—we concentrated on a number of facts, which are not worthy of repetition because they were so well-made at the time. We looked at the importance of playing fields as crucial for children and young people, and we recognised that, once the playing field is lost to development, it is generally lost for ever. We also looked at the active communities that were supported by playing fields, which can reduce healthcare costs.
To my brief contributions there, I just want to add to the points that were made about Sport England a number of facts which were not before the Committee at that stage, which I hope are taken into consideration by the Minister in her response. The Bill before us threatens to weaken the statutory protection for playing fields by potentially removing Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting these spaces.
These changes would reduce independent oversight. Independent oversight is vitally important regarding these playing fields. The change would reduce independent oversight and advocacy for safeguarding playing fields, increasing the risk of their loss to development, especially in areas already underserved for sports provision. If removed, local authorities would not be required to consult Sport England when considering planning applications that affect playing fields, removing a critical safeguard that has protected over 1,000 playing fields in the past year alone. Statements from the chief executive of Sport England emphasise that removing this statutory role would leave a huge hole in the protection system, as Sport England’s involvement in planning has led to improved or safeguarded conditions in 90% of recent cases.
School playing fields are particularly vulnerable. Over half of UK playing fields are within school grounds. The Bill introduces more flexibility for local authorities to sell such land for capital generation. Concerns remain that weakening Sport England’s oversight could make these disposals more likely, and it is for that reason that I support Amendment 107.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 88 and congratulate noble Lords on all the excellent speeches we have heard so far in support of it. The provision of green space is terribly important when building homes. I am in despair to see so many developments of little houses packed tightly together with little or no garden space and no small green spaces in the public areas.
I urge the Minister to dig out the excellent 2020 report, commissioned by her department, Living With Beauty; Promoting Health, Well-being and Sustainable Growth, which inter alia made the point that communities were more likely to approve of new housing if it was of a beautiful design and harmonious with the local architecture. It was written by the urban design expert Nicholas Boys Smith, the founder and chairman of Create Streets. He was also chair of the advisory board of the Government’s Office for Place and is an academician of the Academy of Urbanism.
Chapter 10 is called “Neighbourhoods: create places not just houses” and says:
“the research is remarkably consistent. Most of us prefer places we can walk in, where there is greenery frequently present and where we find the streets and squares beautiful to look at and be in. We prefer places that do not cost the earth but can help us live in harmony with it”.
I urge the Minister to read and implement the report, especially Chapter 11, which is called “Nature: re-green our towns and cities”. I make no apologies for quoting the first few paragraphs of this chapter since it makes the point better and more succinctly than I can. It says:
“Sustainability and beauty are not in conflict. Rather they are in symbiosis. This is true at all three scales of building, place, and settlement and has been evident on our visits. It is also reflected in polling and well-being data. Much of the evidence we received … stressed this point.
‘There is a considerable body of evidence that shows green spaces in rural and urban areas are highly beneficial to health and well-being and also provide space for people to meet. The perception of beauty is an important factor for realising these benefits’.
Put simply, green is good for us, as Natural England argued in their evidence to us. The presence of greenery in the urban environment normally has a positive impact on our mental and our physical health. Street trees seem particularly important. They are associated with cleaner air, slower cars, fewer accidents. They provide shade in hot summers. And, perhaps astonishingly given the complexity of human life, street trees have a measurable effect on human health even taking into account income, age and education.
At all three scales, we therefore believe that it is necessary to ‘re-green’ our lives. It is important not to be naïve, however. Many essentially very poor development proposals attempt to cover up their shortcomings with some token tree planting. A strip of grass or a couple of trees cannot rescue a polluted, ugly and profoundly inhumane place”.
I agree entirely with those words. If we cannot rescue those places that are currently built, at least we should stop building new ones in the future. The London National Park City briefed me a few years ago that its research suggested that people would not walk more than about 250 metres to a park or a green space. Therefore, I say to the Minister, the answer is in these amendments—build the green space into the gardens in the streets and little parks or accessible green space in all housing developments. If people will not go to the parks and green spaces, bring the parks and green spaces to them.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, in speaking in support of Amendment 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady Willis of Summertown, I reiterate in particular the point she made in her introduction to the amendment that if, as we have heard on many occasions, the Government’s view is that this amendment is unnecessary because the matter is covered by the NPPF, please could they show us the workings? Can they demonstrate to us with firm data that the NPPF is indeed working to protect green space in our towns, cities and villages? If we do not have the data, how can we believe what the Government tell us?
We then tend to fall back on anecdotes. We have heard a number of anecdotes already this afternoon, and I will add my own. One of my penances in life is that I support Oxford United. I live in Oxford and, as one of my friends said, when you support Oxford United, you support them through thin and thin. Near the Kassam Stadium—which is in a more deprived part of Oxford, the Blackbird Leys estate—there used to be a very nice little green park. It was small, but it was a bit of greenery where children could run around and kick a ball. Just in the last year or so, that green space has been completely covered wall-to-wall with houses—they are packed in and there is no green space left. Anecdotes like that make us anxious. We do not see where green and blue space is being protected.
I hope that the Minister will respond to my noble friend Lady Willis’s request and, probably not at this moment but in writing, send us all the data that shows that the NPPF is delivering what the Government claim it delivers.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support by noble friend’s Amendment 96, which we will likely hear about in due course. This is really important for the harmonious development of communities and them working well for people. But if we are going to have that then we absolutely need Amendment 88 too. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has just pointed out, if we do not make a clear requirement for green space then it gets swallowed up.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak chiefly to Amendment 121E in my name. It has not been addressed yet, but it is very much a package with two amendments that have already been widely addressed: Amendment 107 on playing fields, from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 88 on blue and green spaces, from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. These three amendments fit together.
My amendment, which is the same as the one that I tabled in Committee, seeks to ensure that planning authorities take all practicable steps to ensure a sufficiency of play opportunities for children. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just said, we desperately need playing fields for organised sport and we need green and blue spaces, but somewhere to just kick a ball around is not necessarily a playing field and yet it is a crucial space for children to develop their physical skills—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke about—and social skills, by getting together to play.
I spoke quite extensively in Committee and I do not intend to repeat everything I said. I will pick up and take forward a couple of points that were raised then. I begin by apologising to the Minister, who made great efforts to reach out and have a meeting with me before Report. I am afraid his emails arrived just beforehand. I was in Ukraine, with limited communications, and it is entirely my fault that that meeting did not happen; I apologise for that. Those were the circumstances.
This is not really my amendment at all. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked where it had come from and I said that it came from Play England. It is worth tracing through this a little. The 2024 manifesto from Play England was the first to call for play sufficiency legislation. In Committee, the Minister referred to the NPPF change that came in December 2024, but, as we have heard from multiple noble Lords, there is no evidence that it is working. Further, that is a policy, which could be changed, which is very different from having it written into law—which is much harder to change—that planning authorities must consider play sufficiency.
As I said in Committee, this was debated quite extensively by the standards of the other place, and there were broad expressions of support. I am afraid that nothing the Minister said in Committee convinced me that there was any argument against this. I note that the noble Lord asked in Committee if I was aware that there is an APPG on Play. I am—I am a member of the APPG on Play, together with eight other Members of your Lordships’ House, including several from the Government Benches, and 32 MPs. By the standards of these things, that makes it a significant all-party group, which is a recognition of the importance in which this issue is held.
A number of noble Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, among them, referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Link study which came out this morning about the lack of green spaces where first-time buyers make their first homes. Of course, many of those first-time buyers may well have or be going to have children, who desperately need these play spaces. I note that the paper edition of the Times this morning put beside that the report from the House of Lords environment committee, which I think is out this morning and which talks about how, if the Government are to build new towns, they need to be built as communities, with infrastructure in place. Part of that infrastructure must be play infrastructure.
I referred in Committee to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and to the fact that Wales and Scotland already have comparable legislation to this. It is worth noting that Wales has the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, which almost demands that you have something like a play sufficiency duty.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and her Amendment 88, to which I added my name. I refer to my interests, including my involvement in Peers for the Planet, and flag to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I chair the Built Environment Select Committee, whose report was in the Times. For those who are interested in it, watch this space. We will have that debate in due course and I look forward to it.
I do not wish to prolong the debate because I think we are coming to the end, but I will raise one point, building on everything that everyone has said so far, about vision and where we ultimately see nature in development. We have covered a lot already, today and in Committee. As was mentioned, the NPPF references aspects, but it is open to interpretation and vague. Again, as we have discussed before and today, there are real issues for some people in the country.
Some may query, and therefore object to, the amendment on the basis of the word “network”. Ultimately, it is for those on the ground to decide what “network” means, be it large or small. It would allow for pragmatism, in an effort to seek to do as much as possible, but, ultimately, it is about having more than one space. Therefore, it is about what more can be done with an entire site, rather than just looking through the lens of trying to do the minimum.
The amendment is not onerous. It is pragmatic. It does not stipulate the quantum of nature that is needed. Both my party and, I think, the Government still honour the concept of the 15-minute walk to nature, but this amendment does not go anywhere near that. Therefore, it is not as onerous and prescriptive.
I have just one final point. It is an anecdote, although I cannot compete with the fine words of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and her story about the fantastic work she did in London. There is a piece of land near where I live in Surrey. I was driving past it about a year ago and I saw some school kids planting bulbs, in miserable weather. I thought how absolutely amazing it was to see them putting bulbs in on this plot of land.
Last Wednesday, when we sat earlier to debate the Bill, I charged in valiantly to make my train, thinking we were going to have a vote. I walked past the same bit of land. For clarity, it is just a piece of grass, with a few trees and a path through the middle, surrounded by roads and residential properties, with some shops nearby. It is nothing special, but it is special in itself because it is unique and pleasant for those who live nearby—for the dog walkers and the shoppers, it is something to enjoy. I cannot imagine that the upkeep is too onerous but it is enjoyed by those nearby.
As I ran past, I saw those school kids yet again, one year on, planting more bulbs and I thought, “I’ve got to get in; I must get in”, and I sort of smiled as I charged past. Then I thought, “You know what? I’m going to forget the vote”. I backed up and went to speak to those kids. I spoke to someone called Doug from the council who has been involved in that project over the past few years, and I met my own councillor—a Lib Dem, I hasten to add, but we will forget that—called Kirsty, who has been driving this idea with the council and the school kids, getting them involved. A little later, some local businesses came along too.
The point is that this small endeavour showed exactly why, to me, nature is important. Not only is it important from a biodiversity point of view but it brings people together and improves that area, and it brings people of all ages together to do something. That is why I care about nature; that is why we support this amendment. I pay tribute to those behind it.
I was flicking through what was said the last time we debated this. There is no finer quote than from the Minister, who said:
“There is a growing body of evidence illustrating the crucial role that green space plays in supporting healthy and inclusive communities, and we recognise the importance of providing these alongside new homes”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1298.]
Therefore, I hope that the Government can find a way through on this issue.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 96 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, to which I have added my name and which requires the prioritisation of brownfield and other sites, and to speak to my noble friend’s Amendment 239, to which I have also added my name, about the protection of villages, which I raised in Committee.
On Amendment 96 and brownfield sites, your Lordships know that I spoke about this in Committee. It is a no-brainer, a double win that saves our countryside and green spaces that are rich in nature—we have heard much about the importance of green spaces this afternoon—while improving areas blighted by uncared for, dilapidated and sometimes poisonous brownfield sites in the heart of our communities. The Minister responded in Committee, saying:
“The Government are clear that the first port of call for development should be brownfield land”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1457.]
She suggested that the NPPF already covered this point and that my noble friend Lord Jameson’s amendment and mine in Committee were not needed. If this is what the Government support, what is the harm of applying belt and braces and having it spelled out here too? Would it not demonstrate their true commitment to this principle? Either way, it still feels as if there is a long way to go.
I shall reiterate the stats that I shared from the CPRE—I hope your Lordships will forgive me; I have not been able to find more recent ones yet. It reported that in 2022 a record-breaking number of brownfields sites identified for redevelopment were lying dormant, enough for 1.2 million homes on 23,000 sites adding up to 27,000 hectares. The CPRE highlighted that the majority of brownfield sites are in town and city centres, where there is both the need and scope for new homes and regeneration. Indeed, it will also fit with the travel aspect of proposed new subsection (9B) in this amendment.
As many of us have said throughout the progress of this Bill, it is not simply a question of more homes; we need the right homes in the right places. Much current urban brownfield land is known to blight the communities where it exists, leading to poorer socio-economic indicators. It is much better to reuse already developed urban land and buildings, as the carbon emissions are lower per capita than for greenfield development. I understand that for developers there can be a problem that cleaning up land before building can increase costs, but perhaps there is a way that the Government can help with this. Hence, I hope Government will think again on this issue and accept what I consider to be a sensible amendment.
On Amendment 239, I feel passionately about the protection of our villages, their identity and the way of life, and I am delighted that my noble friends decided that they wanted to run this from the Front Bench. Villages and their communities, as I have said before, have been hewn over centuries of rural life and are a key part of the UK’s reputation as a green and pleasant land. This amendment would insert a much-needed protection to match that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework and would level the playing field to help preserve the special character of individual and historic villages which would be lost if one village spread into another or if a town spread out into a village.
The practicalities and perhaps unintended consequences of implementing this Bill pose a significant risk that, by opening up development, we will lose those village gems or, in the worst-case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a styleless urban sprawl. In Committee, the Minister argued that villages were already protected by current guidance for local planning authorities on the restriction of village development and by green belt provisions, but surely it is clear from the debate we had that this is not necessarily the case in practice.
I am about to cite some green belt statistics, but it is not simply about that. The Government’s own statistics on the green belt state that around 12.5% of the land area of England is currently designated as green belt, focusing around 16 urban cores. With national parks included, this would take the percentage up to around 37% of land protected by one or more types of protection. Overall, however, there was a decrease in green belt of around 660 hectares between March 2024 and March 2025, the bulk of which was due to six local authorities adopting local plans with changes to the green belt. That is just it: the green belt can be changed. There are large, more rural areas of the country further away from urban centres that do not fall under any protections and could be impacted by newly planned development or new towns under this Government. Such villages should have the same protection currently afforded to towns across the country.
The Government said that an amendment along these lines would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop sound strategies. I am afraid I disagree. This amendment is about creating guidance or updating current guidance. Local authorities make their decisions using guidance already. This should only aid that process.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments on green spaces, the green belt and playing fields is one of the largest groups of amendments that we will debate today, which reflects how important these issues are held to be in your Lordships’ House.
Wild places have always played an important part in my life. In the past, I have been very involved with promoting outdoor education, so these matters are also important to me personally.
Across this House, I think there is recognition that we need new homes and that the quality of those new homes, the communities they create and the places they become will be dependent on having access to really good green and blue spaces. The impacts of merely being near to good-quality green and blue spaces are still not properly understood, but this is an ever-growing area. Research shows that such access reduces stress, improves overall well-being, increases the level of physical activity, enhances social interaction, gives people a greater sense of community and has direct economic impacts and particular benefits for those in the most deprived sections of our communities.
The Minister has spoken throughout different parts of this debate about how important the new town that she grew up in is. I put it to her that new towns are held in such high regard because they had green and blue spaces designed into them from the start. These are not just nice to have; they are fundamental issues for the well-being of our communities, and they go on to save millions of pounds in unnecessary societal costs from inequality, depression and poor health that result from not having such facilities.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for making an extremely important point about climate change. As our climate heats up, the urban heat island effect causes misery and health impacts, particularly for the poorest, who suffer the most, so the need for green and blue spaces in our towns is growing ever more important.
One statistic that I want to give to the House is that the amount of time our children spend playing outside has declined by 50% in the space of one generation alone. We need to reverse that. We need a cross-sector, strategic approach to these things, and we need to ensure that big housebuilders do not squeeze out these essential requirements for human existence.
Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would require strategic planning authorities to include a network of green and blue spaces in the statement of policies that will relate to the development and use of land in the area. This amendment is one that we very much support; it is also supported by the National Trust and the Better Planning Coalition. It is also vital for our new towns.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the intent behind this important group of amendments, all of which seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions around green infrastructure, heritage protection, sustainable land use and, importantly, play and sports areas, as in Amendments 170 and 121E.
Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would recognise the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic gardens and designed landscapes are a vital part of our cultural and national heritage, and their protection must not be left to chance. Giving the Gardens Trust formal status in the planning process is a logical and proportionate step, in our opinion.
On Amendment 88, we strongly support the call for a strategic approach to green and blue infrastructure—that is, parks, waterways and green spaces that are publicly accessible and which protect biodiversity and enhance well-being. These provisions would help to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of nature or public access to it. However, this amendment includes “network”, which carries a significant implication from a strategic planning perspective. Once we define these assets as a network, local authorities could be required not only to safeguard individual sites but to consider the functional and spatial connections between those sites. That raises questions of the maintenance, responsibilities and resources required to deliver a genuinely joined-up approach. We therefore could not support the amendment as drafted but there is another amendment, later on in our debates, about new towns. It is a different issue in new towns than it is strategically, which could be across three or even four counties or areas.
There is also clear cross-party consensus behind prioritising brownfield development and protecting our most valuable farmland and greenfield sites. Amendments such as Amendments 95, 96 and 118 rightly push for a sequential, sustainable approach to land use, beginning with sites already in use or disused, and protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land for food production and environmental benefit.
Amendment 96 in my name would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield land and urban densification, and to promote sustainable mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs and services. It underpins the widely supported “brownfield first” principle, which already commands public support and political consensus, but it goes further, linking that principle directly to community building, sustainability and the protection of the villages and open spaces that give our places their character. As Conservatives, we are passionate about protecting our green belt and safeguarding the countryside from inappropriate development. This Government have often relied on guidance rather than firm statutory safeguards, leaving too much to shifting policy documents and not enough to clear legal safeguards.
This is about a joined-up approach, encouraging regeneration where infrastructure already exists, reducing needless commuting and making sure that the new development creates mixed, vibrant communities rather than those isolated housing estates we see too often on the edges of our towns. It is about putting what is already in the NPPF—brownfield first, compact growth and protection of the countryside—into statute. I anticipate that the Minister may say, as the Minister said in Committee:
“I agree with the intent behind this amendment; however, it is already comprehensively covered in the National Planning Policy Framework”,—[Official Report, 9/9/25; cols. 1455-56.]
but if we all agree that brownfield first is the right principle, then why leave it only to guidance, which can be changed at will? If it truly is covered, then legislating to secure it should cause no difficulty. If it is not, then this amendment is precisely what is needed.
This is a proportionate and pragmatic step. It strengthens what the Government claim they already believe in, gives local communities greater confidence that brownfield will be prioritised and protects our green belts and villages from unnecessary pressure, and I will be pushing this to a vote when the time comes.
Finally, on Amendment 239, in my name but spoken to by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, I do not want to say any more, because she said it all and I do not want to take time repeating it. But this is so important, and again we may divide on this one when the time comes, because this concerns the protection of our villages in this beautiful land.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this very interesting debate for the very valuable contributions we have heard this afternoon. I have engaged with many noble Lords on these matters in the preceding weeks and our debate has focused on something on which I think we all agree, which is the need to ensure that, as we deliver the housing we need, we recognise the importance of green and blue space, sustainability, heritage and the important uses that allow our communities and the people that constitute them to thrive and succeed.
First, I remind noble Lords of my letter regarding the strength and influence that planning policy bears on the protection of vital green and blue spaces across the country, the power it exerts in practice and the degree of flexibility it allows for sensible choices to be made at a local level. The benefits of green space are not in doubt as far as I can see, for all the reasons set out in our debate. That is why there are such strong protections within the NPPF and in the planning system.
I turn now to the amendments we have debated. Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that the Gardens Trust is retained as a statutory consultee for planning proposals and that it is considered as a statutory amenity society. The Government have set out their intention to reform the system of statutory consultation. We want a streamlined, effective system of consultation that avoids uncertainty and delay. We will shortly consult on these reforms, including on the impacts of removing the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher-graded parks and gardens, so this consultation will help us to deliver a streamlined system and address duplication.
As part of our consultation, we will be very keen to test mitigations to ensure they continue to play a valuable role in protecting our heritage. Planning policy remains key. Registered parks and gardens are defined as designated heritage assets, and they will remain subject to the strong heritage policies protecting these assets in the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies require local planning authorities to carefully consider the impact of a development proposal on a designated heritage asset, and, if the development proposal would cause substantial harm, to refuse such applications.
I note the noble Lord’s proposal about amenity society status with great interest. Amenity societies are not subject to the full requirements of statutory consultation but are notified of relevant development. The Government really value the work of amenity societies, and I will add my own anecdote here about the level of volunteering. I was at our local community awards on Saturday, and I was delighted to see our amazing green space volunteers—across our gardens, green spaces and parks—getting awards. These kinds of volunteers who look after our green spaces—whether in committee rooms or out in the parks themselves—are incredibly valued, as are those who enable and encourage sport and physical activity, which we will come to later. I pay tribute to those who won those local awards on Saturday.
The Government are keen to explore whether this model would be suitable for certain types of development through our consultation. We believe there is an important, ongoing role for the Gardens Trust, working with local authorities and developers. No decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts from the consultation. My department will continue to engage with the Gardens Trust to understand the impacts of these proposals over the coming months.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, has tabled Amendment 88, and I thank her for our meeting last week to discuss the importance of networks of green and blue spaces to communities all around the country. I was very grateful for the information and research that she provided both to me and to officials from my department.
The NPPF, which will guide the development of new spatial development strategies, already highlights the need for plans to support healthy communities. I agree with the noble Baroness about equality in the provision of green space. I am grateful to her for agreeing to share the research she talked about, and I am happy to respond in writing to her on that.
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on the amazing work she did during the London Olympics. When I was on one of my visits, I went to see a fantastic project on balcony gardens in Walthamstow, which has also invigorated that community. In my own area, we started a community orchard project. I completely understand the benefits of these types of projects.
Strategic planning authorities already have the ability to set policies that reflect the value of these spaces. Under new Section 12D(4)(c), a spatial development strategy may specify infrastructure that promotes or improves the social or environmental well-being of an area; this could include networks of green and blue spaces.
We should also remember that strategic development strategies will not be site-specific; instead, they will relate to broad locations. Some of the noble Lords who have had meetings with me will be aware that my noble friend Lady Hayman, the Defra Minister, is currently working on a comprehensive access strategy, which will come forward from Defra, to indicate how that meshes in with the planning process. While an SDS may consider green and blue networks at the strategic level, detailed site-specific matters relating to them are likely to be best dealt with through local plans.
Amendment 95 seeks to protect best and most versatile land, and Amendments 96 and 118 seek to encourage a brownfield first principle. I absolutely agree that we need to protect our best agricultural land. To that end, strategic authorities will need to have regard to ensuring consistency with national policy when preparing their spatial development strategies. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural. Planning policy recognises the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land, and if development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land—not in the top three grades that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned—should be prioritised. Furthermore, the forthcoming land use framework will set out the evidence and tools needed to protect our most productive agricultural land and identify areas with the biggest potential for nature recovery.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to think that my amendment has led to such a wide discussion that has shown more or less complete unanimity across the House about the importance of green space in place-making in this country. Where we can get unanimity like that, there is the potential to make progress.
I thank the Minister for her remarks on the Gardens Trust; as the saying goes, I shall think on them.
As I was sitting in my place, I thought that what we are all trying to do is to change policies and law. However, are we not perhaps creating a hydra that will make it, in general terms, more difficult for the planning process to work well? At the end of the day, planning is about physical specifics, not abstract generalities. The key to establishing whether this debate has been worth while will be seeing whether the country is a better place because of it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Promotion of distributed water supply(1) When exercising functions under this Act in relation to planning applications, local planning authorities must have regard to how a proposed development could implement distributed water infrastructures and technologies for development-scale water reuse.(2) When discharging the duty in subsection (1), planning authorities must seek to secure, where viable and appropriate, the incorporation of —(a) distributed water storage solutions for individual buildings, and (b) shared water storage infrastructure at community and development scale,into developments seeking planning permission.(3) The water storage technology in section (2) includes but is not limited to—(a) distributed schemes for local storage and supply of rainwater and surface water,(b) rainwater harvesting of the largest sizes possible relative to building size, occupancy, and current and projected future water consumption,(c) greywater and blackwater recycling, and(d) water storage systems operated, co-managed or co-owned by local communities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, requires planning authorities to support the inclusion of distributed and alternative water storage infrastructure projects in developments. This is to ensure the sustainable harvesting, use, or distribution of fit-for-purpose water by residents, communities, government services, and private businesses to reduce additional demand on catchment water resources and mitigate flood risk and water pollution.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this amendment was debated last week, but I would like to remind the House what it was about. Basically, it is about not losing—[Interruption.] Am I not allowed to say that? The Whip is shaking his head at me. I will rattle on until he stands up and shouts. In essence, this is about the recovery of storm-water, surface water and flood-water that otherwise rushes into our systems and is then totally gone. What we could do is catch that water and use it—instead of using extremely expensive tap-water—to wash cars, fill up paddling pools and so on.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness that we debated this amendment last week. The Front Bench does not have the right of reply at this stage. We ask her whether she is pushing the amendment to a vote or withdrawing.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord the Whip. I would like to test the opinion of the House on this incredibly important issue.
Baroness Coffey
“Planning decisions: consideration of an EDPIn section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications: general considerations), after paragraph (2)(aa) insert—“(ab) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, so far as material to the application,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when making a planning decision, the local planning authority must take into account any EDP applying to the land in question.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is about consideration of an EDP by a local council. As I referred to on a previous group of amendments including an amendment in my name, because we have not gone to the full consideration of an EDP, it is not my intention to press this amendment later. This is effectively giving substance to what the chief executive of Natural England said to the Commons Committee considering this Bill, which was that if a council was not content with how an EDP was delivering, it would not have to give planning permission, but that is not expressed anywhere else in the Bill. That said, as we are yet to get properly to Part 3, I will reserve my judgment about whether to return to this another time. I beg to move.
Lord Banner (Con)
I shall speak to Amendments 163A and 163B, tabled in my name. These seek to ensure that the nature restoration fund is properly aligned with the planning process and, in particular, that it is capable of supporting the larger and more complex developments. It is my view that the current drafting of Clause 66 risks preventing some of the larger, more complicated schemes from using an environmental delivery plan. These kinds of larger, more complicated developments often evolve after the development has started. We will hear more about this on Hillside, at whatever ungodly hour we get to it. For example, outline permission may be granted, but a developer may subsequently seek to change the planning conditions attached to the permission. There may be amendments to other aspects of the development under Section 96A or otherwise. It may also be the case that larger developments need to apply for retrospective planning permission after development has commenced to regularise the development when it has been built differently to the permission.
In its current form, Clause 66 allows developers to request to use an EDP only before development has commenced—a single snapshot in time. While I can understand why it was drafted in that way, inadvertently, it seems to me, it risks limiting the NRF by failing to accommodate the possibility of ever-evolving development schemes. If the Government are going to deliver their growth and housing targets, I assume that they would want to ensure that the NRF could support the full range of development projects, particularly given that the larger ones tend to have the greatest tendency to evolve during their often decades-long and certainly years-long lifetimes.
Amendment 163A would not require Natural England to accept such a development but would allow the design of EDPs to accommodate these scenarios where appropriate. Amendment 163B similarly does not require Natural England to accept a request from a promoter of such development to pay the levy, but it makes clear that deciding whether to accept it is guided by the Secretary of State’s policy on the matter. I encourage the Government to consider this amendment in the spirit in which it is tabled, to ensure the proper functioning of legislation and help the nature restoration fund to navigate the complexities of the planning system.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in this group of amendments on the EDP consultation process, we are broadly in support of Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. We appreciate Amendments 163 and 163B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, but we have rather more care in relation to these and will ask some questions about them.
Amendment 87 strikes us as a sensible and necessary clarification, seeking to require local planning authorities to have regard to an EDP relevant to the land in question. It closes an important procedural loop between the Bill’s new environmental mechanisms and the Town and Country Planning Act. I will move on to the other amendments, as I do not think that Amendment 87 will be pushed to a vote.
With Amendment 163A, we are entering more complex territory. Having listened to the noble Lord’s speech, I know that his amendment is intended in relation only to large developments. However, this amendment seeks to allow developers to use an EDP after development has commenced. This is a fundamental change to how the Bill was originally drafted. Although this amendment and the next one are short, they would have profound impacts on the nature of the Bill and the reasoning behind it. Given the late stage that we find ourselves in, it is worth treating these amendments with a degree of cautious scepticism. I have a number of questions on these amendments, particularly as I understand that the Minister might be intending to support them to some extent.
I understand the reasoning behind them. Projects evolve, impacts manifest late in the process and developers may wish to regularise matters through this pathway. Indeed, in principle, a degree of flexibility can be helpful for all concerned in the planning process. This could also help to speed things up, which is one of the core intentions of the Bill. However, flexibility, if poorly secured and accounted for, risks turning things instead into loopholes and could give the Government much more direct power and say over matters of importance. EDPs were created precisely to ensure that environmental protection is front-loaded, assessed, integrated and approved before the first spade hits the ground. If we are now to permit post-commencement plans, we are blurring that critical line. The Government clearly set that out in the original drafting of the Bill, so this is a very fundamental change.
Might this invite retrospective justification of impacts that should have been avoided or evaluated in advance, and what is the mechanism that will stop deliberate misuse of this new clause should a developer be so minded to do that? How will post-commencement EDPs preserve the same environmental rigour as those agreed at the outset of the drafting of this Bill? What safeguards will ensure that the flexibility serves better compliance, not convenient regularisation after the fact? How will this affect the deterrent from starting work without proper authorisation? The credibility of EDPs and public trust depend on certainty that environmental obligations cannot be adjusted once the bulldozers roll in. This could increase uncertainty for developers themselves. For all the talk of streamlining, shifting assessments mid-project can introduce delay, legal risk and even greater reputational exposure.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will not make extensive comments on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87, as we will return to EDPs in future groups on Report. However, this amendment does have merit in that EDPs should be a relevant matter for making planning decisions.
My noble friend Lord Banner has expertly introduced Amendments 163A and 163B, and I have nothing to add except my support. I very much look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87, which would require decision-makers to take account of the environmental delivery plans when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. I agree, of course, that it is crucial that EDPs are integrated into the planning system. I hope I can provide the noble Baroness with the necessary assurance that her amendment is not necessary.
At its heart, an EDP enables a developer to discharge a relevant environmental obligation by making a commitment to pay the appropriate nature restoration levy. Once this commitment is made, the legislation removes the requirement to consider that specific environmental impact as part of any wider assessment, as the impact will be materially outweighed by the actions taken under the EDP. Therefore, while the planning decision-maker will need to consider a wide variety of matters when making individual planning decisions, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to consider the EDP itself. I therefore hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
I turn now to Amendments 163A and 163B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which would help ensure that the nature restoration fund works effectively for large-scale development. It has always been our intention that Part 3 of the Bill should support development as much as possible. As we have repeatedly said, the nature restoration fund will benefit both development and nature. Therefore, we want to maximise its scope and consequently the benefits it will deliver. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling his amendments and I have looked at them very closely. As has been pointed out, the restriction in Clause 66 may in fact preclude a proportion of development from being able to come within scope of an EDP at all. Where, as is often the case, a large development needs to vary planning permission, for example, or apply for retrospective planning permission following changes outside of the developer’s control, we need to ensure the NRF can support such development, as failing to do so could significantly reduce the ability of the NRF to deliver the win-win that we all want to see for nature and for development.
While, of course, there will be complexities in how to manage large and complex development, this can be addressed through the design of EDPs and supported with government guidance. As with any development, it will be for Natural England to consider requests, having regard to that guidance. I hope I can reassure the noble Earl that this is not a way of skirting around the planning procedures in any way whatsoever; this is about access to the nature restoration fund, so all of the normal things that apply to planning permission would still apply—this is just about providing that access to the NRF once the development has started. With that explanation, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling the amendments, for all the work he has done on this and for the meetings I had with him on it. I hope the House will join the Government in supporting his amendments.
Lord Lucas
“Planning permission: biodiversity information(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, require all biodiversity information generated in the course of a planning application to be submitted, free of charges and restrictions on use, to the local environmental record centre for the area in which planning permission is requested, in the format required by that organisation.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that biodiversity information generated in the course of planning activities is contributed to the national store of such knowledge.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in the course of the planning system, we gather a great deal of high-quality biodiversity data. By and large, we then throw it away. We should not be doing this. We should be keeping it, making sure it is accessible, so that we can really plot what we are doing in 30 by 30 and in our campaign to restore nature to this country. It is ridiculous that we throw it away.
The Minister very kindly wrote me a letter after Committee saying, among other things, that when discharging the biodiversity gain condition, applicants can choose to share their data with local environmental records centres, and many are already choosing to do so. I organised a ring-round; it is not happening—it is not true—so we must have some very clear regulation that this data should not be lost. If this cannot be done in this Bill, then please may I sit down with the Minister in preparation for the next planning Bill? This cannot go on. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 87BA. The most important vehicle for nature recovery in this country is via the local nature recovery strategies being developed by the 48 local authorities in charge. One can design a recovery strategy only if one knows what is there in the first place, or rather what is not there, what is lacking and needs to be recovered. My noble friend’s amendment is wise and right, but I would urge the Government to go further, since many organisations collect species information, often working collaboratively to pool data and make it available for research and conservation purposes.
The primary network for this collaboration is the National Biodiversity Network, the NBN, which brings together government bodies, charities, volunteer-led recording schemes, data aggregators and networks. The NBN is a charity that oversees the UK-wide partnership for gathering and sharing biodiversity data.
Then we have the Biological Records Centre, the BRC, which was established in 1964. The BRC co-ordinates and supports wildlife recording schemes and societies across the UK, working with volunteer recorders. It manages the online recording tools called iRecord and iNaturalistUK, and its data is published on the NBN Atlas.
Then we come to the local environmental records centres, the LERCs, the organisation mentioned in my noble friend’s amendment. Natural England has divided England into 159 distinct national character areas, or NCAs. Each NCA is defined by a unique combination of natural and human factors, including landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity—that is geology and land forms—history, and cultural and economic activity.
That information is invaluable in helping authorities develop their LNRS but so is all available data, government and private. My noble friend’s amendment asks that the biodiversity information collected in the course of a planning application should be given to the LERCS—I would add that it should be given to the NBN and the BRC also. We cannot have enough data available for decision-making.
Where I depart from my noble friend’s amendment is that he wants to make it compulsory and legal; I would hope that is not necessary and that exhortation from the Government to the local authorities would ensure that this information is sent to the three organisations we have mentioned in our amendments.
I hope that they will not use the excuse that this is all confidential in the planning application and they cannot send it. That is nonsense; it should not be deemed confidential, and it should be passed on to those organisations. If the Secretary of State wants another new slogan in addition to “Build, baby, build”, I would suggest “Data, baby, data, data, data”.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group, starting with Amendment 87FB. These are about bats, which I will come on to in a minute.
In the meantime, I would like to say that His Majesty’s Government have made a number of statements complaining about the obstructive planning laws which impede building. The Government are to be applauded in taking this sensible viewpoint, and I am very happy to help them by putting down these amendments, which will, I hope, alleviate one of the expensive and absurd difficulties that come in the way of those seeking to build. As I said at Second Reading, bats are an example of good intention being taken over by those concerned with the implementation of the legislation extending their remit to an absurd degree.
I quoted at Second Reading the £100 million bat tunnel—as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out at the time, that is 10 doors to this House. There was also my own case of having a house demolished, which the bat people had confirmed was bat-free. Nevertheless, they insisted on each tile being removed one by one, which meant I had to employ six people for four weeks, removing tiles one by one for inspection by a bat person. This cost £30,000, as opposed to one man and a machine taking half a day, which would have cost £500.
The legislation initiated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 goes through Natural England to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management which sets the competency standards and that inspectors are registered with them. It has become an industry of its own. Local authorities, in order to avoid criticism for not complying with the Wildlife and Countryside Act, go for the easy life and automatically demand an inspection for bats even where it may not be a sensible or reasonable request. This is then carried out by the registered bat inspectors, which would be fine, but it is abused, as in my case, where, with no evidence of bats, an extra £30,000 had to be paid to confirm their inspection.
I recently came across the case of a young couple wishing to alter their attic to add needed extra accommodation. They were required by the local authority to have a preliminary bat inspection at a cost of £1,000. Without this inspection, the local authority would not permit them to even apply for planning consent, which might not have been granted. Why could they not put in for planning and, if it was approved, carry out a survey where at least they would be putting some money towards something positive?
Amendments 203B, 203C and 87FC seek to ensure that there is some comeback to unreasonable requests so that the system is not allowed to run wild, as it does at the present time. My Amendment 87FB would enable some form of discipline to be imposed on local authorities in respect of the demands for bat inspections. This is in line with government policy. It would assist in the development of housing, which the Government are keen on.
It gives me great pleasure to assist His Majesty’s Government by introducing what I hope will be a first step in implementing their expressed wish to bring some kind of sense to the planning process.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 87B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. My noble friend is calling for better recording and storage of biodiversity information, which is a noble aim. We agree with him that increasing our understanding of biodiversity in the UK is a good thing. We would support measures from government to support this, so can the Minister please outline some of the steps Ministers are taking to record biodiversity?
Amendments 87FB, 87FC, 203B and 203C in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising combine to form a constructive proposal for ensuring that bats are appropriately and pragmatically protected, while removing the time and cost burden on everyone in society from the unnecessarily prescriptive and arduous regulations that we currently suffer. Bat protections are a significant hindrance to everything, from loft conversions and roof repairs through to the largest developments.
My noble friend is not suggesting that protection for those species of bats that are endangered or rare in the UK should be weakened, simply that protections should focus on those. We need to accept that our activities are going to have some impact on nature and ensure that our response to that is proportionate. Bats in buildings are an unusual issue in that they do little or no harm to the buildings or inhabitants and are creating their own dependence on our activities. The fact that we provide this habitat should not be a cause for inappropriate encumbrance on the property owner for doing so. We are creating a perverse incentive to remove that habitat for bats wherever possible in order to ensure that we have reasonable freedom to enjoy our property. Surely that is not the outcome we want or desire for bats themselves. I hope the Minister is grateful for my noble friend’s constructive amendments, and I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for moving Amendment 87B, which would require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted free of charge to local environmental record centres. I was very pleased to be able to provide the noble Lord with further information on this matter during Recess.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for Amendment 87BA, which clarifies this amendment to require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted to the National Biodiversity Network and the Biological Records Centre, in addition to local environmental record centres. The Government fully recognise the importance of robust biodiversity data in planning applications, although the idea of having a new slogan, “Data, baby, data”, would mean I might have to get a new hat with that on it, which may not be such a good idea.
Although we share the intention of improving access to biodiversity data, we do not believe the amendment is necessary. The statutory framework under the Environment Act 2021 already requires developers to provide a baseline assessment of biodiversity value using the statutory metric published by the Secretary of State. This ensures consistency and transparency without prescribing how data should be shared or stored. When discharging the biodiversity gain condition, applicants can choose to share their data with local environmental record centres, and many are already choosing to do so—I will come to the noble Lord’s point about how many in a moment.
Introducing a legal requirement to submit data would add administrative burdens and technical requirements without improving biodiversity outcomes. However, I will take back to officials the noble Lord’s point that this is not happening as intended to consider what further encouragement we might give to help speed that data on its way. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lords will not press their amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for Amendments 87FB and 87FC, and for his concern in supporting the Government in what we are trying to do; I am grateful for that. Those amendments concern bat inspections during planning applications and the quality of those inspections. I also thank him for Amendments 203B and 203C, which concern legal protections for bats in planning decisions. The Government are committed to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment, including bats. However, we recognise that people can experience the kinds of costs and delays that the noble Lord has outlined associated with the existing system of bat protections, such as survey requirements.
The Government recognise that measures to protect bats should be efficient and proportionate. That is why we have already begun work to improve the bat surveying processes. Natural England’s earned recognition scheme for bat licences provides a streamlined route to securing a licence. Under this scheme, appropriately qualified bat ecologists with membership of an approved professional body can act more independently of Natural England. Through earned recognition, permissions are secured on average three to four times more quickly, and it also aims to improve survey quality to deliver better outcomes for bats. We are expanding this scheme.
In line with recommendations from the Corry review, Natural England has already updated its standing advice for local planning authorities on bats to remove complexity and duplication. In November, Natural England will publish a bat regulation reform road map, which will set out further plans to work more closely with planning authorities and to streamline licensing—for instance, expanding its pre-application advice offer, which can expedite planning applications and avoid unexpected surveys, as well as developing pilots to test quicker and cheaper survey options.
The Government are already acting on this issue. The additional reviews and regulations that the noble Lord’s Amendments 87FB and 87FC would require are therefore unnecessary and would create significant new bureaucracy. Furthermore, Amendments 203B and 203C would result in likely non-compliance with international law, including the Bern convention. Given the explanations I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I shall not drop this issue but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Permitted development and demolition: assets of community value(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph B.1 of Part 11 of Schedule 2 (permitted development rights: heritage and demolition), after sub-paragraph (e) insert—“(f) the building is designated as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that buildings which have been designated as assets of community value cannot be demolished through permitted development rights.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that currently, an owner of a building has permitted development rights to demolish it unless it is a pub, live music venue, theatre or concert hall. I wish to add assets of community value to that list of exemptions, so I beg to move this amendment and wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Applications for development consent: consultation for water and sewerage undertakers(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1) of section 42 (duty to consult), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) water and sewerage undertakers,””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakings are consulted by applicants for a development consent order in the same way as the Environment Agency currently is.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak briefly to this short but perfectly formed amendment. I hope to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government on the question of making water and sewerage undertakings statutory consultees on a development consent order, as the Environment Agency currently is.
Things have changed since Committee, and there is a reason why I have tabled this amendment on Report. We have already had the report from the Cunliffe review, commissioned by Defra, which now has a new Secretary of State. Recommendation 72 of the Cunliffe report states:
“The role of water companies in the planning process in England should be strengthened to ensure they have sufficient sight and influence over upcoming developments”.
The report goes on to say that the Cunliffe review believes that water companies should have a clear ability
“to comment on planning applications above a certain threshold in England”.
The review is asking the Government to consider making water companies statutory consultees or to introduce a requirement to notify, and I am hoping that the Government will confirm this. This would ensure that water companies can deploy site-specific technical advice and avoid delays. It would also save the Government time. For example, if it was inappropriate to build a major development of, say, 300 new houses in an area of water stress, making water companies statutory consultees would expedite the planning application.
On 13 October, the Environmental Audit Committee published its report on flood resilience in England, which made a similar recommendation. Recommendation 25 of the report states:
“The Government should initiate consultation on statutory requirements for assessing the cumulative impact of development on flood risk within local and regional plans by the end of 2025”.
It goes on to say that
“water companies should be made statutory consultees on major planning applications”.
The Cunliffe review was set up at the behest of the Government, so I presume that they will follow the recommendations in its report. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report looks at how the current system is failing to prepare residents in this country for future flooding.
With those few remarks, I hope this evening to extract a commitment from the Minister that the Government will proceed on this as a matter of urgency and that we will see it as part of the Bill. If they wish to bring forward an amendment of their own, that would be ideal. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support this amendment, which seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are formally consulted by applicants for a development consent order. The amendment is similar to the Environment Agency system and would help to avoid significant problems downstream.
Far too often, we have seen developments progress without any consideration of water supply, drainage or wastewater infrastructure, leading to unnecessary strain, additional cost and, of course, the human consequence of flood risk, which is worst of all. By ensuring that the relevant utilities are engaged early in the process, the amendment would promote better planning and ultimately save time, money and, above all, anguish for so many people.
The amendment aligns with some of the longstanding commitments we have worked on together in some of the APPGs. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, although I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment is brought forward and the specific issues it raises, it would introduce a level of prescription that may not be necessary. The planning system already provides mechanisms for consultation with relevant bodies, and it is important that we maintain a balance between thorough engagement and procedural efficiencies. We must be cautious not to overextend statutory requirements in ways that could complicate or even delay the development consent process. Flexibility and proportionality are key. As ever, my noble friend Lady McIntosh raises important issues. We look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 87FA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are consulted by applicants for development consent orders. I begin by acknowledging her long-standing interest in ensuring that infrastructure development is undertaken responsibly, with due regard to environmental and public health concerns.
The importance of early engagement with key stakeholders in the planning process is definitely not in dispute. Indeed, the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that meaningful engagement takes place at the formative stages of project development and where stakeholders are able to meaningfully influence, where appropriate.
As has been made clear in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Government have already taken steps to streamline the statutory consultation process under the Planning Act. Section 42, which this amendment seeks to modify, will be repealed via Clause 4. This reflects a broader concern that the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation were not functioning as intended, leading to delays, excessive rounds of engagement and an ever-growing volume of documentation.
That said, I want to reassure noble Lords that this does not mean that issues relevant to stakeholders will be ignored—quite the contrary. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will issue guidance to assist applicants with the steps they might take in relation to submitting an application. The Government acknowledge that stakeholders play a vital role in safeguarding public health and environmental standards, and the importance of their input and engagement will be made clear in guidance. The guidance will include expectations of who the applicant should consider engaging with and would positively contribute to a scheme focused on delivering the best outcomes for projects, and its impact on the environment and communities. This may include engaging with relevant statutory undertakers, such as water and sewerage undertakers, where it is beneficial to do so.
To be clear, the removal of statutory consultation at the pre-application stage does not remove various organisations’ ability to actively participate and influence an application through registering as an interested party. Statutory bodies will still be notified if an application is accepted and will be provided with the opportunity to make representations under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.
This amendment risks re-adding statutory complexity after the Government have responded to calls to simplify the system through Clause 4, which repeals statutory pre-application consultation. This has already been agreed and is not under debate.
In this context, although I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention to strengthen the role of water and sewerage undertakers in the planning process, I must respectfully resist the amendment in the light of the planned changes to pre-application consultation associated with applications for development consent. I hope that, with these assurances and noting the inconsistency with Clause 4, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken and in particular for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I omitted to declare my interests: I am co-chair of the Water APPG and an officer of the Flooding and Flooded Communities APPG.
I am a little disheartened by the Minister’s response because it sounds like a retrograde step, and one that is not in keeping either with the conclusions set out in the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee’s report or with the Cunliffe report. The Water APPG met Sir Jon Cunliffe last week, and he is under the clear understanding that a water Bill—not a water bill as in water rates but another piece of legislation—will be coming down the track to implement many of his recommendations. I will watch this very carefully and consider how to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“Planning permission: Responsible Actors Scheme members(1) No member of the Responsible Actors Scheme may be granted planning permission or carry out major development of land in England through any agent or contractor or any other person acting for or on their behalf until the Secretary of State has revised the Scheme to ensure that—(a) all buildings developed by Responsible Actors Scheme members with relevant defects are remediated at no cost to leaseholders or commonhold unit owners, and(b) where a relevant defect arises from a failure to comply with building regulations or relevant approved documents in force at the time of the construction of a building by a Responsible Actors Scheme member, that defect must be corrected by remediating the building to current building regulations.(2) In this section—“building” means a self-contained building, or self-contained part of a building, in England that contains at least two dwellings;“major development” has the meaning given by article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595);“member of the Responsible Actors Scheme” means a member of the Scheme established under The Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023/753);“relevant defect” has the same means as in section 120 of the Building Safety Act 2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause prevents members of the Responsible Actors Scheme (the UK’s large developers) from applying for or undertaking major development until the Secretary of State has revised the Scheme to ensure that all unsafe blocks of flats are remediated.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the purpose of tabling this amendment is twofold. First, it is to shine a beacon of light on a building scandal that has recently fallen out of the national spotlight. Secondly, it is to urge the Government to use this Bill to exert further pressure on those who caused the Grenfell Tower tragedy, where, I remind the House, 72 people lost their lives.
This amendment is not about pointing the finger of blame at this or past Governments. It is about seeking to put more pressure on those who created the conditions in which people died and which many leaseholders now have to endure, consequent on building safety failure.
What are the facts? The MHCLG estimates—I note that there is no current definitive figure—that between 5,900 and 9,000 buildings over 11 metres have unsafe cladding. This means that over a quarter of a million individual flats and perhaps nearly half a million people are affected, and that is just for those blocks over 11 metres, which are the subject of the Building Safety Act.
According to government figures for August this year, 1,927 blocks have had their remediation completed and a further 750 have started, but that leaves many thousands of leaseholders in limbo. I accept that the Government have attempted to improve this position with the remediation acceleration plan, alongside a promise for a remediation Bill. Can the Minister tell the House when that Bill is likely to be introduced?
The action plan commits to completing all remediation of blocks over 11 metres by 2029. That is a full 12 years after the Grenfell Tower fire. Meanwhile, leaseholders are paying the price for a situation that in no part is of their making. They are paying for it in extortionate insurance bills, in ever-rising service charges, and in knowing that they have no way out as their flats do not sell. For some, this has had very tragic consequences. The mother of one of those who ended their life as a direct result of this enormously stressful situation is sitting in the Gallery today and listening to this debate.
This Bill is an opportunity further to address the building safety scandal by putting more pressure on those who created these dangerous living conditions. Amendment 87FD in my name and co-signed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seeks to require that construction companies that have signed up to the responsible actors scheme agree to the full remediation of all buildings—that includes those under 11 metres—before they are able to proceed with further major developments. This must be achieved at no cost to leaseholders. For those living in blocks of under 11 metres, currently the costs fall on them, despite their not having created the building scandal in any way. The major housebuilders are well able to afford to pay for the crisis they created, with annual operating profits being in the high hundreds of millions of pounds.
The noble Lord Young of Cookham wished to speak in support of this amendment, but, unfortunately, he is currently speaking in Grand Committee. He has asked me to say that he is in complete support of the amendment and will vote in the Lobby in support of it if a vote is called. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but if I am not satisfied that more can be extracted from those who created the crisis that is putting lives at risk, I will test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which I have added my name. We have both spent many years trying to persuade the Government that a clearer and more comprehensive solution is needed to protect everyone affected by the building safety crisis. Noble Lords will know of my professional insights into this matter as a chartered surveyor and of my previous attempts to get fair treatment for innocent homeowners. .
I continue to receive mail from home owners, small investors, property managers and conveyancers who are utterly dismayed at the complexity, uncertainty and capricious nature of the funding under government schemes, which involve matters of building height, cladding combustibility and unseen and previously unknowable compartmentation issues, with funding applying differentially to various classes of ownership or being dependent on the freeholder’s assets, plus identification of the person responsible and whether that person has effective agency in relation to remediation. In addition, there are two parallel standards of remediation at work.
Some noble Lords will recall that during the deliberations on the Building Safety Bill, I convened a briefing for Peers. We were addressed by the late Amanda Walker, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was, I think, making reference. She told us how her life and world had been turned upside down. Her experience fits entirely with what others have told me of a living hell of unsellable property, unaffordable interim safety costs, insurance hikes and unknowable liabilities going forward—in short, what they thought was a safe and secure home being turned into a financial prison—and of the stress, ruined lives and total inequality of the exclusions from protection.
I joined Amanda’s mother and brother earlier today in a meeting with Minister Samantha Dixon. She gave the impression of listening very carefully to what we said. Mrs Walker’s recent email, which I paraphrase, says this: “My precious daughter was a very ardent campaigner on behalf of thousands of leaseholders who suffered because of loopholes in the Building Safety Act. This amendment”—she is referring to the amendment before us now—“will not help her but may help many others. The anxiety levels in so many people were painful to watch, and in my view ruined many lives”.
As the Minister knows, around 1.7 million leaseholders do not have full or even, in some cases, partial protection from the costs of remediating unsafe buildings. Those living in buildings below 11 metres have no protection at all, as the noble Baroness pointed out. Enfranchised leaseholders and those owning more than three properties are liable for any non-cladding remediation costs. Other leaseholders may have to contribute up to £15,000 to cover non-cladding costs—depending on the wealth of their freeholder, if you please. All these people are completely innocent of the causes that led to defects in their building, not just cladding but basic disregard of the building regulations in force at the time of construction.
The assumption is that lower rise buildings are safe because it is easier to mitigate risks, to escape from them and for fire and rescue services to attend to emergencies, but we do not actually know that they are safe. The proportionate standard under PAS 9980, which is the remediation standard frequently used, admits that spread of fire may be more rapid given the greater prevalence of combustible materials in the construction, and the capacity of many construction products to generate impenetrable choking smoke when burning, impeding escape. And who pays for any mitigation? Ultimately, it is the leaseholders.
According to the National Fire Chiefs Council, the current Building Safety Act’s three-tier approach—fully protected, partial or capped protection, and totally unprotected— is delaying remediation and leaving leaseholders in limbo. That funding is fragmented, and occupiers are left in unsafe buildings or are among the growing number, currently totalling more than 14,000, of those mandatorily evacuated, sometimes having to leave very modern buildings. The National Audit Office has found that the PAS 9980 risk-based approach to remediation is a cause of delays as different stakeholders argue over what constitutes “proportionate” remediation and “tolerable” risk, both of which terms appear in that document. Some 52 flat developers have signed up to the responsible actors scheme. Their remediation responsibility is to this proportionate standard only—never mind failure to build to the relevant building standards applicable at the time of construction.
Markets need transparency, and the Government need to be upfront about the general quality of buildings and building regulation compliance over past 30 years. It has long been an offence not to comply with building regulations. Market sentiment depends on clarity, but beyond the scope of the Government’s remediation portfolio, it is unclear what the reality actually is. So long as this doubt sloshes around the market, the insurance and lending sectors and, indeed, purchaser keenness, will remain febrile. All these may predispose a wider malaise the longer this persists, particularly in the lending markets, where the impact of new solvency regulations means that such uncertainties will have to be factored into securitisation risks, loan book management and consumer costs.
For evidence of the effects today, I point to flagging new flat construction, rising costs, schemes being mothballed and softening sales markets. Wagging fingers at insurers will not get rid of risk awareness and sentiment. Once you understand that something is a risk, it is there for ever. While I understand why the Government might not want to garner a lot of non-compliance data, if, despite consumers’ and the markets’ need to know, they choose not to do so, what I set out is the inevitable outcome, with implications for urban redevelopment and densification, homebuilding targets and, ultimately, stable communities.
This amendment would sweep up all building types, all tenures, and both cladding and non-cladding defects. It would tighten standards and encompass product manufacturers. Any planning delays under the amendment would be no more than the minimum necessary to process regulations immediately on Royal Assent, and I believe very few projects would be held up in practice. If the Government agree the principle that innocent people should not foot the bill for bad building practices or even for preserving the Government’s own policy objectives, they need at least to indicate to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that they propose to take this forward with serious intent. This amendment would give the Secretary of State the tools to do this and to end the two-tier remediation standard, the basic inequity and uncertainty of the current protections, and the market disruption that has accompanied them.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 87FD, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to prevent larger developers applying for or undertaking major developments until the Secretary of State has revised the responsible actors scheme to ensure that all unsafe blocks of flats are remediated. We urgently need the remediation of unsafe blocks of flats. We recently debated this in Grand Committee, and we sought and received assurances from the Minister that remediation work will be completed as per the Government’s deadlines of 2029 and 2031. We on this side of the House are committed to holding the Government to account on delivering this remediation, but with a housing crisis and over 350,000 people living in temporary accommodation, we also need to build the safe homes we desperately need.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these important issues with their Amendment 87FD on the remediation of buildings by developers and I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their tireless support for residents since the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I understand that the amendment is intended to protect residents and leaseholders. Unfortunately, its effect would be to slow remediation and risk stopping essential housebuilding.
I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there has been no relaxing of the Government’s determination to deal with the significant remediation actions outstanding from Grenfell. I spoke to my honourable friend Minister Dixon just last week. She has now picked up the urgent action needed to accelerate remediation. She has already visited the Grenfell site, and I am pleased to hear that she has met Mrs Walker and other members of the Grenfell community. I know she takes her responsibility extremely seriously and she will continue the work of Minister Norris in dealing with this as quickly as possible. There will be a further opportunity in the very near future for this House to debate the issues of building safety and remediation, including their interaction with this Government’s bold ambitions on housing supply.
Amendment 87FD is intended to prevent members of the responsible actors scheme receiving new planning permissions or building new housing developments until the Government make fundamental changes to the scheme to require developers to remediate additional types of defect and apply a different approach to the remediation of external walls. In practice, this would mean that over 40 of the largest housebuilders in England would have to stop building new homes until the Government made changes to an essential remediation scheme that we assess would delay and undermine progress.
This landmark Bill is intended to get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve the ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament. It is simply not compatible with the aims of the Bill to include a measure which would stop the largest housebuilders in this country building new homes. It would lead to major market uncertainty and disruption. Nor would the proposed changes to the responsible actors scheme serve the interests of residents and leaseholders, as they would delay remediation of their buildings for years.
Over 50 major developers have signed developer remediation contracts with the Government and committed to fix life-critical fire safety defects in over 2,370 buildings, at a cost of approximately £4.7 billion. This is supported by the statutory responsible actors scheme, which enables the Secretary of State to impose severe commercial consequences on any eligible developer who fails to follow through on their remediation obligations. Since signing the contracts, developers have assessed over 90% of relevant buildings and have started or completed works on 44% of buildings known to require works. This amendment would require fundamental changes in the responsible actors scheme by requiring developers to identify a different set of defects and require remediation to a different standard. Attempting to make those changes to the statutory scheme would undermine the remediation contracts that developers have signed with government. The result would be disastrous for residents and leaseholders, leading to long delays, operational and legal confusion, and uncertainty. Essential works to protect people could be set back by years.
The current approach to remediation under the developer remediation contract is proportionate and appropriate and uses PAS 9980, the same standard for external wall remediation as the Government’s wider remediation programme. The PAS 9980 standard is used for external wall system remediation because we are focused on mitigating risks to life safety, taking an evidence-based and proportionate approach. External wall remediation is assessed based on a fire risk appraisal of external walls which suggests remedial work or mitigation to improve a building’s risk rating through a holistic and fact-based assessment of its construction. Removal of combustible materials is often recommended but is not always necessary, including when other mitigating measures are taken. This proportionate approach to cladding remediation aims to manage fire risks and make sure that residents are safe, while preventing the kind of unnecessary works that can also be incredibly disruptive for residents.
To pick up the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about insurance, we are clear that more needs to be done to protect leaseholders from very high insurance premiums. The fire safety reinsurance facility led by the Association of British Insurers and reinsurance broker McGill and Partners launched in April 2024. The facility aims to increase capacity in the market and may reduce high premiums for some of the most affected multi-occupancy buildings with fire safety issues. The facility has been renewed for a second year and is a viable option for building owners trying to find the best deal for their residents. In the first 12 months, over 760 buildings have been supported by the facility and now more buildings may benefit from the cover available, as the claims limit has increased to £75 million. In the remediation acceleration plan announced, we would work with the insurance industry to consider options for possible government support. We are currently engaging with industry and will provide an update on all this in due course.
This amendment has raised important technical issues about the remediation process. We cannot do full justice to them tonight, but there will be further opportunities for this House to debate the remediation of buildings at much greater length during the passage of the upcoming remediation Bill. I look forward to that opportunity. What is already clear, however, is that the amendment we are looking at tonight would undermine the core purpose of the Bill by greatly delaying work to remediate buildings, as well as putting at serious risk critical work to build new homes. Given these very serious concerns, I urge noble Lords to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the Conservative Front Bench for taking part in this debate, but I am thoroughly disappointed by the remarks of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. It is not an either/or. How can it be an either/or? According to the Minister’s response, either we enable housebuilders to build more homes or we accelerate even further the remediation of flats that are in a dangerous condition. It should not be either/or; it should be both/and. There is capacity within the housebuilding industry to do that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I made it clear that the danger in the amendment is in doing just what the noble Baroness has spoken against. We want to move the remediation acceleration forward as quickly as possible, at the same time as building new homes. The danger with this amendment is that it slows the whole thing down and means that neither the remediation nor the building of new homes gets done quickly.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Unfortunately, I do not accept the Minister’s argument because, under the Government’s own remediation acceleration scheme, it will take another six or seven years for people to have their homes made safe. How is that right? We heard the compelling arguments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the 1.7 million leaseholders who will be required to pay many thousands of pounds to make their own homes safe when it is not their fault. It is not acceptable that we are still here, all these years after that awful fire at Grenfell Tower, trying to debate yet again what is going on.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I am hugely in sympathy with the noble Baroness in her aim but, as the author when I was in ministerial office of the responsible actors scheme, which was stoutly resisted by housing developers, I had to strike a balance between putting the squeeze on them—by making it clear that unless they acted to remediate, they would receive no planning permission whatever—and making sure that they could continue to build the houses we need. Have the noble Baroness and the supporters of this amendment looked at what the impact on the balance sheets of individual housebuilders might be, and what impact that would have on our current rate of buildout? Also, is it not the case that many of those who do not qualify at the moment for support for remediation—the so-called non-qualifying leaseholders—are people with extensive property portfolios? A line has to be drawn somewhere to ensure that those with significant wealth do not benefit, while those who do need support receive it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gove, for his intervention. He is right that when the scheme was established, it was on the basis of squeezing the housebuilders as far as they could go. However, if I remember the figure correctly, one of the major housebuilders has made an operating profit in the last year of £870 million. Call me a curmudgeon if you like, but if some of that could be used to fund making the dangerous flats they built safe for people to live in, I think that is not a bad call.
We have had the argument but I am not content with the answers I have got, so I wish to test the opinion of the House. I hope that those on the Conservative Benches will support those who have spoken strong and hard in favour of remediation schemes, and in favour of leaseholders, through the Lobby.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure coherent planning through extending the Secretary of State’s powers to establish a joint committee of authorities where a national park is present in the spatial development strategy area.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for writing to me on my amendment in Committee. I apologise for revisiting this question, but I really think we need to be clear about this. The idea that national park authorities should be in some way a subsidiary and junior part of this process is something that I really feel will not work.
National park authorities are sole local planning authorities for almost 10% of England. They are statutory local planning authorities, charged with balancing development and economic growth. They operate across local authority boundaries and routinely co-ordinate with multiple councils, agencies and communities. In short, they already do strategic planning. The idea that the new spatial development strategies should in some way be senior, should start to completely alter the planning process within the national park so that it becomes subsidiary, is something that really goes against the purpose of national parks, as I understand it. Yet, as things stand, the Bill gives national park authorities a limited role in shaping spatial development strategies: they will be informed after the event rather than engaged from the outset, and I cannot see how that leads to good planning.
Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, national park authorities were recognised as key partners in preparing regional spatial strategies. That statutory status worked well. It gave clarity and accountability without burdening national parks with inappropriate new powers or undue weight. It is precisely that kind of formal consultative and advisory role that I would like to see the Government restoring in the Bill. Spatial development strategies created in partnership with national parks are far more likely to be better balanced and more coherent, to engage with growth in all its guises and to be more deliverable. I therefore urge the Minister to rethink government policy on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for this amendment. I apologise for not being able to take part in Committee, due to hip surgery. I welcome the inclusion of spatial development strategies as a particularly useful tool for ensuring that larger areas participate in planning for the future. They remind me of the regional development strategies previously in place during my days on the South West of England RDA. Sometimes they worked, sometimes they left much to be desired, but they were a step in the right direction.
When looking at spatial planning on a more holistic basis, it is important to ensure that all those organisations with an interest are consulted. This includes the national parks, which are guardians of environmentally sensitive land across the country. I lived in Somerset for over 50 years and regularly visited Exmoor and Dartmoor National Parks. Without proper environmental planning, both these parks would be the poorer, and species often depleted. I now live on the edge of the South Downs National Park and, again, I am extremely concerned that those who manage and look after their beautiful area should have a say in the spatial planning that affects them.
I know from my frequent visits to the Peak District—my husband comes from Derbyshire—that millions of visitors come to the national parks; many of them are overseas visitors. The parks are a vital part of the recreational activities for those who visit, especially for residents of nearby cities and urban constrained areas. The balance between ensuring free access and enjoyment for all visitors who contribute to the green economy and ensuring the survival of the environment and the species that depend on the parks for their survival is vital. Each park will have its own ecosystem, whether that be based on open moorland, peatland, ancient woodland or marshland. Each will have animal and insect species that are indigenous to their area, and the plant life that sustains them. It is therefore vital that the national parks should, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated, have a seat at the spatial planning table. At a time when species that the countryside supports are in devastating decline, it is unthinkable for the voice of local national parks not to be heard. I fully support Amendment 87G.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 87G. In doing so, I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests, in particular as a landowner in the Dartmoor National Park.
My noble friend is right to say that national park authorities should be considered fully in the planning process to underpin the importance of protecting national parks. I would be most grateful if the Minister could be very clear on the current role of national parks in the planning process, and I hope she can reassure my noble friends that will continue to be the case in spatial development strategies. I look forward to hearing her reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 87G tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can establish strategic planning boards in areas that include a national park. As I explained in Committee, an SDS area is defined in new Section 12A which the Bill will insert into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as the area of the strategic planning authority preparing the spatial development strategy. The strategy area encompasses all local authorities, including local planning authorities, such as national park authorities. Therefore, the Secretary of State could already use the power in new Section 12B to establish a strategic planning board covering an area with a national park or part of a national park.
In response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the role of the national park authorities, I say that while national park authorities will not sit on boards, they will have a very important role to play in the preparation of spatial development strategies. We will expect boards and other authorities with national parks in their areas to engage closely with national park authorities to ensure these valued areas remain protected. National park authorities will continue to prepare local plans for their areas which will set out policies on the use and development of land. There is no change to the role of the national park authorities in preparing those local plans for their areas.
The strategic planning boards will be established through statutory instruments after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The constituent authorities will be formally consulted on the draft statutory instruments ahead of them coming into force, as is required by new Section 12B(4).
With these explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I see I have not won the argument, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(4A) A spatial development strategy must meet the needs of older and disabled people, through a requirement for new homes to meet the Building Regulations Part M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard or the Part M4(3) wheelchair user dwelling standard, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2214).”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment introduces a requirement for all new homes to comply with the Part M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard, as defined in the Building Regulations 2010, or the higher M4(3) wheelchair user dwelling standard. The amendment aims to ensure that all new housing is inclusive, age-friendly, and suitable for people with varying mobility needs.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 89 and to speak to Amendment 97, which both cover the content of the new spatial development strategies introduced by this Bill.
I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who moved these amendments in my absence after 2 am during the Committee stage of the Bill. At that time of the night, I do not think full justice could be done to the two amendments which I brought back in this group, again with the support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Young of Cookham.
Amendment 89 would lead to spatial development strategies requiring all new homes to meet Part M4(2) or M4(3) of the building regulations. These building regulations cover accessibility for all new homes—for example, wider doorways and better planned bathrooms—with some of the homes provided at the highest standard necessary for wheelchair users. The campaign for improved accessibility has been led by Habinteg and by the Centre for Ageing Better, supported by the HoME coalition—Housing Made for Everyone. They have championed the need for the 1.5 million new homes planned for this Parliament to be accessible and adaptable, both to meet the very real current needs of 11.6 million people with disabilities of all ages and to create more satisfactory homes—lifetime homes—for all occupiers.
The good news is that the battle for adoption of these building regulations standards was won three years ago when the then Government committed to mandating M4(2) for all new homes, but the bad news is that this commitment has not yet been delivered. There was talk of further technical consultation, but this seems unnecessary now that several authorities have voluntarily adopted M4(2) without encountering problems. If Ministers worry that the higher standard could impede the achievement of the Government’s housing target, it is worth noting that the campaign for all new homes to meet M4(2) and M4(3) simply means more careful design rather than any noticeable increase in cost. This has been demonstrated over many years in London, where the higher standards were introduced a decade ago, but every month that passes, more new homes are built elsewhere that fail to meet accessibility standards, and many of them will require expensive retrofitting later.
In February last year, the Minister asked the then Minister what the likely cost to the public purse would be from the necessity for future adaptations of homes because these improved standards were not built in. She drew attention to increased care costs that will result from
“a lack of the decent, accessible homes”—[Official Report, 5/2/24; col. 1446.]
that, she said, the then Government knew to be needed.
I feel sure the leadership on both the Government and the Opposition Benches will not have changed their minds; no U-turns have been announced. Rather, all concerned have been waiting for the right moment to mandate the long-awaited M4(2) and M4(3). This amendment takes advantage of the opportunity to achieve this by including these standards in all the new spatial development strategies.
The housebuilding industry is already well prepared for this improved accessibility standard, having expected it for some time. Housebuilders have their revised house plans ready to go. From the Dispatch Box, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, told the Bill Committee that
“we will soon outline our approach to accessible new-build housing”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1436.]
I note the word “soon”.
Successive Governments have pledged to change the building regulations and make M4(2) standard, but we have waited in vain so far. The prize remains: if new homes met this standard, there would be payback in reducing numbers of people who cannot be discharged from hospital, in helping those using wheelchairs to have a place of their own, and in making it easier for many older people with mobility problems to get around in their own homes. Can we now take the opportunity before us to make hundreds of thousands of new homes properly accessible at last?
I turn to Amendment 97, with the same cross-party support as for Amendment 89. This amendment would place a requirement on a strategic planning authority when it prepared its spatial development strategy to have regard to the housing needs of our ageing population. This amendment was also moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in Committee, and I am most grateful to her.
The ministerial response in Committee suggested that national guidance should enable spatial development strategies to incorporate this element, but the reality is that for many years, despite general guidance from government, the housing needs of our ageing population have frequently been ignored in planning policies. Precious few local authorities have undertaken full assessments of the housing needs of older people, followed by provision in their local plans, where these plans exist.
I fear this blindness to the importance of planning for older people’s needs may now be replicated at the level of the strategic planning authority. Conversely, since local plans will have to be in conformity with the new spatial development strategies, if the strategies require recognition of the housing needs of older people, this will translate into local plans too.
With no change, supply of accommodation specifically for older people will struggle to reach even the 7,000 to 8,000 new homes per annum of recent years, despite the governmental older people’s housing taskforce estimating that over 30,000 new homes per annum are needed. The APPG on Housing and Care for Older People—I declare my interest as co-chair of that APPG—has recommended that local planning authorities should plan for 10% of new homes supply to be specifically for older people. This amendment would encourage this approach when spatial development strategies were being prepared.
Building homes for older age groups may look like a distraction from meeting the acute needs of young families, but by providing for the older generation, they can right-size to somewhere better for their own health and well-being and release a much-needed home for the next generation. In the social sector, with its ageing tenant population, the building of fully accessible, affordable developments for older people is very likely to mean that precious social rented council and housing association homes immediately become available. This housing for families directly addresses problems of homelessness, saving both families and councils the outrageous costs of temporary accommodation and rescuing families living in grossly overcrowded conditions. Meanwhile, in the owner-occupied sector, one elderly home owner moving to a new retirement apartment can stimulate a chain effect that provides a more suitable home for a long line of movers, leading to a first-time buyer starting on the home ownership ladder. Housing for older people has a multiplier effect that hugely increases its value.
Moreover, the Government have a target of building 1.5 million homes this Parliament; if planners demanded a stream of housing specifically for older people, the buildout of major new developments would be accelerated by enabling parallel construction on the site for the two separate markets. Adding the building of new homes for older people in simultaneous construction means the Government will hit their ambitious housebuilding target sooner.
I am optimistic that there is understanding within government of the need to assess and cater for our ageing population. Hopefully, the forthcoming national housing strategy has something positive to say on this issue. The Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, recently replied encouragingly to a Question on this matter. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassuring news on the guidance that is due on this very important theme. I beg to move Amendment 89.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 91 in my name, which would insert a new subsection in Clause 52, “Spatial development strategies”, which amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
According to the House of Commons Library paper on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, LURB was meant to introduce
“a statutory requirement for LPAs to prepare design codes, in which they set out design requirements for developments in their area”,
but this has not been commenced. At the moment, there is no requirement for a spatial development strategy that specifies an amount or distribution of housing or affordable housing to include a design code for the specified housing development. This seemed an opportune moment to kick-start this part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 into process.
In Committee, I shared Churchill’s quote:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]
Design is so important. Buildings can be beautiful or ugly; they can enhance communities or destroy them. We need quality homes that are sustainable and that, in 200 or 300 years, people will still think are beautiful. Thus, upholding architectural standards and considering aesthetic standards is essential. Our environment has a dramatic impact on our lives, affecting our outlook, our well-being and, most importantly, our mental and general health.
This amendment seeks to rectify these issues by including a design vision into the spatial development strategy. It is vital for high-quality design to be prioritised in the strategic planning process to ensure that new developments meet the practical and visual needs of residents and enhance communities. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, stated in Committee that,
“National planning policy already makes it clear that poor-quality design should not be allowed. Yet the general quality and design standard of much volume housebuilding in this country continues to be poor”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1328.]
While there was lots of discussion about the variety of initiatives and more reviews to come, the Government failed to give an adequate response in Committee on why this section of the LURB has not yet been commenced.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 112. I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Pinnock for pitching in on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in the wee small hours as I attempted to get my last train. I was very pleased to support both of the noble Lord’s amendments. I know from experience that housing for older people is still the Cinderella of the sector. I also publicly thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his persistence on the issue to improve homes as we age. Never before has the need for building standard M4(2) been more necessary. It is very short-sighted of successive Governments not to grasp this nettle, because retrofitting, as has been said, is difficult and expensive. I would therefore quote the chant “Why are we waiting?”, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Amendment 91, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, recognises the need for design in spatial development strategies, so I hope that she will support my amendment in the next group.
On Amendment 112, which I also submitted in Committee, I am very pleased to say that we have had some productive meetings with the Minister, who has been generous, as ever, with her time. I truly believe that she understands the key issues, and I hope that she will be able to give us some assurance that the requirements within this amendment can be taken forward somehow. I look forward to her response.
Amendment 112 is a fairly simple amendment, brought to us from Centrepoint, the amazing charity for young homeless people. It is basically saying that, where a particular housing type is being set up for homeless youngsters, it should be permissible to deviate from the nationally described space standards so that the finances stack up and the total model works. Put simply, this new model, which is being called stepping-stone accommodation, provides for smaller accommodation than what would be prescribed, but it is very much more than okay for youngsters leaving care, those who have been sofa surfing or those who are trying to get off the streets. It is their own home, with their own front door. I waxed lyrical about the quality of this accommodation from my visit, and I will not repeat myself. However, it is important to say that it was designed with young people and that they love living there.
The Minister said, in her response to me, that councils, in their plans, can already do this; it is permissible. She is right, and while it is acknowledged that nationally described space standards are not in themselves mandatory, the practical reality has proved to be rather different. Local planning authorities, as a matter of course, look to these standards as the primary point of reference when formulating policy. Consequently, where discretion is left to local interpretation, planning determinations become protracted, frequently extending over a number of years. In Committee, I described cases that involved anything between two and four years of additional time and costs for these charities, which can ill afford to have to pay that extra money.
These are not isolated occurrences. Rather, they reveal a systemic problem in which essential provision for vulnerable young people is stalled by prolonged and often unnecessary debate over standards.
This amendment would allow planning officers and committees to move these applications forward, at speed and with confidence. Estimates indicate that as many as 30,000 of these homes will be required in England alone. It is for this reason that the amendment remains indispensable. By establishing a clear and immediate exemption, it would provide certainty to local authorities, prevent unnecessary obstruction and expedite the delivery of much-needed accommodation.
We hope that the Minister can give Centrepoint and other homelessness charities—which are watching this—some real incentive to continue their excellent work and feel confident when approaching council officers for the exemption from the prescribed national space standards, and to be listened to and supported for this very specific and narrow course. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to make a quick point. If you are trying to build a lot of houses, you have to sell them. The rate of sale determines the rate of building: if you do not sell the houses, the builder goes bankrupt because houses are very expensive to build. As a result, it would open up the market much wider if we incorporated these standards for access, because more people would be in the market who could buy them. It must help the rate of sales, because there is a bigger market. Why not do it? I cannot see why not. We are assured that it does not cost any more to do it, so it seems silly not to.
On smaller houses, people who travel live in caravans and motor homes and are very happy doing that. Why are we trying to be so prescriptive about the size of houses? If you build a house of a size that is going to sell, why not?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, not for the first time in this House, I will strike a slightly contrary note. I believe Amendment 89 is well intentioned but goes a bit too far in calling for all housing to meet the standards set out in M4(2) and M4(3).
M4(2) sets a standard for new homes to be accessible and adaptable, meaning they are designed to be easily adapted for future needs, such as those of an elderly person or those with a temporary disability. It is not a standard for full wheelchair accessibility, which is covered in the much more stringent M4(3) standard. M4(2) requires the dwelling to have features such as the provision for a future stairlift or lift, and may require certain features such as low-level windows.
The regulations were naive in believing that one could build homes that could be easily adapted for wheelchair users. All of us on all sides happily voted these through. It is like motherhood and apple pie: we thought we were doing something helpful for the disabled, and I do not think we took into account the practicalities and the cost. I simply do not believe that you can build these homes to be easily converted for the disabled at the same cost as current homes.
It is not just a matter of level access; it is a whole host of different features. You need wider doors everywhere. Kitchens may have to be ripped out and built at a much lower level for wheelchair users. You cannot have any wall cabinets; there will never be enough space in a kitchen designed for wheelchair users.
As for bathrooms, it is not just a matter of extra grab handles; the whole bathroom needs to be twice to three times the size to fit a wheelchair user. If a wheelchair user is not ambulatory at all and has to be stuck in the wheelchair, you need an absolutely level access shower. That means ripping out the standard shower and putting in a flat one when you might not have the drainage to do it. These are just some of the practical problems I see day to day if one tries to design that in at the beginning. As for space to install a lift—forget it. That would require a massive redesign at potentially enormous cost.
The point is that there are an estimated 1.2 million wheelchair users in the UK. This number includes permanent users and the 400,000 ambulatory users, which includes people like me who can walk a bit, provided we have our chariot wheelchair to help us. Wheelchair users make up roughly 11% of the disabled population. That is why I think it is over the top to call for all housing to be suitable or adapted for wheelchair users when only 11% of the population needs it. Perhaps local authorities should be under an obligation to deliver 15% of wheelchair-accessible or adaptable housing in all new buildings.
Turning briefly to the housing needs of an older generation, I have a simple, one-word solution: bungalows, either detached, semi-detached or even a single-storey terrace. It is believed that about 2 million bungalows were built in the last century, before builders stopped building them, since they take up more space and they can now cram a dozen rabbit hutches of about three storeys high into the same space taken up by one bungalow. In 1987, there were 26,000 new bungalows registered. In 2017, there were only 2,210.
I do not have a solution to that. If builders will not build them, I am loathe to demand that there should be a compulsory quota. Perhaps another slogan for the Secretary of State, in addition to “Build, baby, build”, should be “Bring back bungalows”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 89 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would mean that the homes we build must reflect the needs of our population. In an ageing society and one where the nature of disability is changing, this becomes ever more urgent. Accessibility and adaptability are not luxuries; they are the foundations of a fair and future-proof housing system. We are therefore grateful to the noble Lord for bringing back this important debate on Report and thank him for his tireless work on these issues.
On Amendment 91, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, more homes are important—of course they are—but homes that respect local character, reflect vernacular and are, quite frankly, pleasant to look at are important too. Having scrapped the Office for Place and having not implemented the LURA requirements for design statements alongside local plans in local planning authorities, the Government appear to be riding roughshod over the very principles of good design and placemaking that Parliament sought to embed in legislation.
What are the Government going to do to uphold and protect the principles of design quality, to ensure that places we build are not only affordable and efficient but beautiful, sustainable and built to last? I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, shares this sentiment. She will speak to her Amendment 92 in the next group, which seeks to strengthen the same call.
On Amendment 112, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, as we said in Committee, stepping-stone accommodation is an idea with real potential and one that speaks to a compassionate and practical approach to housing need. But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of this amendment, but I sound a note of caution. Our existing space standards were developed for good reason. They exist to prevent a return to poor-quality housing—the rabbit hutch flats of the past—homes that compromise health, dignity and long-term liveability.
If we are to disapply or adapt such standards in specific cases, we need to do so with clear safeguards in place. The noble Baroness has helpfully proposed a specific minimum size and has begun to flesh out the practicalities of this proposal—that is a constructive way forward. But before we enshrine such figures in legislation, there should be a proper consultation both with the sector and, crucially, with those we seek to serve.
Stepping-stone accommodation could play a valuable role in tackling housing need, but it must be done right. It must offer dignity, not just a stopgap. Above all, it must serve the people it is designed to help, not simply the pressures we have in the system at this time.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments relating to housing design, accessibility and homelessness solutions.
Amendment 89 would require spatial development strategies to ensure that new housing meets the needs of older and disabled people. While I cannot pre-empt the forthcoming national housing strategy, I am sure the Minister in the other place has listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others, on the growing importance of ensuring we provide sufficient suitable housing for older people and those with disabilities. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not know about bungalows, but at this rate I am going to be given a whole wardrobe of hats to wear, which I look forward to.
The Government firmly believe that providing suitable housing for older adults and people with disabilities is essential to supporting their safety and independence. However, I do not agree that the noble Lord’s amendment is needed to achieve that outcome. Local planning authorities already have the tools to support the delivery of homes that are accessible and adaptable. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that authorities should assess the size, type and tenure of housing required by different groups—including older and disabled people—and set clear policies to address these needs. That is why I spoke earlier about having a sufficient quantity of housing, and local authorities are best placed to assess that need.
Authorities can also apply enhanced technical standards from the building regulations through planning conditions. Where there is clear evidence of local demand, authorities are expected to use these standards to help ensure a sufficient supply of accessible homes. That may include specifying the proportion of new housing built to M4(2) and M4(3) standards. The Bill also already enables strategic planning authorities to address this issue, where it is considered to be of strategic importance to the area. I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I absolutely understand those points; as a localism person, obviously I agree with that. However, the key issue is that planning officers are playing “safety first”. Their immediate response is, “No”, for the reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, set out earlier. Is there any way we can strengthen the guidance to refer to “stepping stone” accommodation as something that the Government might look favourably on or permit? The current experience is that planning officers are hitting a brick wall each time. I totally understand why it cannot be in the Bill, but I do not see why we cannot put something into guidance that strengthens their arm when they sit down at the first meeting to discuss the matter.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for making those points. The best thing might be to have another meeting outside the Chamber to discuss what we might do. I understand the point she is making; perhaps planning officers are being overly cautious because they do not recognise that they already have such a power. I am happy to meet her outside the Chamber to discuss how we might move forward on that issue. I am very keen that this does not go into the Bill, because if it did, it would risk undermining the work that has been done over many years to improve the space standards that we already have for our homes. They were hard fought for and hard won, so I do not want this proposed provision to undermine them.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support, including from the Minister, both for the extension of M4(2) standards to all homes and for a handful of them to be for full-wheelchair use, such as the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke of.
I say to the noble Lord, however, that we are not talking about ripping out kitchens or showers but about putting in showers or other amenities that work for everybody. This is about having accessible standards for new builds only; this is not about retrofitting existing properties. Just a minority will comply with the M4(3)—full wheelchair—standards, but all homes would be built at least to M4(2). I have been responsible for building a large number of these homes and the use of these standards has not broken the bank, so I know that it is possible. I am grateful for the support for this happening.
The Minister said that the national housing strategy may say something about both accessible housing and housing for older people. I look forward to seeing that and hope that it is entirely positive. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Royal Assent
Monday 27th October 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 132-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (10 Oct 2025)
Heathrow: National Airports Review
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Statement does two things: it announces a review of the Airports National Policy Statement, but gives us little idea in detail as to how it is to be revised, and it tells us that the only two credible proposals for Heathrow’s expansion are still being considered and that the more fanciful proposals have been dismissed. The two are linked because the core purpose of the current ANPS is to facilitate the expansion of Heathrow. In my view, the timing of the Statement is nakedly intended to persuade the OBR that the project is real and deliverable. I wish to test that.
First, there is the question of delivery of a revised ANPS, which I must say I think Ministers are rather reckless to embark on. The current Airports National Policy Statement was produced under the premiership of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead and expressly favoured the expansion of Heathrow. It survived scrutiny in the High Court and was appealed to the Court of Appeal by environmental groups on no fewer than 17 grounds of challenge and fell on a single one—the legal meaning of the word “policy”. On that arcane question the whole statement fell. By then, the Government were in the hands of Mr Johnson, who was perfectly content with that outcome. But Heathrow took up the cudgels, and the case went to the Supreme Court, which restored the ANPS.
The timeline tells its own story. In 2015, the Airports Commission recommended a third runway. In 2018, Parliament approved it by 415 votes to 119, yet only by December 2020 did the Supreme Court clear the legal path for Heathrow to proceed—five years ago. Now, in October 2025, Ministers tell us rather recklessly that the policy is going to be revised and accelerated and we are going to go through the whole process again, with all the potential challenges involved. It is a brave or reckless Government who set out on this course.
The Government have an answer to this. In the Statement, the Secretary of State says:
“On judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects”.
At present, the average time for such reviews stands at roughly 1.4 years. What is the Government’s target? How long do the Government expect it to take for the new airports national policy statement to be approved? Remember, it is the Chancellor’s ambition that this runway should open in 2035, with spades in the ground many years before that, given how much muck has to be moved in order to embrace Heathrow’s plans. I am indeed making the simplifying assumption—it may not be true—that the Heathrow proposal is the one eventually chosen by the Government in November and not the alternative scheme. I may be wrong about that, but I think my assumption is reasonable and, for the moment, simplifying. That gives us five years.
Meanwhile, public debate on the whole thing has been minimal, because we have very little information about the proposals. The projected cost of Heathrow expansion stands at £49 billion. The market value of Heathrow Airport, which we know from the last time its shares traded last year, is around £9.5 billion, even though its regulated asset base is closer to £20 billion. People are willing to pay £9.5 billion for something which has a regulated asset base of £20 billion, and they are then proposing that, despite the fact that it is heavily leveraged, much more so than it was 10 years ago when it was discussing this project, we have to reckon with the fact that it wants to spend at least £49 billion—that is the publicly quoted figure; it may be more by now—on a third runway to increase capacity by 50%. My second question is whether this is credibly financeable and whether the Government believe that it is.
However, the airlines do not trust Heathrow, because they are expected to pay in advance off the regulated asset base. In fact, they are paying already, because the CAA has approved that some of the costs that Heathrow incurs can already be charged to the airlines and thus to the flying passengers. They think that because Heathrow is incentivised by the current regime to make its expenditure as high as possible, it is untrustworthy. They point to various things, such as a new baggage system completed in 2016, which was priced at £234 million but ended up costing £435 million, and a cargo tunnel with a budget of £44.9 million that ended up with an estimated cost of £197 million. They point, in contrast to Heathrow’s plan to spend £49 billion on a single runway, to terminals at Barcelona, Frankfurt, Madrid and Munich, that all cost half or less when taking the size of the terminals into account; the fact that Changi is expected to create a new terminal for £8 billion; and that New York’s JFK will open its new Terminal 1 in 2026, the centrepiece of a £15 billion transformation that will be completed by 2030.
What are the Government going to do about Heathrow and its regulatory structures? They say that they are going to change them. The Statement says:
“The Government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority to review the framework for economic regulation for capacity expansion at Heathrow, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost-effective delivery”.
What has the Civil Aviation Authority, the regulator, been doing for the last 20 years in that case, if it has not been ensuring firm delivery? So my third question is: what are the Government going to do about that?
I plan to speak for eight minutes.
There is also the matter of noise, which I would like to pursue at some stage, but not at the moment. With that, I will sit down, but I believe that the Government have a lot to do to show that this project is credible, and that they are not contributing to its fast delivery by revising the airports national policy statement at this stage.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this debate on the review of the airports national policy statement and the Government’s announcement regarding Heathrow. But let me be very clear that the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that expansion of Heathrow would be a mistake from the Government and deliver a blow to our net-zero commitments.
A reliable and safe transport system is vital for economic prosperity in all parts of the country, and improving transport is essential to combat climate change and air pollution, but we must ensure that new infrastructure supports the UK’s climate targets. Analysis from the New Economics Foundation suggests that approving the expansion of Heathrow Airport would cancel out the climate benefit of the Government’s clean power plan within five years, and expansion of Gatwick and Luton Airports would cancel out the climate benefit of the CPP by 2050, so the Government’s sudden support for airport expansion just does not stack up.
Ed Miliband, speaking at the Environmental Audit Committee on 27 January this year, said:
“Any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets … If it cannot be justified it will not go ahead”.
Will the Minister confirm that the four new tests—the evidence-led approach set out by the Secretary of State—will have to be met in their entirety before this Government will give the green light to Heathrow expansion? Will the Government publish the metrics for each of these four new tests so that there is transparency in the assessment? Will the Minister confirm that they will not proceed with Heathrow expansion if the Climate Change Committee advises that the plans do not meet legal obligations on climate change, including net-zero or air-quality obligations?
Let us look at noise pollution. It is a really big issue. Around 700,000 people are impacted currently by noise from Heathrow. It is not just those who are living in places such as Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Surrey—around the airport site. In places such as Lambeth and Southwark, residents have the clash of Heathrow flights and City Airport flights throughout the day, causing serious nuisance. The CAA workbook has highlighted that the number of those who are overflown could double to 1.5 million under some Heathrow expansion plans. Noise is an issue which many people feel has escaped any meaningful legal control for too long, leaving overflown communities exposed to excessive noise, impacting their health and quality of life. As part of this work, will the Government adopt the World Health Organization’s recommended noise levels to address noise pollution from the operations of Heathrow Airport?
I come to the point about surface access. While we do not want to see expansion and we do not believe it stacks up economically or environmentally, the last thing the area needs is an airport expansion plan that does not address and fund fully surface transport to the airport. It is a problem now and, therefore, higher modal share for public transport must be a foundation block for the Government’s assessment. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s commitment to fully funded surface transport access as part of this work? As part of the assessment of the two options, will the Government ensure that surface rail access, including the southern and western rail links, are an integral part? Will the Government consider the future of the premium Heathrow Express line as part of its surface access assessment, and when will this be published?
I pick up particularly these points around rail surface access because the letter from the Secretary of State in June stressed
“surface access mode share targets, including elements of a surface access strategy”
and went on to talk about it covering
“public transport, and active travel”.
Yet in the letter that was published last week, on 22 October, under the heading “Surface access”, it states:
“To minimise unnecessary disruption, please provide additional information regarding the construction of road schemes”.
Rail seems to have been downgraded. I really want some assurance from the Minister today.
In an attempt to demonstrate growth, the Government are misguided in thinking that an expanded Heathrow can deliver for the whole country. There are many other schemes that would deliver a lot more for communities across the country. We do not support Heathrow expansion and will closely monitor every stage of this process to ensure that local communities are heard loudly and clearly.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I think the place to start here is to say that it is quite clear that having more capacity for an airport that has been at capacity for two decades is a really important step for economic growth and the future of our country. Heathrow is the only international airport hub in Britain: it deserves to function properly and for the economy of the nation.
I shall refer first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, many of which seemed to me to be, on the whole, a criticism of his party’s previous actions in government rather than a critique of what this Government are doing. The fact that the last review took an awfully long time to get to not much of a conclusion is not necessarily a criticism of how this Government intend to proceed. Indeed, we believe that we have a realistic timetable to do so.
The noble Lord assumes that one of the two schemes being taken forward at present, the scheme from Heathrow Airport Ltd, is the one that will be pursued, but that is not an assumption that this Government are making, because we will consider more fully the two remaining schemes to be considered, which differ and clearly have different implications and prices. It is important that they are considered in comparison with each other. Part of that consideration, as the noble Lord notes, is whether they are financeable: what they cost and how they are going to be funded.
It is right that the Civil Aviation Authority looks at the framework for economic regulation. That is, as the noble Lord says, what it does, but it needs to look again in the circumstances in which we are contemplating such a large-scale expansion of the principal—the only—hub airport in Britain.
The noble Lord says that the Government have a lot to do to show that this process is credible. The Government are starting on that process with every intention of showing that it is credible, to do something that previous Governments have not done, with a timescale that is tight but very realistic.
In respect of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that expansion is a mistake, the first thing to say is that is hard to see what else you can do, as this is the only hub airport in Britain. There is no other scheme that will create such a hub airport. Therefore, contemplating a third runway is, we believe, the right thing to do. She asks whether the four new tests will have to be met in their entirety, and the answer is yes, they will. That is quite clear; it has been said from the beginning. We know what the tests are and the aspirants to build the third runway will have to meet them. We will also take the advice of the Climate Change Committee, to which the Secretary of State in the other place is about to write.
The noble Baroness makes the point about noise. One point that was also part of the Secretary of State’s Statement last week was establishing the UK Airspace Design Service in order to look at airspace design for the London region, supporting both Heathrow and the wider network, and also seeking to make flight paths more efficient so that planes spend less time over London, together with slot reform that maximises benefits at Heathrow and the other airports in the south-east of England.
On the noble Baroness’s comments about surface access, I was reading the letters sent to the two successful applicants, and she is right that they refer to construction of roads, but that is not to the exclusion of the rail access points that she refers to. Indeed, it is quite clear that aspirants to build the third runway will have to look at public transport connectivity to the airport. I think that is really important. She mentioned both the southern and western links and the future of the Heathrow Express, and it is quite clear to us that aspirants will have to reference those links and any others that they propose to put forward in order to have an acceptable policy for surface access to the airport.
The Government do not believe that they are misguided. They believe that they are setting out a coherent, speedy but sensible programme to establish the third runway.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of InterTrade UK. I welcome the intent behind this Statement eventually to proceed with the third runway for Heathrow. Connectivity is so important, particularly for those of us who cannot take the train to London and need that connectivity through our hub airport. One of the work programmes for InterTrade UK is to look at UK connectivity to enable trade to work better across the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm that when this process proceeds, regional connectivity and the benefits that come with that, particularly for trade, will be at the forefront of His Majesty’s Government’s mind?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. In a very modest way, I have some background on the connectivity of the United Kingdom. It is of course the Government’s intention that a third runway would enable better connectivity to Heathrow from a variety of places within the United Kingdom. One of the difficulties with running an airport that is at 95% capacity and has been for a very long time is that this rather stifles internal connectivity for external international flights. The Government expect a third runway to facilitate more of that, so that there is more connectivity from various places within the United Kingdom to a lot of places outside it that can be accessed only from a hub airport.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive comments. I have a special interest, as I worked out of Heathrow for 25 years. So I was at the sharp end of delays, and we definitely needed further runway capacity.
It is ironic that Heathrow was built over six runways. Over the decades they built on four with various terminals, and ended up with two. My criticism is for all sides and all Governments, because none were bold enough to look 25 years ago at building a third runway, notwithstanding that Heathrow is the major airport in the United Kingdom. It is not just about London.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made a point about sustainability and the environment. This is a red herring, because so much has been stopped by these environmental arguments. Notwithstanding the aerospace sector, we build the cleanest, greenest aircraft on the planet. Aviation is responsible for 3% of CO2 worldwide and approximately 4% across Europe, which does not mean to say that we always aim to improve these sorts of things, so that is rather a negative argument.
At present, the two runways are running at 98% capacity, and just a little fog or a delay sends things into a turmoil. So I support the Government’s decision to back the building of a third runway, and what we did before we lost power. It is tragic that these infrastructure projects are delayed. Notwithstanding that, I question the projected amount of money: £40 billion is ludicrous, and I am sure that businesses can come up with a far better figure.
The reason why we do not have a third runway is nothing to do with the Government Benches or the Conservative Party: the reason, and why we have the problems with Heathrow expansion, is because of the Liberal Democrats. The noble Baroness explained perfectly all the reasons why we should not have one; it really is not good enough in 2025.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness could answer.
I am not entirely sure that there was a question in there, but I am old enough to remember flying from the ex-RAF huts on the north side of the airport, so I am sure that Heathrow did have six runways at that stage. If nobody was bold enough to advocate this 25 years ago, it is about time some Government got on with it, and this is the Government who are going to.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the economic arguments for the expansion of Heathrow, and the connectivity arguments we just heard about. However, I want to address the issue of overflying, which was mentioned earlier.
I was a Member of the other place for a long time, always for an east London constituency. Throughout that time, I dealt with issues of overflying, largely to and from London City Airport but, to a surprising extent, to and from Heathrow. One of the problems was that the technology advanced in such a way that the flight patterns were narrowed. That meant that fewer homes were being overflown, but those that were had a much more intense time of it, and the misery of the noise was compounded.
My noble friend may not be able to answer this question now and may want to write to me, but can he say something about mitigating the noise factors? That might include using advanced aircraft, which we are always assured are going to be cleaner, greener and quieter. Whether or not that happens—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seems to be having an uncontrollable fit of the giggles—perhaps he could talk about that and how the technology might develop to mitigate the problem of overflying.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend; I will have to write to him because I am not a technology expert. All I will say—not in passing because it is a relevant factor—is that aircraft were far noisier 20 years ago than they are now. I realise that that does not mitigate against more of them, but part of this work is undoubtedly figuring out the best way of managing the airspace—for the benefit of landing and taking off, and of the communities underneath the planes. If I have anything useful to say about technology and noise, I will write to my noble friend.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am aware that the Minister is not responsible for the detail of this Statement. None the less, in the first substantive paragraph there is a statement that I suggest requires correction:
“Britain wants to fly”.
A report published in June from the New Economics Foundation states that in the last 20 years, the number of passengers flying in and out of Britain has grown dramatically, from 220 million to 300 million. Of that increase, 63% is the result of UK frequent flyers and 24% the result of foreign residents, many of whom will also be frequent flyers. In the last 20 years, the number of UK residents not flying at all each year has increased. In terms of total flight numbers, ultra-frequent flyers—those taking six or more return flights each year—is less than 3% of the population, yet they make 30% of all the journeys taken by UK residents. Therefore, it is not the case that Britain wants to fly. A very small number of people want to fly very often, and they inflict the air pollution we have heard so much about, the noise pollution, the climate impacts and the associated traffic congestion, on all the people who are not flying.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has the right figures in front of her, but her conclusion is not necessarily correct. The purpose of this is economic growth. Supporting growth in the economy is the number one objective of this Government. In terms of who flies, her statistics suggest to me that there is real business traffic at an international hub airport and that constraining that will be a constraint on the economy of Britain, which is a wholly bad thing. Whether everybody else wants to fly for recreation and leisure purposes is very important, but even more important is that the economy is stimulated by those who need to travel, and that we have a hub airport big enough and flexible enough to cope with their demands.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive chair of an aviation company, albeit one that does not operate from Heathrow. I have a couple of points to make. I strongly support what the Government are trying to do in expanding Heathrow. I was very surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, did not mention any of the technology improvements, including to aircraft, sustainable aviation fuel, hydrogen fuel cells and all the technology that will enable us to fly in a way compatible with our climate obligations. She did not mention any of those things, nor did she mention the Elizabeth line, a fantastic, environmentally friendly solution to get enormous numbers of people to Heathrow. Lots of that progress is going in the right direction.
As we have heard, there are lots of people who absolutely do not want this to succeed and will use every tool so that it does not. My concern, notwithstanding what I have said about the compatibility of expanding Heathrow with our climate change obligations, is that I am convinced that when—as I hope—the Government make the right decision to expand Heathrow, there will be a judicial challenge on climate grounds. I want to know what the Government are doing, first to speed up the process of that challenge, but also to make sure that, ultimately, that challenge will fail and we can make sure that this very important hub airport—not just important for passengers but also incredibly important for the amount of freight that it moves in and out of the United Kingdom—is able to expand and benefit the people of the United Kingdom.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There have been occasions on which I did not necessarily agree with the noble Lord in all his sentiments, but this time I do. He is right to raise things such as the development of aircraft technology, particularly sustainable aviation fuel, on which I hope he will support us when that Bill is considered in this House. He is right also to raise the Elizabeth line, because it makes a huge difference to connectivity to the airport, and he is right to refer to air freight. Heathrow is a principal hub for air freight, which is part of the economic benefit of having a hub airport.
In respect of the noble Lord’s question about a possible challenge, the Secretary of State in the other place said that we have announced that we are working with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system, including for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects. Indeed, it is the Government’s intention to consider very carefully whether this should be designated a nationally significant infrastructure project, alongside others. We are considering that; the Secretary of State is seeking the views of the Climate Change Committee and we intend to do all that expeditiously, to proceed with this.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, on the freight issue, the noble Lord, Lord Harper, as a former Transport Secretary, will know that the primary freight exported out of Heathrow is fish. That is overwhelmingly the majority of the freight. Number two is books. The notion that there is high-value product going through the system is absolutely untrue. There is no need for additional capacity to provide that delivery. The numbers are official and can be looked up at any time.
The Minister supports the principle that a hub airport should forever expand to support economic prosperity and growth. That is not the history of aviation. There is a place for hub airports, but also for direct flights and the development of regional airports. There are many arguments that mean capacity can be delivered in many other ways, without necessarily continuously expanding a hub. Indeed, the numbers that the Government are using at the moment—I think consultants such as Frontier Economics have also been involved—to justify expansion at Heathrow are laying out not future demand but a highly speculative relationship between increased capacity and increased growth.
I am very concerned that the projections the Government are using are not even adjusted to deal with increased capacity at other London airports, never mind potential capacity at other regional airports around the country, and that we are getting into this vicious cycle of creating unneeded capacity which then leads to much more aggressive marketing to persuade more people to fly. It is almost equivalent to the utilities going out and trying to encourage people to use more energy or water. Capacity in the air is a scarce resource and we should be thinking from a far more environmental perspective. I suggest that the policy the Minister is looking at runs dangerously counter to tackling climate change. As for local environmental impact, especially noise, the policy continues to run counter. Although the industry tells us its planes are quieter, I—living under the flight path—can tell noble Lords that that is not the real lived experience under that flight path.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I hesitate to disagree with the noble Baroness because I have huge respect for her. To begin with, fish and books may or may not be valuable in themselves, though I suggest that they are probably more valuable if people air-freight them. The fact is that 72% of UK air freight by value goes through Heathrow, so if fish and books are the two principal exports through Heathrow, they must be valuable fish and valuable books. I cannot reconcile her claim that they are not valuable simply because they are the two highest categories, but the 72% figure is assured.
Moreover, nobody is suggesting that a hub airport should continuously expand for ever. We are looking here at an airport that has been at more than 95% capacity for the last 40 years. Successive Governments have sought a way of doing it, but it has not been done. It is clearly restraining the economy, and it is clearly right that a Government who seek to expand the economy look at a third runway with a view to doing something that has long been mooted. This is clearly restraining both air capacity and economic growth.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, and I believe that there is a consensus across the House for a position where Heathrow can achieve its full potential as not only a national and European hub but an international hub. I actually find myself agreeing with the Liberal Democrats to a certain extent that there has to be proper and due regard taken of infrastructure, rail and road, and that the economic footprint of Heathrow is not just Hillingdon, Hounslow, Ealing and Brent but reaches out to the wider south-east in terms of jobs, prosperity and enterprise.
I know the Minister has a lot on his plate, not least with HS2 and finding how to plug the gap between Euston and Old Oak Common, which we have discussed on a number of occasions, but I want to press him on judicial reviews. Cosy chats with the judiciary will not cut the mustard on this massive infrastructure project. The Climate Change Act is pretty draconian in respect of the potential for judicial reviews, and I have to press him on whether he envisages primary legislation in order to assist the prospect of this huge project not being clogged up by endless judicial reviews. He will know that even the Labour Mayor of London has said he is more than willing to use the current legislation to block the expansion of Heathrow Airport.
I will make one final, parochial point. This is a holistic airport policy. I come from the perspective of someone who often uses Stansted. To me, it is a national embarrassment that people from, say, California with lots of money to invest have to fly into Heathrow Airport on the way to Cambridge and are then stuck for two or three hours on the M25 until they can reach their corporate or European headquarters in Cambridge. We need more transcontinental flights to the United States and Canada into Stansted, not just Heathrow. That is a more parochial point, but the substantive point is that the Minister cannot wish for legal certainty—he has to do something about it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord refers to rail connections, which we have already touched on in this debate, and it is quite clear that the two promoters of the schemes will have to address railway connections to Heathrow and not just from the London direction, good though the Elizabeth line is. He mentioned HS2 in passing; we have cracked Euston to Old Oak Common, at least, because the Government are going to fund the tunnelling machines and they will start fairly soon.
In respect of judicial challenges, but for this dinner break business we are considering the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and my noble friend is sitting next to me ready to resume those discussions. As she points out to me, sotto voce, a great deal of the Bill is, in fact, designed to smooth the process of major infrastructure, and that is the reason that this Government are moving forward with it.
Finally, the ANPS is about Heathrow; it has always been about Heathrow. That is not to say that there are not policies that should be applied to other London airports—Gatwick, Luton, Stansted and so forth—but Heathrow is such a big issue in itself and is, as I keep saying, the only hub airport in Britain. It is right that the ANPS should deal only with Heathrow, because it is a very important matter in itself.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 27th October 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (24 Oct 2025)
21:08 - Division on Amendment 94 - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 137 - Amendment 94 agreed.
21:20 - Division on Amendment 96 - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 139 - Amendment 96 agreed.
22:37 - Division on Amendment 103 - Ayes: 46 / Noes: 133 - Amendment 103 disagreed.
23:16 - Division on Amendment 105 - Ayes: 49 / Noes: 110 - Amendment 105 disagreed.
23:41 - Division on Amendment 107 - Ayes: 24 / Noes: 93 - Amendment 107 disagreed.
Lord Lansley
“(za) an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistic or commercial purposes, the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would secure that a spatial development strategy must include a description of the amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistics or commercial purposes, which are instrumental in determining the land use and requirements for housing in the strategy area.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 90 relates to the content of the spatial development strategy and seeks to insert into the Bill the requirement that the strategy should include
“an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistic or commercial purposes, the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.
This is alongside the amount or distribution of housing and the amount or distribution of affordable housing. We had this debate in Committee, so I will not dwell at length on the reasons why I think it is necessary. The Committee debate demonstrated that there was widespread support among Members of the Committee for the inclusion of this in a spatial development strategy.
I want to just focus on one issue and one question to the Minister. We have agreed substantially on these issues, not least on the question of joint spatial development strategies back in the debate on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The issue, which I do not think was really raised properly in Committee, is that the spatial development strategy must be, by definition, about a broader area than local plans, and it gives us an opportunity to look in a strategic way at the relationship of travel to work areas, the sites for employment, the transport infrastructure that supports travel to work and the consequences from that of where people will be living, as well as working, which will lead into exactly the questions of the housing need and housing requirements that local plans must allow for in the future.
The Government have completely recognised the case for travel to work areas and the economic geography to be a basis for strategic planning. The English Devolution White Paper talks about strategic authorities being based on that kind of reasonable and functional economic geography, so I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is exactly how strategic development strategies should be compiled.
Anybody who has put together this kind of document in the past—I had something to do with these things when we were working on the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities 20 years ago—knows that that is exactly how one goes about thinking. Even at local plan level, understanding the broader questions of what the prospects look like for employment, industry and logistics is a sound basis for determining the amount and distribution of housing.
The consequential from that is a question to the Minister. Can she tell the House that we do not need to add this to the Bill because the guidance on the spatial development strategy will be explicit and make it very clear that that is the process and that is the way in which spatial development strategies must be constructed? I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as we did in Committee, and in particular to talk about this broader area. My Amendment 92 is similar to that from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, but takes it up to a greater level.
Having grappled with an attempt to do the whole of Hertfordshire, which the Minister will remember—where each district was asking, “What are we for, and what do you want us to do and to be?”—I remember that Stevenage was very much the place for incubator businesses, and an exemplar of that, and we were very much grade-A office. We recognised the need to have that across an area or we would be competing with one another, which was ridiculous.
The key point of my amendment mirrors that and complements it, because we are trying to create sustainable communities, and we all know that that means jobs. There is no point in building shedloads of houses stretching for miles when people have to get in their car even to buy a newspaper and certainly go miles in their car to commute to a job. So, we are on board with that.
I too brought my amendment before this House previously and it is supported by the Royal Institute of British Architects. The basic principle that the amendment embodies is to require development strategies to include a design vision for the whole area and, as such, it would have to include the things that were mentioned in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. A design vision, as laid out in the amendment, is a clear articulation of what a place should be like in the future, developed with and to meet the needs of the local community. I will not repeat the reasons why this is vital, because I am sure that we all know.
The Minister knows that I have been very clear and vocal in my support for the Government’s move towards strategic planning. It has been missing from planning in any meaningful way for many years. However, I want to address their response when I first brought the amendment before the House—namely, and this will sound like a broken record, that there was no need for the amendment because the guidance already exists through the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, and the National Model Design Code. The reason I want to press my case again is that guidance is incredibly valuable, but it is just that—guidance. I am sure that many noble Lords here today can give countless examples of where poor-quality development has come forward contrary to a development plan. To be absolutely blunt, the pressure on planning officers to grant housing schemes is great. We should not underestimate that. I am sure that we will have all seen, despite officers’ best efforts, some pretty mediocre schemes getting approval or, worse still, agreed on appeal.
The Government have quite rightly been very vocal in their support for good design. The amendment would mean that a vision for good design must be considered throughout the development process. Setting such a precedent can only be a good thing if we want to actively create and shape the places that work for people and contribute positively to their quality of life. For me and these Benches, this is non-negotiable.
Meeting housing need is an urgent task and one that we completely agree with, but doing so in a way that serves people both now and in the future—with design quality at the heart and the forefront of placemaking—is no less than we all deserve. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, because we cannot see good design as a “nice to have”; it has to be something that we accept. It is a “must have”.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, very briefly and without the eloquence of the last two speakers, I want to support Amendment 90 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I live near Magna Park and the junction of the M1 and M6 motorways. I believe that Magna Park is the largest distribution centre in Europe. It seems obvious that a spatial strategy must include infrastructure and distribution. I therefore look forward to the Minister giving the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the assurances that he seeks.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 90, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, speaks to the theme that has run through many of our recent discussions in your Lordships’ House: the importance of how we plan and distribute development for employment, industrial, logistics and commercial purposes, along with housing.
We agree that this is instrumental in determining the appropriate land use and, in turn, the housing requirements across an area. It is vital that the Government set out clearly how they intend to ensure proper alignment between infrastructure provision, job creation, housing developments and the facilities that those residents will need. Without that alignment, we risk producing plans that are unbalanced: areas with homes but no employment, and economic zones with no housing or supporting transport that would make them viable.
I am therefore thankful that this sentiment was shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, when she spoke to her own Amendment 92. She said that a spatial development strategy should have a clear vision for an area and rightly highlighted the importance of design, both at the more strategic level and—as my noble friend Lady Hodgson said earlier—of the individual properties and the area within which they occur. It sounds like we are very much in agreement.
We talk about housing and infrastructure on the face of the Bill. The Minister may say, “Oh, don’t worry, this is all in planning guidance”, but if the Bill is good enough to mention housing and infrastructure then why not also that key component of distribution, industry and commercial space that goes hand in hand with the need for housing?
As I have made clear, we cannot look at housing and infrastructure in isolation. It would be absurd not to look at the distribution of industrial, logistics, commercial, leisure and retail facilities. I ask the Minister for an assurance that these will be included in the spatial development strategies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I address the amendments, I should say that I circulated a diagram of the respective responsibilities of, and links between, spatial development strategies, local plans and neighbourhood plans that I hope was helpful to noble Lords in our consideration of the Bill.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, proposes to expressly allow a spatial development strategy to set out an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistics or commercial purposes. I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment, but it is not necessary. That is because new Section 12D(1) already requires spatial development strategies to include a statement of the strategic planning authority’s policies, however expressed, on land use and development that are of strategic importance to the strategy area. In fulfilling this requirement, I would expect strategic planning authorities to address employment, industrial, logistics and commercial development needs. That has been demonstrated in, for example, the London Plan, which operates under comparable legislative provisions.
To respond to the noble Lord, I add that our intention is for the National Planning Policy Framework, which we will consult on this year, to set out explicit policies for how employment, industrial, logistics, commercial and other issues are intended to be addressed, including through spatial development strategies. I hope that is helpful.
Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes that spatial development strategies include a design vision for the strategy area developed in collaboration with both the local community and other stakeholders. I have outlined previously in our debates the importance that the Government place on good design of new homes. We would expect any detailed design requirements to be set by local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning groups through their local and neighbourhood plans, as these will allocate specific sites. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise: I should when I first rose, as it was the first time I spoke on Report today, have drawn attention to my registered interests relating to the chairmanship of development forums in both Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank noble Lords for their support for the amendment. I am very grateful for the additional points that were made.
I am grateful for what the Minister said. I do not doubt that it is possible to put the necessary guidance into the National Planning Policy Framework. Indeed, I hope that when we see the revision of the NPPF before the end of the year we will see something akin to the guidance relating to plan-making but related to the making of spatial development strategies. I humbly say to the Minister what I said previously, along with my noble friend Lord Jamieson, about the importance of relating the question of the amount and distribution of housing to the spatial strategy in relation to employment, industry, logistics and the opportunities for inward investment, frankly. I cannot see any reason why that should not be quite explicit in the NPPF and therefore carried forward into requirements on SDS authorities. It is absolutely in the Government’s interest to do that. If growth is their number one priority, and planning reform is essential to that, then getting spatial development strategies up and running in ways that focus on this would be absolutely at the heart of it.
With those further requests to the Minister for future action, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 93, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, aims to secure the future of England’s chalk streams by enshrining specific protections and standards into our planning regime. As we made clear in Committee, these globally rare ecosystems—there are only 200 in the world—are often referred to as our country’s rainforests in terms of biodiversity and they face genuine risk from piecemeal development and inadequate water management. These are risks that will only intensify without a robust and specific legislative lever.
Relatively recently, I went for a customary walk in a beautiful green space in south-west London, only to discover that the beautiful River Wandle, home to brown trout and kingfishers, had been destroyed by a devastating diesel leak. The Government intend to streamline housebuilding and environmental measures in tandem, but the practical reality is stark.
Chalk streams are uniquely vulnerable. Abstraction of water, chronic pollution and unchecked development have led to tangible declines in many local areas. In 2023, the Liberal Democrats collected data through freedom of information requests, which revealed that one in 10 chalk stream sewage monitors were faulty, with some water companies having much higher rates of broken or uninstalled equipment.
Amendment 93 delivers a targeted solution: a statutory driver for sustainable drainage standards before any development interfaces with public sewers, closing a loophole that currently exists and has allowed cumulative harm to chalk streams. This amendment would ensure that developers are compelled to apply national standards for drainage and water treatment ahead of any permissions, rather than leaving mitigation as an afterthought.
Amendment 94 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich complements this approach, and I thank him for the work he has done on this issue and his environmental expertise, which he has brought to this debate. Amendment 94 tightens oversight and demands full transparency in environmental impact reviews on watercourses at risk, an essential safeguard for communities whose local rivers are too often treated as collateral damage by the planning system’s inertia.
None of us should accept that cleaner, safer waterways are an optional extra and a nice to have. By adopting an amendment on chalk streams and supporting, out of these two amendments, Amendment 94, this House will signal that nature restoration, water quality and sustainable infrastructure are not in competition but can be advanced through co-ordinated and legally binding steps. I urge noble Lords to support these amendments for the sake of our streams and the communities they sustain.
If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich moves to a vote, these Benches will support him. It is right that, with something as crucial as our unique chalk streams, we ask our colleagues in the House of Commons to think again and strengthen and protect in law this ecosystem that is almost unique to England. I hope that this House will unite in voting for Amendment 94 and protecting this rare heritage for future generations.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 94, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for their support. I am most grateful to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who has just spoken so powerfully about her amendment, as well as offering her support for this amendment. Amendment 94 would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
Chalk streams, as we have heard, are a very special type of river. Some 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are fed primarily by spring water from the chalk aquifer, not rain, which means that they have clear, cold water and very stable flows. These globally rare habitats are found in a broad sweep from Yorkshire and the Lincolnshire Wolds through Norfolk, the Chilterns, Hampshire and Dorset. The Bure, Glaven, Wensum, Test, Itchen and Meon are river names that come to mind flowing, as they do, through the tapestry of English history and in our literature, such as the River Pang-based Wind in the Willows. They are rich in minerals, especially calcium, and this “base rich” environment supports a distinctive and rich ecology.
It is no wonder that this amendment and a similar one in the other place have received such positive support, including in your Lordships’ Committee. What it seeks to do is such an obvious thing, for what we love, we should desire to protect; what we value, we should safeguard; what is of global significance, we should be deeply proud of.
I am grateful that the Minister responded to my letter to her about my amendment. However, her response was far from reassuring in two ways. First, the Government have pointed to local nature recovery strategies as a way of protecting chalk streams. These could, of course, in future be capable of considering, avoiding and otherwise mitigating for direct damage to these habitats, such as occurs from the footprint of a development near a chalk stream. However, to do so, LNRSs will need more bite in the planning system than they currently have. We are still waiting for the regulations designed to do precisely that, placing a duty on local planning authorities to take account of the nature strategy when making planning decisions. We are still waiting for that to be commenced, and it is now a full two years after these regulations were promised in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
Even once the regulations are passed, LNRSs will not be well placed to map, quantify and avoid or mitigate for the offsite impacts of development such as downstream pollution or the additional water that will be abstracted from chalk streams or their aquifers to serve new homes. These very real threats to our chalk streams, over areas much larger than are covered by strategies, cannot be addressed by LNRSs.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I am pleased to add my name to the important amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and to Amendment 92 in this group, because, let us be honest, we are not starting from a good place with chalk streams. As mentioned by my noble friend, the current status of these unique and extremely rare habitats in the UK is poor, with more than three-quarters failing to meet good ecological health standards. This is precisely why the chalk streams became such an important issue for debate in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I remember only too well the same Front Bench colleagues debating long and hard for their protection.
The chalk stream recovery plan, announced by the previous Government, was seen by many, including me, as a good step in the right direction. But here we are again, with chalk streams back in the firing line and, despite the reassurance from the Minister on Report that local nature recovery strategies could propose priorities for their protection,
the problem with our planning system is that it requires local authorities only to have regard to our LNRSs, which is not strong enough to protect these vulnerable habitats. We came across this a number of times in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Those words are etched in my memory.
Also, although the NPPF recognises the importance of irreplaceable habitats, chalk streams, much to my alarm—and, I am sure, to that of many in this House—are not specifically listed as protected habitats. Therefore, they do not have the overarching level of protection in the Bill, through the spatial development strategies, in the same way other protected habitats do. The only hope left, therefore, is the chalk stream nature recovery plan, launched by the previous Government. However, in reply to the question on this asked in Committee by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who sadly cannot be here today, the Minister stated that even this is now on hold because it is out of step with the ambitious programme of water reforms proposed by the Government. Perhaps the Minister can say for how long it will be on hold, as a result permitting further damage to occur in these unique freshwater habitats.
I say this because time is of the essence here. As an ecologist, I went back to look at the literature. Research on chalk streams has demonstrated that while removing pollution can result in the improvement of water quality within a month to a few years, ecological recovery can take between 10 and 20 years. The more damage we do, the longer it will take for them to recover.
Lastly, surely there must be some no-go habitats in some of our river catchments, and these chalk streams should be one of them. I therefore urge the Minister to agree to this amendment, within which the spatial development strategy would mandate the sort of responsibilities that lead to the protection and enhancement of these unique and rare chalk stream habitats.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I support both amendments. I made a speech in Committee in which I laid out very similar arguments to those put by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I will not repeat them now, except to say that the right reverend Prelate referred to a number of chalk streams in my old constituency of North West Norfolk. These incredible assets—these unique and precious assets—are at risk as we speak. I say to the Minister that neither amendment is particularly demanding. They are quite modest in their overall fabric and intent. If the Government are serious about their environmental credentials, and about trying to do something for the countryside, I urge them, please, to accept these amendments.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to the right reverend Prelate’s amendment. I am delighted to see him back in the Chamber; we missed him in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Roborough was absolutely right when he said in Committee that all rivers are important. Yes, that is true, but chalk streams are that bit more important. The reason for that is that we have 85% of the world’s chalk streams. We are custodians for that majority, but 83% of those chalk streams do not meet good ecological standards. We have handled the whole situation very badly. I think we have taken a retrograde step with this Government, who have dispensed with the chalk stream recovery pack, which the noble Baroness just referred to.
I have written to the Minister and told her that I will ask her a number of questions. I have given her forewarning, so I expect replies. In what respect did that chalk stream recovery pack fall short? It was nearly ready to go when the Labour Government took over after winning the election. They could have pressed the button; that chalk stream pack focused on some difficult questions that nobody had fully addressed before, so why have they torpedoed it? What do they propose to do that will be better than that pack had proposed?
Let us go down to some specifics of the pack. It had time-bound commitments to reduce groundwater abstraction on numerous chalk streams which, according to the Environment Agency’s own data, are unsustainably extracted: for example, the Darent in Kent, where over half the rainfall that feeds the river is taken away for public water supply. There was a timescale for getting that right. Will the Government stick with that timescale or will there be something longer? Do the Government have plans to move water abstraction further downstream, rather than at the headwaters of these rivers?
The chalk stream pack also had a timebound commitment to address the hundreds of small sewage works in chalk streams that do not remove phosphorus in the treatment process and where there is currently no policy or incentive to drive investment. What are the Government going to do better to give a good timescale to get all those water treatment plants in good order? The pack also addressed run-off from highways and local roads, which I have spoken about before in your Lordships’ House, and how damaging it can be to chalk streams in particular because of the added silt. The CaBA chalk stream strategy recommends revised best practice guidelines for local councils that give more protection to chalk streams. Do the Government have better plans than that? The pack also put forward solutions to reform the farming rules for water, which are currently ineffective. What are the Government going to do to replace that recommendation?
I did not mention this question when I wrote to the Minister, but I will add it now: how do the Government intend to address the physical dysfunctionality of many chalk streams moved, straightened, dredged or dammed over the centuries and put them back to their natural state? In destroying the hard work of some very good, able and committed people who produced the chalk stream pack, the Government have alienated some potential friends in their effort to improve the environment. How are they going to get friends back onside when, after all that work, they have just dismissed it as though it did not matter? What plans do they have to include such people in the future to try to improve the whole river system for chalk streams? It is no good taking just one little area in one district or county council, because chalk streams do not understand those borders; they flow through lot of different councils. The whole thing has to be tackled on a holistic basis, and the only way to do that is by supporting the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I am grateful for their excellent, informative introductions. We on these Benches tabled similar amendments in Committee. The amendments share a vital purpose: to ensure that our planning system gives proper recognition and protection to chalk streams, one of our most distinct and rarest natural habitats. These streams help define our landscapes, support unique biodiversity and supply water to many communities. The amendments would require spatial development strategies to identify and protect chalk streams, setting out the responsibilities for planning authorities in their stewardship.
These are sensible, constructive proposals and I am grateful to those who have tabled and supported them. We will support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich if he divides on his amendment this evening. Will the Minister say whether she considers chalk streams to be irreplaceable habitats, like ancient woodlands, and therefore deserving of similar policy protection? The case for stronger recognition of chalk streams within our planning system is compelling. They are an irreplaceable part of our natural heritage and a globally important asset, and the way we plan for growth must reflect that.
I hope the Minister has heard the House and will be able to accept these amendments, and explain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and my noble friend Lord Caithness have asked, why our chalk stream restoration strategy is on hold.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for Amendments 93 and 94, which propose additional statutory obligations for strategic planning authorities in relation to the identification and safeguarding of chalk streams. With 85% of the world’s chalk streams found in England, these unique water bodies are not just vital ecosystems but are indeed a symbol of our national heritage. The Government are committed to restoring them, which is why we are taking a strategic approach to restoring chalk streams. Working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, the Government will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system so that it is fit for purpose for decades to come. This is essential to restoring chalk streams to better ecological health and addressing the multiple pressures facing these habitats.
Alongside the programme of ambitious reforms, the Government are continuing to deliver vital improvements and investment for chalk streams, including £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and water environment improvement fund for locally led chalk stream projects. Over the next five years, water companies will spend over £2 billion on chalk stream restoration.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. It is very clear there is a strong feeling within this House that there is a need for something to shift and be enshrined in law. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment in order to hand over and support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich if he decides to press his.
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this important debate and the Minister for her response. However, I am not convinced by her arguments; we cannot wait for a water reform Bill and have these arguments again at that stage. Amendment 94 seeks to protect chalk streams, this precious habitat which we are the custodians of. It aims to restore biodiversity and create a planning system that works with nature, not against it. At present, I am afraid, the Bill before us fails to do this for chalk streams. Thus, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(9A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise development on brownfield land and urban densification.(9B) A spatial development strategy must seek to increase sustainability and community building by minimising travel distances between places of employment, residence and commercial or leisure activities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield and urban densification, and to promote sustainable, mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs, and services.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have tried every way possible over a number of years to ensure that brownfield sites are used for development, over and above our precious agricultural land. This is not working, so something addressing it needs to be put in statute. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 96.
Lord Lansley
“12OA Effect of local government organisational changes affecting principal authorities(1) This section applies in the event of any changes to the local government organisational structure made under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 that amend— (a) the composition of a strategic planning authority under 12A(2) by means of changes in the structure of a principal authority (as defined in 12A (7)), or(b) the constituent authorities (as defined in 12B (2)) to a strategic planning board.(2) Any spatial development strategy that had been prepared by a strategic planning authority" (under 12A(1)), remains in operation for the strategy area as defined in 12A (4) before the organisational change took effect under subsection (1).(3) Any spatial development strategy that remains in operation under subsection (2) may not be replaced or substantially altered before the expiry of five years after the date of its adoption, subject to subsection (4).(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State issues a direction authorising the alteration or replacement of the existing spatial development strategy.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 97A relates to the situation where local government reorganisation leads to changes in the authorities which constitute the strategic planning authority that is making spatial development strategies in the upcoming months or perhaps years. We did not discuss this in Committee, and in my view time does not permit us to have the substantial discussion that is necessary this evening, as we want to make progress towards other important issues. But I just want to say that there is an issue here that I hope the Government will consider, not least between now and Third Reading, although time is short.
We want spatial development strategies to be strategic. They cannot be strategic if they are made one day and replaced the next. We want the strategic planning authorities to be able to establish a spatial development strategy that subsists for a considerable period. Otherwise, people will have no confidence that they will be able to proceed in local plan making that is, necessarily, statutorily consistent with the spatial development strategy, if the spatial development strategy could be changed at a moment’s notice.
This problem emerges essentially from the prospect of the upper-tier authorities which may well be combined to make strategic authorities or, perhaps more often, divided into unitaries. When they become unitaries, the question of who the strategic planning authority is might be taken to a completely different level. For example, Norfolk and Suffolk, close to me, will be a combined authority next year, so they may be able to make a spatial development strategy. However, in Oxfordshire, which I know well, Oxford County Council may proceed with a spatial development strategy next year, but the county council might be divided into two or even three unitaries in the course of local government reorganisation. What the spatial development strategy is, what the strategic planning authority area is, we do not know.
I am presenting to the Government a problem which has emerged. I am grateful to the County Councils Network for highlighting the nature of the potential problem and the necessity of a solution. The solution is to make it very clear that spatial development strategies, having been adopted, should subsist for five years, as we would normally expect local plans to, unless the Secretary of State makes a direction. The Secretary of State could make a direction where there is an expectation of, for example, a change of political control or something of that kind that necessitates a review of the spatial development strategy.
Having presented the nature of the problem, I hope that the Minister will say that the Government recognise the problem and will find means by which the spatial development strategies, once adopted, can remain in place for a period of time, unless there is a compelling reason for them to be altered or replaced. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a very important issue that the Government need to think about, but, as the noble Lord explained, the issue relates not only to the new combined county authorities with a mayor that will be created following reorganisation; it will also affect the metropolitan mayoral authorities, where the mayors will be given the new power for a spatial development strategy but where the constituent local authorities will inevitably have their own local plan, which will not necessarily have any coterminosity in terms of their duration. There is a dual issue for the Government to consider, which is: which has primacy—a constituent authority’s local plan until its term ends, or the spatial development strategy, which might override the local plan, which would then require, presumably, an amended local plan and all the effort that would have to go into that? An important issue has been raised, and I suspect that the Government need to come up with a solution.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on these Benches, we are actually engaging with the industry about this to understand its concerns. I do not want to say anything further on it this evening, apart from expressing my full support for my noble friend Lord Lansley. We will return to this issue for a much fuller discussion in a later group of amendments that we have tabled.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 97A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to ensure that any spatial development strategy that had been prepared by an authority remains in place for the strategy area following the restructure of the strategic planning authority; the strategy could not be replaced or substantially altered within five years of its adoption unless the Secretary of State authorised a strategic planning authority to do so. Given that the Government are currently undertaking an ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in England, I understand why the noble Lord seeks to make provision to account for this and ensure a degree of continuity for an operative spatial development strategy.
However, new Section 12T empowers the Secretary of State to include transitional provisions in strategic planning board regulations. This power complements existing powers to make transitional provision in regulations to reflect changes to local government organisation. If a local government reorganisation leads to uncertainty over the boundaries of a spatial development strategy or its applicability to an area, it is more suitable to address this through tailored transitional provision in regulations rather than through primary legislation. This means that the effects of local government reorganisation can be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Preventing a strategic planning authority from replacing or significantly revising its spatial development strategy until five years after its adoption following local government reorganisation would restrict its ability to respond to major national policy changes or new major investment in its area. Strategic planning authorities are well placed to determine when updates to their strategies are necessary and should retain the discretion to do so. Given this, I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—for their support, and to the Minister for her response. I completely understand that the Minister does not want to close down the possibility of alterations to spatial development strategies, which this might do. I hope that we might look at the transitional provisions, and I hold in my head the thought that if we can see those—in relation to the making of spatial development strategies and the impact of local government reorganisation—and if we have a problem, even if we do not deal with it in this Bill, it would be within the scope of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to be able to deal with it at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 97A.
Lord Lansley
“Neighbourhood priorities statements
12Y Neighbourhood priorities statements(1) Any qualifying body may make a statement, to be known as a “neighbourhood priorities statement”, which summarises what the body considers to be the principal needs and prevailing views, of the community in the neighbourhood area in relation to which the body is authorised, in respect of local development and infrastructure.(2) “Local matters” are such matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe, relating to—(a) development, or the management or use of land, in or affecting the neighbourhood area,(b) the development of housing in the neighbourhood area,(c) the natural environment in the neighbourhood area,(d) development of public spaces in the neighbourhood area, or(e) the infrastructure or facilities available in the neighbourhood area.(3) A qualifying body may modify or revoke a neighbourhood priorities statement that has effect, for the time being, for the neighbourhood area in relation to which the body is authorised.(4) A neighbourhood priorities statement has effect from the time it is published by a relevant local planning authority and ceases to have effect upon such an authority publishing a notice stating that it has been revoked by a qualifying body. (5) A modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement has effect from the time the modification, or modified statement, is published by a relevant local planning authority.(6) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may impose requirements which must be met for a neighbourhood priorities statement, or any modification or revocation of such a statement, to be made or published.(7) Regulations under subsection (6) or section 15LE(2)(k) may provide that a requirement may be met, or (as the case may be) procedure may be complied with, by virtue of things done by a parish council, or other organisation or body, before it becomes a qualifying body.(8) Regulations under subsection (6) and section 15LE must (between them)—(a) require a qualifying body to publish any proposed neighbourhood priorities statement, so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates can comment on the proposed statement before the body makes the statement,(b) require a qualifying body to publish any proposed material modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement, so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates can comment on the proposed modification before the body makes the modification,(c) require a relevant local planning authority to publish a neighbourhood priorities statement, if the statement is made in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part,(d) require a relevant local planning authority to publish a notice of the revocation of a neighbourhood priorities statement, if the statement has been revoked in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part, and(e) require a relevant local planning authority, if a modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement is made in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part, to publish the modification or a modified statement.(9) Subsection (10) applies if, as a result of a modification of a neighbourhood area under section 61G(6) of the principal Act, a neighbourhood priorities statement relates to more than one neighbourhood area.(10) Any modification, or revocation, of the neighbourhood priorities statement as it has effect for one of those areas does not affect the statement as it has effect in relation to the other area or areas.(11) Regulations under section 61G(11) of the principal Act (designation of areas as neighbourhood areas) may include provision about the consequences of the modification of designations—(a) on proposals for neighbourhood priorities statements, or on neighbourhood priorities statements, that have already been made, or(b) on proposals for the modification of neighbourhood priorities statements, or on modifications of neighbourhood priorities statements, that have already been made.(12) A authority mentioned in subsection (13) is a “relevant local planning authority”, in relation to a neighbourhood priorities statement, if some or all of the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates falls within the area of the authority.(13) The authorities are—(a) a district council,(b) a London borough council, (c) a metropolitan district council,(d) a county council in relation to an area in England for which there is no district council, or(e) the Broads Authority.(14) In this section—“material modification” , in relation to a neighbourhood priorities statement, means a modification which a relevant local planning authority considers—(a) materially affects a summary, in the statement, of any needs or views, of the community in the neighbourhood area, in relation to a local matter, and(b) does not only correct an obvious error or omission;“neighbourhood area” has the meaning given by sections 61G and 61I(1) of the principal Act;“qualifying body” means a parish council or an organisation or body designated as a neighbourhood forum, which is authorised to act in relation to a neighbourhood area as a result of section 61F of the principal Act (whether or not as applied by section 38C of this Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reproduces some of the provision in Schedule 7 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 , not currently in force, creating a power for local councils to produce a neighbourhood priorities statement to inform plan-making and infrastructure provision affecting their neighbourhood.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I hope we can be equally quick about Amendment 99. It is grouped with Amendment 127, on which I am looking forward to hearing, I hope, complementary thoughts about the importance of neighbourhood planning. I do not think we need to debate the importance of neighbourhood planning; we did that in Committee. What we need to do is to find out what the Government are going to do.
Since the Government in relation to their White Paper on English devolution made it clear that they want “effective neighbourhood governance” and since we are going to see unitaries creating what might otherwise be regarded as distance between local communities and the plan-making process, it seems to me that that heightens the importance of neighbourhood development planning and what are called neighbourhood priorities statements, which were included in Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act inserting new Section 15K into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
As things stand, the neighbourhood priorities statements have not been brought into force. My first request to the Minister is: will the Government do that? Secondly, can she confirm that the valuable Section 98 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which clarified what should form part of the contents of a neighbourhood development plan, should also be brought into force? I hope that that is not something that Ministers are neglecting to do but are simply trying to bring into force alongside other planning reform changes before we get to the next iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework.
There is a reference in Amendment 108 to Section 100 of the levelling-up Act, which is about the power to require assistance with plan-making, but it is quite clear from paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Bill that it is the Government’s intention to bring Section 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act into force, otherwise that part of this Bill would be redundant. So, I have two questions: will the neighbourhood priorities statement be brought into force and when will the neighbourhood development plan be brought into force from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act? I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 127 in this group of amendments about neighbourhood planning. It makes, in a much simpler way, the same detailed and principled point about neighbourhood plans as do the detailed amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. My amendment seeks that the Secretary of State
“may only … grant a development consent order where the Secretary of State believes that the application for consent gives due consideration to any relevant neighbourhood plan”.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just pointed to the importance given to neighbourhood governance in the English devolution Bill that has started at the other end of Parliament. He referred also to the debates we had in consideration of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill about the importance of listening to neighbourhood priorities and setting them out, as well as of accepting neighbourhood plans within local plans. I hope that will apply, in a wider way, with development consent orders and strategic plans.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, of the value and importance of neighbourhood plans. They are not blockers to development; they allow local communities to determine their priorities. In many cases, as we have seen since their introduction under the Localism Act 2011, we have seen more rather than less housing, which suggests that, when working with communities, we can deliver better outcomes.
My noble friend Lord Lansley is, once again, right to highlight the value of local councils’ provisions within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. They were designed not only to deliver more homes but to empower local people. I am still none the wiser as to which parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act the Government are in favour of and which they are not. I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten this House.
On Amendment 127, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we have already spoken of the value of local and neighbourhood plans. The sentiment she raised is, once again, of real value to this debate. We on these Benches consider this an important topic. I am conscious of the limited time available on Report to scrutinise these matters further, but I hope that the Minister will set out the Government’s broader views on them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 99 and 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, return to measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. As your Lordships will recall, in Committee, I advised the House that the Government consider that the best time to commence the provisions of Sections 98 and 100 of that Act is alongside our wider reforms to the local plan-making system, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned.
Amendment 108 would advance the date of commencement ahead of those connected reforms, bringing them into force on the day on which the Bill is finally enacted. However, we continue to believe that a co-ordinated approach to commencement will be most helpful to planning authorities and we do not consider there is a case for advancing these provisions ahead of our wider timetable.
Amendment 99 deals with neighbourhood priorities statements. This is another measure provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, so this amendment is not required if we want to bring them into force. However, at this stage, we want to ensure our new local plan-making system is working as it should before considering adding the introduction of neighbourhood priorities statements.
Neighbourhood planning groups are welcome and are encouraged to contribute their views during the preparation of local plans. The expertise developed through the preparation of neighbourhood plans already allows them to make thoughtful and constructive contributions that local authorities should consider carefully. In common with the noble Lord, the Government continue to believe that neighbourhood planning groups can make a valuable contribution across the planning system. However, we are not yet convinced that a statutory approach is required to enable that contribution. As such, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 127, which seeks to introduce a requirement into the development consent order process for the Secretary of State to consider neighbourhood plans when determining nationally significant infrastructure projects, and to empower her to limit variations to those plans. Neighbourhood plans are indeed a vital part of the planning system, giving communities a voice in shaping development in their areas. I fully recognise that the spirit of this amendment is rooted in a desire to strengthen that voice, particularly in the context of large-scale infrastructure projects that, as we all know, can have significant local consequences. It reflects a genuine concern that local priorities should not be overlooked in the pursuit of national objectives. However, as I sought to set out during earlier debates, the Government maintain their position that this amendment is unnecessary. The DCO process has been carefully designed to ensure that decisions on NSIPs can balance national priorities with local impacts and be made in a timely manner.
Neighbourhood plans form part of the development plan, which is the starting point in making decisions on planning applications in the Town and Country Planning Act regime. This is well established and, although there are occasions where departures from neighbourhood plans are warranted, it is part of the planning balance with which local planning authorities and planning inspectors are familiar. We recognise that, where a departure from a neighbourhood plan occurs, it can be frustrating for the community. I understand that, but this is part of the planning system working as it should.
For NSIPs, the primary policy framework remains the national policy statements, which set out the need for such projects and provide guidance for both promoters and decision-makers. As noble Lords know, national policy statements are subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. I am very confident that the Planning Act 2008 already embeds a sufficient number of safeguards to ensure that local views are considered.
Local communities and authorities can participate in the examination process, submit representations as part of this and provide local impact reports. These processes ensure that information about local concerns, including impacts of the proposed NSIP, is available to the examining authority and the Secretary of State. Local impact reports, along with any other matters deemed important and relevant, including neighbourhood plans, must be taken into account by the Secretary of State as part of decision-making.
Where a relevant NPS is in effect, the Secretary of State is legally required to determine applications in accordance with it, unless specific statutory exceptions apply. Introducing an additional requirement, as proposed in this amendment, risks undermining the clear operation of the decision-making obligation on the Secretary of State and could prevent the Government’s objective of building more infrastructure that the country desperately needs.
This amendment also proposes that the Secretary of State be able to make variations to neighbourhood plans. Under the existing process, the Secretary of State does not play any role in approving neighbourhood plans; they are a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of local authorities. This fundamentally underpins local democracy in the planning system. It would therefore not be appropriate to confer powers on the Secretary of State to vary them, as this rightly remains a matter for local communities.
The Government’s position on this matter remains unchanged from Committee. The existing statutory framework already provides the necessary mechanisms to ensure that neighbourhood plans are considered where appropriate. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this short debate. The effect of Amendment 108 on neighbourhood development plans would be to commence them when this Act is passed. I suspect that means it would be commenced in November. I hope the Minister is saying that the Government intend that these provisions commence alongside the new revision of the National Planning Policy Framework that we normally receive as a Christmas present, just before Christmas. There might only be a matter of weeks between those two dates, so I will not stress about that at this stage.
As far as Amendment 99 is concerned, there is still a role for neighbourhood priority statements, but this is absolutely something we can come back to under the English devolution Bill. When we see what effective neighbourhood governance is, that will include an ability to make these statements in relation to development and planning in the area of a given neighbourhood. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Local plans and planning applications: flooding(1) Local plans prepared by local authorities must apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development, taking into account all sources of flood risk and the current and future impacts of climate change, so as to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property.(2) Local authorities must fulfil their obligations under subsection (1) by—(a) applying the sequential test and then, if necessary, the exception test under subsection (7);(b) safeguarding land from development that is required, or likely to be required, for current or future flood management;(c) using opportunities provided by new development and improvements in green and other infrastructure to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding, (making as much use as possible of natural flood management techniques as part of an integrated approach to flood risk management);(d) where climate change is expected to increase flood risk so that some existing development may not be sustainable in the long-term, seeking opportunities to relocate development, including housing, to more sustainable locations.(3) A sequential risk-based approach should also be taken to individual planning applications in areas known to be at risk now or in future from any form of flooding.(4) The sequential test must be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).(5) Applications for some minor development and changes of use should not be subject to the sequential test, nor the exception test, but should still meet the requirements for site-specific flood risk assessments.(6) Having applied the sequential test, if it is not possible for development to be located in areas with a lower risk of flooding (taking into account wider sustainable development objectives), the exception test may have to be applied.(7) To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that—(a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, and(b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.(8) Where planning applications come forward on sites allocated in the development plan through the sequential test, applicants need not apply the sequential test again, but the exception test may need to be reapplied if relevant aspects of the proposal had not been considered when the test was applied at the plan-making stage, or if more recent information about existing or potential flood risk should be taken into account.(9) When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.(10) Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that—(a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location;(b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment;(c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate;(d) any residual risk can be safely managed;(e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Sequential and Exception Tests are planning tools that help (a) ensure new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding and (b) make development that is necessary in areas of flood risk safe throughout its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. However, these tests are currently only guidance. A statutory basis would help ensure that Local Planning Authorities place due regard on them when preparing Local Plans and considering individual planning applications.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 100 and 101. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for lending her support to Amendment 101.
Amendment 100 sets out a very simple request that the sequential and exception tests be recognised as planning tools that help to
“ensure new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding and … make development that is necessary in areas of flood risk safe throughout its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere”.
Currently, however, these tests are only guidance and are not always being carried out. A statutory basis would help to ensure that local planning authorities placed due regard on them when preparing local plans and considering individual planning applications.
In Amendment 100, I ask the Government to provide clearer statutory guidance on how and when to undertake the sequential and exception tests so that they can be applied by developers and local planning authorities more robustly. In particular, proposed new subsection (7) says:
“To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that … the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, and … the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall”.
The reason for bringing this back on Report is very genially to prod the Minister a little bit further. We produced a number of bricks and mortar reports through the auspices of Westminster Sustainable Business Forum. The evidence we took in our third report was, very specifically, repeated accounts of developers providing unsatisfactory site-specific flood risk assessments, and sometimes not performing the sequential or exception tests at all. Therefore, I urge the Minister to ensure that the sequential and exception tests be placed on a statutory footing to make sure that they are carried out.
To give an anecdotal example, a planning application in Yatton, north Somerset, was recently refused by North Somerset Council on the basis that it had failed the sequential test. However, the application was later granted on appeal as the planning inspector concluded that the failure of the test was not a strong enough reason for refusing the application, citing local housing need. I argue to the Minister that there is a very clear and pressing need to place the guidance on a statutory footing.
Amendment 101 states specifically that local planning authorities should
“ensure that the maps included in their Strategic Flood Risk Assessments are based on the most up-to-date flood risk assessments provided by the Environment Agency”.
In 2007, when surface water flooding became an issue for the first time, it was generally considered and concluded by Sir Michael Pitt’s review in 2008 that there was insufficient mapping. There have been developments since then. In particular, I applaud the opening of the joint forecasting centre in Exeter—a joint venture, as I understand it, between the Met Office and the Environment Agency—but much more could be done and drilled down to local street level to assess and give a strategic flood risk as to where the flooding is likely to appear.
The Environmental Audit Committee’s report, Flood Resilience in England, of 13 October states in paragraph 14 that the Floods Resilience Taskforce should begin to implement, no later than 2026, a mechanism to provide
“strategic oversight across all sources of flood risk, fluvial, surface water, coastal, and groundwater, and set national priorities for risk management authorities”.
That is even more important now than before.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I want to say a few words in support of another very sensible flooding-related amendment, Amendment 101 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to which I was pleased to add my name. I find it alarming that we seem currently to have a situation where some local authorities are using out-of-date maps that do not reflect the current risk of flooding. For example, in a recent report on flood resilience, the Environmental Audit Committee found that:
“Surface water flooding … remains … often underestimated in development decisions”,
and recognised that in spite of surface water flooding being the most common source of flooding in England, it remains “poorly quantified” and “inconsistently planned for”.
We have an opportunity in this Bill to try to address this gap by strengthening requirements on local authorities to ensure that flood risk assessment maps are updated as soon as reasonably practical after the publication of updated Environment Agency flood risk assessments. In Committee, the Minister said that keeping flood risk assessments up up-to-date is “already expected practice”, but with so many properties still being built in areas of high flood risk, perhaps the Minister can assure us about what more can and will be done to ensure that local authorities are updating their flood risk assessments more regularly to reflect the current risks.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for yet again raising the flag on flooding—all strength to her— and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for adding her name. These amendments are clearly designed to address the escalating risks of flooding by embedding precise statutory safeguards into local planning.
Amendment 100 would convert the existing sequential test and the exception test from mere guidance into a legal requirement for local plans. The effect would be direct. Local authorities would be obliged to locate development according to robust risk-based criteria. Our colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos MP, talked in Committee there at some length on this issue and highlighted the dangers where planning permission is still granted for homes on functional flood plains and high-risk areas, often with households left uninsured and exposed to the heartbreak and terrible experience that we discussed a great deal in Committee. Amendment 100 would also mandate the incorporation of sustainable drainage systems, SUDS, except where demonstrably unsuitable. A lack of statutory backing for SUDS, as the APPG on flooded communities has made clear, continues to compromise local flood resilience.
Amendment 101 speaks to the need for reliable current evidence in planning and stipulates that strategic flood risk assessments, SFRAs, must be based on the latest available data from the Environment Agency. On these Benches, the one question we have about it is the level of burden and expectation on local authorities, which already have so many burdens and expectations, but the further burden on households and families of flood risks and living in homes that are built on flood plains without due care is obviously so significant that we cannot ignore it. These amendments establish enforceable statutory standards and require some practical action, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 100 and 101, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, are sensible and pragmatic proposals. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, the risk of flooding is increasing rapidly, and it is happening now. It is therefore entirely right that our planning framework should embed flood risk prevention and resilience more firmly at every stage, from local plans to individual applications, and I hope the Minister will give these amendments serious consideration and can reassure the House that stronger statutory safeguards against flood risk could still be part of this Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 100 proposes placing the sequential and exception tests on a statutory footing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her amendment. We share the view that these policies play a fundamental role in directing development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, but it is equally fundamental that we retain our ability to adapt the position in response to emerging evidence and changing circumstances. National planning policy already plays a critical role in the planning system, being a framework which both plan-makers and decision-makers must have regard to. Enshrining these tests in statute would not only unnecessarily duplicate the policy but also make it harder to adapt and refine our approach over time. Our policy and guidance do not stand still. Guidance on the flood risk sequential test was updated only last month, and we have committed to publishing an even clearer set of national decision-making policies for consultation by the end of this year. This will include updated policies on flood risk.
Amendment 101, on strategic flood-risk assessment maps, would require local authorities to base their assessments on the most current data from the Environment Agency. As previously outlined to the House, this is already established practice. The Environment Agency updated the national flood risk assessment in 2024 and the flood map for planning in 2025, based on the latest national flood risk assessment data. For the first time, the flood map displays surface-water risk and information on how climate change may affect future flood risk from rivers and seas.
The new national flood risk assessment also allows for continuous improvement of data quality. The Environment Agency intends to update flood risk data quarterly and coastal erosion data annually, as well as refining its modelling to increase data and mapping coverage from 90% to 100%. The Environment Agency also has a long-term strategic partnership with the Met Office, called the Flood Forecasting Centre, which forecasts all natural forms of flooding, including from rivers, surface water, groundwater and the sea, to support national flood resilience in a changing climate. Local authorities must use the latest available data when preparing their assessments, and the Environment Agency routinely updates its flood-mapping tools.
Nevertheless, I wish to reassure the noble Baroness that these concerns are being listened to. The Government are committed to reviewing whether further changes are needed to better manage flood risk and coastal change through the planning system as part of the forthcoming consultation on wider planning reform later this year. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to all those who have spoken, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Grender. I thank my noble friend Lady Scott for her support. I have some reassurance from what the Minister said, but I think she will accept my concern that a sequential test is not carried out in every case. That is why I would prefer a statutory footing, but I heard what she said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, put her finger on it when she said that surface water is the most common source of flooding, yet it is underestimated. There is one question still on the table that I shall keep under review. If there is another water Bill coming down the road, we can return to this to make sure that local authorities have access to the best possible data— I think the Minister in her reply said they do—right down to street level. I welcomed the Flood Forecasting Centre; that has made a huge difference, and I hope that that the quarterly and annual reporting will make a difference. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Amendments to the Localism Act 2011: assets of cultural value(1) The Localism Act 2011 is amended as follows.(2) In section 87 (list of assets of community value)—(a) in subsection (1), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(b) in subsection (2), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(c) in subsection (3), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(d) in subsection (5), after “community” insert “and cultural”, and(e) in subsection (6), after “community” insert “and cultural”.(3) After section 88 (land of community value), insert—“88A Land of cultural value(1) For the purposes of this Chapter but subject to regulations under subsection (2), a building or other land in a local authority's area is land of cultural value if in the opinion of the authority the primary use of that building or land—(a) substantially furthers the cultural well-being or cultural interests of a local community or the nation, or(b) provides a necessary venue for the furthering of specialist cultural skills, including (but not limited to) music venues, recording studios, rehearsal spaces, visual artists’ studios and other creative spaces.(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations—(a) provide that a building or other land is not land of cultural value if the building or other land is specified in the regulations or is of a description specified in the regulations;(b) provide that a building or other land in a local authority's area is not land of cultural value if the local authority or some other person specified in the regulations considers that the building or other land is of a description specified in the regulations.(3) A description specified under subsection (2) may be framed by reference to such matters as the appropriate authority considers appropriate.(4) In relation to any land, those matters include (in particular)—(a) the owner of any estate or interest in any of the land or in other land;(b) any occupier of any of the land or of other land;(c) the nature of any estate or interest in any of the land or in other land;(d) any use to which any of the land or other land has been, is being or could be put;(e) statutory provisions, or things done under statutory provisions, that have effect (or do not have effect) in relation to—(i) any of the land or other land, or(ii) any of the matters within paragraphs (a) to (d);(f) any price, or value for any purpose, of any of the land or other land.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the existing assets of community value scheme to also include assets of cultural value.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 102 would add cultural assets to the existing scheme of assets of community value. We addressed that scheme earlier in Amendment 87D from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg. I am grateful too for the supportive correspondence on this from UK Music and the Music Venue Trust. I declare an interest as an officer for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Visual Arts and Artists.
I have made a significant change to this amendment since Committee. Instead of running a separate and parallel scheme, as I previously proposed, cultural assets are more simply added to the community asset scheme, so that it becomes a scheme of assets of community and cultural value. This is then a more modest amendment in terms of cost and administration, but would nevertheless still achieve the intended outcome: to help protect the spaces or buildings where our arts take place and which are so important to local people and the locality, as much as to the country as a whole.
These are also spaces which are presently so much under threat for a variety of reasons. Such spaces include grassroots music venues, 125 of which—16% of England’s total—closed in 2023. We are also talking about rehearsal spaces, recording studios suffering under the pressures of energy costs and business rates, theatres, arts centres and visual artists’ studios, which are becoming increasingly unaffordable to artists at the beginning of their careers.
It can be argued, of course, that “community assets” might include cultural assets. But while there is clearly overlap, cultural spaces are not what the community asset scheme was primarily set up for. There is then a strong argument that the addition of cultural assets to the scheme would considerably strengthen the protection of these spaces, if such spaces are in reality considered to be as much part of the local community fabric as community spaces in the narrower sense.
Of course, needs change for both community and cultural spaces. It therefore needs to be borne in mind that the existing community asset scheme is not a forever scheme. A timescale and flexibility is built into it. The importance of the scheme lies in two things: first, the power to local people that the scheme enables and, secondly, the chance to say, “Hold on, we continue to need this space”. It is the chance to protect something that is in danger of being lost without being replaced, and that chance ought to be demonstrably afforded to cultural spaces as much as to a pub or community hall. Also, the specific addition of cultural assets to the scheme would inevitably draw on other parts of the local community, who would otherwise not be engaged with the powers that the scheme enables. That, surely, is what localism is all about.
Many of your Lordships will have heard the Prime Minister talk yesterday on “Private Passions” on Radio 3 about his love of music and support for the arts, although the action required to protect and develop the arts does not yet match the rhetoric we have now been hearing for some while. In some cases—for instance, with the cuts to DCMS funding—we seem to be going in the opposite direction. The creative industries themselves are identified by this Government as a growth area, and growth is what the Bill is all about. What I propose in this amendment is not a silver bullet but another test of the Government’s commitment— specifically here, to the arts at the local level. It would therefore be a significant step in the right direction. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing his Amendment 102 in the way he did. I was pleased that Amendment 87D, which he signed with my noble friend Lady Coffey, was passed earlier, giving further protections to assets of community value. As the noble Earl says, spelling out the cultural value of assets in our communities is important, not just to protect them for the future but to galvanise enthusiasm while they are there in the community at the moment and to encourage people to use them. I very much support everything that he said in his introduction.
I have the other amendments in this group. Amendments 109 and 110 seek to commence provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that were passed but which have not yet been commenced. At this late hour in our deliberations, it may be rather dispiriting to remind your Lordships that often we spend many hours debating things that we put on the statute book to give the Government powers which they do not yet use. These would be very valuable in the context of the Bill that we are debating today.
One of those powers relates to historic environment records. The Bill, as Ministers keep rightly telling us, intends to usher in a faster, more informed process of granting planning permission and other consents, but that aim will be hard to deliver if the Government do not take advantage of some of the things that were put on the statute book in the last Parliament, including Section 230 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Those provisions set out the requirement on local authorities to provide the historic environment record which underpins a heritage service, including the necessary supplementary regulations by the Secretary of State, so I would welcome an acknowledgement from the Government of the value to what they are trying to achieve in this Bill of supporting the provisions relating to historic environment records found in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It would be good to hear when they might start to take advantage of those powers.
The other amendment in my name, Amendment 111, is about national listed building consent orders. The resourcing for most local planning authorities is notoriously inadequate; it has been for many years under successive Governments, and that is particularly true when it comes to heritage services. Part of the reason for this is that listed building consent has no equivalent of the permitted development, which sets out clear guidelines and expectations and greatly reduces workloads in the rest of the planning system. Every change, major or minor, to any listed building which affects it positively or negatively requires a full listed building consent application. That contributes to a national workload of up to 30,000 applications every year.
A solution to this was proposed by heritage organisations and adopted in primary legislation under the coalition Government in 2013, building on the Penfold review, which was commissioned by the last Labour Government, through the introduction of national listed building consent orders. Those are designed to grant consent for specific, carefully scoped and conditional categories of routine and low-impact interventions, such as repainting, repointing and draught-proofing, which nobody wants to see languishing in the current and cumbersome processes. The concept has been tested, the idea has cross-party support, and one important potential national consent order has been oven-ready for some time now, having been drafted and consulted on by Historic England and the Minister’s own department. That is the one drawn up by the Canal & River Trust, which manages one of the largest collections of listed buildings in the country, essential to the safe operation of our waterways.
For many years, the Canal & River Trust has worked with Historic England and the Government to work on what could be the first national listed building consent operation. But, rather like a canal boat waiting for the lock-keeper to level the waters, it cannot proceed without some assistance, namely from the Government, to provide time for Parliament to consider it. The only barrier here has been procedure. The current requirement in law for measures such as this to receive affirmative resolution has prevented progress, as securing parliamentary time has proved impossible. My Amendment 111 would replace that affirmative procedure with the negative one, ensuring that there is still parliamentary scrutiny while allowing long-prepared consent orders such as this one to move forward.
It is worth noting that listed building consent orders could technically be signed off by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government under Section 60 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act without any parliamentary oversight. My amendment would therefore provide more, not less, scrutiny while unlocking the practical benefits of the system. That is why many across the heritage sector besides the Canal & River Trust consider this amendment essential, not just to deliver the order that has been waiting in the wings for so long but to enable others in future, reducing burdens on local authorities and ensuring efficient management of our heritage.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give clear assurance and a clear date by which we might see that long-prepared consent order from the Canal & River Trust. If she was able to give us assurance that it is going to come before us, I would not need to test the House’s opinion on this and seek to change the law. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to follow two of your Lordships’ House’s leaders in the culture and heritage space and I find myself in a position I am quite often—modestly backing up the excellent work of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has already set out Amendment 102 very clearly. In essence, it fills a gap in terribly important legislation, the Localism Act, in respect of assets of community value. I have gone up and down England and visited many communities where they have saved pubs, they have saved shops, and they have saved places that are terribly important to them, but there is not that explicit recognition of cultural assets, which clearly needs to be there.
Many of the places where this is going to be most important are rural areas, small towns, market towns and coastal towns—places that are really struggling. Those community cultural assets are, as the noble Earl said, of crucial economic value and crucial to quality of life, mental health and the sense of community.
There is a lot of crossover. This is a logical grouping, particularly alongside Amendment 110 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Often, heritage and cultural assets will be one and the same thing in these kinds of communities—the old theatre, the old cinema and places such as that which will now be used in all kinds of different ways. I want to put on the record a really interesting report from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, published on 25 September this year, on the impacts of changes to local authority funding on small to medium heritage organisations. As I said, heritage and culture very often will be the same place.
I should declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association at this point. Local authorities, still the main providers of heritage services, have seen a 49% cut in central government grants and we are seeing a massive overall cut in the form of closures, reduced opening hours and scaling down of public programmes. This is where the community can step in when all else fails—when the local authority simply no longer has any money, which is increasingly the case. The amendment would allow the community to step in very clearly in that cultural space. I know the hour is late, but if the noble Earl wishes to test the opinion of House, we will certainly be behind him.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches wholeheartedly support Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. It is quite sad, if we reflect, that local government formerly would be in a position to support those assets of community value, including those of cultural value, in the days before, say, 2010. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has reminded us, there were very large cuts in funding for local government, so it is no longer able to be what it used to be.
Local government used to be the governance of a community which enabled and encouraged all aspects of community life, as far as it could, to flourish—economically, socially and in community values. That helped communities to come together and stay together. We would not have some of the problems that are raising their ugly head currently if that had not happened. Therefore, we on these Benches support adding buildings of cultural value in the same section as those of community value.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is always the torch-bearer for heritage, and I am right behind him in what he proposes. As we have said on other occasions, heritage makes us as a nation and as a community. Currently, I am helping to fight a local battle about a 325 year-old monument to a woman that has been disregarded, taken down and stored in a highways depot—I might speak to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about it. It is important to me, and it matters to that community because it stands for their heritage and history. These things are very important and we support all of them.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, again, we appear to have quite a lot of consensus across the House on these issues of culture and heritage. There is a theme running through these proposals: how our planning system recognises and safeguards that which makes our places special and gives them their identity—our cultural life, our heritage and our historic environment. These are not peripheral concerns; they are central to the quality and distinctiveness of the communities we build.
On Amendment 102 from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, we understand and share the impulse to protect cultural venues and creative spaces, which so often lie at the heart of local cultural economies. These places are cherished by local people, local families and local businesses. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered reviewing the existing scheme under the Localism Act to examine how cultural uses can be better supported within it?
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on the commencement of heritage provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and on the role of historic environment records, are sensible and timely. The heritage clauses of the Act were hard won, and it is only right that they should now be brought into effect without delay. Will the Minister assure the House that this will be the case?
We also agree that there must be proper parliamentary scrutiny of listed building consent orders. We again support the view that existing legislation should be progressed, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
Our planning system must enable growth, investment and the delivery of infrastructure, but it must also safeguard that which makes places worth living in.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am not going to mention any international superstar bands this evening for fear of getting myself into any more hot water with the Guardian. However, though it is probably a bit late at night to score political points, I gently remind the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that her party was in government after 2010 when those funding cuts were made. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, of the same issue. Our Government are committed—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I remind the Minister of the state that her party left the economy in.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Does my noble friend recollect that we left an economy growing by 2%; they crashed it with their ludicrous austerity drive in 2010?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It was the austerity programme that kicked the stuffing out of local government’s ability to support the cultural life of our country. I was there, so I remember that happening.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
I thank the Minister for that actually very interesting reply. I would be very grateful if she could write to me about the scheme she mentioned. I re-emphasise that this is about community assets; it is not about cultural assets as such. The whole intention of my amendment was to put them on an equal footing.
I thank everyone who participated in the debate, and for the support for my amendment. I also support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which seem eminently sensible.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her support, too. I say to her that I do not consider my amendment to be a substitute for the proper funding of our local authorities; I think of them as occupying two completely different parts of the brain, if you like. It is important to re-fund our local authorities, and I hope that this Government will do that in earnest, including funding our regional arts. Our local authorities are our most important funder of the arts in this country, but their funding has been diminished hugely—and not just in recent times.
The hour is late, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Banner
“Principle of proportionality in planning(1) The principle of proportionality in planning shall apply to—(a) applications for any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, including the supporting evidence base,(b) environmental impact assessment and habitats assessment,(c) the exercise of any functions within the scope of the Planning Acts, including but not limited to procedural and substantive decision-making (by local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State), and the preparation and provision of consultation responses (by statutory and non-statutory consultees), and(d) the determination by the Courts of claims for judicial and statutory review.(2) Applications for any permission, consent or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, and appeals against the refusal or non-determination of such applications, must be determined in accordance with the principle of proportionality in planning.(3) So far as it is possible to do so, the Planning Acts and any secondary legislation enacted pursuant to them must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the principle of proportionality in planning.(4) The principle of proportionality in planning means that the nature and extent of information and evidence required to inform the determination of any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts shall be proportionate to the issues requiring determination, having regard to decisions already made (whether in the plan-making or development control context) and the extent to which those issues will or can be made subject to future regulation (whether by way of planning conditions and obligations, or other regulation whether or not pursuant to the Planning Acts).(5) The Secretary of State may publish guidance on how the principle of proportionality in planning is to be applied.(6) The principle of proportionality in planning must not be interpreted as affecting existing requirements for local planning authorities to justify the refusal or withholding of planning permission.(7) In this section the term “Planning Acts” includes—(a) all primary legislation relating to planning prevailing at the time of the relevant application, decision or exercise of functions; and(b) any secondary legislation relating to planning, environmental impact assessment or habitats assessment.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a principle of proportionality in planning to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that less can be more, so as to facilitate more focused decision-making and more effective public participation.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 103 concerns the principle of proportionality in planning. It was debated last week, and I have considered carefully the Minister’s comments. Notwithstanding those, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Banner
“Relationship between overlapping permissionsAfter section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission for development already carried out), insert—“73AA Relationship between overlapping permissions(1) Where there is more than one planning permission which relates to some or all of the same land, the lawfulness of both past and future development carried out pursuant to one of those planning permissions shall be unaffected by the carrying out of development pursuant to another of those planning permissions, except to the extent expressly stated in any of those permissions or in any obligation under section 106 of this Act (planning obligations) related to any of those permissions.(2) Subsection (1) applies only where one of the relevant planning permissions was granted after the day on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.(3) In this section “planning permission” means—(a) a planning permission under Part 3 of this Act, and(b) a planning permission granted by article 3 (permitted development) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment addresses the potentially deleterious implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, as I said in Committee, there is a compelling and universally acknowledged need for a legislative solution to address the difficulties that large, multi-phase development projects face in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case. This is a technical issue of such fundamental importance that—dare I say it?—it should not be being debated at this time of the evening. The Supreme Court held in Hillside that where there were one or more overlapping permissions relating to the same site, the implementation of the later permission could jeopardise the ability to rely on the earlier permission, even when the later permission was designed and granted on the basis that it would operate in conjunction with the earlier permission. I make no criticism of the Supreme Court’s analysis of the existing legal position, but it is a deeply unsatisfactory position that is recognised as such by everybody in the development sector.
Large multi-stage developments almost always evolve during their build-out, which typically takes several years and sometimes decades. For example, in a large urban regeneration scheme the site-wide permission might envisage offices coming forward on one of the later phases, only for there to be no demand for new offices by the time we get to that phase because of a change in working patterns due, say, to Covid. Reapplying for planning permission for the whole development is impractical for a variety of reasons, such as the need to re-appraise the whole scheme—even the bits that are already built and the bits that are not proposed to be changed—new ecological surveys, new environmental assessment, reassessment of Section 106 contributions, et cetera. This is all incredibly cumbersome and can take years.
It has therefore long been industry practice for developers in this situation to make a localised application, typically called a standalone or drop-in planning permission, seeking the local planning authority’s consent to change one aspect of development—for example, in the illustration that I gave, swapping out the offices for a hotel. The hotel would then come forward under the drop-in permission and the rest of the development would continue to be built out under the original site-wide permission.
The effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment is to introduce very considerable risk and uncertainty in such circumstances because it can mean that implementing the drop-in on the focused area where it is intended to take effect can invalidate the site-wide permission, even though the drop-in has been granted on the basis that it would operate as an amendment to the original scheme. As I explained in Committee, this issue affects huge numbers of developments across the country. While there are sometimes workarounds, they are incomplete, risky, costly, time-consuming and cumbersome.
I know from what was said in Committee and from discussions that the Government accept the principle of a legislative solution to Hillside. It is a no-brainer. They have indicated that officials have expressed some concern with the wording of my original Amendment 105, although they have not articulated what that concern is. This is despite the amendment being drafted largely by Catherine Howard, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer who is now the Chancellor’s planning adviser. As a result, I tabled a new amendment, Amendment 113, which seeks to confer an enabling power on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to deal with this issue. The regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure to avoid any concerns about lack of parliamentary scrutiny over the final form of words. It would enshrine the principle, which everybody accepts, and leave the wording to be worked out later with parliamentary scrutiny. What is not to like about that? The two have been packaged together, so one vote will resolve the two.
There has been ongoing engagement with the Minister and her colleagues on this issue, but the Government’s stance has been to say that they will work towards a future legislative solution and in the meantime bring into effect Section 73B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 under the last Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. That is simply not good enough. Addressing Hillside is the single most pressing unresolved issue that the development sector would like to see resolved by this Bill. Speaking as somebody who works day to day in the planning and development sector, this is the amendment everybody is watching. There are people here in this Chamber tonight watching, and people watching online. This is the one that matters.
Section 73B is no panacea; it is far from that. It would allow only quite limited amendments to planning permissions. Its scope is narrow, and it would assist in no more than a third of cases currently affected by Hillside. More is needed. In saying that it will be looked at in a future legislative solution—whenever that would be—beyond Section 73B, the Government clearly accept that further legislation beyond Section 73B is required; otherwise, they would stop at that. No, we are told that it will be looked at in the future—but just not now. An enabling provision would allow for the detailed drafting to be worked up. Therefore, any concerns about the drafting of Amendment 105 do not affect the principle of these amendments.
This is the second piece of planning legislation since the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2022. There was LURA in 2023, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose name is also on this amendment, sought to persuade the House on that occasion that a fuller amendment to deal with Hillside should be brought forward. The industry expects Parliament to step up on this second time of asking and not kick the can down the road again. The industry also expects proper consideration of this amendment. It is a late hour, and about 15% of the House is here right now. I respectfully invite the Minister to provide an assurance that we can bring this back at Third Reading as an alternative to a Division at this late hour, when many people who have a legitimate interest in this matter are not able to be here. Mañana is not an option: we need to do much better than that. Unless I have the assurance that I request, I am inclined to test the opinion of the House, despite this late hour.
I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this, because the Hillside case arose in Merioneth in 1967, where I happened to be the parliamentary candidate in the 1970 election. I remember the considerable controversy there was about the application for 400 houses to be built in the vicinity of Aberdyfi, a scheme that was totally out of proportion to the nature of the community and the village there. It is not surprising that the thing did not go ahead, and it should not have gone ahead.
I assume that what the noble Lord who moved this amendment is seeking is clarity for the sake of the development industry for the future, not any revisiting of the Hillside case itself. In fact, what happened there was that some 41 houses were built, but the rest of the 400 houses were not pursued. The 41 houses that were built were built to planning specifications different to those that had been in the original case. In other words, there were all sorts of complications arising in the Hillside case.
There is also the fact that the Welsh Senedd has powers over planning and has its own rules in the 2015 legislation that it brought through, which brings another dimension in. Therefore, all I seek tonight is to know that, in moving this amendment, the intention is not to be revisiting the Aberdyfi case, which would cause an outrage, but rather to get clarity in the light of the court case, which, of course, I perfectly well understand.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, in the early 1970s when I was a very young barrister practising from chambers in Chester, I had the good fortune to do a lot of planning cases around north Wales and Cheshire. I have not done anything like the number of planning cases done by the very distinguished noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I remember them well and I would have been with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, personally, in being totally opposed to the Hillside development. However, these amendments are not about the Hillside development; they are about a legal principle that emerged in connection with the Hillside development.
In his speech in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, enjoyed a moment of self-sacrifice characteristic of his profession and mine when he revealed that, if these amendments were passed, they would actually remove a very large amount of work from him. He is very distinguished, but he is not the only planning Silk in the country by any means, and he told your Lordships that, between 2022 and 2025, he had written between 200 and 300 opinions on this principle. Many barristers do not write such a number of opinions in the whole of their careers on a whole range of subjects. So it illustrates, because there are many other planning Silks, that this has become an enormously difficult and challenging issue. The noble Lord gave the example of what could have been extremely disruptive to the Liverpool Waters development, which is where the new Everton football stadium is.
I must say that I am very surprised that the Government have not come forward at this stage with an amendment of their own to deal with this situation, because if they do not deal with this now, then they are looking a gift horse in the mouth in the form of, particularly, the second of these amendments, which was drafted to meet whatever objections there were—not very well explained—in relation to Amendment 105.
Hillside has to be dealt with as soon as possible because it is reducing the pace of growth, it is resulting in fewer homes, it is reducing urban quality and it is diminishing neighbourhoods. To refuse to accept these amendments or give an undertaking before the end of Report to produce their own amendment to deal with this issue seems to me to fly in the face of government policy for growth, and I do not begin to understand why. For reasons that were given just now by the noble Lord, using other and existing legislation just will not do the trick.
The Government having accepted the principle of a legislative solution to Hillside, and having been given one that is an improvement even upon Amendment 105, the original version, that the noble Lord said was drafted by the Chancellor’s own planning adviser, it seems to me that this is a total no-brainer. We should not have to vote on this. We should not be here at 11 o’clock discussing this; it should be resolved, and it could be resolved with the assent of the whole House.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have signed my noble friend’s Amendments 105 and 113, and he very kindly referred to the previous debates, before he joined your Lordships’ House, on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill when we looked at the issue and the consequences of Hillside and did so, I think, on the basis of amendments that I tabled at that time. The Government responded to my amendments then by bringing forward their own amendment, which is now Section 73B—Section 73 was inserted by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—as inserted by Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which is about material variations in planning permission.
My original amendment that I tabled—back in 2022, I think—tried to resolve Hillside and say, effectively, that subsequent applications for planning permission would not invalidate an existing planning permission, even though they related to the same area of land, so long as the subsequent planning permission, if permitted, would not make the original permission physically incapable. This is done by reference to what is known as the Pilkington judgment.
My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook may well recall these debates, and the advice that she received was to try to tackle what I would describe as the least of the problems emerging from Hillside, which is that you arrive at a position where you have got an existing planning permission for a site of the kind my noble friend was describing and you want to vary it but not in a way which is significantly different from the existing permission. That is what Section 73B in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act says: the local planning authority can do this so long as it is not significantly different.
As it happens, that has not been brought into force. On the basis of the helpful discussions I have had with the Minister, it is my expectation that the Government will bring Section 73B into force. If I am incorrect in that, I am sure the Minister would tell me, but I am hoping I am not incorrect about that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, Amendment 105 sets out to deal with all the problems that emerged and, if I may say so, it is ambitious; I have signed it and agree with it, but it is ambitious. It is ambitious to be able to say that, if a local planning authority accepts this new permission in relation to the same area of land as an existing permission, subject to Section 106 obligations et cetera, that is all well and good; they can make that decision, and it does not invalidate the existing permission. If there are difficulties with the wording of Amendment 105, Amendment 113 is a basis for the Government to make further regulations to deal with any of the remaining issues that might emerge from it.
I have to say it is ambitious because it goes beyond Pilkington. Technically, there is an issue, in my view, about a new permission which would make the existing permission no longer physically able to be implemented. However, Amendment 105 seems to me none the less to be right, and we should proceed with it because it deals with a later problem than the Hillside judgment, which is about whether existing planning permissions are severable in relation to a new application for planning permission.
Amendment 105 would put beyond doubt that planning permissions would be severable for this purpose, because the existing planning permission would not be invalidated by the new planning permission, which, clearly, even if it made the original one physically impossible, would do so in relation only to part of the existing permission.
When I first discussed this with Ministers some weeks back, I was told, “It’s not so urgent because they are many workarounds”. I am afraid that the workarounds are deeply costly and difficult. They are such things as breaking down a master plan into a whole series of phases, each phase having to secure planning permission in its own right, without any certainty as to later planning permissions. One needs a master plan with outline planning permission that gives one assurance and certainty about the nature of the overall development. Even if one has to make what are, in effect, material changes to that, at least one has the existing permission. My noble friend’s Amendment 105 would enable developers under those circumstances to have that degree of assurance about the sustainability of the planning permission that they have received, so I strongly support it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will respond to this interesting amendment by saying that there are some technical issues that the Government need to reflect upon, and that there will be a future vehicle. I just ask her to be sympathetic to having a look at this, perhaps between now and Third Reading. I do not think there is any doubt that the Hillside judgment will inevitably have an impact on the objectives of the Bill, which, despite the many amendments we have been debating, is about planning and infrastructure and getting the process through much more quickly than we have in the past.
Clearly, there has been a lot of discussion about a second planning Bill, and no doubt the Hillside judgment could be dealt with in it. I would have thought that, if the Government could deal with it now and in the next few weeks, and between Report and Third Reading, it would benefit the ultimate objectives of what we are seeking to do here.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have now sat through four discussions about the Hillside judgment. I am not sure that I am any the wiser for having done so, except to acknowledge that there is an issue of significant proportions, that it needs to be resolved and that those who have put forward solutions, who know the planning law considerably better than I do, suggest that it needs to be resolved.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about a master plan for a big site—I thought that everybody did master plans for big sites, but maybe not—and that that would be part of a solution to this discussion. My plea to the Minister is that we have a final resolution for the Hillside issue, so that those of us who have sat through it four times already do not have to sit through it again.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Hear, hear to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I had a lot to say but I do not think I need to say it. My noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Lansley, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hunt, have said everything that can be said about this.
The amendments just seek to restore clarity and flexibility, ensuring that large schemes are not paralysed by legal technicalities. They would allow practical adjustments to be made, while fully preserving the principle of proper planning control. Surely that is what we want to deliver. We are not wedded to a precise drafting at this time—the Government are free to bring forward their own version—but I urge the Minister to please get on with it.
Without a clear mechanism to adapt site-wide permissions, investment is stalling and will continue to stall, projects will be abandoned, as they are being abandoned now, and the planning system itself will be discredited by outcomes that make very little sense on the ground. Down on the ground is where they are building houses—there will be fewer houses built, and more houses are needed. We need to get on with it. I urge the Government to commit to a good solution in this Bill and not to push it down the road.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hesitate to step into this very knotty lawyer’s wrangle, but it is necessary to do so because our common aim across the House is to sort out Hillside. We all know why we need to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, said, it is symbolic of all the issues that we are trying to get out of the way so that we can get on with the development that this country needs.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling Amendment 105—a repeat of his amendment from Committee that seeks to overturn the Hillside judgment—and for his new Amendment 113, which responds to some very constructive discussions we have had since Committee.
As I said in Committee, we recognise that the Hillside judgment, which confirmed long-established planning case law, has caused real issues with the development industry. In particular, it has cast doubt on the informal practice of using “drop in” permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments that could build out over quite long periods—10 to 20 years.
We have listened carefully to views across the House on this matter, and I appreciate the thoughts of all noble Lords who have spoken in this useful debate. One seasoned planning law commentator—I do not think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banner, or the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—called Hillside a “gnarly issue”, and it has attracted a lot of legal attention. It is very important that we tread carefully but also that we move as quickly as we can on this.
Therefore, in response to the concerns, the Government propose a two-step approach to dealing with Hillside. First, we will implement the provisions from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for a new, more comprehensive route to vary planning permissions—Section 73B. In practice, we want this new route to replace Section 73 as the key means for varying permissions, given that Section 73 has its own limitations, which case law has also highlighted. The use of Section 73B will provide an alternative mechanism to drop-in permissions for many large-scale developments—although we recognise not all.
Secondly, we will explore with the sector the merits of putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing to provide a further alternative. This approach will enable provision to be made to make lawful the continued carrying out of development under the original permission for the large development, addressing the Hillside issue. It will also enable some of the other legal issues with drop-in permissions to be resolved.
In implementing Section 73B and exploring a statutory role for drop-in permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments, I emphasise that we do not want these routes to be used to water down important public benefits from large-scale development, such as the level of affordable housing agreed at the time of the original planning permission. They are about dealing with legitimate variations in a pragmatic way in response to changing circumstances over time.
Amendment 113 seeks to provide an enabling power to address Hillside through affirmative secondary legislation. I recognise that this provision is intended to enable the Government to have continued discussions with the sector and then work up a feasible legislative solution through the regulations. As with all enabling powers, the key issue is whether the provisions are broad enough to deal with the issues likely to emerge from these discussions, as hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Based on the current drafting, this enabling power would not do that. For instance, there have been calls to deal with Hillside in relation to NSIP projects. That would require a wider scope, so we cannot accept the amendment without significant modifications. That is why we think it is best to explore putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing first and then drawing up the legislation. This will give Parliament time to scrutinise.
To conclude, I hope that the approach I have set out addresses many of the concerns expressed in this debate. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Carlile, I will start by clarifying that this is not about the facts of Hillside. That case is dead; fought and lost. This is about the principle.
I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate the point that it is the common aim of the Government and those of us on this side of the House to resolve Hillside. However, in light of that common aim, I find it baffling that the Government do not take what, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile indicated, is on the silver tray: the enabling power to deal with this.
Dealing with the two-step approach, Section 73B is extremely limited. It is not going to resolve anything like the lion’s share of cases that have Hillside issues. In relation to the suggestion that future statutory provision may be brought forward to deal with Hillside, well, by which Bill? There are all sorts of briefings and counter-rumours and rumours about the planning Act. One even suggested that I was going to write it. If I were, Hillside would be in it, but I have not been commissioned to write it. Clearly, in the absence of any certainty on the timescale, once again we are kicking the can down the road. The kinds of detailed legal points, such as whether NSIPs should apply, are precisely the kind of things that could be resolved between now and Third Reading. The Prime Minister said that the Government’s aim was to back the builders and not the blockers. I would like to see which Members of this House back the builders and which back the blockers, so I would like to test the opinion of this House.
Lord Lansley
“Chief planner(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) After section 1, insert—“1A Local planning authorities: chief planner(1) Each local planning authority must appoint an officer, to be known as chief planner, for the purposes of their functions as a local planning authority.(2) Two or more local planning authorities may, if they consider that the same person can efficiently discharge, for both or all of the planning authorities, the functions of chief planner, concur in the same appointment of a person as chief planner for both or all of these authorities. (3) A local planning authority may not appoint a person as chief planner unless satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for local planning authorities to appoint a Chief Planner, who could be appointed jointly by one or more authorities, to secure that decisions, including those delegated to officers, are made with professional leadership.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 106 relates to the role of the chief planner. Noble Lords may recall the debate in Committee when we looked at whether there should be a chief planner, statutorily appointed to local planning authorities. The structure of the amendment is that every
“local planning authority must appoint an officer”
as a chief planner, and that:
“Two or more local planning authorities”
can choose to appoint the same person as the chief planner, so it is not necessarily one chief planner per local authority. The only requirement in the legislation would be that it be a person who
“has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role”.
We are not specifying any qualifications for this purpose, given that we know from experience that there can be chief planners who derive their qualifications from work on economic development and planning experience over a number of years.
The reason why we keep bringing this back is that we are committed, I think on all sides of the House, to trying to enhance the planning profession. The Government said in their manifesto that they wanted to recruit an additional 300 planners; we want to go further. The resources for planning have been deficient and, in due course, we need them to be increased. But in addition to resources for planning, we want to ensure that the planning activity itself, and the importance of planning, is thoroughly supported by the statutory role of the chief planner.
Noble Lords will recall that this has been made especially important by the Government’s publication of a plan for a national scheme of delegation. Their own document—I think this was back in July—said that decisions about the allocation of decisions to planning officers or to the planning committee should be made by the chief planner, with a capital C and capital P, together with the chair of the planning committee. The Government effectively said that there will be a chief planner in every local planning authority for this purpose. That makes a great deal of sense because these decisions mean that the chief planner, together with the chair of the planning committee, needs to understand planning law and practice, and the interpretation of the guidance. This will be further reinforced by the publication of national development management policies.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to those of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Shipley and Lord Banner, in support of Amendment 106, which would require local planning authorities to appoint one qualified and experienced person as chief planner. This would recognise the status of the officer responsible for planning matters in each local authority, as promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute. In Committee, I noted the importance of according proper authority and recognition to the individual at the head of this vital part of the planning system. After many years of cuts in the resources for planning and a general tendency to blame planners for the inevitably slow planning processes that have resulted, there is now a renewed recognition of the value of planning and therefore of those responsible for it.
In Scotland, legislation accords a statutory status to the Chief Planning Officer, with guidance from the Scottish Government on the duties, responsibilities, qualifications, skills and experience required. I spoke last week to the chief planner for Glasgow City Council, who noted the importance of having one fully qualified person holding the position of chief planner, not least in enabling everyone to identify who is the key person responsible for planning matters. This is a devolved matter for the Welsh Government; I spoke to an experienced planner in Wales last week and heard of the keenness in Wales for a similar measure to that addressed by this amendment.
Raising the significance of the individual with overarching responsibility for planning, regulation and policy within local planning authorities becomes all the more important now that the Bill accords greater delegation of planning decisions to officers, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I was encouraged by the Minister, who responded in Committee by expressing a willingness to reflect on the issue and consider it further. I hope she now feels able to accept this amendment, cost-free for the Government, which would represent an important public recognition of the significance of planning once again. I am delighted to support the amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Best, I hope the Minister will be in a frame of mind to accept the amendment that I too have signed. The case has been very amply made by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Best, and I will seek to be brief as I possibly can. I believe that the Government will not deliver the objectives of the Bill unless they raise the status of planning within local authorities, and I believe it should be a statutory requirement, as it has been in Scotland since April 2024, for there to be chief planning officers in each local planning authority reporting directly to chief executives.
The reasons have been clearly stated both now and in Committee: good decision-making in planning requires well-qualified and professional planning officers at a very senior level who can integrate development management and development planning.
As we have heard, given that more decisions are going to be delegated to officers, the public interest, I think, requires that the quality of decision-making be sound and must generate great confidence within the general public. I think that this amendment would actually deliver that objective. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said a moment ago, a chief planning officer would be an authoritative source of advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just said, there is a new recognition of the value of planning in local government, which will deliver this Bill—it can deliver this Bill—but only if the status of planning has been enhanced. The key way to do it is to have a statutory chief planning officer in each local planning authority.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I support this very sensible amendment. We need to ensure that every local authority has the support of a professional, well-qualified head of planning—a chief planner. If we are going to have sensible planning, we need this. I recall a comment earlier—but I do not remember who said it—about the hydra of planning; it becomes more and more complex, and this Bill, frankly, is not helping particularly. Having a qualified head of planning, a chief planner, is critical if we are going to maintain and develop planning, as other noble Lords have said. I do not think I need to say any more—I am just puzzled why the Government are not accepting this.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks—as we have heard—to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities, either separately or jointly, to appoint a suitably qualified chief planning officer. I have also discussed this issue further with the noble Lord, and while I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, and I agree it is important for planners to be represented in the leadership of local authorities, I do not consider it to be a matter which we should legislate for at this time.
There are currently more than 300 local planning authorities in England, which vary considerably in the scale and scope of their planning functions. We think it is important for local authorities to be able to determine how best to organise their planning functions, and in practice the role of a chief planner or equivalent already exists. The role of a chief planner is very different within a large unitary authority, such as Cornwall —a county authority which focuses principally on mineral and waste planning matters—and a small district authority.
However, as I said in Committee, I will keep this issue under review as we progress with further reforms to the planning system, and it is something I can discuss with local authorities. With this reassurance, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, not least for her time in discussing these matters. I do not think we have moved forward, but we continue to be in a position where she has very kindly offered to continue to reflect on this and, indeed, to consult. Maybe, the route forward is for there to be, if not formal, certainly some informal discussion with local authorities about this.
It seems to me—it is getting to be a bit of a theme of mine this evening—that as we enter into the planning reforms, and indeed the local government reorganisation, it will change the nature of the responsibilities of local planning authorities. Increasingly, given the position where the planning function occupies a leading role in relation to a range of issues, including infrastructure strategies and economic development activities, it would continue to be a desirable step forward for there to be, as part of the suite of chief officers of any local planning authority, a planner at the heart of their functions.
That said, if the Minister is willing to continue to reflect, and we have the standby option that we can revisit this in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it seems to me that we can, because it will be within the scope of the reorganisation of local government to think about who the statutory officers of those authorities should be—I will take the opportunity this evening, it being a late hour, not to press this at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 106.
Lord Addington
“Preservation of playing fields and pitches(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development, or(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing field” and “playing pitch” have the same definitions as in Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/2184).”
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I discussed this at the beginning of the day and ruminated long on what the Minister said. I am afraid it does not meet my objections. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.
“Parliamentary procedure for listed building consent orders(1) In section 93 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (regulations and orders), in subsection (5), after “section” insert “26C,”.(2) In Schedule 17 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (heritage planning regulation), in paragraph 18, omit sub-paragraph (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for national Listed Building Consent Orders made under Section 26C of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her written response to my amendment. In it, she pointed out that Parliament had decided to use the affirmative procedure in the scrutiny of national listed building consent orders. I hope that she will accept that, in the grey area in which we find ourselves while these are not yet being used and parliamentary time has not been given to bring them forward, the Secretary of State can, without any parliamentary scrutiny, approve these consent orders under Section 60 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. Therefore, the argument she makes is that we find ourselves in a worse position.
If it were not such a late hour, and if I did not know the opinion of the House, I would seek to test it—I think I know what the answer would be if I were to put it to a vote. I will not move the amendment, but I hope that, as she has on two areas of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Minister will encourage colleagues to proceed with some speed here. This is a measure that I genuinely believe aligns with the aims of the Bill to help slash bureaucracy, speed up planning decisions and protect our heritage at the same time. With that, I will not move Amendment 111.