Lords Chamber

Thursday 4th September 2025

(began 9 hours, 8 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:07
11:11
None Portrait Oral questions: Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership on SPS measures Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Question. First Oral Question. Viscount Trenchard. I beg leave to ask the question
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
None Portrait Oral questions: Protest movements targeting UK defence and aerospace facilities
-

I beg leave to ask the question standing under my name on the order paper.
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
Lord Vallance of Balham Portrait Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
We welcome the initial proposals for the FP 10. We have identified strong alignment between the proposals and our own focus on using research and innovation to drive economic growth. We are looking at how the proposal aligns with the principles of excellence, openness and value for money. I was pleased to be welcomed to a formal meeting of EU ministers in July where these of EU ministers in July where these I thank my noble friend for that answer and I am pleased to see things are going at the right direction.

Scientific evidence -- excellence and value for money remain at the horizon of this initiative and rates have risen so initiative and rates have risen so much since we rejoined. What is the position for industry? And might noble friend tell the House anything about the discussions he referred to about the discussions he referred to on the future of FP 10 and the on the future of FP 10 and the ambitious budget? Will the UK no longer be excluded totally from the areas of the consequent space? Would areas of the consequent space? Would he agree that with China in the ascendancy and the United States damaging itself scientifically, it is all the more vital for our future prosperity that the UK cooperates prosperity that the UK cooperates with European countries in science, is it not? is it not? I am happy to answer my noble In terms of industry certainly we do not have as good an uptake yet.

Academia has increase the uptake of EU grants successfully and in fact in the first pillar, largely the academic pillar, in 2024, they got more than 13% of the money coming back. In the research Council awards, 56, more than any other country in Europe so we are fully back there but not so in the industry where it is still slow and it is important to get the message out that this money is therefore industry to apply to. They lost confidence after we left the initiative and we need to regain the confidence and be fully part of the system.

We are able to do more in spaces we were initially excluded spaces we were initially excluded There have been a number of calls from research university representatives for the programs to take a balanced approach to research security, and also reduce bureaucracy. Could the Minister say how he will evaluate and negotiate on the provisions for ethical research but also de-risking research but also de-risking investments, so we can make sure they are aligned with UK priorities but do not increase barriers or financial constraints? financial constraints? I thank the noble lady for her question.

The negotiations have not really started yet. This is a discussion of what this might be. We will look carefully about the principles of openness, excellence and value for money and also accessibility. We want to be part of all the programs and not excluded from areas to do with military and defence. We are included in some of those and would like to be fully included. We are keen to make sure as we look at all this we have transparency on the finance and value for money.
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
None Portrait Oral questions: 28 day "move-on" period for new refugees to find accommodation, and the impact on social cohesion, local councils and homelessness services The Lord Bishop of Sheffield (Bishops)
-

Fourth Oral Question. Lord Bishop of Sheffield. Paper. I declare an interest as a patron of assistant Sheffield, a charity seeking to support asylum seekers and refugees.
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:54
11:54
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
There is never a more solemn occasion in my mind than when we discussed the issue of child grooming gangs in this chamber. Noble Lords are aware of the horrendous nature of the abuse that was, and still is, being perpetrated. For that reason, as ever, these benches are immensely grateful to Lady Casey for all of the work she has done in this area, they we do regret the delays in publishing the Casey Review earlier this year. Can I start by welcoming the action the government has taken so far? We are pleased they have continued their grooming gangs task force, which in its first year arrested over 550 people.

The establishment of operation Beacon port is also a welcome move. We hope this will deliver real results and give victims the justice they deserve. As my noble friend said on 18 June, we on these benches are pleased the government has announced they would finally launch a full, statutory, national inquiry into these file grooming gangs. There were many calls, including in this chamber, for such an inquiry and it was unfortunate it took the government so long to agree to this, but they have finally come to their senses.

What we have heard in the statement is that not quite as much progress has been made as one would have hoped. On 18 June, the noble Lord the Minister, when asked about timelines, so we will be bringing forward, bringing that forward at an early opportunity, we have to appoint the chair and set terms of reference. The inquiry was announced over two months ago now and yet the Minister for Safeguarding in the statement confirmed we have not -- they have not yet appointed the they have not yet appointed the Terms of reference.

We appreciate the Home Office is that the final stages of the appointment process, but might the noble Lord the Minister be able to give us a date? Surely the department knows when they will announce this appointment? Given the amount of time that has transpired between when many of the crimes were committed and now, it is vital that the next stages are completed at pace. Not only should a chair be appointed imminently, but the terms of reference should also be speedily kneeled down and the start date for the inquiry announced as soon as possible after that.

Whilst the inquiry is being established, we must ensure that the police and Home Office continue to do everything in their power to investigate historical cases, identify current perpetrators and prosecute anyone involved. I do want to stress to the noble Lord the Minister how important it is that justice does not wait for the results of the inquiry. We know such an inquiry will probably take between two and three years and there is much ground to cover and it must be thorough and rigourous.

But in the meantime there are people who cannot wait. Can the noble Lord the Minister tell the House when the government will publish their Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy? How will the government ensure this strategy is not merely warm words that contains actionable plans that can be delivered upon? Will it include tough measures relating to the victims of the grooming gangs scandal? We all of it to those survivors to end their
11:58
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Brinton is taking part

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remotely. I invite Baroness Brinton to speak. I thank the Minister for bringing that updates to Parliament, as that updates to Parliament, as promised earlier in the year, it is promised earlier in the year, it is refreshing and a sign of how seriously the government is taking group based child exploitation. We group based child exploitation. We also want to thank Baroness Casey for her excellent work. I want to start by thanking whistleblowers and victims you are speaking about this. victims you are speaking about this.

The success of the outcomes in the statement will be judged by their statement will be judged by their demands for justice and should change policing forever so we do not change policing forever so we do not end up in the situation again. The national inquiry and operation must national inquiry and operation must not be survivor centred, but -- must not just be survivor centred, but must check back with survivors. Previous compensation schemes where the government of the day paid the right lipservice but the reality has left survivors caught up in bureaucracy which is not survivor centred.

I think particularly of the Hillsborough tragedy, Manchester Hillsborough tragedy, Manchester bombings, Windrush, as well as Grenfell, victims of contaminated blood and postmasters. All of the detail is about training senior and specialist staff. There is no mention of the frontline staff, or the control of police officers on the beat. The lack of training in years gone past means that police missed obvious first signs and ignored whistleblowers. This is also be no problem in other areas, such as recognising stalking and domestic abuse.

Can the Minister say what is planned for those on the frontline? Without their involvement, cases may not even make it to the higher level specialist units? The update on the specialised program is helpful, including details of the rollout. From the Lib Dem benches we understand things cannot change overnight but I wonder if the Minister can tell your lordships House when every police force will be trained and funded? Two other points, it is good to see the commitment to improving ethnicity data, the statement says this will be used for all cases with suspects for child sexual exploitation, but isn't this too late? Data needs to be collected consistently across- the-board.

We welcome the inquiry considering the intersection with ethnicity, race and culture as well as safeguarding. Finally, while it is right that the focus of this statement is on the horrific gang are based child sexual abuse, as the Minister knows, the majority of child sexual abuse is hidden from view. NSPCC data estimates one in 20 children face child sexual abuse, probably close to 90 percent of probably close to 90 percent of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Finally finding the courage to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Finally finding the courage to Is coming shockingly 20 years after the event. What will the government
12:02
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
the event. What will the government do to make sure that all adults, parents, teachers and especially doctors are able to identify the signs early on and report it? Then this serious scourge can be reduced

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also. I am grateful to the noble lady for the questions and the broad for the questions and the broad welcome if I can say this from the welcome if I can say this from the opposition and the Liberal Democrat benches. I also echoed the thanks to Baroness Casey for her work and Baroness Casey for her work and focus on these issues. The noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel has rightly pressed me on the appointment of the pressed me on the appointment of the chair and the final stages of that appointment.

I can give him the appointment. I can give him the assurance that we are working at pace to do this. He will know it pace to do this. He will know it took two years to get people into post and we are trying to do that urgently. We will want to make sure the victims and survivors are consulted and we are undertaking measures as outlined in the statement to make sure they are statement to make sure they are involved and it is similarly the case for terms of reference.

I am hopeful we can bring forward hopeful we can bring forward proposals to both houses in relatively short order to finalise those issues. It is the intention of the government to establish that enquiry and make sure we do that as a matter of urgency. I cannot give him too much detail today on the Because that will be developed and will be announced and put before both houses in due course. But I can assure him that violence against women and girls is a key manifesto commitment and the strategy is a key commitment and the Minister responsible directly in the home office, Jess Phillips, has a keen interest in making sure there is a real impact against violence against women and girls.

I expect probably to make a statement in this House alongside the Minister in the Commons at some point in the relatively near future. I think it is also important to note and this goes to 1 of the points made by Baroness Brinton, there is with the operation we have announced today for Beacon port, there has been an additional number of cases reopened which amount to 1273 being reviewed now. There are 216 priority cases of historical abuse being reviewed there.

The contribution will be pull together and again it is in the statement, bringing partners and police under the National Crime Agency together to look at those issues and have some energy added into that. There will also be a trial later this month with further announcements from the NCA and policing partners as to how they will deliver those issues on the ground. Baroness Brinton, I think that answers in part her points. But also we have the great involvement We need to look at the issues she has mentioned and policing partners will review that in due course.

The ethnicity data is very important. We are trying to again, as outlined, move that forward at some pace. I think between us with the extra resource we have put in as announced , that is a reasonable initiative to take forward on these issues. The noble Baroness Brinton also makes a very valid point that the statement related to grooming gangs. In particular the problems and challenges arising from that and Baroness Casey focuses a report on the direction of travel about that. There are also other issues to do with child sexual used that the government needs to grapple and ensure we put some challenge and solution forward.

If she does know and I know that she does, if she has looked at the police and crime Bill which will come to the House after recess, there are a number of measures in the bill to make sure that we meet the recommendations including particularly on mandate array reporting. There will be I hope with that bill, if it achieves support in both houses, additional support in both houses, additional legislative measures to improve performance on reporting. There are also new powers on tackling AI- generated child sexual images.

It should never be forgotten that the Home Office itself spends in the region of £60 million per year on issues to do with preventing child sexual but also bringing to justice victims of child sexual, the perpetrators of those abuses. The statement is an update on where we are. It is not the end product. But there are I think if you look at the bill, the work the Home Office is doing, and the announcement in the statement, there is big movement on tackling this issue inappropriate and I hope effective way.
12:07
12:08
12:10
12:11
12:12
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I would also like to put on record our thanks to Baroness Casey in terms of the work she has done today and the work she will do in future. I want to follow up from the comments of the Baroness opposite and I would say youth services in particular are in a prime position to befriend and actually seek the confidence of young people who may have been victims of grooming gangs. I know it overlaps into education but I think it is important we do not get into silos.

The point that I would like to make to the Minister is that often they are victims, not only young people but also vulnerable people because that is what I have seen from my experience of working in youth services in the last 30 years. People were being picked on because they were vulnerable and one vulnerability is people fleeing from domestic violence. Often what you will see is people are away from where they used to live and in some communities they have been very visible.

People can see they are from outside. I want to seek assurances that as that enquiry progresses that we also seek out progresses that we also seek out working alongside refuges for women in particular, to see if they can bring forward victims because I am concerned because of the issues around honour, women are wanting to remain silent because they want to put that horrific past behind them. But I think they also have to be brought forward to tell their story and also hold perpetrators to account.
12:13
12:16
12:17
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
tweaks processes, roles, fees and training, but leaves the fundamental planning framework, the framework needed to unlock genuine housebuilding, without proper reform that ministers promised. We now hear a second planning bill is expected. The government has missed an 94 Amendments 90 4F, B and C, in my name, seek to probe the government's name, seek to probe the government's intentions behind the permissions of planning authorities, to set permissions for planning applications. It must strike a balance between flexibility.

Authorities operate in vastly different context, from rural, two major cities building highly complex developments. That diversity and its differences must be respected. A1 size fits all approach risks overlooking the practical realities faced by Local Authorities on the ground. Close 48 as currently drafted enables the Secretary of State not just to permit, but to require that these bodies set fee levels. While enabling the authorities to set fee levels is one thing, potentially supporting greater flexibility, requiring them to do so raises important questions.

First of all, in what context would the government require the Local Authority to set a specific fee? My Is Is seeking Is seeking to Is seeking to understand Is seeking to understand how subsection 6 would work in practice. Can the Minister explain the process ministers intend to use in calculating appropriate surcharges and how the duty to have regard to relevant costs will work in practice? It would also be helpful to know whether ministers intend to consult local planning authorities going forward to ensure their fees imposed do not exceed the relevant costs incurred.

I will now briefly set out our view on the other amendments in this group. We agree with the principle behind Baroness Thornhill's amendment, of course all fees must be proportionate, but Through an amendment on the face of the bill may be more challenging. Will the Minister respond firstly on the principle of proportionality and how the government intends to ensure these are proportional? As well as responding to the amendment itself? Moving on to amendment 95, tabled by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, is clause 48 is currently drafted, it explicitly excludes enforcement.

Baroness McIntosh makes a strong case for her amendment and I hope the Minister will reply constructively. In particular, we would like greater clarity on the polluter pays principle. Can the Minister explain why enforcement action has been left out of this fee raising power? Is it because the government feels it would be inappropriate for applicants acting within the rules to pay a higher fee to cover the cost of enforcement against bad actors? I hope the Minister will be able to give an un-equivalent answer to that question.

Amendment 96 and 97, tabled by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, are just two important aspects of the planning system, transparency and heritage protection. Amendment 96 would ensure that guidance, which goes out to local authorities, will include references to archaeological and other services, so external services are correctly funded. I know my noble friend has a wealth of experience on heritage issues and he was a truly excellent Minister for the arts and heritage. We would appreciate a clear assurance from the Minister on this issue.

Amendment 97 preserves the long- standing policy of not charging for listed building consent. This is a vital protection for owners who often invest significant time and resources in maintaining some of England and's most treasured heritage assets. While policy makers in the socialist tradition are the owners -- and the owners of properties may not be bedfellows, our historic houses have an important role to play in our housing stock. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe, almost 4 in 10 houses built before World War II and two in 10 before World War I.

Too often, historic houses are left empty, to wither and decay, because of the costs and complexities of taking them on. Yet every historic property restored is an empty home returning to use. We must encourage more people to take on the challenge of restoring heritage properties, as a practical step in driving down the number of empty houses, and as a gift to future generations. Our historic houses are part of our great island story and my noble friend is right to seek assurance from ministers that listed building consent will remain free of charge.

Can the Minister give my noble friend cast-iron guarantee on this issue? Turning to amendment 98 and 99 tabled by Lord Banner, these proposals represent sensible pragmatic reforms to the planning and appeals system. We see the merits in this case about the introduction of differential fee levels based on the type or complexity of an application. His amendments reflect the practical realities of casework and seek to ensure the system better aligns with the demands placed upon it. Likewise, the proposal to allow the Planning Inspectorate to charge appeal fees and to repay that income is a constructive measure.

It would enhance the inspector's operational resilience and reduce its reliance on central funding. Amendment 99 goes further by proposing a fast- track appeal process. Optional, fee-based and designed to deliver quicker decisions where appropriate. This is a constructive proposal that ministers should take away and consider carefully and I hope the Minister will engage positively with this amendment. In conclusion, the amendments raise questions about fairness and functionality of our planning system and I look forward to the Minister's response throughout this debate.
12:24
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment clause 48, page 61, leave out 'or require.' and simple amendment, 94, G. And speak to an issue that might seem techie on the surface, planning fees, and perhaps boring. But in reality strikes at the heart of fairness, opportunity and the future of our housing market. I recognise and acknowledge that this government is trying to address the concerns of SME builders in different ways, this this amendment is in line with their thinking and a simple fix to a gross unfairness within planning fees regime.

The reality is, the way our planning fees are currently structured disproportionately penalises the very people we need most, small and medium-sized enterprise builders, the SMEs that once formed the backbone of housebuilding in this country. The high watermark was the 60s and 70s were SMEs delivered almost 50 percent of our homes. But now there are just 2,500 SME builders, down from just over 12,000 in the late 1980s. When the large developers apply for planning permission, they can absorb the cost of these fees, dozens, even hundreds of units, for them, the fee for a major scheme is just a fraction of their overall margin.

It is just one more line on a long spreadsheet. But for the Assembly builder, often just working on one site at a time, sometimes building just a handful of homes, usually locally, in the community where they live, the same planning fee represents a very different calculation. It is far proportionately higher. Sometimes I watering the so, relative to the potential return. For some it can make the difference between the viability of the scheme and one that never gets off the ground.

Let's not forget that many SME firms operate on tight margins. It is just a fact of the market today, and have limited access to capital. They do not have the balance sheets of the volume builders, nor teams of in- house planners and consultants to smooth the path. They are actually nimble, creative and often willing to take on small and difficult sites, precisely the kind of brownfield plots that larger developers may overlook. In that sense, they do perform a vital public service, delivering homes in places where others cannot or will not.

So, if the government is serious about reviving the role of SME builders who share -- his share of new homes has plummeted to barely 10 percent today, we cannot ignore the structural issues that bring them back. Planning fees are a barrier and they are within our control to address. My amendment control to address. My amendment control to address. My amendment The Treasury a single pound. I'm not saying the planning department should be starved of resources, we hope they will be more busy in the future.

We know they need proper funding to recruit and retain skilled staff and have timely decisions. But surely there is a case for a more proportionate, graduated system, one that recognises the scale of development, the number of units and genuine impact on the planet's surface. Without such reform, we risk reinforcing the dominance of volume housebuilders, who are essential, this is not a downer on them, but recognition of the role that SMEs can play in increasing innovation, diversity and bring local knowledge and understanding to their role.

Ignoring this, we weaken our ability to deliver the variety of homes that this country so desperately needs. The reason for my amendment is that planning costs are probably the most significant disparity with SMEs facing costs over 100 percent higher than the plc counterparts. Planning fees at the moment are £626 per home for the first 50 units, then only 189 per home thereafter. Therefore, a 50 home scheme pays three times more per unit than a thousand homes scheme.

This is where it creates a real structural disadvantage for SMEs, deterring much-needed of elements and slowing delivery on small and sites. Under this bill, setting, fee setting powers have been devolved to local authorities and or mayors, so there is a genuine opportunity fix the imbalance. It is not about special pleading, it is about fairness, proportionality and the kind of housing market we want to create. To be want one dominated by a handful of big players? Or one where smaller, local builders have the chance to thrive? I urge the government to look again at the planning scheme regime and how it might better support SME builders.

Without them, our housing crisis will only deepen. My amendment will help to ensure SMEs are not burdened with excessive costs and, over time, alongside other government measures, my reverse there sad decline. It also chimes in with Lord Banner's amendment 98 and I hope the noble amendment 98 and I hope the noble
12:30
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to Baroness Scott for her amendments and for her support for my amendment about which I will briefly speak. The current Bill as drafted leaves out the question of enforcement measures being recovered from the fees. I would like to put a simple question to the noble lady the Minister. Was this a wilful omission? Was it omitted by default? My noble Baroness Scott has asked it would be helpful to ask about why this was not part of what can be recovered and that it was left out.

We have set out the reasons for this. Clause 44 enables local planning authorities to set their own planning charges at A-level up to but not exceeding cost recovery for planning applications payable. However the Explanatory Notes stated enforcement activity would not be covered. My Lords, we are still in a hose pipe ban in Yorkshire. But we could quickly go to a state of severe flooding. On an ongoing basis I think it is incumbent on local authorities to make sure that as many resilient measures prior to Can be put in place as possible when applications are made.

My view therefore is enforcement planning approvals is vital to make sure that any specified mitigation measures are adequate and it is essential to ensure safe development. These measures should be included in the fee. I think it is important to note these resilience measures are not always cheap. I think we should remove any barrier in their way. This is not so much a technical amendment but a plea to make sure that the fees will cover enforcement measures to ensure that resilience measures are agreed and fit for purpose.

With those few remarks I would like to repeat my request to the Minister to ask if she would see fit to support this modest amendment and just insert a simple measure in the bill for implementing regulations which will no doubt follow to ensure what to me seems to be an apparent omission more by default than design and to make sure that these measures will be installed adequately and can be included in the fees. With those few remarks I wish to move.
12:34
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment Amendment 95 Amendment 95 may Amendment 95 may be Amendment 95 may be modest Amendment 95 may be modest but Amendment 95 may be modest but it Amendment 95 may be modest but it is Amendment 95 may be modest but it is sensible and I congratulate for her for the way she outlined it. I thank the noble Baroness for the way she outlined her amendment in this group outlined her amendment in this group as well as speeding up the delivery of provision for houses, making it easy for small and medium-sized enterprises so that we can deliver enterprises so that we can deliver the developments that are popular in local areas matching the vernacular rather than imposing sprawling housing estate on every part of the country with no reference to local country with no reference to local design.

I have amendments 96 and 97 in this group. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech and those noble friend Lord Harlech and those who have signed the second of these who have signed the second of these who have signed the second of these and might noble friend Lady Scott. Clause 48 would allow the secretary Clause 48 would allow the secretary of state to sub- delegates the power to local planning authorities, allowing them to set their own fees and reflect the actual costs incurred in dealing with applications and other relevant And with that income ring fenced so it can only be spent on specific functions.

In many ways that is welcome and sensible. I can understand why Local Authorities would welcome it. But for it to be truly welcomed, a great many people would like to see further detail and hear reassurances about this proposed change. As is often the case with legislation nowadays, those details and that reassurance are not in the bill but are to follow. The government said it does intend to consult on the precise arrangements for localised fee setting later this year. And at committee stage in another place the Minister stated that detailed processes would be set out in regulations.

But it would be helpful if the noble lady the Minister could make clear today this provision will not include the potential for local authorities to introduce fees listed building consent will stop that reassurance would bring relief to organisations across the heritage sector and indeed the many ordinary people who happen to own listed properties and worry about the detrimental effect on shared heritage and the potential penalties for people who are the custodians of Under current legislation, obtaining listed building consent is a cost free process.

Consent is required for works that affect the architectural or historic interest of a listed building under the planning and conservation areas enacted in 1990 in addition to Listed status is a badge of honour. A mark of collective appreciation for buildings of particular significance. But it brings with it burdens in the form of conservation and maintenance in the public interest. Not just for those of us alive today but for future generations. Owners of listed buildings cannot opt out of these obligations will stop this is an issue which affects a number of homeowners.

Not just the grandest stately homes but ordinary family houses in every part of the country. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe with about 40% of homes built since the end of the Second World War and 20% since the end of the first. There are 500,000 listed buildings across the UK, many owned by people of modest and stretched means. Ensuring this service remains means. Ensuring this service remains , for posterity for people asked to look after these buildings is a very important.

I am not the owner of a listed building myself but I should declare a non-financial interest. I am a trustee of the Cambridge Union which has its own listed property and this issue does affect many charitable organisations in civil charitable organisations in civil society as well. In adding a fee for listed building consent it would discourage desirable work to listed buildings. Especially decarbonisation and conservation repair which are often financially unrewarding to the generations carrying them out, and imposing a new fee would discourage compliance, increase the considerable amount of work which goes ahead with proper consent and risks harming cherished buildings.

It is worth noting a high proportion of these applications do mirror corresponding planning applications which already incur costs. Introducing fees for listed building consent would be a duplication of costs for applicants when the applications are handled as a pair by the local authority. Even in cases where planning application is not required, having to make an application for listed building consent already carries substantial costs in the form of obtaining drawings which would not otherwise have been required. Professional fees for analysis of heritage significance and potential impact and the cost of often lengthy delays that is why there is a large array of organisations across the sector such as the property owner club, The Heritage Alliance, CLA and the statutory advisers historic England, they said the application for listed building consent should remain free.

If the government agrees with them and all of this and does not want to see local planning authorities introducing new charges for listed building consent, it could put it beyond doubt by adopting amendment 97. I hope the noble minister will say they are minded to do so. Separately and in addition to the above, it is important the consultation and regulations to follow the bill recognise many local planning authorities get their archaeological and heritage advice from another local authority under service level agreements.

Such as county councils, they often provide such services for the district council and National Parks and sometimes even beyond their own sometimes even beyond their own area. Amendment 96 would make sure that guidance that goes to local planning authorities about assisting planning authorities about assisting the right level of charges includes a reminder or a recommendation that input from other authorities should input from other authorities should be included to make sure that external services are correctly funded. I hope the noble minister funded.

I hope the noble minister will look favourably on this as well. well.
12:40
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
I speak about amendment 98 and 99 tabled in my name. They would enhance the existing statutory power enhance the existing statutory power under section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1992 charge fees for planning appeals to the Inspectorate. The existing power has never been used. There is currently no charge to submit an appeal to the Inspectorate against the refusal or non-determination of an application. It contrasts with the position in relation to planning applications where applicants are making a development and pay application fees of tens of thousands and sometimes more.

A huge amount has rightly been said in the context of this bill and the planning reform in general about the importance of assuring Local Authorities are fully resourced to improve the speed and quality of decision-making at local level. That is of course right. The same applies to the Inspectorate to perform a vital role in scrutinising local authority decision-making and planning. The Inspectorate is already overworked and under resourced. This has consequences in the ability to deal effectively with existing casework and attracting the widest possible range of candidates to become planning inspectors, including from the private sector.

A couple of years ago many inspectors went on strike due to what they said was unacceptable pay which in most cases was significantly less than a First Tier Tribunal judge, broadly speaking the equivalent of a planning inspector in other aspects of the system. With the expected uptick in appeals and local examinations resulting from the new planning policy framework, as well as the promise of 150 Development Consent Orders and a raft of spatial development strategies, which inspectors will need to examine, the demand on resources are bound to increase.

Given the constraints on the public purse and obvious solution is to introduce appeal fees for some or all types of appeal. I have advocated this publicly and privately for a long time. I have been reliably told that a key blocker to introducing this has been that under the existing power to charge fees, any monies received or charged by the Inspectorate would not be able to be retained by them but would go to the Treasury. Amendment 98 is designed to address that by providing that if the power to charge appeal fees is implemented in the future, the fees received will be ring fenced for the Inspectorate.

It mirrors the existing provision in clause 48 for local authority Planning Application Fees Bill to be ring fenced for planning. I stress this is only an enabler. It would not be to introduce appeal fees but it simply make sure that if the existing power to introduce such fees were to be implemented in the future, the Inspectorate could keep the fees. I find it hard to see what policy objection there could be to that. Particularly given the existing provision for fee ringfencing at local level.

Amendment 99 goes further. It provides again as an enabling power for an optional fee appellants could pay to fast track a bespoke process, a bit like paying extra for a fast track passport or visa. Ask any developer or land promoter what their biggest concerns about the planning system is at the moment, and they will tell you four things. First, unpredictable delays in the process. Particularly in the time taken between an appeal being submitted by the appellant and when submitted by the appellant and when submitted by the appellant and when A letter.

Second, the lack of a right to a public enquiry. Where local authorities refuse or there is a non-determination of an application and it can be subjected to detailed scrutiny and cross- examination. The appeal statistics show enquiry appeals are the form of appeal that deliver more homes and growth. Yet there is no right to the The inspector chooses the process and given the constraints on resources, there are only so many cases they can allocate to the procedure. More and more often I personally have seen cases where there is a substantial scheme involving issues of real complexity being allocated against the will of the appellant to the hearing process or even written representations which are like touch processes and in the light of that they have a markedly lower success rate.

Third, the inability of the Inspectorate to recruit from the widest possible range of backgrounds in the profession due to the pay constraints. There are many really brilliant planning inspectors but there could be many more I should stress. Fourth, once an appeal is started by the Inspectorate, often after weeks of delay since the appeal was submitted by the appellant, the enquiry or hearing dates are often imposed on parties at relatively short notice. It can deprive them of expert witnesses and legal representatives who have been on the project for years and are integral to the conception and formulation.

The bespoke process proposed by amendment 99 deals with these four issues and allows for a system which for a fee which I 10 and 20,000 to start with but that is not fixed by the proposed amendment, and appellants could be guaranteed an enquiry if they want one on dates convenient to the parties rather than imposed by the Inspectorate, with the decision issued no later than five months after submission determined by an inspector on a list of inspectors paid at least the same amount as 1/3 level tribunal judge, between 90 and £100,000 per year.

I have taken soundings on this over a long time from a large number of developers. Every single one, literally, said they would definitely pay a fee of 10-20,000 to obtain these things. I would estimate that the appellants had at least 300 appeals at minimum per year and probably more would pay the optional fee of that order in order to achieve the things I outlined and it would generate at the flick of a switch funding for the private sector of several million pounds to fund a fast track system and a list of higher paid inspectors.

It would have the advantage of providing a career ladder for existing inspectors to progress higher than the existing ceiling and possibly tempering the pay concerns which led to the recent strike action. The details of the process would need to be worked out. Before powers are implemented. But I respectively asked the noble lady and the Minister why not allow for the option of doing this and accept the option of doing this and accept
12:47
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
My noble friends have made powerful cases for their amendments. I would like briefly to take people back to years to amendment 235, that I proposed in committee, which effectively does what is now in clause 48, that crucially, it enabled or authorised local authorities to recruit the costs of their planning department but did not require them to do, I take the point as to why the words, and require, which were not in the original request by Local Authorities, at report stage, the government resisted the amendment, government resisted the amendment, I played a modest role in that defeat, but the government then accepted it in the other place and it came through.

But I think the crucial question touched on by Lord Banner, whether this will be enough to solve the crisis in our planning departments. Reforms to national planning policy introduced by the last government are still working their way through the system. Earlier this year, only 1/3 of Local Authorities adopted a plan in the last five years, 291 had plans more than five years old and they have got to get those plans up-to-date. got to get those plans up-to-date. The moment they are done so they are confronted by local government reorganisation, with smaller units turning into larger unitary ones.

And then the government has said, where reorganisation occurs, new unitary authorities are expected to properly prepare a plan covering their whole area, they have got to start again. At the same time, the government want to reduce all current delays in processing planning applications so we can get on with infrastructure and a large majority of applications are not processed within the statutory timescale. Then we will come onto chapter 2 of this part of the bill, which introduces spatial development strategies.

Again, under the bill, the plan of the new strategic authorities must provide strategies with strategic policies for the use of land in their area. And the government said we are aware areas undergoing local government organisation will experience a transition period where responsibility for the strategy may transfer between authorities. The crucial question is, whether the planning departments are, even with these reforms, going to be able to respond to the government? Request. If planning departments were fully staffed with the necessary skills, they might rise to the challenge.

But there is an additional problem that many planning officers will need to reapply for their same jobs, some may take redundancy, as a consequence of the merger of Local Authorities. The LGA workforce survey found 62 percent of councils have equities recruiting planning offices, 45 percent have difficulties retaining planning officers, many being taken -- tempted by higher salaries elsewhere. And finally, we are going to have new town development corporations. They are going to need planning departments. So, when the Minister replies, I hope she can reassure the House that there will be the capacity within the planning system to respond to the government's ambitious agenda.
12:51
12:53
12:54
12:55
Lord Mann Portrait Lord Mann (Labour)
-
-
I feel obliged to declare an interest as an owner of a listed building with a lot of practical experience of listed building consent, to strongly endorse Lord Parkinson's words and I suspect amendment as well, certainly in the spirit of the direction of the amendment, and not to repeat anything he said but to elaborate on two points he made, one he alluded to and one he made. The one he alluded to demonstrates in a lot of depth the main point he made in relation to fees and listed buildings.

But he alluded to the style of politics over 10, 20, perhaps more, years of governments choosing to use Statutory Instruments to add to legislation. He may have researched if you chose to, my first clash with the to, my first clash with the government whips, I believe in 2003, a Statutory Instrument on listed buildings. The then government and Minister, who has long since disappeared into some obscurity outside politics, had the great idea that they would introduce, I think for environmental reasons, a change in planning legislation, so that for listed buildings, every single window would be required to have listed building consent for any listed building consent for any change to any window.

It was well motivated, it was logical nonsense, I pointed out so. And bravely at the time publicly abstained, for which time publicly abstained, for which my whip wanted to give me the sanction of banning me from ever sitting on a Statutory Instrument again. I thought then and now that was probably a reward for bad behaviour and should be gleefully accepted. But there was no question, both the civil servants and the Minister have not thought through, but because it was a Statutory Instrument, their whips were lining people up on both sides to rate three as many seconds as they could so people could get on with the rest of their Commons lives.

-- Lining of their Commons lives. -- Lining people up to vote through. If -- the law is if you have 300 windows, every single physical alteration to any window requires an individual listed consent. I am not sure that is too logical. But if there is a fee applied that behavioural response is straightforward. Nobody, at any level, within the country, is going to start putting in listed building consent for repairs to Windows.

If one wanted to change a historic wooden window and put in some grotesque, modern EPC alternative, planning authorities should be able to stop you. But if you want to splice a bit of wood and replace a bit of a window, it is rather a nonsense. But that nonsense would be compounded if for environmental reasons some future Minister decided they were going to add further legislation or keep this legislation, then there is a cost to be paid.

That is an unforeseen consequence. It is an absurdity, but the absurdity already exists. I would strongly endorse what Lord Parkinson has said. That allows the planning authority, and that is the reality today, the actually be rational. If someone wishes to change a plate of glass because it has been smashed, the planning authorities are not pursuing people and have no motivation to do so. That is common sense. A move away from that would lead to unnecessary conflict and people choosing not to abide by the law and knowingly do so.

That is bad governance, bad law and I'm sure the Minister will want to listen carefully and think through the logic that Lord through the logic that Lord
13:01
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak with Nicky to amendment 97, to which I have put my name. I must begin by saying I'm the owner of a listed building, I have been involved with the large number of others, both as owner and trustee, over a long period of time. I am also president of the historic buildings and places, which is one of the national... Societies. And probably ought to add a confession that I'm a geek about old buildings, having become a life member of the society of the protection of ancient buildings as 1/21 birthday present.

The proposition behind amendment 97, and I echo the general comments being made more widely in this grouping, is relatively simple, and it has been laid out in some detail by the noble Lord Parkinson so I don't really think there is any advantage of me going over much of it again. Listed building consent is an integral and important part of the overall town and country planning code of this country. Albeit its character is a bit different from the generals about development, as the noble Lord previously speaking has just pointed out.

Its scope in reality is both wider and deeper in some ways than the general planning rules. And relates to matters of historic and architectural significance. Which are very important to place making, which is one of the things that is at the centre of current thinking about future spatial development and the way this country might evolve. Sometimes these things can be hardly noticeable... And they may not indeed necessarily be understood. And the reality of the world we live in, is that quite a lot are overlooked and go by default, sometimes I regret to say, wilfully, and sometimes I think not.

It seems to be against the background of that kind, charging a fee is likely to encourage more of the same. More turning a blind eye and more hoping that nobody is going to notice. We are talking about physical things here and our response should be pragmatic and accept this reality. As has been commented on by Lord Parkinson, there may be those that say some listed building consent are integral to big, visible schemes. Of course, as he said, invariably in those circumstances, regular planning consent, if I can call it that, is required for the wider scheme in which they are an integral component part.

And that is the way in which the matter should be dealt with. I simply suggest this amendment represent a realistic and pragmatic way of making the system work as well as it can. For the very simple reason that charging a fee will mean it is unlikely to make the system as a whole work against the public interest. public interest.
13:04
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, it has been a very interesting debate, I just want to add two questions, if I may, to the Minister. I apologise for getting up and asking them at the end of the debate, when the time available to get a reply is modest. But I'm prompted by one or two of the points that have been made... I should declare an interest as the owner of a listed property. But I do not propose to talk about that, much as I agree with my noble friend, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, thoroughly but he explained the case very well.

The two questions, first is in relation to the setting of fees. The Minister may recall from previous debates on previous bills that I'm very keen on the capacity for applicants to enter into planning performance agreements with local authorities, local planning authorities. And for those planning performance agreements to have not only the opportunity to pay additional fees to secure performance by the local planning authority, but that there should be a rebate on those fees if the performance of the local authority does not meet the agreement.

And I'm not entirely sure that that is presently legal. So, I just wonder if at this stage the Minister might now or later just let me know whether we need to do more to ensure that the regulations that this Bill will enable can stretch so far as to have that kind of provision to support planning performance rules. Second question is in pursuance of my noble friend, Baroness Scott amendment, 99 78, she is asking about the basis on which the Secretary of State in clause 49 is going to secure that the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant cost of the listed persons, statutory consultees, if you like.

-- 99 7A. I mind by the fact that over the page, subsection 8 says that regulations under subsection 1 may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the cost of the listed person. We appear to have a clause that says they should not exceed the cost, oh, but by the way, they may exceed the cost. What is precisely the Government's intention?
13:06
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I rise very briefly to make two points. What this debate has shown us is we need to charge fees for planning permission and one has to understand what is the purpose. I think there is common ground... In this country and that's one the reasons the fee arrangement has not changed. And I just want to lay on the record one of the reasons that we are having insufficient number of planners in this country is not because we cannot charge enough.

In my authority in South Norfolk we have an advanced program of upskilling planning technicians. To become fully qualified planning officers come on work release scheme, using the apprenticeship levy that all councils and large employers put into the system. But this Government has stop that. Because those older people made their way for a few years and have shown expertise and enterprise are now no longer able to be upgraded using the apprenticeship levy. Because that has been cast away. That is an omission and I asked for noble Lady the Minister whether she might consider revisiting that rather shortsighted decision to stop upgrading these planners, so we can actually start to address.

I have a huge amount of sympathy with the point Lady Thornhill raised about proportionality and planning fees. I just need to explain that the planning fee in itself, important though it is, is just a single sliver of the total cost that developers and particularly the small developers have to do. For example, there's the complexity of section 106. As a council leader, I had to review the section 16 agreement where 15 banks were co- signatories. Can you imagine the cost? Not just of the applicants fees but everybody else's fees.

And of course the bespoke nature of so many section 106 are really onerous, particularly some planning authorities require only the use of authorities require only the use of their particular lawyers and a full rate. I'm not going to get down into neutral neutrality, although there is an additional level of visa, building control and so forth. -- Level of fees on that. I sympathise with not Lady Thornhill has said that as we get report, I wonder if minded brings back a committee, we might have a full idea of all the layering, so the proportionality can be taken into account in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

running. -- I sympathise with what Lady Thornhill has said. This group of amendments raises

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This group of amendments raises several interesting areas which I as a chartered surveyor and an occupier
13:09
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
and co-owner of listed buildings certainly feel strongly about. But I welcome the opportunity to discuss this. And in particular this whole question of proportionality just referred to by several noble Lords and ladies and also by the noble Lord Fuller. Because of course this does relate to how the costs are built up and what particular categories, pigeonholes or whatever one wishes to put them into. So, what the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill referred to was this question of the preponderance of very large developments in terms of their cost and how the same metric applies to smaller SMEs and indeed one could say to individual householders with really quite small-scale things.

I think she could perhaps refer to the fact that because of the way in which large developers end up setting the tone and the content that goes into planning applications therefore raises the expectation, it does whether deliberately or inadvertently create that rather awkward but historically well-known feature of sort of a barrier to entry by the very nature of way you have to get to and what boxes you have to tick, what expense you have to underwrite, in order to get there.

And this principle is as old as economics. But it is one of the things that is particularly germane to this discussion. And of course, if we are getting into the situation referred to by other noble Lords, of some sort of cross subsidy from the application fee to issues of enforcement or covering other things, for instance, the general costs of the legal department in terms of dealing with gruesomely complicated section 106 agreements, and I have seen some gruesomely complicated ones, never had to draft one myself, I'm very glad to say.

But that does rather raise the question as to is that right or should we be subdividing, for instance, the cost of enforcement as a separate charging entity? And the costs of dealing with a particular section 106 agreement, dealt with as part of that particular process? We do have to worry about the degree to which there is this cross subsidy approach. As without a set of rules for that, almost any sort of charging process could set in place.

And that might be manifestly unsatisfactory for all sorts of reasons. On amendment 97, I very much welcome the moving of that by the noble Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. And I can relate to that as an owner and in the past, professional adviser on heritage properties. While I would not claim to be a heritage expert. And we have heard that listing wielding -- listed building applications are a need for the developing consent generally and because they may revolve around matters that involve the historic character of the acid in question, it then becomes a matter of what is the character and what is the effect, often largely subjective considerations.

That inevitably result in a sort of precautionary reaction in the eyes of local authority. So inevitably, if that precautionary reaction takes root, all sort of assessment and justification may be demanded of the applicant. Whether if they are reasonable or not is ultimately in question. I think that, given that owners who happen to live in listed buildings or unlisted buildings, and putting aside badge of honour's. -- Or own listed loadings. Some have been without consultation, I think it is fair at the listed building element did not attract an additional fee.

It is important that we get this in context and I observed that many local planning authorities do not have their own trained heritage officer. Many of them used to but no longer have it. In my experience, it is often outsourced to a private firm for so many days a month. Again in my experience, even where the external contractor so appointed makes a sensible recommendation, further conditions quite often get added by the local planning authority itself. In some instances displaying quite woeful failure to understand the practicalities of carrying out the work proposed.

I will not go into further details on that but I do have several examples. It is therefore a matter of concern that defensively preventative or precautionary permitting practices and a lack of in-house officer competent and indeed confidence are things that lie behind the issue of the added cost. Added to this of course is the citation relating to listed, in many cases is so cursory to prevent a clear understanding of what features are actually important in terms of its character.

So, I agree with I think the comments of the noble Lord man, that there is something that needs sorting out on a much wider scale here and I certainly would commend the noble Baroness the Minister take this away and see if we can't in the context of this Bill produce something that is more cohesive going forward. -- is more cohesive going forward. --
13:16
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I do not envy the Minister having to respond to this debate on... What at first seemed important, but not going to be as in-depth as it has turned out to be. So, we, on these benches, have strong support for the amendment in my noble friends's amendment in my noble friends's name. She made a strong argument for its adoption. There were four other key issues made, with which we have very broad agreement, dependent on the detail that will come from the noble Baroness, the Minister.

The one about a listed building consent, which is currently free, not the project itself, but the listed building consent. We would support that to remain as a free of charge... For the owners of those listed buildings. That has been very clearly made by Lord Parkinson and they made a strong case for its continuation. I do hope the Minister will be able to give us a categoric reason for it's retention. The second one is on enforcement and appeals.

And, again, it seems to me that the statutory... The legislation that enables cost of appeals to be made ought to be appeals to be made ought to be enforced and enacted. And the money to go to where it should belong, not to the Treasury, but to the planning Inspectorate. That was a strongly made argument with which we have broad agreement. Finally, the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, one that we have raised...

He and I raised during the long debate on the levelling-up bill. That has come back again and he rightfully makes the issue for and, as I did at the time, councils ought to have a local plan and without it, the planning system folders or, often fails. It would be good to hear from the Minister what actions the government intends to take to encourage and enforce the idea of all councils having a local plan, albeit within the context of further reorganisation of local government, which will put such concentration of energy onto a strategic planning system.

This has been a really good debate and we have broad agreement with all the points made. points made.
13:19
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Was a very detailed and thoughtful debate around many planning matters. I am grateful to all the noble Lord who have taken part. As a planning geek myself, it is never a trouble to listen to these types of discussions. But I will answer some specific points, I would make to -- like to make general comments first, Baroness Scott asked for a more radical approach to planning, I think, probably, Lord Young set out the radical approach better than I could myself.

Of course this planning and instruction Bill before us now, I have had opposing views, one set of people saying it is too radical, another saying it is not enough. I think, if you get there, you were in think, if you get there, you were in the right place. But it is a step, particularly in terms of driving forward the infrastructure and the changes to planning that we want to see to get the economic growth going, it is not the only step, as Lord Young outlined, as we continue with the planning for new authorities, there will be further change in introducing strategic plans, that is coming forward in the English devolution and community empowerment bill.

I look forward to debating those changes, I am sure, with the noble Lord, in due course. Lord Young also mentioned investment that is needed in planning, we are aware of the fact that cuts to government funding that we all experienced, that has meant the investment in planning was not always there, we have already put £46 million in to improve the investment in planning and the quantity and capacity of planning departments, but we will continue to work on that.

The noble Baroness raised the issue of local plans, we are making progress on that, I think the Secretary of State has made it clear, local authorities, she expects to see local plans in place... Jeopardise the whole of the process of developing development in this country, where you get an out of date local plan and developers can ride roughshod over local wishes because there is no local plan in place. It is an important part of the process. Lord Young raised the issue of how these local plans are going to be reconstructed when we get new authorities, much of the work will have been done, we will not need to redo all the studies.

They can be aggregated into those wider plans but it is important that those plans will be in place. Just to pick up a point that is not in the amendments, I am aware of the issue around level 7 apprenticeships in planning, I was keen on planning friendships and having that route to have good quality and more capacity in planning teams, I am discussing that with colleagues in the Department for education and will comment further when I have had more discussions with them.

To some of the general issues raised, of course, I need to address the amendments before us and, turning to amendments 94, FB and FC, tabled by Lady Scott, I understand the importance of ensuring local planning authorities or the Mayor of London are not burdened with unnecessary obligations, in relation to fee setting in particular, I want to be clear, the intention is to pursue a local variation model, it will not require authorities to set their own fees but instead provides authorities with the option to vary from the default fee, where they consider it necessary to do so in order to better meet their costs, we believe it is important to retain flexibility within that power, the inclusion of the phrase " All require" For example, to improve service delivery or address disparities in performance.

Removing this flexibility would risk constraining our future ability to evolve the system. Lord Lansley talked about planning performance and how we would monitor that, people know, there is an extensive regime in place already, Local Authority's have to meet it, keeping an eye on this, as well, will help with that. I hope the noble Baroness will agree, retaining this power represents a balanced improvement approach and she will agree to withdraw the amendment. Turning to amendment 94, I am grateful to Lady Thornhill for bringing this forward, IM entirely in the cold with her on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the nature and size of the application, she rightly, in a clear explanation, highlighted the importance of the Assembly building sector, which we saw highlighted, she will remember this come in the report of the Competition and Market Authority, I share the intent of doing all that we can to support SMEs, it was a local SME builder who helped me when I was a council Leader to kick off my housing element program and got us going on that, it was a mutual arrangement, we helped to support them and they have to support us.

These can be good arrangements likely, however, the Bill provides a clear framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate and Lord Fowler and the Earl of Litton mentioned this issue. As I just mentioned, the government intends to introduce a local variation model, under which a nationally set default fee, developed through benchmarking and public consultation, will serve as a baseline. As is currently the case, to answer Baroness Thornhill and Baroness Neville-Rolfe, this will account for variations in the size and nature of the sites, the model ensures both consistency and transparency and fee setting whilst allowing local planning authorities flexibility to depart from the fee where circumstances warrant.

The Bill requires that any locally set fee must not exceed the cost of delivering the service, I hope that picks up the noble Lord point, and local authorities must consulted on proposed changes. The Secretary of will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate. Thereby providing an important safeguard to uphold consistency and equity across the system. I am confident that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve. Turning to amendment 95, tabled by the noble Baroness, I agree that well resourced plan departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need and safeguarding those communities from unauthorised or harmful treatment.

We appreciate the intention of the amendment in supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity but as planning enforcement serve the wider public interest, it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds for the services, allowing planning authorities to raise fees to cover enforcement costs could result in disproportionate high fees. We are concerned that this might deter development at a time when we are committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building, to answer her directly, this was not an oversight, we do consider it.

The government has committed to, as I have mentioned, £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities. Amendment 96, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, sorry...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for her response to the amendment, my concern is that the amendment, my concern is that the government looks as though they will build on functional floodplains, that is why the role of property resilience measures are so property resilience measures are so important, and why enforcement would be included in the fee. I hope she be included in the fee. I hope she will think again. I'm grateful to the noble Lady, and for her long- standing lobbying on the flooding issues, we have got a group of amendment later today on the amendment later today on the flooding and I hope we can pick up some of the questions that she raises.

If that is OK. Turning to raises. If that is OK. Turning to amendment 96, grateful to Lord amendment 96, grateful to Lord Parkinson for this amendment which seeks to ensure that guidance to local planning authorities in setting these fees explicitly setting these fees explicitly advises them to include the cost of essential services such as archaeology, provided by local authorities, we recognise that, especially in a two tier areas, especially in a two tier areas, authorities might need to obtain expertise from other authorities to determine applications, where applicable authorities choose to set their own fees, they will be expected to take account of the cost incurred in obtaining contributions incurred in obtaining contributions and reflect them in the fee setting process.

As I highlighted, we are undertaking a national benchmarking exercise and engaging with local planning authorities to develop a consistent and evidence-based approach to local fee setting, the consultation on the national default schedule and the framework for local face sitting will be published later this year. These matters are best addressed through secondary legislation and detailed guidance as that provides the necessary fix ability, I can see him nodding, he has publicly not answer himself, it does provide that flexibility that we may need and this is true in planning, which is a dynamic area, to respond to evolving practice and local circumstances.

As such, I do not consider it necessary to place the requirement in primary legislation, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward amendment 97 of which a number of noble Lords take great interest, I recognise the importance of supporting those who care for this to things, such a vital part of our history, Lady Scott released the issue of our historic houses, I have already met with the historic houses Association, I met them at a great example of one of our historic houses, since then, I have organised a roundtable with my noble friend, and this Twycross, with the stakeholders in this area to have a proper discussion about how we think proper discussion about how we think Applications for listed Vilde are already exempt from the fees under existing regulation.

This exemption reflects the public value of protecting these historic assets for the benefit of current and future generations. -- Listed loadings. The window issue raised by my noble friend is something that was raised with me by the historic housing association. The structure of planning fees, including any exemptions or reproductions is set nationally the Secretary of State and subject to regular review and consultation. But just to reiterate and to reassure the noble Lord, under the local fee setting regime, local planning authorities will not be able to charge fees for applications for listed building consent where an exemption applies and any exemptions will continue to be set by the Secretary of State stop introducing such provisions through primary legislation is not necessary, could limit flexibility in future be setting arrangements.

Any changes to the fee regime are best considered through the established regulatory framework, which allows for consultation with stakeholders and careful assessment of impacts. Turning next to amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lord Anna, which proposes to ring fence appeal fee income for the Planning Inspectorate. -- Lord Banner. I have met with the noble Lord to discuss this amendment and are very grateful for his engagement generally on the Bill and appreciate the intention behind this as an enabling provision. I also understand his concerns about the ongoing pressures on the inspectorate.

However, the introduction of appeal fees is a matter the Government continues to keep under review. I agree with the noble Lord that if we did start charging for appeals, it would important that those funds were used to support the delivery of the appeals and service. Furthermore we would expect the income from appeal fees to offset departmental funding of the Planning Inspectorate. This income will be netted off against the expense at funding to -- expect direct funding to relieve the burden on the taxpayer.

We do not find it necessary to ring fence income through primary legislation, I hope the noble Lord Begley to withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment 99, six to introduce an optional fee paid fast track public appeal service. The noble Lord as ever makes a powerful case for this and I know he has done so over a period of know he has done so over a period of time. We do appreciate the intentions of the greater choice to appellants. However, we believe it is right the Planning Inspectorate, not the appellant, determines the most appropriate procedure for each case based on its complexity and the issues involved.

Allowing well resourced appellants to pay for a bespoke faster route risks introducing unfairness. I think perhaps the issues raised by the noble Baroness Thornhill about SMEs might be relevant here as well. Furthermore, increasing the volume of public inquiries could place considerable strain on the capacity of both the Planning Inspectorate and local authorities. The Planning Inspectorate is focused on improving the timeliness of decisions, their strategic plan sets out a clear commitment to eliminate casework backlogs and meet all ministerial targets by 2027.

Considerable progress has already been made, supported by investment in digital services, and we are really forging ahead now with digital planning. I have a great team in the department who are working on this and the recruitment as well of additional inspectors. New regulations will also be introduced later this year to enable more planning appeals to be handled through a faster simplified procedure. They will allow the inspectorate to focus its resources where they are most needed, on the most complex cases. Turning now to amendment 90 9ZA, which seeks to probe the statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure that over time, income from planning fee surcharges does not exceed the relevant costs occurred by listed person.

-- 99ZA. The unit is appropriate, without the surcharges could exceed the funding needs of statutory consultees. Turning a mechanism design to support planning services into a potential revenue raising toll. That would risk undermining the fairness of the planning fee regime and could increase financial burdens on applicants without any clear justification for doing so. Developers and planning authorities rightly expect surcharges to reflect genuine service costs. Removing the safeguard could erode trust in the system and invite calls for greater oversight, even increased legal challenge.

That might please some lawyers, but it makes it more difficult. It is important to note that the Secretary of State already has flexibility to set and adjust surcharge levels the regulation. Subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. The current provisions strike the right balance, allowing for both cost recovery and broader investment in systemwide improvements, such as relevant training for local authorities. Moreover, the uniform application of the surcharge promotes operational super city and avoids the complexity of case-by-case billing, which could delay decision-making.

The Government is also committed to consult on the details of the surcharge to be set out in the regulations, including rates and application types, ensuring transparency and stakeholder engagement. And for these reasons I hope the noble Baroness is reassured and will Begley to withdraw her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. -- Will beg leave. And grateful to all noble Lord
13:36
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

And grateful to all noble Lord who have spoken in what I consider to be quite an important debate. In to be quite an important debate. In closing the debate for the official opposition, I would just simply like to say that a number of crucial issues have been raised this morning. Across the House by noble Lords. Many important questions. And we do hope the Ministers will continue to engage constructively, as there are still some questions to answer.

With the proposals between Committee stage and report stage. So that we can come to agreement on a number of areas where the bill, we believe, can be approved -- improved. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leaf with John. Amendment 99FC, amendment nine Amendment 99FC, amendment nine Amendment 99FC, amendment 99... -- by leave withdrawn. 96, not moved, 97, not withdrawn. 96, not moved, 97, not withdrawn. 96, not moved, 97, not moved. 98, not moved. 99, not moved. The question is that clause 48 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. 99ZA, not moved. The question is clause 49 stand part The question is clause 49 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. 99A. I rise to introduce this second group of amendment today and speak specifically to my amendment 99A. These amendments focus on the need
13:38
Lord Thurlow Portrait Lord Thurlow (Crossbench)
-
-
These amendments focus on the need for wider training in design for those involved in the planning process, particularly within local authorities. And in doing so I declare my interests as a surveyor and a consultant in the property sector and the occupier of a listed building, though that is not relevant in this group. And these are set out in the register. In order to fully understand the background to this group of amendments, it is important to have some awareness of the way in which planning applications are processed within local authorities.

Anyone present in the chamber today who has had experience of making planning applications in the last three years will be woefully aware of the difficulties that process usually involves. It has become something of a nightmare for advocates. The difficulties of arranging meetings with senior planners and receiving advice and guidance on any sort of timely fashion is hopelessly slow. Noncontroversial consent can be delayed for many months. My son, George, is currently waiting and waiting and waiting for progress to build a house.

It is noncontroversial, there have been no objections, he has had support from the local planning authority. But can he get his piece of paper? No, he cannot. And it is difficult for him to establish why. The teams, we have heard eloquently in discussing the first group, are under resourced and in almost all cases, I think, from what I can glean, critically under resourced. We have heard from Lord Anna, Lord Kirkham, Lord Fuller And staff leaving it to concentrate on resources.

Planning officers received a steady flow of new applications, each of which needs attention. They are often up against very well resourced applicants. Frequently professional developers, who are adept at using Leupolz to optimise their objectives by working optimise their objectives by working the system. -- Using loop holes. This put staff on the back foot, they feel defensive, when they should in fact be positive and playing a constructive role, working with applicants in all cases to produce the optimum fare and appropriate result.

It becomes very difficult for them to perform this service and particularly with the revolving door of staff, the file on any given project, particularly a larger one, may go through three different hands of planners who have none of the history and embedded knowledge. To work with. They are bound to be defensive. Proper training is of course vital for these professions but that training should not exclusively refer to the disciplines of health, safety, building control and knowledge of the wider body of legislation.

Let alone enforcement. Training for planners should involve a wider and more subjective brief. Particularly with regard the government objective of 1.5 million homes over the next few years we must expect to see a large number of massive housing projects, which we will be given some sort of fast track treatment. Planning officers and members of committees need, therefore, to have an understanding of more than just compliance with regulations. And the fast tracking, which other sections of the Bill address.

Careful thought needs to be given to the impact of these new large housing projects on communities and the public at large. We must avoid easy mistake of allowing hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of lookalike matchbox development to be built at the lowest cost, at the expense of appearance. These massive schemes, indeed small schemes of several houses as well, should have regard to a wider design brief. To overcome their relentless roadside appearance of almost identical buildings. There have been some impressive exceptions, countries in Dorset, Chapel 10 south of Aberdeen and many others...

There will be many others but they are few and far between. This must change, it is not difficult to build role -- row upon row of houses from a monster plan -- masterplan with a little more attention to interesting elevations and the use of different building materials and finishes. In fact, this is cosmetics and whilst it will cost a little more, the benefit to local communities and society as a whole, of an interesting streetscape, rather than relentless monotony, is an uplifting social service.

I think it goes without saying, landscaping should be part of this. And this explains why planning officers should be carefully trained to ensure the simple but lasting improvements are introduced to larger scale projects early on. For the wider benefit, not just the residents, but of course they will be the principal beneficiaries. This training would require planning professionals and in turn housing developers and architects to consider the impact of the project as a whole. To require those developers to display a carefully thought out approach to the appearance of their completed developments.

The wider impact of the finished product. Insisting upon imaginative treatment when applied to external appearance. The process of CPD, continuous professional development, as it is no, would be a simple and rapid chance to deliver training to these professionals. -- As it is known. And to do so within months, rather than years. And bearing in mind the obligation within most professions for a minimum number of CPD hours annually, this really is an opportunity.

I firmly believe the subject of imaginative design and external appearance applying to project as a whole should be a required element of the training for professional planners. As the government attempts to squeeze hundreds of thousands of housing unit into a limited space, with lasting effects on the landscape, the quality of life for those residents. It is an opportunity to kickstart a new era with an intelligent planning discipline for the benefit of society as a whole. I look forward to the Minister's comments and hope she will accept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this proposal. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 50, page 624, line 26, at any insert the page 624, line 26, at any insert the words as printed on the Marshalled
13:46
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

words as printed on the Marshalled It is the first of a number of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is the first of a number of amendments will be considering the importance of sport and recreational importance of sport and recreational profession being an essential priority for planning policy in this country at a time when playing fields are under threat, obesity is a growing reality amongst the population, especially young people, and the need for a national plan for physical activity, recreation and well-being is vital if we are going to turn the tide and deliver a legacy for a country that still celebrate the outstanding Olympic and Paralympic games in London 2012.

I declare an interest as a member of an Olympic committee, which had oversight of the games from 2005 until 2012. And a board member of an organising committee of the games. I was also chair of a committee responsible for team GB. Whilst we had wonderful Olympic and Paralympic games that left a legacy of regenerating the East End of London, well ahead of the projected schedule, we fail to deliver lasting sports legacy and physical activity legacy for our country.

Today, this amendment provides the opportunity for the government to deliver on that long overdue legacy and demonstrate a true commitment to sport and recreation. The reason is clear, the planning system provides the building block for the provision of open spaces, play areas, sport and recreational facilities and the well-being of the nation. As with the East End of London, in the run- up to London 2012, every single facility under the leadership of Sir John Armitt, the Leader of the Olympic Games in London nationwide, thus, the reason why my amendment polices in law a requirement for the training of all members of local planning authorities must include an emphasis on healthy peacemaking, which includes planning adequate provisions for sport and physical activity, spaces and aims to meet community needs.

Not just some members of planning authorities, but all of them. In the planning of London 2012, we learnt a lot from Australia and the success of the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000. Today, some years in advance of the games, the Minister from Queensland, responsible for the games in Brisbane, is here to listen and learn from our debate in person, use of hard-working deputy premier, the Minister of state of development and planning and Minister for industrial relations, an outstanding politician responsible for the delivery of his vision of a lasting legacy for the 2032 games.

And done so for the people of Queensland, well beyond the closing ceremony. My Lords, we wish him well. If I may place on record briefly, the relationship between Britain and Australia in sport, it is defined by a deep and historically significant, there are always contentious, rivalry, which is second to none, yet, whilst that rivalry is often intense, it also involves a strong sense of mutual respect and a shared sporting heritage that continues to evolve. To reflect that close relationship, what can the government do today, it connects this amendment.

Why? The Association have stated, 500. We lost since 2010 totalling 34,000 square metres of water space to the public. Of all of the swimming., Almost half, 42%, have been lost since 2020, and that has continued into the last year. Increasing financial pressures, ageing facilities and rising costs, many more leisure centres are at risk of closure. The 10 local authorities who have seen the biggest decline in who have seen the biggest decline in pool space, 70% had higher than average indices of multiple deprivation.

My Lords, by the end of Committee stage office, I aim to set out the building blocks for a national recovery plan for physical activity. This amendment, and others, which UK active and colleagues across the divide, both in the House and in committee, are promoting, necessitating the integration of sport and physical activity facilities into planning law. We want to show it is given weight in priority which is equal to other facilities and services. It is essential that sport and physical activity is understood as the bedrock of health and well-being within a community and there is adequate provision of facilities on this basis.

By accepting this amendment, the government will be taking a small necessary step to meet resident needs. And provide the necessary training for all members of local planning authorities to understand the importance of adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces and facilities to meet community needs and the wealth and well-being of the nation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a delight to follow that amendment, I will just say to him, I amendment, I will just say to him, I entirely agree with everything says and not far from where my daughter and not far from where my daughter and not far from where my daughter lives, not long ago a leisure centre was ripped down and turned into a car park, I can tell him now, if you
13:52
Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-
-
car park, I can tell him now, if you choose to divide the House on that subject, I will be walking behind him through the lobby. My amendments, 100, 101, 102, I'm grateful to be supported by the Earl of Caithness. They are in addition, they are about training to do with climate change and biodiversity and economic surveying. This is something that not only holds our planning distinctions, it is not a question of newts and back and badges, it is the question of people who do not know what they are talking about.

Therefore, a lot of decisions are not only delayed but they end up going into repeal. My amendment, amendment 100, would mean that the training had to be mandatory in the overall planning which is to be provided in the general clause 50. 102 provides the general clause 50. 102 provides the training must be provided not only to elected members of the planning committee but also those Local Authority officers who are responsible for making any planning decisions. 101 includes the highways, with the list of authorities to which training provisions apply, that is a crucial one that often get left out because roads, after all, are the things that cut through animal corridors, they divide woods, fields, separate areas where nature is trying to talk to each other and be together.

This to each other and be together. This skills and resourcing gap has been identified, very generally, across- the-board, as a key blocker, indeed the government own impact assessment says " There is limited data on how environmental obligations affect development, yet there is clear evidence, including from the OAP, that ecological capacity and skills within the planning system is a key reason that the environmental assessment is not functioning effectively. It goes on, without government commitment providing these public bodies responsible for assessment with the skills and expertise that they need, now or in the future, it will not deliver as they should, to support positive environmental outcomes and, it is advised that the government should develop a strategy for this resourcing and securing the expertise by the public bodies.

A survey undertaken by the Association of local government ecologists at their annual authorities found that only 52% of survey respondents said that their LP a has limited access to an ecologist for planning work and only five% of respondents say that their system is adequate. Any noble Lord who was in the House of Lords on Monday, listening to Lord Lords on Monday, listening to Lord Vallance, ask a question... Answer a question about AI and training, it was interesting that he said that a report from MIT last week said that the use of AI across companies noted that 95 of the companies got very little benefit but five% got massive benefits and the reason was they had been properly trained.

Whether we are documented training sports grounds or training them to protect wildlife, the training is needed. One charity highlighted these gaps are even more acute, for bottoming and mycology, botany was once compulsory in most... Most of us compulsory in most... Most of us took GCSEs, GCSE biology. Research shows it is practically non- existent, which is why this is crucially important and the amendment includes surveys. Much has been made here of the cost, Lord Thurlow mentioned this as well, I always feel I am standing up and trying to plead amendments that put more and more emphasis on local authorities doing more and more but I expect many members of the House of Lords remember the extraordinary report that came out from the Treasury and other Tory government which it had cost of nation, desk up to, I had the privilege of spending last night interviewing him, and we were talking about many things, one of them was the railway rebuild have shattered biodiversity.

That is generally through a community, there is a strong financial aspect here, the GDP... Our GDP at the moment is an incentive to depreciate all natural assets, the system for measuring state of public finances discourages all investment in maintaining the UK stock of natural capital and the Bank of England mandate, shockingly, do not recognise that value. It would seem to me to make a lot of sense for the government to revisit some of these local looking economics and say, yes, we can afford to train properly, in fact, we can't afford not to, because well trained counsellors will also add to people's enjoyment and the joy that, like building sports 40s, the joy they take in the nature and thinking this is something they have invested in the protecting.

Unless we all start doing that, we are all going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regardless of what we do. I rise to speak to amendment 103,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 103, laid in July that only risen to the top today. The thing with this is simple, I must congratulate the probable office for making it probable office for making it comprehensive, competitive is the appropriate word in the week that only people have gone back-to-school only people have gone back-to-school after the summer holidays, if this amendment is accepted, there will be quite a few people in government who quite a few people in government who might find themselves returning to their alma mater's.

If this goes beyond the provisions that Baroness
13:59
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Boycott has just outlined, because it would include ministers and officials, as I said, the noble Baroness and I go back some way ourselves, whilst we might have trodden different pasts, we have progress by making evidence-based decisions, granted in policy, with an intellectual honesty that would increase the well-being of those we serve. And, I want to make the distinction between the different sorts of decisions that we take in local government, some decisions are political, some part of an executive function, sometimes we make decisions within the scrutiny function, when it comes to planning or licensing, we make quasi-judicial decisions, these are the decisions that carry the weight of law, when you make them, you need to be clear you are acting within the law.

Both noble Lady and myself received training in the fulfilment of our duties and our own councils and I do not know of another authority where such training is mandated, although we can probably both think some places where it might be less progress than others. Clause 15 recognises the importance of those who take these decisions but it does not explain clearly, in my view, those sudden decisions taken with the exercise of powers by objectively determining fact, applying relevant laws, and providing due process for the parties.

I really welcome the principle of the mandatory training, the existing best practices on a statue putting, I look forward to the regulations that will describe what knowledge and skills will be I have observed planning committees where the members resulted go against the recommendation then looked for some reason to justify them but that should not happen. And if the training gives members a stronger policy on which to make contrary decisions, whether it is the right thing to do, then that is the right thing to do.

I am glad to say this Bill has a touching faith in some of the independence of some officials, as if they don't bring their own prejudices to the task. Too often in my expense wider official tries to play the veto card to advance their own organisations narrow private interest. Need to empower councillors and mayors to see the whole picture and where justified, Through the treacle, and that is the way to get Britain doing -- Britain building. Among planning application, planning function also includes the establishment of planning policy by local plan.

The ground rules within which decisions are made in due course. I have formulated three local plans. And it is a skill set that is not taught and it should be part of the syllabus. My amendment contemplates that training will be required planning policy and plan formation, as well as the determination of applications. But I am straying from the point. Because the thrust of this amendment is to ensure that any public servant, where the Secretary of State, minister or official in any department of state is held to the same exacting standards we should expect of our councillors and mayors.

This amendment goes beyond the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and encompasses those Ministers and officials, whether it is MHCLG for planning, DEFRA for land use, DCMS for cultural and listed buildings... My noble friend Parkinson who is not in his place so eloquently put earlier and of course DESNZ for solar. Or especially in the Treasury, where they seem to be making planning policy on the hoof. -- Lord Parkinson. Such training would allow everyone to get the understanding that the development industry is a complex one, with many layers and risks that does not magic new homes out of fresh air by diktat.

So this amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State has a duty to stamp out sloppiness in decision-making, not just in her department, but in all the others. To emphasise the importance of following the policy rules, local rules and national rules, however complex they may appear. And if there is the need to hire outside professional experts, have those decision-makers with the judgement to recognise when they are giving the right advice, not just the advice they want to hear.

And it is in this sort of quasi judicial decision-making that the ignorance is not an excuse, neither explaining officers. And that is why empowering elected members at all levels of government and local government to be accountable is at the heart of a strong planning system. A principle that this Bill seems determined to dilute in some measure, for reasons we might now be starting to understand. Going back to school is not something to be feared and the comments are training, the realities of planning building and of element is essential at all levels of Whitehall.

Of course for some getting a proper planning convocation would be a first. Let me ensure all of them that discipline, hard work, studying and swatting would be a worthwhile in the past is posted on the website and that is something we can all look forward to. I agree that clause 50 does not go far enough but what is sauce for the goose is good for the gander. Ministers must be trained and Secretary of State to because if it is good enough for the councillors we must ensure there can be no perception of one Norfolk cabinet Ministers and another for the rest of us, if you know what I mean.

-- One rule for Cabinet Ministers. While we may have await, it must not distract from the serious substance of my amendment and the real irony here is a certain Secretary of State has undermined her ability to provide permission to like crazy judicial way at -- crazy judicial way. We will find you because if she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needs to take those exams in due I rise to speak to amendment 162 in my name and in this group of in my name and in this group of amendments. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Best and the noble Lord Shipley who also signed that
14:05
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Shipley who also signed that amendment. I am glad that we have actually included it in this group and to that extent brought it forward. Because I think it adds to the debate we had in the previous group and this one, about how we arrive at a resourced and professionally effective overall planning function in local planning authorities. I think the last debate was principally about the resources that were available. I think what this group and this debate tells us is the importance of understanding the scope, the complexity, the breadth, the degree of professional expertise that is required in order to deliver a successful planning function.

And planners themselves, as the amendments that have led this group on issues relating to health and to the environment and so on, have amply demonstrated the degree of influence and importance that should be attached to the planning function in a local authorities activity. I just say to my noble friend, Lord Moynihan, delighted to hear what he had to say. I hope when we reach the clause 52, he will note the value of that clause showing that spatial development strategies should focus on health effects and health inequalities.

And I hope we can develop that point as an important one as well. But planners are very often in this space already, chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework includes precisely these issues relating to delivering on healthy and safe communities. Including promoting healthy living. I am sometimes in all of what it is -- sometimes in awe of what is. When my noble friend said when putting together a local plan I'm sometimes in awe of what the range and complexity of what needs to be included in a local plan and extent to which one has to anticipate many issues that many communities will face in order to deliver it.

The new clause that is proposed in amendment 162 is that local planning authority should have a chief planner. And in doing so local planning authorities can, if they choose to do so, in together and choose a joint plan for more than one authority. My own area, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire district have jointly run a shared service and indeed have the greater Cambridge planning service ahead of that. The clause would allow for what I think is current best practice.

I think it would also flexibly be necessarily require of local planning authorities that the person they appoint to be the chief planner must have the relevant expertise and experience to justify their doing so. I hope we can say that is always the case. I think it is pretty nearly always the case. But I think it is necessary when giving them a power and a requirement to do so that we should be clear that it should be exercised in that way.

Why do we need this? Many local authorities have a chief manner. But not all. -- Chief planner. I was very struck in the briefing that we received from the Royal town planning Institute and I'm very grateful to them for their inspiring this amendment, by how important this could be in terms of supporting the professionalism and the development of the profession. We want more planners, I agree with the noble Lady the Minister about relative to Beethoven level 7 apprenticeships if we possibly can, that has been very important.

We need more planners and I welcome the government's support for additional planners. -- Retaining level 7 apprenticeships. We may need to make sure it is a respected profession. -- We need to make sure it is a respected profession. I suppose my pitch or amendment 162 is that not only should we be about sourcing planning and increasing the number planners, but we should recognise that in every walk of life, leadership matters. And that we should encourage local planning authorities to have chief planners who are themselves leaders of their profession.

There will be fewer of them in future, there will be fewer local planning authorities in future than there are now. And I hope we can through the chief planner role encourage them to look to have that kind of professional leadership. The example we might look to is that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government themselves. When my noble friend Lord Fuller is talking about relevant planning functions and decisions made by Ministers, they are informed by professional expertise within the department.

And that is a profession led by the chief planner, who I think herself demonstrates the value of a chief planner role in relation to planning functions of any organisation. Interestingly, when the government publish their technical consultation on reform of planning committees and will come onto more about that the next group, they referred next group, they referred specifically to the question of a decision being made about the allocation of decisions to planning committees, to tear A anti-B and said that should be done by the chief planner, along with the chair of the planning committee.

-- TNA and TOB. It seems to me that is present an important illustration of the independence of the professional expertise that should be brought to decision-making in local authorities and there should be, if going to rely upon that, not least in relation to the national scheme litigation as a basis for making solid decisions about the allocation of decision-making, then I think we absolutely do need to have assurance that there will be a chief planner in each of these local planning authorities.

I do hope that when the Minister comes to respond to this debate, this might be one of those things that she has against it not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resist but agreed to consider. ... In support of amendment 162,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... In support of amendment 162, in the name of Lord Lansley and Lord... And myself. As Lord Lansley Lord... And myself. As Lord Lansley is rightly pointed out, this is an issue professional leadership. It issue professional leadership. It also underpins the delivery of a government's objectives with this
14:12
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
bill. But first may I just add my support to the importance of comprehensive training for those involved in making decisions on planning matters. And I would just say to the Minister that there are some very wise additional proposals and amendments 90 9A -- 99A... 100, 101 and 102. I think the case made by all those amendments is overwhelming. Someone in a local planning authority has to manage the training process and that has to be done at a senior level.

And that is one reason why I support the statutory requirement for local planning authorities to have a chief planner. But there are other compelling reasons, as the noble Lord Lansley has identified. Yesterday, in Grand Committee, there was a statutory instrument devolved housing to Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire councils, it was most welcome, it was approved and it is a decision by the government as it tries to devolve more decision- making to a local level. But it will only succeed if the capacity is there to deliver the desired outcomes.

Overcapacity relates to the number of planning officers, the status of those planning officers and the training those planning officers have received. As we have had, from recent years there have been rising levels of complaints about the planning system and its complexities and its delays. And as we have heard also, one major cause is the lack of qualified planning staff and the downgrading of the status of planning given the low number of chief planning officers reporting directly to the Chief Executive of a local authority.

We should just recognise that Scotland has for a year now had a requirement for statutory chief planning officers to be appointed by local authorities. I submit that we should do likewise if the planning system is speeded up in England and if the Government is going to deliver its devolution agenda.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of
14:15
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of amendment 162 in the name of the noble Lord Lansley and supported now by the noble Lord Shipley. The amendment calls for every local amendment calls for every local authority to appoint a chief planner. I thank the Royal town planning Institute for championing this amendment and I declare various interests, as I have already contributed in the committee stage of the Bill. I am an honorary fellow of the RTPI and also a vice president of the town and country planning Association and the Local Government Association.

The noble Lord Lansley has outlined the case here absolutely beautifully for a chief planner. I think planning has been through to really have times, we have lost an awful lot of the resource that was there in days gone by. We now are recognising the need to reinvent planning, to make planning a more prominent part of We are grateful to the new government for putting new resource into the planning system and supporting the level of fees that pay for plans that we need.

In addition to the money, anything in addition to the training, there is the need for the status of the planning officer, all planning officers in local government, to be elevated to a point where people see this as a career they wish to pursue and retain their post within local government, not always tempted away by fees elsewhere, and not always discouraged from joining the whole system of planning, which has lost its status over recent years. This creation of a chief planner, somebody with status, with recognition, public recognition, this is part of the rehabilitation of planning as a central, vital part of local government.

There is a special reason why this is of significance at the moment, which is the proposal for a national scheme of delegation which is going to depend upon the individual officer who holds this central role, the decision on whether a planning application is going to go before the planning committee or whether it will be dealt with by officers alone is going to depend on two people, the elected member who chairs the planning committee, and the chief planner. This key responsibility does necessitate a special status for the planning officer.

The amendment ensures that the individual assuming the designated planner role has proper qualifications... Has proper experience, and this follows the success, the noble Lord mentioned, of the arrangement in Scotland where, alongside having a chief planning officer, having a chief planner, there is guidance on the duties, response that is, qualifications, skills and experience which are required for VAT status of that post-holder as a chief officer, this guidance feeds into job descriptions for the post in Scottish authorities, emphasising the significance of the position of the head of their planning services report.

This is important. Directly to local authorities, the Local Authority Chief Executive. Councils may choose to combine this with other duties, for example, Deputy Chief Executive, but whether the job stands alone or as part of a wider brief, it is going to be of vital that one fully qualified person holds the position of chief planner in taking on the new delegation duties which we will discuss in the next amendment, which will be introduced by government. I am pleased to support this amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 100 in the name of the noble Lady, to which I have attached my name. In which I have attached my name. In the interest of time, I will restrain myself to comment on that, although I will note the fortunate
14:19
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
although I will note the fortunate congregants of the noble Lord's aa appearing beside it, thinking about it one health perspective, amendment 100 is about environment health, of course, human health is dependent on environmental health. Getting all of those together, healthy places, and the lack thereof, is one of our great problems. The noble Lady has made a powerful argument for this amendment, I just want to reflect, particularly, to commend the noble Lady for including surveys, because Lady for including surveys, because that is often left out.

And, of course, one thing that relates to this is the issue of soil health, something we are starting to recognise is such a crucial issue that we have ignored, it is crucial both to our own health and environment health. Baroness Boycott said, we have a real shortage of education in our concentrated education system about ecology biology, that is undoubtably true but I want to make an additional point, our understanding of biology and ecology are moving and changing enormously fast and, if you were taught 20 or 30 years ago, what we now know will disavow a lot of what you were taught as a statement of fact 20 years ago.

To illustrate that, because I know you love a good chalks, I will refer to a study that is actually out this week, a very alarming study, this is a study of the River Itchen, which is a talks, and has been found to have alarming levels of microparticles pollution. Microfibres and fibreglass fibres, sampled right through the chalks. This has been found from samples from spring 2025. The researcher who found the success, what we have got to do is work out the sources of this pollution and what to do about it.

What we need to do is think about, how do we stop polluting these wonderful environments, how do we make sure the built environment is not wrecking that and this is related to a planning question. Tying in with that, I'm sorry this is also alarming, a study this week is also alarming, a study this week about particles in the Rhine river. Where does the road go? Baroness Boycott talked about the importance of where roads go in terms of splitting up habitats but the road is also going to be polluting the water courses and this is a fascinating study that shows, actually, the nature of a bacterial biofilm in the river is substantially changed by the absence...

By the presence or absence of the nature of these particles. The nature of those biofilms is at the base of food chains, a key part of aquatic ecosystems, they control nutrient cycles and form the basis of food chains, all of this something in the last week, if we're going to ask people to be making decisions that are crucial to the biology and health of our environment, I'm not saying that everyone has to spend their time, as I spent too much time, focusing on studies like this, but people need a basic level of understanding of biology and ecology to understand the way in which this knowledge is moving so fast to be able to read this report and understand them.

That is my first point, understanding ecological education, rheology education. My second point, I will venture into the legal side, it is worth noting, the law around biodiversity and the climate emergency is a very fast changing area and it is crucial that people have a basic understanding in these areas if they are going to make planning decisions, both the right decisions but also standing up in court. I point members... It is a useful resource, to the law and climate actress, developed by the Centre for engagement in partnership with net-zero lawyers alliance.

The climate change is a material consideration in these decisions and it may be necessarily material. There is no statutory requirement, but it might come up in court. I note that the national policy planning framework, chapter 14, says the planning system could lead to radical reductions in greenhouse gas and, how are we going to make sure that happens? This is where the training is crucial. I am going to, with some trepidation, venture into a specific case, a judgement given on 20 June, what this was all around what about the Scope three emissions, from fossil fuel extraction.

Now, the judgement, the final judgement, the Supreme Court said, the only issue with the combustible emissions it seems to be plain that they are. So, these are issues in a fast-moving area, it is crucial we provide planners with training to understand what is happening, that will be training that has to be updated regularly, if we are throwing people into decision-making positions without this understanding, that we cannot expect the previous experience will have given them, we are setting them up to fail and fail themselves, their councils and their communities.
14:25
Baroness Sater Portrait Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to support Mike noble friends's amendment, the role of training can never be underestimated and the importance of consistency of knowledge and skills is important. There is no protection for playing fields, parks and playgrounds and people are extremely concerned about the potential loss of playing fields and parks in their communities. These open spaces are critical to preserve, if we can, once they are gone, we cannot get them back. Diminishing any existing levels of scrutiny, especially with the potential Sport England role as a consulting being noticed, could impact further at the potential loss of sports fields and physical activity spaces and facilities.

We have heard today, from my noble friend, the state of our swimming pools and sports centres. A study quantified the well-being value of parks and green spaces at 34 billion per annum. By using these spaces frequently, it result in better general health and the need to go to the GP less, quantified as £111 million savings to the NHS every year. This certainly goes a long way to help the NHS and gets more people, especially young people, active, playing sport, and being outdoors.

Work done by other organisations, including fields in trust and UK active, is vital in sport and activity life in this country. Training all members of local planning authorities, including an emphasis on healthy pacemaking, including planning adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces, and facilities, will help greatly. Ensuring that we have open spaces. What an physical activity for future generations. We have heard the noble Lord say that this will be the start of many of his amendments, going through the several of the bills.

I will be supporting him and I will also want to hear from others about these critical positions that we have affecting us going into the future. This amendment is important to ensure the planning officers have the skills and knowledge to deliver the planning outcomes at our local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities really need. I rise to support the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the noble Lord in his amendment, 90 9A, about the in his amendment, 90 9A, about the training of planning officers to improve the environment and the appearance of the built environment. appearance of the built environment. I think this is extremely important. It is very important for a lot of reasons, one is that anything that makes our streetscapes more makes our streetscapes more beautiful is to be encouraged but it is more fundamentally important than is more fundamentally important than that, if we are going to manage to build, as this government tells us they are going to, and previous they are going to, and previous governance have made the same claim, if we're going to build 300,000 new if we're going to build 300,000 new homes every year, we are going to need to get local support for the need to get local support for the homes to be built in local areas.

In other words, it is no good trying to other words, it is no good trying to impose, from the outside, House developments, new towns or whatever. Without the support from the local Without the support from the local community. Local community support will be dependent upon the appearance of the developed. If the development fits in with the classic way of building in that local area, it is more likely to be accepted. If the buildings are diverse and beautiful, they are likely to be welcomed.

If they end up being tacky little boxes, all looking the same, I have to say that local opposition will be stirred up and might well be brought to a frenzy. So, training of planning officers to understand the need for beauty in the built environment, it is of vital importance. I will raise one question about it, one query or one doubt even. Which is, if you train planning officers, just as if you train architects, to think about what is the current view of beauty, they will tend to up with the same answer, we saw this dramatically and catastrophically after the Second World War, in the major council developments and the major artistic developments, I have to say, a depressing number of which are now listed.

We ended up with developments which were outrageous and scandalous. But were uniform In other words, training leads to groupthink. And it leads to group think in planners, in architects and it leads to groupthink in builders. Who leap upon it because groupthink of taking tacky boxes leads to cheap development. -- To key. The training and then nature of the training is and then nature of the training is of key importance but having said that, this is a very welcome first step in this amendment 99A.

step in this amendment 99A.
14:31
14:33
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
some, not all but some local planning authorities, four officers to come under considerable pressure to come under considerable pressure from members in relation to matters that are within offices remit, that are within offices remit, whether preparing an officer report or an application to committee, whether delegating decision or work whether delegating decision or work in relation to an emerging plan. To each their own views on matters each their own views on matters within their remit but if matters in an office as delegated remit, those an office as delegated remit, those matters should be exercised in accordance with the officers independent professional judgement.

independent professional judgement. To my mind, putting the role of the To my mind, putting the role of the chief planner on a statutory basis would buttress their independence and that of those working underneath them. All the more so where it to be them. All the more so where it to be combined with a statutory planning, which the noble Baroness proposes in which the noble Baroness proposes in another amendment. This is an issue already. It would be more of an already. It would be more of an issue in the event that the proposed national scheme delegation becomes effective to this bill.

This amendment, to my mind, 162 would help give greater effect to that national scheme of delegation and surely it would not be undermined by officers who have additional delegated powers going forward are not unduly lenient Tom by the members in the context of exercising his delegated powers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Rise to support this group of amendment as well. And the issue of training was behind my comments about planning proceeding on the
14:33
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
basis of competence and confidence, which I mentioned in previous groups. I support all of the amendments in this group and particularly amendments 102, 103 and 162, which I think are absolutely pivotal. In my profession it is incumbent on practitioners not to undertake tasks for which they have adequate technical knowledge and practical experience, unfortunately there is nothing that currently mandates the use of input of such professionals. So when resources are tight and finance is limited, there seems to be the inevitable result that this is passed down to the lowest cost element of the process.

As other noble Lords have commented this is to the increasing dismay of local communities, many of whom is members have high levels of relevant knowledge and are therefore particularly concerned about what they see as self-evident floors in what is being presented. This erodes confidence and that is something we should really have concern about. I remember some years ago that a senior political figure rubbished the idea of quality in terms of development. It was a numbers game, not quality.

The noble Lord Carrington of Fulham has referred to the critical nature of the satisfaction. That satisfaction not just in a physical environment also in the working environment that we present to the people who are having to administer this. Once trained, the knowledge, of course, is portable with the individual. And I remember not so long ago an instance of a planning officer who left his authority, attempted no doubt by better terms from a developer, who then returned as a private sector consultant only for the purpose of undermining the very policies that he had brought forward, he formulated and was defending in his previous authority.

This goes to the heart of what other noble Lords have said, the satisfaction of the job, the longevity of its and whether it is properly paid, respected and nurtured, both from outside in terms of the standing of the individual but also inside from the, among committee members, I think the noble Lord Banner referred to that. It is a false economy not to make these positions worthwhile, durable and of standing. And I remember in my early profession, how important certain local government officials were.

The planner, the estates director or planner, the estates director or whatever he is titled. And people in other walks of life, like the district valuer, for whom I worked for for several years down in Brighton. All these people had standing and status. But not so today. They are regarded as just another, if I may put it, almost petty official. That is to the great detriment of getting good delivery. I wholeheartedly support the comments of the noble Baroness Lady Boycott in support of amendment 102.

And I particularly agree with other noble Lords, noble Lord Lansley, Lord Shipley and Lord Best in particular, we need to address an awful lot of these things if we are to achieve a fraction of what this Bill is capable of delivering. If I may turn to amendment 102, moved by the noble Lord Fuller. In the central government sector, I recently spoke with a professional body who had laboured long and hard to get a particular departmental official to understand a very complex series of issues.

All of which had critical outcomes for the way in which policy be affected. I'm not going to embarrass anybody by saying which particular department it was. However, having reached this stage and got this person to really get it, really understand what was involved, that official was promptly moved to another completely unrelated function. I'm not even sure whether it was either within the same department. That was a loss of human resource, waste of knowledge and experience, and was considerable...

To the considerable dismay of this particular body, who had trying to deal with this. So if the idea is that as soon a summary understand something, well, they have gone to native or something like that, that is the wrong sentiment. We are losing people... We are losing the force and direction of policy here. So while I support the comments of the noble Lord Fuller, I fear that a much wider organisational change in terms of holding onto those core skills, in appropriate locations, is necessary.

Finally, the noble Baroness Lady Bennett of Manor Castle referred to the scope of the training. I would add groundwater and geology to a list of basic skills and understanding. Unlike her, I do not suggest that people have an in-depth knowledge of this as a trained geologist or whatever or ecologist, but they must have a certain minimum understanding in order to enable them to do the job. In order to enable them to actually know when they need further more detailed technical advice and to enable them to understand what the advice is when it has been given.

And on all those counts, the risk and we indeed are falling down. I very much support what she says about getting this right. This is a very large issue that we have before us here and I fear that much of it may, in terms of policy and implementation, straight outside the strict terms of this bill. But unless we address these issues and unless that forms part of the consciousness of how we move this forward, we will simply have a number large bill, another large body of Explanatory Notes and impact assessment and all the rest of it which will ultimately be on somebody's cutting room floor.

And that is a terrible waste of the resources of this house, of the other place and all the other people who have engaged with us to give us their views on how they think aspects of this should be brought forward. So there is a common golden thread here that I hope will be picked up by the government because I do think it is at the core of getting delivery on this bill. getting delivery on this bill.
14:42
14:43
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
different points made. And clearly training is important to us, as is the status of planners. But if you the status of planners. But if you forgive me, I actually want to touch on issues that have not been mentioned at all. Much to my surprise. Perhaps hinted at very slightly by the noble Lord slightly by the noble Lord Carrington, you came close. In my experience, and I have both attended experience, and I have both attended and delivered planning training to councillors, you can take a councillors, you can take a counsellor to training that you cannot make him think or learn or actually go back into a committee actually go back into a committee room and act any differently than he room and act any differently than he Counsellor.

I have been shocked by the behaviour of some councils at meetings, as I had to observe as meetings, as I had to observe as part of my role within that council. An Minister, what bothers me is there seems very little of being there seems very little of being able to sanction or take to task and often it is individuals and within often it is individuals and within councils they know who they are but they still put them on the committee next year. And I think that is something that you cannot ignore.

It was not just lack of understanding or wilfully not wanting to understand or genuinely not understanding the sometimes there is the really tricky and thorny issues of probity and ethics within the whole area of this and public standards. But also talking to planners which I still do with their work in the ground, they say to me are the following issues are the really rotten aspects of the job. Firstly, hostility from the public. Aggression, the way they are spoken to, the whole thing around the really positive consultation meeting that you set up with everything you think they want to know and it deteriorates into.

Actually sometimes some really quite shocking situations. And they feel like they are playing piggy in the middle. And of course the other side of that coin is the politicisation of planning. There is no doubt that has happened. I said years ago we have turned NIMBY into bananas, building nothing into -- nothing anywhere near anyone and even in my local area I find my local environment group, that I was very proud in getting well and truly established, is objecting to development smiles away that they could not possibly have any impact on them but that is what they are doing.

-- Developments miles away. It seems to be the new form of activism and I do not think we can ignore that. Planners hate their decisions being overturned by councillors because they are professionals, they understand their role, but there are times when they just feel they are ignored, overruled and they are put in this position. They too need training without regard. The other one is that they have changed the rules again, the goalposts have moved again, we have now got to do...

And we know over the last three years it has been changed after change after At the heart of the conversation is, the job is not thought it would be, I have become a survey checker, the application comes in, have they done this survey, have they done that... They become survey checkers, box tickers, and they are not place shapers and pacemakers. Many of them came in with those high aspirations, believing that they could make those changes, and the job is something that it was not what they thought.

So, training is not everything but it helps. There are other factors. I would just be interested in the would just be interested in the noble Lady's thoughts on those strands and what we might need to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to look at those aspects? I declare interest as vice
14:46
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare interest as vice President of the LGA and I apologise to the House, should have said that to the House, should have said that earlier. Under the previous government, as part of the capacity and capability program, the fund was established to support local planning authorities in managing backlogs and strengthening professional expertise. Around 24 million was committed over a two- year period in recognition of the fact that a shortage of planners has, for too long, presented a barrier to regeneration and delivery of sustainable communities.

I am pleased this government continues the funding. What has been clear from the debate today, across all sides of your Lordships House is a shared recognition of the central importance of training. Whether in relation, as we have heard, to good design, the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity or the practical application of planning law or, importantly, the building of healthy communities, as argued by my noble friend, and in his amendment 99. There is both be equipped with the knowledge and confidence to take decisions in the public interest.

I am particular grateful to those the noble Lord who have spoken and reinforced the value of well-trained planning system, not only for councillors but also for planning officers and, indeed, all of those who play a formal role in shaping or determining planning applications, ultimately, if we want a system that is trusted and effective and capable of delivering the homes and infrastructure that our country needs, investment in skills and training must remain at its heart. I would like to take my its heart.

I would like to take my noble friend, Lord Fowler, for his amendment, 103, his condition has underlined that training should not be regarded simply as a local requirement, but as something that ought to be applied consistently across all levels of government, including civil servants and ministers, that emphasis on alignment between national and local implementation is an important reminder that central government must also hold itself to the same standard it expects of local authorities. He is also right about the importance of driving up standards in decision-making, may I ask the Minister to set out how the government intends to align central and local government training standards and how they will help to bridge the gaps between national policy direction and local implementation.

I would like to thank and support my noble friend, Lord Lansley, for amendment 160 route requires local authorities to appoint a chief planning officer, to ensure professional leadership. I am sure that the government cannot do anything but support this amendment, and if that is the case, I would be really interested to know what the noble Lady, the Minister, thinks that a chief planning officer's role might be in coordinating central government, local authorities, and industry stakeholders.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow's amendment also raises the issue of design. In government, we did important work on a design, it was very disappointing when the government announced the closure of the office for place. Well designed homes that are in keeping with local vernacular are what local residents want. And what this country needs. That is why design has such an important role to play in the planning. Therefore, can the Minister give the House a clear assurance that the government recognises the important role that good design plays in housing delivery.

In addition, how will the government ensure that future training requirements are properly supported? So they cannot -- cannot be realistic for local authorities under pressure. How can we be confident that training will genuinely enhance decision-making rather than becoming a formality and how best can consistency across the system be achieved whilst still respecting the role of autonomy and planning. These are important questions that have been asked in the last hour or so and I look forward to hearing the reflections on them.

on them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Frank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and Lord Fowler, Lord Moynihan and Lord Lansley for their amendments, all noble Lords who have amendments, all noble Lords who have spoken in a very important debate around training and I agree with what they have said generally about the importance of training. Thank you Lord Shipley, Lord Best, Lord Carrington, Baroness Bennett and Carrington, Baroness Bennett and Baroness Sater for your contributions. They are much appreciated. Can I just say, before appreciated.

Can I just say, before I started working on this Bill, I did not realise it was not compulsory for members to have compulsory for members to have training in the planning, it has always been a compulsory in my Local Authority. I was quite shocked to find out it was not compulsory. Just find out it was not compulsory. Just commenting on specific amendments, before I refer to Lord Thurlow's amendment, I did not really amendment, I did not really recognise his description of those of box type construction, since I became a Minister, I have visited became a Minister, I have visited dozens of construction sites, across the country, from Durham, to the country, from Durham, to Greenwich, to Northern Ireland, what I have seen, they do not have this issue, there is not a lack of regard for design, we have got a dynamic building industry, overseen by local councillors and officers who genuinely want the best for their communities and I have seen some excellent examples, I'm sure there are some not as excellent as what I have seen but I think this is a very dynamic industry and it is doing its best to provide homes and communities for people across our country.

I want to turn the first two amendments 99 and 100 which seek to ensure that training of committee members include climate change, biodiversity, ecological surveying, design and healthy place making. I can assure noble Lords, the government believes all of these matters are crucial to good planning and all feature strongly in the national planning policy framework, if I can just respond briefly to Baroness Scott on the point about design, the government is committed, not just to good design in the properties themselves put in place making as well, that is set out in the NPPS, design guides, and we will be publishing, future homes and building standards which will go further in setting out what we will expect.

I had a rule when I was councillor, I would not build homes I would not want to live in myself. I hope to apply the same guidelines as a Minister. I would expect these matters to feature in any training for planning committee members, it would be unthinkable for the training not to mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain, the government believes, however, it is unnecessary to stipulate all of that on the face of the bill, it is customary to use regulations or guidance to set out details with regards to the implementation and the training of committee members should not be an exception.

The details for the training are underdevelopment, we will continue to engage with local government and industry to ensure that the training covers all of the basic expose of planning, it would be impractical in primary legislation to provide a complete list of matters that must complete list of matters that must form part of the content, this is an area that developed all the time and we want to make sure there is a mechanism for changing it, as things change, also, there will be an element of local consideration in this, for example, chalk streams were mentioned, I have talked in my area, they are not right across the country, you might want to give more training...

Everyone should know about them, in my view, but if you lived in an area where that was present, you might want more training on that. Furthermore, such a list would have to be kept up-to- date in that process, it would take up valuable time in Parliament in mending. I will turn to amendment 111, which includes National Highways and integrated transport authorities as local planning authorities which training will apply. Whilst National Highways are intricately involved with spatial development, they are not local planning authorities and they do not have a decision-making role.

Which is the focus of this training reform. We therefore do not believe it would be appropriate to extend the provisions to them. I tend to amendment 102 which raises important questions about who the training should apply to you. Government introduced mandatory training for members of local planning authorities to improve the decision-making process for many planning applications that are considered, by local planning authorities every year, through the planning committees and delegated authority. Many councillors sitting on committees are very proficient in planning matters, that is not necessarily the case, nor is it expected to be, councils are people with busy lives, juggling their duties with other response that is, it is important we get the balance right between training that is necessary for them to take the decision-making properly, but also, to enable them to make the kind of decisions that make sense to local people.

The training is, therefore, aimed at them, so that they can better understand the clear principles of planning, in doing so, I want to ensure there is a high level of consistency in decision- making across the country. Baroness Thornhill raised the issue of standards, and I pay tribute to our planning officers, from the public, and also occasionally, regrettably, from councillors, they face an acceptable behaviour. Can I just reassure, I am about to embark on significant work with the Code of Conduct Task Force, we will talk about that later, probably in the early part of next year, the training is not intended for officers of local planning authorities with responsibility for making or advising on planning decisions or any other person to whom decision-making functions are delegated, that is because it can be expected that all officers who have a formal responsibility for advising on or determining decisions are recruited with an emphasis on fashion planning qualifications or they have extensive planning experience, as we know, they are also able to call in support from experts on key issues where it would not be proportionate for a Local Authority to have this expertise in-house.

For similar reasons, turning to amendment 103, training is not intended for civil servant to make decisions on behalf of ministers, as the noble Lord will be aware, if an applicant appealed applies directly to the Secretary of State, a planning inspector considers the case. These are planning professionals recruited for expertise and the planning Inspectorate provides considerable ongoing training to them. Regarding the training of ministers, it is important to highlight that ministers need and get gift bespoke training and support to fulfil the decisions, they also operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance, it is probably a good soundbite say that ministers should be subject to the same training requirements as a counsellor.

I welcome training, I have had training, and I'm very happy to take it on. But I do understand, in practice, the role is different. We therefore do not intend to extend these mandatory requirements to ministers who make planning decisions, for instance, when they call in applications, finally, amendment 162, ably assisted by Lord Shipley and broad- based, seeks to make it a statutory requirement for planning authorities, either separately or jointly, and the noble Lord is quite right to point to the very practical approach of local government, in some areas, developing joint planning functions, to improve the capacity, the resilience, and the scope of their work, which often can help with recruitment and retention.

But, he spoke about them appointing a suitably qualified chief planning officer, I share the ambition of ensuring that all planning decisions are made with professional leadership, I am not convinced we need to put the chief planning officer role on a statutory footing, we need to consider a very clear rationale for such a step, I am cautious of legislating as the government believes local authorities are best placed to determine the structure of the department, in practice, local planning authorities already have an officer who performs a function similar to that of a chief planning officer but I will reflect on this because I think it is important, as we go through the process of these further changes, I think we need to consider that further and I hope to carry on discussions with the noble I would kindly ask noble Lords to beg leave to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. She mentions the sometimes
15:01
15:02
15:03
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Could encourage the Minister to take further the last sentence she expressed in the context of the noble Lord Lord Lansley's amendment? In the words spoken by the noble Lord Lord Liddle. It is really important that we do something to increase the status of planning officials and local government. I have observed the effect that having Chief Scientific Adviser's and government departments has had on science and the weight is regarded its overtime had a really good effect.

Having achieved plan a call having someone with that name and status, will be a really good way of working back in terms of providing status to the planning professional. And making sure that as the noble Lord Lord Giddens said, we get a collection of people who understand the limits of their knowledge and understanding advice there given and that the public trust them in that regard. And there's a small contribution to that. I have an amendment down to the well-being of Schools Bill to try and rescue level 7 apprenticeships.

If the noble Baroness was able to have a word in the ear of my colleague Lady Smith, and encourage her to give a positive response to that, that might solve a range of problems, not only for planning but for other professions were level 7 is an important qualification. I think the point my noble friend Lord Fuller made of the importance of taking people who enter the profession a technician to full, and upskilling them to professionals, is an important part at technician level.

Lastly, I associate the qualities of determination and optimism with the noble Baroness the Minister. But given all that, does she really believe that we will get to amendment 135 and if she's wavering in that league, it would be a great help to noble Lords when the government realises they might for sure to tell us that so that those of us who has amendments later in the date might find an opportunity,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more time with our family. If I can take the noble Lord's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I can take the noble Lord's last point first, my optimism and determination is to get to amendment 135 but we shall see. I hope I reassured the noble Lord in the point about reflect, continuing to point about reflect, continuing to reflect on the issues around chief planning officers. I think I already planning officers. I think I already responded to Lord Lansley on that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point. I hope that reassures him. I am impressed with the advocacy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am impressed with the advocacy standing behind the amendments in this short group. It's taken a lot longer than I thought it would. It is clear there is a real concern regarding the crisis in the provision of the planning process
15:07
Lord Thurlow Portrait Lord Thurlow (Crossbench)
-
-
provision of the planning process and the emphasis on training needs. All of these amendments should be noncontroversial I think from a political point of view. Supporting apprenticeships, training at all levels, improving the positive aesthetic, improving pride in planning and the career opportunities. And I think the noble Baroness the Minister for her very first few words in winding up, for agreeing all of the amendments proposed, if I had that correctly. Perhaps that was agreement in principle.

I'm particularly she does not recognise my reference to street upon street of Matchbox lookalike developments. Travelling in different directions and I as a surveyor to a great deal of travelling in the car and on trains. But I think the objective is the same and like Lord Carrington I think we have got to make absolutely sure that the massive developments that will arise from the housebuilding targets the government has announced do not descend to the lowest common dominator of design and appearance.

I'm nervous about the reference to addressing our concerns across the group. By way of regulation. An delegated authority. We all know where that sometimes leads. And finally, we will doubtless return to her comments at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report. With the noble Lord like to withdraw his amendment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Visit the lodgers pleasure the amendment to withdraw. It is by leave withdrawn. The amendment 99, leave withdrawn. The amendment 99, A, A. Amendments 100 and 102, not move. The management hundred and move. The management hundred and three, Lord. The question is that clause 50 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In content". The contents have it. In
15:09
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
clause 51, amendment 103, Z, Z, A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now turn to the mechanics of making planning decisions. And I begin by accepting the government's begin by accepting the government's purpose in clause 51 to drive greater consistency and expectations greater consistency and expectations of the process by developers. of the process by developers. There's a great diversity of the ways in which planning decisions are ways in which planning decisions are made across the country and the government has offered had its here government has offered had its here bent on destroying hard to understand that and come to some understand that and come to some arrangement by which the planning applications are dealt with in a similar way across the country.

However, in such a drive to doing However, in such a drive to doing so, through regulation, removes what so, through regulation, removes what I assert is absolutely vital local facility. Setting relation for facility. Setting relation for example by size of Abergele, number of houses or by Hector, -- size of application. Or worse still, by local plan site allocation only, absolutely ignores local geography and the local existing built environment. And further, and Julie restricting publicly taking decisions on planning issues may well feed the lack of trust in public institutions that surely we all want to avoid.

So hence the amendments in my name which are, there's a whole string of amendments in my name, which are designed to ensure that local decisions remain with local people and their elected representatives. Where that is determined by local policies and by combination, as we heard in the previous group, local chief planning officers and the planning committee chair. People do care passionately about the place they live and they care about changes made to it and they want to be included in helping influence those decisions about the change, for example new housing sites.

And enabling residents to take part in telling decisions is vitally important. At the moment there are two ways in which residents can do so. The first is by the formal making objections to the planning Portal to an application. And hoping that those men will be taken into account in a decision -- that those then will be. But if that is made by officer decision, then there is not a report which will include those objections and the reasons why they are maybe being overturned.

So one of the benefits of having decisions particularly and mainly about controversial developments is that the objections that are made by local residents can be heard in public, can be seen also in that report that the planning officer has to make for the planning committee, and includes a summary of the objections and the reasons for them. So restricting, as these regulations will do, the number of applications that are heard in public is in my view totally detrimental.

I'm going to give one example of why that may be the case. A planning application near where I live is bounded on one side by busy live is bounded on one side by busy By the other on the 62 and the other by a cricket fields. -- M 62. There are a lot of constraints on this small housing development. 20 odd houses. That have to be taken into account, and will conflict one with another. Dealing with a noise from the motorway on the one hand, the cricket field on the other, and the main road, busy main road and the access to road safety and all those, there are a lot of issues that have to be considered.

Under these regulations it is very very likely that that planning site, the planning aggravation, with determined by officers -- that banning application. And there would be no ability as there is currently four currently 44 local councillors -- nobility for local councillors to make a decision at the semi different issues and so many controversial and conflicting issues, that that decision is best taken in open decision-making processes. And we ought to be proud of that as a country.

That that is how we make decisions. It's democracy. And we need to strengthen democracy. And we need to strengthen it, not pull the rug away from it. So in my view it's very important that we change the tone of what is being proposed in clause 51, from the thou shalt do tone of relations to the, here's a practical way towards inclusive and legally correct decision-making tone. And by changing the word regulation to that of guidance, which is the subject of each of those amendments in my name, each of those amendments in my name, Guidance has a strength behind it in statute.

That will still enable the Government to achieve its aim of greater consistency of decision- making across the country. The making across the country. The second element of the practical decision-making for planning applications is that the Government appears to be wanting to determine the membership, in terms of numbers, the size of the planning committee. I guess, in my own authority of Kirklees in West Yorkshire, the chief planning officer has tried to get brownie points by jumping ahead and persuading the council to accept that seven members of Council out of 69 are sufficient, to make decisions on major planning applications.

Now, I have always argued that I thought this was not right, that seven members of Council representing an area which is geographically very large, it has a population of nearly half a million, and is also demographically very diverse, as well as geographically being challenging, as it sits in the Pennines. So, it seems to me that, again, the Government could achieve the same by guidance to give flexibility to councils where there is a greater coherence of geography and demography, maybe a smaller planning committee would work.

Where planning committee would work. Where it is very large, in area, planning authority, then a larger number of councillors provide room for different perspectives and that is always important in getting a good decision out of a planning application. So, in a nutshell, these amendments are to enable councils to have the flexibility they need to choose how best to determine planning applications, as we would want democratic institutions to do. And maybe the Government should look at the way developers game the system.

Which result in slow decision-making than is necessary. 83% of applications are currently decided already were officers within local policies in national policy frameworks. Only 17% are deemed necessary to be decided by committee. That is probably the right balance. Let's enable councils to continue to enable their local to thrive, and people to have trust in what is going on and how decisions are made by having the bright light of the planning committee and a planning report in front of people, so they can see how decisions are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made. I beg to move. Amy Ndiaye Gniby proposed,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amy Ndiaye Gniby proposed, because 51, line 21, leave out by regulations require, and insert regulations require, and insert issue guidance that requires. I have to notify the committee that if to notify the committee that if these moments are agreed to, I cannot call amendment 103 ZA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot call amendment 103 ZA. I stand to propose my amendment 104, or to speak to it. First of 104, or to speak to it. First of all, I must declare my interests. This is the first time I have spoken
15:20
Lord Cameron of Dillington Portrait Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
-
-
This is the first time I have spoken formally in the committee stage of this Bill. My family is inland management. Sinopharm and manage land from the perspective of a retired farmer. My amendment 104 is very much a probing amendment. I approve of the composer planning... This will give a degree of reliability and constancy in the decision-making process, possibly even a degree of speed, which would be most, most welcome. The proposed training of planning committees in this context is also welcome.

It would hopefully avoid decision- makers succumbing to parochial interests or the views of their immediate social circle, who they might not want to upset, which I have come across. Therefore, I was surprised to find National Party authorities excluded from the sensible improvements. In my experience, national park authorities are no exception to the parochialism and resistance to change that occurs elsewhere. In fact, if anything, it is greater. Some park authorities don't have a planning committee, and all planning decisions come before the whole authority, with the inevitable result in delays and greater opportunity for parochial subjectivism.

I personally would trust the trains national park officers to be able to take some certain planning decisions in line with both national and locally set policies. Above all, these chief officers have the necessary vision that perceives the national park as being there to benefit both the lives of those who live and work in the park, as well as the lives of those who visited. I have always seen national parks as being like a branding that leads an overall vision, which includes everything from transport facilities better landscape management, et al., in order to enhance the lives of the many inside and outside the park, and without that overall vision, which I believe not everyone who sits on a national park authority committee necessarily has, I believe they will fail, and the parks will fail to maximise their potential.

So, I just wondered why our national landscapes were excluded from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

section of the Bill. I intend to speak to them amendment in my name, 103 ZA, and amendment in my name, 103 ZA, and also amendment 104 table by the noble Lord who has just spoken. While I intend to reserve my
15:23
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
While I intend to reserve my comments more broadly on close 51 to the group 4 when we debate on it, but I would say that national park authorities, I am pretty astonished that we are in this situation where that the only kind of local government, in effect, that this would not apply to. The reason I say that is because there is not a person directly elected onto a national park authority at all. Some of the board members may well be elected councillors, but by and large, they are letting as a proportion of that, but also, the majority are appointed by the Secretary of State and by central government.

A great irony of this wider debate is that we are removing, most likely, the thing for locally elected councillors to be able to make determinations, but the ones where the Government has already appointed who is going to be, they can carry on. It seems an odd thing, in this whole setup. The reason I have tabled 103 ZA is, I will get onto the merits of the clause in the next group, but very specifically, I am concerned that, with the pressure of increasing housing targets that have been imposed on local councils, the pressure about aspects like this, it will be too easy for officers to simply say, we have got to go beyond the plan that has already been agreed.

And has been set out already by ministers in this debate, the local plan is agreed by local people. It is not really, but the local plan at least has an opportunity for the public to contribute towards that determination, and that is decided, determined, voted on by the locally elected councillors, who are therefore accountable to their constituents. And so, this particular element about going beyond the local boundary, or the boundary of the local planner, is really important. I am seeing this happen quite a lot in parts of rural areas where developers are taking a bit of a chance in trying to slightly keep extending the boundary by doing this, including housing going beyond the local planning boundary, and trying to say, for economic reasons, this should all be approved, even though it has already been through a process.

So, I am concerned about that, and I think that officers would be more vulnerable, or less hesitant, might be a better way to say it, to simply brush aside that. The other issue I am particularly concerned about, very, very concerned about, and I have put my name to the amendment tabled by my noble friend, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which will be debated later on in the Bill, which is attached to clause 52, is about density. I can give an example of a part of a town called Felixstowe in Suffolk, where the previous councils had agreed a pretty ambitious local plan.

Building on greenfield, in order to expand the town of Felixstowe in what they perceived to be a controlled way, but still making sure the town was going to be vibrant and sustainable. But within that, they specified a particular housing density for the building, I think, of 2000 houses. That was to constrain it within the envelope of what was deemed to be land suitable for development. I think it was about 150 houses, I'm pretty sure it was 150 houses per whatever the geographic mention was, in order to fit the 2000.

A planning application was made, and developers had indicated that of course, they would stick within the housing density, but the officers, in their analysis presented to councillors in considering the outline planning application, was that they anticipated the housing density would really only be about 50. If we took into account all the extra bits of access to nature, sustainable drainage and all of these different things. So, there we go. And, by the way, I'm pretty sure the officers recommended, they accept this outline planning application, knowing full well they would not get anywhere near the 2000 houses that had been allocated to that particular part on the field on the outside of Felixstowe.

The consequence of that would be that considerably far more land would be needed to build the other houses that, as a consequence, should have been built or were due to be built in that part of the district, and my concern is that, by not being very specific about housing density, and we will come onto this more, I do believe that we will end up with a lot more issues connected with not having gaps between villages and towns, and the reason I have tabled this amendment here is to make sure that if the regulations do go through, all these powers do go through to the Secretary of State, that on determinations of planning applications like that, that really must be down to the elected councillors to be able to determine that, to go in effect against their own plan that they or their predecessors had already voted on in order to approve that.

That is the sort of thing, we are already aware of how many different decisions get delegated to officers and the routine way that is right to do, but I think on these things, we are in effect -- where in effect the application is contrary to what had already been agreed in the overall strategic purpose, that must be done by elected councillors who would be accountable to the wider electorate.
15:29
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
I just want to speak to my amendment 105 in this group. We are not debating clause 51 stand part in this group, but I intend to speak to it regardless, because it should be grouped with this, and if save me having to make another speech on the same subject in the next group. I don't object to clause 51. Indeed, I support clause 51. I believe there should be a national scheme of delegation. I think it is an important mechanism by which some of the planning reform policies that are being pursued can be reinforced in practice.

In the decision-making processes in local government. An assist in the process of speeding up planning decisions. The reason why I have tabled an amendment 105, however, is that, while I agree with this, I agree with the national scheme of delegation of decision- making, the Government originally published a working paper on what that national scheme of delegation would look like. And option one of their working paper was that, essentially, the planning officers should have delegated to them decisions that can be made in accordance with development plans.

I think we have agreed, in a number of debates and over now years, that reinforcing the importance of plan making and the adoption of a local development plan and support for the local development plan is the best way of securing progress, and actually, as I think was reinforced by what the minister herself said in an earlier debate, is one of the very best ways of ensuring that the decisions that are made are made by the council, by councillors, through the development plan and not overwritten by developers because of the absence of an up-to-date local plan.

I think we should reinforce the development plan as a basis for decision-making and indeed, should be reinforced as the basis on which local people inspect their councillors to focus on what development should be taking place As at Member of Parliament it was depressing to find the who had not engaged thoroughly with their local plan making process and then an application was brought forward in accordance with the local plan and then they all thought that was the moment at which to object to it.

And of course it wasn't. So I think we need to reinforce this process. That's number one, reinforce the process. However, having published that working paper, the government went on in May to publish their technical consultation on reform of planning committees including the national scheme of litigation and option one disappeared. What we have instead is a division between those that are TA and TOB and essentially it was a measure of relative scale -- tier A and tier B. Friendly I think the government have funked it.

There was a clear basis for a national scheme of delegation based on decisions made in accordance with the development plan and that should have been the centre of principal for a national scheme of delegation. There is also a very serious omission which is that the government is, I hope, continuing to intend to publish national development management policies, as provided for under the levelling up and regeneration act and which we debated at length. I think the Minister and her colleagues will know that progress and -- N DMP can make a division to the rapid achievement of the housing targets because it can speed up plan making, simple five plan making, increase predictability and lead to decisions being made and more consistent and political ways.

So where Green Belt is concerned, N DMP wouldn't tell the local authority what the boundaries of its green built grey belt should be. But it might well tell them that once you have set those boundaries, many of the technical decisions and the considerations that apply within the green or grey belt should be determined consistent basis or nationally to basis. That has disappeared, this is absurd. If the government is going to publish and happy, the statute will provide that these are policies that cannot be contradicted in local plan -- N DMP.

Necessarily it seems to me, if an N DMP, an application or decision is to be made in accordance with policies in the national development management policies, they must therefore in my view be delegated to planning officers because they must be made on what is essentially a legal decision about whether the government's existing policies have determined the nature of the decision. It may be the Minister can say the reason that an DMP have not been included in the list of what they would call tier A decisions, is because an DMP has not been published and consulted upon.

I would say to the Minister, when are the N DMP going to be published and consulted upon? My noble friend in the frontbench opening out about this afternoon said the expectation of a further Planning Bill. Frankly, if there is a need to get on with if there is a need to get on with it, it is publishing an DMP and publishing the gateways for local plan making and the new plan making process based on the -looking are packed provisions are something the government should do first rather than the sorting again to any further legislation -- rather than resorting again.

Why do I say this? About clause 51? Because I hope I have demonstrated there is a substantive argument about what the national scheme of delegation should say. It is not purely a technical issue. The Delegated Powers Memorandum states that regulations may about the national scheme of delegation should be by the negative procedure stop it seems to me evident that these are substantive issues that should be governed by an affirmative procedure and that is the purpose of amendment 105 in my name, to make it an affirmative procedure.

I can see that the Minister might well argue, there may well be a number of changes to the national scheme of delegation over years ahead. I agree. They may well be relatively technical so can I put be relatively technical so can I put it to the Minister that she read noises any merit in my arguments, that we might compromise on the thought that, which we do sometimes in legislation, the first use of these powers should be by an affirmative teacher, subsequently and perhaps we might return to that of the conversation at report stage.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to rise to support my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington of his amendment, I do Dillington of his amendment, I do that because in the 1980s I was chairman of the development of chairman of the development of control committee of the Lake District special planning as it then
15:37
15:38
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
set of amendments, physically 135, eight, 8Z, E. Noble Lords will recorder have been a counsellor and have set in the local planning committee for 23 years, was leader for 17. It was one of my privileges to actually appoint the committee and choose the chairman and I always explain to my members what the purpose of planning was. It wasn't an administrative function that existed as an end in itself, although sometimes this bill treats it as if it is so. Planning exists to arbitrate between the private interests of the applicant and the public interest.

And I use the word arbitrate purposefully because people who sit on the planning committee have a difficult job. They have got to weigh up so much conflicting information within an adversarial system. Ultimately the proposal or the objector wins. Much of the bill is established under the full damage that local planning committees are blockers of development and the ranks of officials will not rest until every square inch of our nation is concreted over but this is nonsense. The premise is that officials are none of their prejudices to bear and it's not true.

Not Natural England, who will leave no stone unturned in blocking development. The railways who ballast every proposal with predictors costs, £5 million for a footbridge across between two platforms. The highways authorities that tie themselves in knots under the misdirection that personal develop personal transport outside development boundaries is unsustainable and that's before the other bad actors in many other quangos who increasingly are advancing their own narrow self- interest rather than the public interest. I do not deny the importance of some of their representations but the problem with all these quangos is they all claim to veto.

It's their way or no way. It's from these vetoes we have got the £100 million back bridge of which I expect my noble friend Lord Howard they refer. It's from these vetoes we get this sort of mitigating trade, organisms that are in Europe but commonplace in every English village pond and of course the insanity of nutrients quality. As if building a bungalow in Bristol is going to somehow cleanup the river winsome. And so the way planning works, it only takes one of these vetoes from just one of the statutory consultees, to block the entire proposal and is especially the case when officers advised members to refuse an otherwise acceptable proposal overly precautionary grounds that an adverse decision could be grounds for appeal or expensive judicial.

So we need the planning committee to cut through the undergrowth, to stop them looking over their shoulder, to be fearful of challenge. And I laid my noble friend will now, not in his place, for his report, he has made several recommendations for topmost regulations will count for nothing if there's nobody without that mandate and the duty and the courage to get those applications to committee. In Mike's parents, it's the committees populated by the accountable councillors that do more to get Britain building than the faceless dead hand of the state quango.

So we need elected people who know a self-serving veto on spurious objection when they see one. We need people on the ground who know the importance of building homes, economies and places that enhance communities. To arbitrate between those competing interests. That's why this amendment is so welcome and necessary. It's absolutely right that the chair of the planning committee working with the senior planner should be able to revisit otherwise fatal objections to balance, to get that balance, to enable the local champions that populate this committees to take all the evidence into account, listen carefully to objections, to balance that private and public interest and to get Britain building.

And not pander to the self-serving quangos sometimes and interest in pursuing the only ideologies to the exclusion of all else.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will briefly speak to amendment
15:43
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will briefly speak to amendment 135, H, Z, F, and other amendments before addressing the other amendments in this group. Local amendments in this group. Local democratic accountability must be protected. Local people should have a say in the decisions that affect their daily lives. These amendments seek to ensure planning decisions remain in the remit of an elected council who are accountable to their communities. It is important that large or controversial applications should be considered through local debate so that all views are sufficiently represented.

The location of decision-making to unelected planning officers not only deprive local people of the democratic voice but also compromises the entire planning framework. Public planning committees allow for transparent and easily accessible forums for residents. Ensuring that their voices heard in the planning process. In. Location of important planning decisions or controversial ones make the whole process more opaque, weakened community engagement, disenfranchised those most affected. With the loss of local trust in the whole planning system.

How does the government plan to maintain community engagement and trust in the planning system if they are not involved? By ensuring the Secretary of State does not have sweeping powers and location local autonomy would be preserved and empowering those best equipped to make decisions about the local community. Amendments 103, A, and 103, B, question the decision to make gardens on the scope, size and composition of the national scheme subject to delegation rather than primary legislation. Amendment 135, H 30, enshrines the right navigation to be determined by planning committee, where there are objections to the application and both the head of planning a potentially chief planner, and the chair of the planning committee, have agreed that these are on valid planning grounds which is currently Whilst some have raised a risk of delay, arguments could cause delays.

The above protections and subsequent amendments in my name should address these concerns, enabling us to get on with housing delivery, while retaining the democratic voice. This is the right balance. My amendment 135, H, Z, F currently placed on local authorities. Under existing best practice, planning applications submitted by a local planning authority, or by related parties such as councillors, or senior officers must be referred to the planning committee. Even where that proposal is a very minor and in the normal course of the circumstances would be determined by an officer.

No, it has to go to committee. For instance, putting a line on a school having to go to committee. This is a significant waste of resource and significant waste of resource and time. As a number of minor applications unnecessarily before the committee. This amendment would explicitly remove the requirement for these applications to be considered a planning committee, where there are no objections have been raised. I trust the Government recognises the unnecessarily procedural steps of this nature serve no one's interest and that the streamlining of the process, in such cases, will fill up time to focus on those applications that deserve more scrutiny -- free up time.

Ultimately supporting a more efficient and pragmatic learning system. Turning to the other members in this group, I thank my noble friend for her amendment 103, Z, eight. This would prove applications under delegated powers that require land, outside the boundary of the local plan, or have the higher density, below that level prescribed in the local plan. I would agree we do need to enforce a local plan. I hope that the government considers it seriously. Lord Cameron seeks to understand why the Secretary of State should not require National Park Authority to arrange certain decisions to be delegated to officers.

I think this deserves a clear answer from the government. Amendment 103, Z, Z, a and the associated amendments in the name of the honourable lady Pinnock seat to change the provisions of clause 51, from a regulation making power to guidance that binds local authorities. The noble Baroness has made the case for amendments and we will be interested to hear the Minister's reply. I will not say more at this stage, other than to note that this change would mean that your Lordships' House would not have access to the normal delegated scrutiny powers that go with regulation making provisions.

I also thank my noble friend and Lord Lansley for his amendment 105. We agree his argument for higher level of parliamentary scrutiny here has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

merit. I thank the noble Baroness as
15:49
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness as Lady Pinnock, Lady Scott Lady Coffey and Lord Jamieson, Lord Lansley and Lord Cameron for the amendments. And Lord Inglewood and Lord Phillips for Lord Inglewood and Lord Phillips for their contributions to this debate -- Lord Fuller. This relates to clause 51, the national scheme of delegation, which we have debated extensively in the other place Anjorin second reading, in this House. Can I start by thanking the noble Baroness Pinnock for her recognition of the need to develop a greater consistency and equity, in the planning process.

Of course at the other motivation is to ensure that councillors can focus their attention, both on a local plans, they can really make a difference to place shipping and to those local applications that generally benefit from the input. Having a bin councillor for 27 years, sitting on a committee listening to a two hour debate on whether events should be fourth or higher 5 foot high, I think there is a good case for focusing attention on matters -- a fence. I will turn to amendments 103, a and 103, B.

I understand these are probing amendment understand rationale for the separate state powers to issue guidance on the scheme of delegation and compensation of planning. Why are they not subject to the regulatory procedures that can be scrutinised by Parliament, rather than set it out in primary legislation itself. These powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance are auxiliary to the main powers, to make regulations, about the national scene of delegation and the composition of the planning committees. The regulations will set out the key requirements, the guidance will supplement them.

As are many of us know, the planning system is very complex and very nuanced and there are often calls for clear guidance, to complement planning regulations. In line with other powers, for the Secretary of State to issue guidance, within the planning system, we do not propose to issue guidance subject to regulatory procedures. However there is a clear requirement, for the Secretary of State, to consult on the guidance, along with regulations, before reissuing it. This enables all stakeholders, including local planning authorities, to comment and feed into the draft guidance.

If I can turn to amendment 104, from the never Lord Cameron. He asked about national parks authorities and the national parks authorities and the Broads authority, they are a special class of local planning authority, which makes planning decisions for the area. Due to the different governance arrangements and the nature of development, in these areas, they were deliberately extended from the national scheme of delegation provisions, which only applies to conventional local planning authorities disruptive element corporations and Homes England were acting as at the local planning authority, they were also excluded for similar reasons.

The justification for intervention, in the reform of committees, includes creating a more consistent approach to applications for house development and deliver more predictable outcomes in the planning system, in order to achieve growth and support the delivery of 1.5 million homes, there is less in palliative to intervene in low National Park Authority so they do not envisage large-scale housing developments. Turning to 105 which seeks to make regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. Just commenting on the never Lord Fuller.

I'm not convinced of this amount is needed. It is common practice across planning legislation or regulations of a detailed or technical nature, such as these, to be subject to the negative procedure. I would also draw the committee's attention to the fact that Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report and has not raised any concerns, with either this power, or the proposed procedure. Of course, this does not mean there will be no further scrutiny of the regulations, we have included safeguarding the bill, to require the Secretary of State to consult appropriate persons, before making the regulations.

In practice this means that key stakeholders including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals, to ensure they work effectively in is just to pick up Lord Lansley's point on in GPs, it is the intention to publish the NDN peas. I'm going to see in due course, even though I do not like that expression. That is where we are. I will follow up in writing to him about whether these will automatically be delegated. That is under consideration, I will respond in writing on that.

We do hope to publish them, as as soon as possible. Turning to amendment 103, Z, a table by Lady Coffey and members are 135, H, Z, A and H, Z, Z. It should go to committee. Taking amendment 103 Taking amendment 103Z, A. It will require not included in the local plan, or for housing density lower than that specified in the plan to be determined by committee. I really do appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. The government also wants to ensure that the right development happens in the right areas and our brownfield first policy is designed to achieve that.

However there are many applications involving development which doesn't conform to local plan. That doesn't mean they are all controversial, many are not. I do not believe therefore that they need to be considered by committee. need to be considered by committee. Turning now to amendments 135, H, Z, E and H, Z, S. From Lord Jamieson. These deal with certain types of applications going to committee or not. Taking amendment 135, H, Z, E first. It is very common that valid planning applications. This will give free rein to committee chairs and she planning officers to take a great many more applications to committee.

As such it would undermine the whole purpose of the national scheme of delegation and therefore we cannot support, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government cannot support that. I am slightly curious, you trust

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am slightly curious, you trust a planning officer to make a decision on something, but you don't decision on something, but you don't trust them to determine whether there is a genuinely valid objection there is a genuinely valid objection to an application. I find that slightly curious.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

slightly curious. Well, we do trust planning officers, but what we don't want to do is undermine delegation. do is undermine delegation. Amendment 135, H, Z, F, seeks any application to any who employ councillors, where there are no objections do not need to go to objections do not need to go to committee, while I really do understand the noble Lords reasons for tabling such an amendment. I think again this is a matter best date with in the regulations, rather date with in the regulations, rather than on the face of the bill.

Indeed the reason technical consultation the reason technical consultation and planning committees sought views on the treatment of such applications. I can therefore assure the noble Lord we will consider his the noble Lord we will consider his suggestion alongside the former responses to that consultation. To conclude I would like to show noble conclude I would like to show noble Lords that clause 51 is not about taking away local democratic oversight it is about improving the system to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities and to give them the time to focus their attention where it really matters.

I now turn to a series of amendments tabled by Lady Pinnock which seeks to remove the requirement to create regulations needed to create the framework for mandatory natural scheme of delegation and wall replace this requirement with a power to make statutory guidance. It will remove the ability for the Secretary of State to control the Secretary of State to control the size and company composition of committees was that the government has been very clear we want to see a national scheme introduced, to ensure greater certainty across the country and to speed up decision- making to support the delivery of 1.5 million homes, in this Parliament.

I want to emphasise these reforms are a real priority before this government. We need to make sure the legal framework, for the national scheme of delegation is robust and clear. That is why we need to legislate for it, through regulations. Statutory guidance is not sufficient to provide the certainty and consistency that we want to see. I also disagree that we should not legislate to control the size and composition of planning committees. I fully accept many planning committees have slid down, in recent years and are nearer the optimal size, for effective engagement and debate.

However, there are still too many which are unwieldy, undermining quality of decision-making. We firmly believe that there remains a strong case, to have powers to regulate, for the committees size and composition. With these explanations are kindly asked noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I do thank everyone who has spoken, in this debate about the
15:58
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
has spoken, in this debate about the practicalities of planning application decision-making. I thought the most telling point that the noble Baroness, the Minister has made, in her introductory remarks. She said that what the government wants councillors to do is to focus on local planning. Local plan making is absolutely vital building block to planning decision-making, because it sets the local policies within the framework of the national planning policy framework and it sets out and degrees, in theory, sites for development, either by business, commerce or for housing.

Or institutions of various sorts. My Lords, in my long time as a local councillor, I'm taken through I think before local plan making processes. All my experience tells me that it is very difficult to get local people to engage in the theory of site allocation and what it will mean for them. That is why I have made the case I have today for yes, local plans are vitally important. It sets the foundations for plan and place making for an area.

But equally, to have the flexibility, within that, for local people to have their say. If local people do not have their say, the essential safeguard, that essential safety open discussion, it will be taken away, to the detriment of local democracy and national democracy. With those points and frankly everybody who has contributed to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate, because it has been a good one. I beg leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordship's pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn cosmic element is by leave for on. Amendment 103, Z, ZE not moved. Amendment three, Z, a not moved. Amendment three, Z, a not moved. 103, A, not moved. 103, double a, 103, A, not moved. 103, double a, 103, A, not moved. 103, double a, not moved. 103, B, not moved. 103, C and D, not move. 104, Lord Cameron and D, not move. 104, Lord Cameron of Dillington, not moved.

105, Lord Lansley, not moved. We now come to Lansley, not moved. We now come to the question that clause 51 stand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part of the bill. I should begin this debate by explaining that we have D grouped
16:01
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
explaining that we have D grouped the clause 51 stamp in order to facilitate an urgent debate on issues that have come to head over the summer recess. Namely local community engagement on asylum hotels and media briefings from the government in respect of environmental regulations, as such, I will not elaborate much further on the amendment clause 51 stamp are, given that it has been debated most of the relevant issues in a previous group. I will begin by addressing the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on back projections.

Without prompting his argument, I believe his amendment was born out of the report in the Times newspaper of 17 August in the Times newspaper of 17 August 2025. That the Chancellor is considering reforms to change the rules on nature productions in respect of acts and newts. I know my noble friend will surely set out the case for his amendments but I say to the Minister at this stage, that this bill is an opportunity to deliver the reforms we need to unlock housing.

If the government hopes to deliver one point million homes in this Parliament as they have promised, they cannot afford to wait for a second Planning Bill for these reforms. I now turn to the issue of asylum hotels. And the amendments in my name, 103 five, HZ, B, 135, HZ C, 135, HZ D, 360, A, and B. At their core these amendments are about fairness, accountability and democratic consent. They seek to give local communities and planning authorities the voice and the agency currently lacks.

Too often decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been opposed upon towns and cities without consultation. Leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. We saw this most recently in Epping where anger spilled onto the streets only after the decision had already been taken. The principle is simple. Changing use of the hotel or an HMO, house for multiple application, to accommodate asylum seekers, should be nice to us and material change of use under planning law. That would mean planning motion is required, just as it would be for significant change of use for major building works -- planning permission.

This change matters for two reasons. First it would ensure that local people are consulted through the normal planning process before hotels or shared housing are converted for this purpose. Communities deserve a say in decisions that affect their neighbourhood secondly, it would resolve the current legal uncertainty, highlighted by the El hotel base, where the courts have been asked to consider whether an injunction should apply. The Court of Appeal ruling on the bell hotel was a decision whether planning permission was required.

It was rather a decision on the merits of an interim induction which is a . There has been case law and planning sessions on both sides accepting that individual hotels did or did not require planning permission when they changed into an asylum hostel. In the absence of any planning policy, the practical result is uncertainty for councils, uncertainty for residents, and onset local businesses. It would be far better if there was a clear set of rules with individual councils determining planning applications on their merits with due process, rather than councils and courts retrospectively enforcing vague laws.

But above all, my Lords, these amendments are about trust, trust between government and local communities, trust that local voices will not be bypassed, trust that decisions with such profound social consequences will be taken over Lee and not with no notice and no consultation. And I hope those noble Lords on the benches opposite agree with that. The choice before us could not be clearer. Either we stand with ditties who want a fair and reasonable voice on how and where asylum accommodation is provided, or we allow the current system of central diktats and imposed asylum hotels to continue.

These amendments are targeted, portion of, and urgently needed. They offer a sensible way forward that balances compassion with consent and national responsibility with local accountability the country is watching us. And I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will take these amendments forward and that the government will reconsider their position of placing the right of legal immigrants above the rights of our local people and I therefore

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I roasted speak to amendment 346 in my name. This is a probing in my name. This is a probing amendment to debate what has been done to get rid of the absurd rules done to get rid of the absurd rules done to get rid of the absurd rules relating to bats, and I resisted calling them Bati. The legislation
16:07
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-
calling them Bati. The legislation is complexly that does not alter the need for something to be done in order to get rid of the present insanity. I know bats United Kingdom of the type that are threatened with extinction -- there are no bats. There is no harm or danger to them. You can't damage something that doesn't exist. There are some types that are close to being endangered but of this type, these types can there are abundant quantities in other countries throughout the world.

Of existing legislation was got rid of, there would no danger in the world of that population. In short, legislation to preserve that is unnecessary. Let me give you two examples of the absurdities caused by the present legislation. Your Lordships will have read of the first is referred to by my noble friend Lord Fuller. The £100 million but channel built during the construction of HS2 -- that tunnel. A time of falling government finances it is good to credible to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spend hundred million pounds in this way. Does my noble friend realise that we could have had in front doors for we could have had in front doors for we could have had in front doors for that price -- 10 front doors. I'm very grateful for the intervention. very grateful for the intervention. It makes the world of Alice of in It makes the world of Alice of in Wonderland look sensible. That could also apply to the front door. My also apply to the front door.

My second example is on a smaller second example is on a smaller scale. I recently, with the support and blessing of English Heritage, purchased and pulled down a purchased and pulled down a particularly ugly and inappropriate 1960s telly style house adjacent to Castle rising Castle -- chalet style house. It is a listed monument. In order to replace the horror with cottages built in the traditional cottages built in the traditional local stone. The project for the greater good. Which, fingers crossed, might have just broken crossed, might have just broken even.

That was before the VAT people got involved. And an inspection took place to check there was any trace of bats in the House. There was no evidence of bats. But that was not good enough for the bat people. I was made to take off the roof, tile by tile, so that the bat person could inspect each tile as it was taken. This was despite inspection having shown there was no trace of bats. To allow workmen to get to the roof in safety, the building had to be scaffold, and absurdity.

About to be pulled down. It then took six men four weeks to remove each tile and show it to the bat person before the tile could be thrown away. Using machinery already on site would have taken one man half a day. I asked your lordship what sanity can there be in carrying on in this manner? I haven't even started on what the archaeologists wanted. I was made to dig down 3 m. The metre low the 2 m foundations which were planned, at all stage, had to be inspected by an archaeologist.

Men and machinery having to wait for the archaeologist to find time, and your Lordships can guess what that cost. As a country, we have managed to get to a situation where the greater good is being destroyed by the antics of minority interests who can only look at things through their own, maybe in many cases laudable, respected, but very narrow perspectives. How can any government expect houses to be built with enormous difficulties which builders have to contend with, when I've only mentioned two.

Little started the motor sanity by repealing all legislation relating to the preservation of the bat published. They won't disappear. They will still be around sentries after the legislation has been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

repealed. I would like to offer some views on the legal effects that amendment on the legal effects that amendment 135 HZ B in relation to asylum hotels would achieve. In particular
16:12
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
hotels would achieve. In particular to develop the point made by my noble friend Baroness Scott in relation to the current legal uncertainty in relation to those kinds of accommodation. Broadly speaking, planning permission and, is required for development and the term development is defined in section 55, subsection 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as including the making of a material change and use of the land or building in question. The case law as my noble friend Baroness Scott has outlined, the case law currently in relation to this kind of accommodation is that whether change of use from hotel to accommodation for sunseekers, is a material change of use, is a matter of fact and degree, the particular circumstances in which case.

There is no hard and fast rule. That breaks down to 2 questions, has there been a change of use from hotel to what normally is clarified as a hostel for her sunseekers, and if there has, is that use material and planning terms -- for asylum seekers. The difficulty is with the situation, does generate considerable uncertainty for all stakeholders, it creates uncertainty for the commercial party behind the hotel, it's the investment that they intend to make in terms of converting the hotel, making it fit for this kind of accommodation.

Is that investment at risk without obtaining planning permission. There's uncertainty for them, for the local planning authority stopped due they'd force the potential risk of enormous costs, potentially millions of pounds, and do they enforce not necessarily knowing what the outcome will be not, and if they don't, they turned round I do something that is illegal. Real difficult issues there. Quite difficult to advise local authority what side of the light you are. There's uncertainty for the public question in terms of what is going on in their area and indeed I say also uncertainty for the Home Office in understanding the planning status is of asylum accommodation within this country.

So to my mind, the effect of these amendments would provide clarity by drawing a clear line in the sand that this kind of accommodation does require motion with the local so that everybody knows where they stand, thereby eliminating the stand, thereby eliminating the ambiguity. There is another way of eliminating ambiguity. If the government agreed that the public interest is so compelling as has been said, then it would be open to the government to propose amendments to the general committee of the element order and/or use classes order deeming that in all circumstances this accommodation is in a material change in use or doesn't need permission.

Right now it could be drawn the other way and if the government has the courage of its conviction it can put forward its conviction it can put forward What isn't satisfactory is the current ambiguous, uncertain situation. It has got to be either one, or the other, not somewhere in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

between. I strongly support the set of amendments in the name of my noble amendments in the name of my noble friend and particularly the one where the noble Lady Baroness Scott where the noble Lady Baroness Scott required the asylum decision provision decisions to be implemented immediately upon the passage of the bill. I congratulate passage of the bill. I congratulate her. There by gripping this is her. There by gripping this is demonstrating the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in, in direct contrast, I might say, to the direct contrast, I might say, to the ponderous approach from a government that appears to give greater weight to the process of international law, then the well-being of our settled then the well-being of our settled populations.

This is an infrastructure bill and I want to alight on a simple truth, that hotels are an essential part of an area's economic infrastructure. Their importance exceeds the Their importance exceeds the turnover of the business and the payroll for the cooks and cleaners, behind the scenes and the front of house staff. And hotels accommodate house staff. And hotels accommodate weekend tours, they allow distant customers, shelter tradesmen working on local building site, away from the main base. They drive a huge multiplier effect and holiday multiplier effect and holiday hotspots and confluent cities, local rituals, tourist attractions, florist, artisan food chains, all benefit, hotels are a huge economic benefit, hotels are a huge economic And accommodation that hotels provide and local economies are damaged.

And especially in rural market towns which might only be able to sustain a single coaching inn. And this is a matter of public interest. And in the pursuit of growth, it is a matter of national interest. We cannot and must not callously allow the conversion of hotels and hostels, after behind closed doors, under the counter deals between the Home Office and local landlords. I do not blame the hotel owners are entertaining these, but we cannot allow ourselves to sleepwalk into a situation, where these decisions are connivance between the Home Office and the investors behind the hotels are taken over the heads of local people.

Whose justifiable concerns are swept aside and brush away. That just will not do. A friend of mine has operated a small seaside hotel, with 29 rooms and he has been offered £48,000 a month, 12 months of the year, for three years, in aggregate £1.5 million, for a property that might otherwise have achieved half a million, at best at auction. And then been offered a fully express refurbishment at the end. Whilst firing all her staff in the meantime, which is already costing more because of the National Insurance increases.

She has not taken the bait, but others have. And the contracts and values here are madness. They are economically illiterate. It is a distorting whole economies, with perverse incentives and these deals are being done right under our noses. The conversion, as my noble friend Lord Banagher said, from a hotel into a hostel, isn't just planning semantics. People staying in hostels have no freedom to choose their accommodation, they stay for months, not days. They are stay for months, not days. They are required to check in with a commissar each night.

They share rooms with people they do not know. They do not pay the bill, they have They do not pay the bill, they have nothing to do but wait and there are many other differences between them...
16:20
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord for making way. Does he feel a sense of humility, given that by 2023, a peak of 400 asylum hotels had been peak of 400 asylum hotels had been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reached under the last government. Can I stand up and say that by June 24, that had gone down to 213 June 24, that had gone down to 213 and the number of asylum seekers at the moment are 2,500 more, in these hotels than they were when the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government change. I will answer your question quite directly. This is an satisfactory state of affairs. -- Unsatisfactory state of affairs. -- Unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Pointer have just made...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will the noble Lord clarify the point, in particular, the argument point, in particular, the argument before us is that some hotels, in some places are not suitable for some places are not suitable for asylum seekers. The last Conservative government recognised at this point and closed the bell at this point and closed the bell hotel in Epping, in April 2024. I hotel in Epping, in April 2024. I know because I asked them to do so, they did so, taking into account the opinions and sensitivities of local people which have been ignored by the current government.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

the current government. Is that the noble Lady provoked me to return to the question does the noble Lord agree that there were the noble Lord agree that there were 400 hotels in use for asylum seekers in Act 2023? And that the reduction which took place was met with no which took place was met with no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change in asylum law I'm grateful to my noble friends

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my noble friends for answering some of the technical questions for me. I wasn't aware of the numbers but I'm better surprised the numbers but I'm better surprised now. Number one, I'm trying to draw out the distinction between a hotel out the distinction between a hotel and a hostel and HMO. And in so doing I'm repeating arguments that doing I'm repeating arguments that were made in the judgement, that was referred to by my noble friends, the interim injunction, in the case of the Bell Hotel, in Epping.

The noble the Bell Hotel, in Epping. The noble Lord may wish to throw mud in my eyes, but I am only repeating the eyes, but I am only repeating the authorised judgement of the Court of Appeal to stop the points that were Appeal to stop the points that were raised there. I take no criticism for doing so. It is a matter of for doing so. It is a matter of public record and there are many learned friends, including my noble friends is sitting to the side of me and if I've heard what I've said, and if I've heard what I've said, I'm sure they will come up.

The point is on the noble Lord gives me point is on the noble Lord gives me the opportunity to say so, that the movement of a hotel, into a hostel is a material change of use, for the reasons I just gave. The people who are staying there aren't the sort of are staying there aren't the sort of guess who pay their way and are there for a few days. These are people who are mandated to be there by the state and that is the point we need to make.

And that is a material change of use. It is plain and simple, there is no denying it. And as we have just heard from my noble friends, the planning system exists to regulate, not just those changes in use, but arbitrate between the private interest of the hotel owner and the public interest. My lord, let's be clear, there is no denying the public interest in this matter. So I want to make the distinction between the interim, sorry and moving on, I want to make the distinction between the interim provision of accommodation, beholding a whole family units back on their feet and other circumstances where that situation morphs, in the building, into the provision of bedrooms for single, mostly male, economic migrants.

I've heard the conversion of a hotel to an HMO, for the use of family rooms is a bit of a lottery that shape shifts, with time. And there are areas where hotels are converted to an HMO, under permitted development rules. Separate from the HMO into a hostel. I want to paint a picture where hotel has been converted into an HMO, for family groups, but the consent, under permitted development. Then without noticed, flicked into a hostel, when the HMO, the Home Office decides to ship and disperse the families out and moved in single, unrelated migrants.

This isn't just a theoretical possibility. It nearly happened in dis-, in South Norfolk, where I used to be the leader. In that town, a whole generation arms are outstretched to welcome the Vietnamese boat people. And demonstrating that humility, under my leadership, the local council worked to welcome the largest group of Ukrainians, in our county. More recently, migrant families again come under my leadership, settled into a hotel, which has effectively become an HMO. Please do not suggest that I have any auto all teary motive here, I have done my bit here.

To smooth over some of the difficulties that certain people on social media and elsewhere have tried to do. Who invite me to make these points. In July just gone, I've taken my place in your Lordships' House. The Home Office announced without noticed that the families of the become settled would be dispersed. 42 children were going to be removed from the school roll, just a few weeks before the start of the new school year. Their families taken away from the local GP practice and the networks and that they had created, amongst themselves and with the local community, together with the infrastructure that had been wrapped around them, again, my noble friends, something to put in the budget that I said was to be removed.

No wonder local people were cross. They could see the injustice in that approach. If there was a crime, it was from the Home Office that thought of that sort of behaviour was acceptable. We were lucky. It hadn't been for years a sense of the families were initially welcomed, so the council was able to issue a stop notice, to prevent the forced removal of these family groups. Elsewhere, the slippery slope from moving from hotel to hostel a stop notice cannot be issued.

That is why support the amendment which supports stop notices that there is no sleepwalking into a drift from HMO, to a hostel without due process. We should put local people at the heart of decisions and prevent those with an axe to grind from claiming that they do not have a asylum. Which is the source of community tensions which we seek to stop. Because if they do not have their say, they should just not be smeared as far right activists. This is a problem that has been created by national politicians, local people need to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard. How much business we shall have to get through today. I wonder if the noble Lord would kindly just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord would kindly just observe the advisory time that is given to speeches. You will know that I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You will know that I was interrupted on more than one occasion and I'm on my last 50 words. We are going to get there. words. We are going to get there. Do not count against the time. I Do not count against the time. I will take advice from the clerks if necessary. This is a problem created by national politicians, but local people need to be heard to be part people need to be heard to be part of the solution.

And to recognise that the invisible infrastructure bill above all and we should be building the economic infrastructure and community spirit. We don't do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and community spirit. We don't do that by removing hotels from circulation. I rise briefly to offer the strongest possible green group opposition to all of these opposition to all of these amendments. And I do that to make amendments. And I do that to make sure that the breadth of opposition, sure that the breadth of opposition, across your Lordships' House is demonstrated. I'm hoping we're going to hear from the government front bench very strong opposition to. I bench very strong opposition to.

I can't be sure of that, so I want to put this on the record. I'm going to start with a rather oddly group start with a rather oddly group members from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, about bats. Which, the noble Lord, characterised bats as a minority interest. I'm going to demonstrate why that's not a minority interest. I'm going to begin with the study that was
16:30
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
published in the science journal on 6 September last year and this is what has happened in the US of what has happened in the US of America, in certain areas where all of the bats have been wiped out by of the bats have been wiped out by white nose disease. In those areas, it is a natural experience stop the it is a natural experience stop the rates of child mortality, infant rates of child mortality, infant Well the wait is related is with the bats gone, insect populations have bats gone, insect populations have risen enormously and then the farmers have sprayed 30% more farmers have sprayed 30% more pesticide and at that pesticide is pesticide and at that pesticide is linked to infant deaths.

Now when I linked to infant deaths. Now when I talk about this study, and usually focusing on pesticide use. I think in this case there is an important illustration of a point we were illustration of a point we were discussing in an earlier group of amendments, about one health, human environmental and animal health intimately interrelated and the health of our ecosystems and, I will health of our ecosystems and, I will say, with the greatest of respect, indeed from the noble Lord's benches there was a suggestion that there there was a suggestion that there should be education about ecosystems and to members of the government and civil servants.

When maybe we need them right across the House. Ecosystems, including bats are crucial to the health of all of us. And we are one of the most nature depleted countries on this planet. depleted countries on this planet. That is bad for human health. I can now to the other set of amendments, in this group, in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Scott. I was talking about that last amendment about the health of our society. My reaction to these amendments is about the nature of our society, what kind of culture are we.

Changing our planning law, creating a special category, special use category for asylum seekers is entirely inappropriate and dangerous. The noble Lady Baroness Scott said these amendments, I quote are targeted. Absolutely to write and they are targeted and that is a and they are targeted and that is a I am concerned about people being accommodated in hotels and there are impacts. But I would stress that those are inappropriate for asylum seekers, not providing for them appropriately.

What we should be doing is welcoming the vast majority of these people who will be recognised as refugees, providing a mechanism where their applications are processed faster, and so they don't have to stay and indeed eyesore proposal yesterday and how to ensure we don't need hotels, but better still my honourable friends in the other place, the MP for Bristol Central, pointed out that if we allowed asylum seekers to work, then we also wouldn't need the hotels. But this group of amendments is entirely inappropriate and wrong and I'm hoping that is what we are going to hear from other sides of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House as well. My Lords, it's interesting to hear what the noble Baroness has hear what the noble Baroness has just said. And of course, I'm sure
16:32
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Conservative)
-
-
just said. And of course, I'm sure we must all agree with her about the inappropriateness of hotels for asylum seekers to use as long-term accommodation. I'm sure there is widespread agreement on that. But she seems to be ignoring the fact that this amendment clarifies, as that this amendment clarifies, as Lord Banner most carefully and accurately explained to the House, a degree of uncertainty which is there in the current law and which is causing considerable difficulties.

Not least, I mustn't pretend I'm not talking about Epping and I suppose I have to declare an interest because I live very close to the bell hotel and I did represent the constituency in the other place for 27 years, so I can tell the honourable lady who has just spoken that the opinions and the feelings of local people are important in planning decisions. And what the noble Baroness who has what the noble Baroness who has proposed amendment 135, HZ B, is trying to do, is to clarify the situation, so that we don't have future situations like the situation which has developed in the smalltown of Epping, where people are coming from all over the country, every Thursday and every Sunday, to make their voices heard, in a way which their voices heard, in a way which is inappropriate and unsuitable.

When a situation such as that develops, it is incumbent upon the government of the day and that legislator to take action to try to make sure this doesn't happen again. And in future. And to learn from the facts that are unfolding before us right now in real time. So the noble Baroness has brought forward this amendment, and indeed other noble friends have brought forward other amendments in this group, which try to help the government to clarify the situation.

And I sincerely hope that the Minister will look at this group of amendments in that light. And that rather than just sticking to the brief riches, don't accept any amendments, the Minister will be able to consider that the world changes the time and that in recent times, the world has changed as far as the wine which will look after asylum seekers is concerned because there are farm are, and actually, it doesn't matter when the problem started or who was in government at the time.

What matters is what we are doing now as a legislator. That is our duty. That is our responsibility. And we have the chance today to enact this amendment which would alleviate the situation, which would mean that the opinions and sensitivities of local people are taken into consideration and important planning decisions. That is not too much to ask of a democratically elected government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It seems, I'm sorry, the pastor subtly matter and its incredulous to me that the party of opposition here me that the party of opposition here for hundred hotels of asylum seekers and didn't think ahead about these issues and then is complaining about it once the horse has bolted. And I it once the horse has bolted. And I think that's pretty shameful and I think the Ability is on my right --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the culpability. I just wanted to contribute
16:37
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to contribute briefly to this debate, to strongly support my noble friend in the frontbench in her excellent amendments both in respect of houses with multiple occupation and hotels being converted to hostels. I wanted to specifically mention a case in my own former constituency of Peterborough, the dragonfly hotel, which is in the west of Peterborough, a very pleasant residential area. And the fact that in November last year, without any consultation, the Home Office moved in 146 disproportionately male asylum seekers.

And this was, and in fact I raised the issue with the Home Office minister, the noble Lord Hanson, earlier this year. And he gave an undertaking that henceforth they would be better communication. And even the Labour Members of Parliament for the Peterborough area had cause to criticise the process of moving both, decanting those asylum seekers into the Dragonfly Hotel stop the two Labour MPs, Esther Sam Carling, Andrew Pakes of Peterborough, Ashley said the dragonfly is the wrong hotel in the wrong location and bad for Peterborough and nearby residents and there has been no indication of when it will cease to be used.

We are a welcoming city but we are playing well now part already. Now, the context of that is that there had been no attempt to speak to the Labour led council and adult social services, the police, the NHS, primary care. In the context we need to think about this is that hitherto, the planning process is well recognised as a form of governance that works in this country. We have local development plans. We have county structure plans. For those who are really have nothing better to do with the time we have minimal plans, I know my noble friend Lord Banner will, the point being it's a well-established idea that where there is significant change in planning and development, particularly in open development, there is a process of proper there is a process of proper consultation between those, between stakeholders and those affected.

It might be informal discussions between planning officers and local residents, it might be a formal committee but there is a process where people are invited to comment and I do think that the decision to significantly change and impact the residential amenity of a local area and the quality-of-life of the people in the local area, particularly where in the case of the bell hotel you have a significant number of schools and young people in the area, and there are some legitimate concerns. Nobody is saying that all asylum seekers are criminals or likely to be criminals but when you bring forward a very significant local change you will cause concern.

And I think a form of governance, a piece of primary legislation, which obliges that information to be put in the public domain is sensible and will prevent people from listening to stream point so few in pursuit of their particular political agenda. And so that is why I think that this amendment is sensible. Going back to the noble Lord Teverson, he can criticise as much as he likes, let's hear what the Liberal Democrat view is in this, what they would do.

It is easy to put aside and put it in a focused leaflet in the opportunistic where the Liberal Democrats do. Actually it is tougher as this government is finding and the previous comment found to be in government because politics is to choose and make tough decisions, something the Liberal Democrats are unfortunately not very used to. Can I finish the point by saying that my noble friend Baroness Scott makes a very sensible point about accountability, about transparency and clarity in the local community and if we are to avoid the social dislocation, violence, the anger that we have seen in Epping Forest, in the last few months, in the future, transparency will prevent that.

It will allow people to have their say. This will allow the elected representatives to have an opportunity to properly represent them and ventilate their concerns and I think that will build to the good. I think the government will be wise to do it because the government is now looking at some policies that we would have pursued and I think the government is trying to tackle this issue in a sincere way, and the underside are offering these amendments as a way to ameliorate the issues that we know are necessary to do.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may return briefly to the
16:42
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may return briefly to the main subject of bats... I don't actually agree with my noble friend that bats aren't important. There are absolutely part of nature and nature in this country is usually depleted. What we need is a lot more bats. But the lesson I draw from his story is that for all his huge expenditure, no bats benefited whatsoever. There's nothing that he was made to do which benefited bats in anyway whatsoever. It is entirely wrongheaded way of going about things.

What we want is more bats. If we had made my noble friend to pay a few thousand pounds to make space for bats elsewhere, in his estate, I'm sure he would have done so with pleasure. Tabak no need, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

castle provides a home to endless bats. The government recognises this I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government recognises this I think. Both in the later part of think. Both in the later part of this bill, and indeed in what it has done in terms of offshore wind, it done in terms of offshore wind, it recognises that offshore wind will recognises that offshore wind will kill a number of seabirds, and that compensation must be made for that. What we need in this country is a lot more nature. Getting a lot more nature will take a good chunk of money.

It is ridiculous to have the money. It is ridiculous to have the system that just staffs that money away. We ought to be taking the away. We ought to be taking the opportunity of bats which are pretty mobile creatures, they live in cracks in trees, trees for Donald the time, the bats move home, we are worrying about bats with its ridiculous and wasting money and we must stop.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must stop. Clause 51 may look innocuous but
16:44
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 51 may look innocuous but I'm concerned it is removing the effect of democracy. National democracy imposing its will against perhaps the will of the local people. The reason I say this is, I was reflect and, in 2013, I was on the bill committee for the growth and infrastructure Bill then act, the House of Commons committee that sat on it, we sat for seven days on a bill of 28 clauses. This bill went through the Commons in seven days considering 97 clauses.

That's wise important this House does take the appropriate time, interestingly back then, the Lords only sat for five days on the growth and infrastructure Bill. With the Commons having done much more to job. But something for us to think about. But coming back to clause 51, I was struck by would the Minister just said in the previous group, and I have specifically singled out issues that basically went against the local plan. In the government 's guide to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and gov.uk it specifically says controversial decisions should be done by planning committee, and the best way actually for councillors, and local committees to be involved, is in the creation, the debate, and I'm paraphrasing slightly, but about the creation of local plan.

Local plans Sometimes it feels that would take more than four years to create, that shouldn't be the case. I was That planning applications, not in line with the local plan aren't necessarily always controversial, so we shouldn't worry about it and allow officers to make that decision. I'm afraid I don't have confidence in, I would love to hear some examples of where there have been planning applications that are not consistent with the local plan and have not been then controversial.

As a consequence, one of the aspects in the guidance or the guide to the bill that the government set out is to try and get national consistency. On the other hand, although admittedly the devolution bill really is actually about centralising again a lot of control, rather than having local determination. It is important, I understand the developers, but it is important and the point I made the other day that people lose trust in politicians when we start to tinker with what they have voted for, both nationally, but also locally.

And they lose trust in the process. And that is why busy challenge after challenge, after challenge. I am nervous, deeply nervous, given the track record of this government so far, after it's just over a year in power on recognising. I understand the need for 1.5 million homes, or their manifesto promise to be delivered to the best of their ability. But what we're seeing here is a bringing in much greater control, at the same time though, one of the things in that growth and structure 2013, which was somewhat controversial at the time, was the decision by the Secretary of State, basically tell councils that you're not making your planning decisions.

You're not getting on with these things. And if you don't do it the Secretary of State will make the decision. And my noble friend Lord Gove issued those threats when he was Secretary of State, for MHCLG, seven district councils. They all had to produce a timetable of how they were gonna get back on track and they started getting back on track. My point is that the government should be using powers it already has. Ideally commencing a lot of the provisions in the levelling up and, a lot of the mechanisms that were designed in those previous pieces of legislation, councils did get on the news.

Ministers can use the powers of they already had to achieve the aims they are doing. Instead we are having effectively, I do not mean this is necessarily over politically, a Stalinist approach. When actually, what we hear too often is that communities know what's best, they don't get involved. A lot of that is general rubbish. Turning to a slightly different note, Lord Howard of Rising is very committed to nature and to its conservation, in very practical ways.

Especially at certain times of the year. He has set out a number of issues and I think this goes to the nub of what think this goes to the nub of what In trying to make things right, locally. He has raised some interesting examples of his own direct experience. Unconscious we will be debating these later in the bill, in a wider detail, with part three. I think we need to recognise that in the conservation of nature, we do have to work with people, whether it is farmers, landowners and the like.

It is important that we listen to examples raised. In terms of the other topic of debate we have got onto, which is at the asylum hotels. My Lords, there was a security bill yesterday and a lot of debate to be had about the priority of asylum legislation. Lord Carlile of Berriew asked about the increase in the hotels. I was in a cabinet during covert and what happened in a lot of the situations involving lot of the situations involving asylum seekers is that the number of determinations were significantly, if not reduced, then stopped.

Because of the consequences of making a determination if someone making a determination if someone was not found to be eligible, there was nothing that could be done, in terms of, in effect, we still had to make sure that people had somewhere to stay. At the time people will be aware that of course hotels close down around the country so there was a mutual fit of bringing that together. Instead of the regular normal approach of dispersal accommodation. So, to that end, it was an unusual time and it has lingered.

It did linger, there is no doubt about that, with the back log in determinations and therefore more people in the system are still getting back, after Covid has taken quite a considerable amount of time. The same time other bits of legislation, I do not want to get into the previous historic debate. It is good news that we are getting back on track of reducing the number of hotels. The reason why these amendments, tabled by my noble friend on the Frontbencher important. It is because of aspects of the determination was made last week by the Court of Appeal.

Of course at the response when judgements may either say it's unclear, or, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would she accept that even a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would she accept that even a small number of illegal immigrants, small number of illegal immigrants, in a tiny village can have as much effect as a larger number in an urban area?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

urban area? I think it is reflective of what is proportionate to the local community. My noble friend Lord Framlingham will be aware of the legal judgements that happened in legal judgements that happened in the past few years, where some accommodation sites will deemed unlawful. As Lord Jackson of unlawful. As Lord Jackson of Is trying to work this out as well Is trying to work this out as well and balance that. It is not a straightforward action, so I'm not going to be criticising them for it.

I think why it's valid to have this I think why it's valid to have this debate about whether these hotels need a separate planning class. It certainly is valid, recognising as well the decision that was made last well the decision that was made last week in the Court of Appeal. Houses of multiple occupation require both of multiple occupation require both planning permission and a licence. I do not want us to get into the situation of having to license hotels however, the reason HMOs have both of those is because the accommodation is being used in a non-traditional way, from perhaps it's traditional intention.

Therefore extra conditions are put on by the local council, or indeed deliberate consideration. Recognising the change and impact that the transfer of traditional uses of accommodation and others can have on the local community. So therefore, while unconscious, I expect they will probably brush this aside for it is important to understand some of the temperature, or what we have done in the past or recognise when things have changed significantly, in order to make sure that decisions are made carefully considerately and competently when addressing this type of situation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the sheer hypocrisy, sheer hypocrisy of those on the benches to the right of me, Conservative benches seems to know
16:54
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Conservative benches seems to know no bounds. As we have heard, it was 2020 that the scale and number of hotels, being used for asylum seekers began in earnest. It seems that it has taken five years for members on the Conservative benches to come to the conclusion that it may have been necessary for their, for the use of these hotels to require planning consent. How on earth, who on earth is triggered the sudden interest in planning issues for hotels harbouring asylum seekers.

I'm struggling to think of what issue it could be. What I do know...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One brief answer to her question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One brief answer to her question. An asylum seeker who was living at the Bell Hotel, in Epping has been the Bell Hotel, in Epping has been found guilty of the sexual assault found guilty of the sexual assault of a young girl. That is just one small reason.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

small reason. Can I also add, yes there were 400, we have heard from my noble friend Baroness Coffey the reasons for that, but in a 2024, just before for that, but in a 2024, just before we left the government they were down to 213 hotels to stop by now down to 213 hotels to stop by now under our government they would be, we would not have any hotels. We were working them down. And it would were working them down.

And it would have helped if the government opposite, when they first came into opposite, when they first came into power, supported our deterrent that we were going to have. And then we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wouldn't have the problem. That is somewhat of a desperate contribution, seriously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To continue. The intervention of the noble Baroness. It seems to distance where somebody lives from distance where somebody lives from their behaviours. It is irrelevant, irrelevant the intervention that she irrelevant the intervention that she has made. The fact is that the Conservative government started Conservative government started using hotels for temporary accommodation for asylum seekers and accommodation for asylum seekers and made no effort, no effort to increase the speed of assessment, increase the speed of assessment, for those asylum seekers, so that they had a certainty in their lives and the local accommodation was not and the local accommodation was not put under undue stress.

It is not only a failure of public policy by only a failure of public policy by the last government, it was the last government, it was inhumane. What has surprised me is that the noble Baroness Scott, I that the noble Baroness Scott, I have high regard for has seen fit to bring forward these amendments. It is out of character for her to do so. And perhaps a reflection she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will of regret to bring in them. This is an infrastructure built doctors are planning an infastructure bill. What we've been infastructure bill. What we've been trying to do and the opportunity to have this wider debate on asylum rules and infrastructure was yesterday, in the Borders and Asylum yesterday, in the Borders and Asylum Bill. We tried to do here is to focus on the very narrow point about when there is a change in the planning stages, as my noble friend says, when there is development should the rules that cover planning should the rules that cover planning and development be engaged and if so, to what extent.

What I think my so, to what extent. What I think my noble friends amendments are doing noble friends amendments are doing and she may say so slightly aligned with this as she lines up is to establish the principle that when development happens we cannot just pick and choose which bits are subject to the planning and which subject to the planning and which aren't. When development happens local people should be able to have local people should be able to have their say.

And it pains me to do so, but I would just like to ask the but I would just like to ask the noble Baroness direct me if her position in seeking to widen this debate that local people shouldn't debate that local people shouldn't have a say when development happens, when there is a material change from hotel from an HMO or from an HMO to stalk? Because if it is I think we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to know. To get to the point of his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question. We are having a debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are having a debate. I will continue. The question has to be answered is this. Why has it to be answered is this. Why has it taken five years for the taken five years for the Conservatives to wake up to the fact that they seem to think now there is a principal planning issue associated with using hotels for temporary accommodation for asylum seekers? That is the question. I'm seekers? That is the question. I'm not taking any further not taking any further interventions.

What the failure of this approach is, that if the hotels this approach is, that if the hotels are not used, what other temporary accommodation is going to be used accommodation is going to be used for asylum seekers? That's where we for asylum seekers? That's where we are. With the attempt, with these are. With the attempt, with these The only other temporary The only other temporary accommodation that could be used would be that local families who are in desperate need of temporary accommodation, for whatever reason, have been made homeless for example, would also be in competition for that same lack of accommodation in a local area.

That's one of the consequences of the amendments that are being proposed today. Second one is this. That councillors are being put under tremendous financial pressure because of the extent of need for temporary accommodation from their own local families. The last figures I saw, over 140,000 children in this country are currently in temporary accommodation. That is appalling. And yet here we are, having an attempt today to be rid of the use of hotels for temporary accommodation from asylum seekers, accommodation from asylum seekers, that will add to the pressure of housing local families, local children, in suitable accommodation.

And I have to say that the benches to the right, stripping as low as they have, as a shameful attempt to use this Planning Bill for their own cheap physical party points.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There has been increased heat and commensurate decreased focus on some of the issues that were raised. I of the issues that were raised. I hope noble Earls will appreciate, I chose my words carefully when I outlined my legal views. Can I outlined my legal views. Can I reiterate that to my mind, one of the key issues with the status quo the key issues with the status quo is the uncertainty due to the fact that currently there is no bright that currently there is no bright line as to whether a change from line as to whether a change from hotel use to solar accommodation or asylum HMO 's change of use and to asylum HMO 's change of use and to my mind there is the advantage my mind there is the advantage having 71 way or another, and I'm having 71 way or another, and I'm not expressing a view on which way it should be, simply that the ambiguity is deeply unsatisfactory.

I would stress that the extent of that ambiguity has increased in recent years, months and indeed
17:03
17:04
17:04
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm going to start by thanking the noble Baroness Lady Scott for her amendments and for notifying of her intent alongside the noble Lord Lord Robertson to propose that clause 41 stamp art. I will turn to the notice of opposition first. Clause 51 of the bill will give the Secretary of State power to introduce a national scheme of delegation for planning decisions, this will set out which planning functions should be decided by officers and which should be decided by planning committees.

It will give the Secretary of State to set out requirements around the size and composition view these powers of these local democracy. I cannot stress this is absolutely the government intention. We've had nice the value vital role planning committees play in ensuring decisions on what and where to build a shaped by their communities and we know most committees make fair and well-informed decisions, most of the well-informed decisions, most of the time. There are of course exceptions. But we believe there are issues around the operation of planning committees that we do need to address and those include a lack of clarity and consistency across the country on which applications will be determined by committee, too much time spent considering applications which are either lined with the local plan or considering niche technical details like the foot difference in offence that I referred to earlier including post permission matters that are best dealt with by professional officers.

The lack of transfer see committee decisions on the consequences. Loss 51 is aimed at tackling these issues and ensuring that planning committees can operate more effectively. It's intended to allow committees to focus on the applications that really need the input and which matter most to their communities. Together with the mandatory training for members under clause 50 we want to school to see the day-to-day operation of a planning committee transformed with planning committees making informed decisions in the interest of the community.

No one has been in local government for a while, and most of the people in this chamber today have been, and honestly say that there is no improvement to be made in the performance of planning committees. With councillors focused on the local plan and keep running applications, we think this improvement can be achieved. Turning now to amendments 135, HZ, 135, HZ C, 135, HZ D, 360, Thai, 360, B, I trust the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot comment on an ongoing leading proceedings and I don't intend to do so.

Home Office has a legal obligation to provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation while the application for asylum is being considered. We do absolutely recognise from government the obvious and very legitimate concerns that people have about use of asylum hotels. We have been clear that we will. The use of hotels to house asylum seekers and we have ready made progress. But peak under the previous government in 2023 as the Lord commented, there were over 400 hotels in use. Now only 200 remaining years, coming down at the time, a reduction of 6,000 people staying in hotels.

But you don't need a very long memory, I could go back to 2016 when there were no asylum hotels but I will prefer to go back to my three years of arguing the last government about the use of hotels in my area. And the noble Baroness Scott commented we should give local communities the agency they deserve. I think those were her words. Government didn't listen, you didn't listen to communities, you didn't listen to local government, you didn't listen to representations from those working with asylum seekers and he didn't listen to businesses across this country like the international businesses I have in my area, who need the hotels for the effective operation of their businesses.

You forced asylum hotels and us and left us with the mess to clear up. Baroness Butler-Sloss in a very powerful contribution to yesterday's debate said it was astonishing that an opposition who pass legislation and were very effective in that but were not very effective in any of that, solving the problem, are now criticising the government for failing to do in one year what they failed to do in 40. The job of cleaning up the mess we will do, we will sort it out, but instead of tracking bricks at each other I very strongly agree with what the noble Lord even suggested a.

First a degree of humility from the party opposite would be welcome. He said that not me. And we should work together to solve this compact issue -- Lord even. Complex issues need careful solutions, not knee-jerk reactions from those who seek to use this issue to divide our country. I sense opportunism and I don't think that's the right way to go. We have to work together on this issue. Need checking will impact worst on those who deserve it least.

Another shocking legacy of the last government is the 165,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. If we don't get proper solutions to hotel closure the danger is that those children go further to the back of the queue and as for the points about the Rwanda scheme, that cost billions and only four volunteers were ever returned. It was a waste of public money. And Lord Alton, again yesterday's debate, powerfully set out some further concerns about Rwanda, so I think it's time we stopped tracking bricks at each other on this issue and started working together to resolve what is a very key issue.

In my view, this amendment would result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation and presenters from proceeding in the controlled and orderly way that we want to. I'm grateful to the noble Lord banner for his comments on this and as has been said in the chamber, he has more planning edge than the rest of us put together but I know he will know this is a much more complex issue than can be dealt with one approach because all of these different hotels were granted planning permission by different local authorities, different conditions placed on them, and local authorities are looking very carefully at their own hotels to see how they might proceed with this.

I would like to assure the noble Baroness Scott we are taking very seriously the concerns about the use of hotels to house asylum seekers and we are taking action already but I'm afraid I cannot support these amendments which I suspect were made for a different purpose altogether and for these reasons are currently the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. Finally I will turn to amendment 346, DB, I want to start by thanking him for the insights shared. It's good to be reminded that our debates can be incredibly serious but they can also be very spirited and that's a good thing.

This amendment would remove the legal protection afforded to bats under the conservation of habitats and species regulations 2017. The noble Lord will of course be aware that as part of our Plan for Change the government is committed to turning the tide on nature's decline. This means we are of course fitted to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment. We recognise people can experience issues with the existing system and there will understandably be questions as to the level of productions afforded to @other species and how these protections can affect the delivery of homes and infrastructure.

The amendment will completely remove all bats, habitats relations regardless of their vulnerability and this risks undermining our policy to deliver on our, on Sunday international law which does include protection for bats. The sweeping removal is to blunt and this issue requires careful consideration and nuance. We will continue to explore further options to improve the handling of interactions between bats and development including through the Nature Restoration Fund. I'm sure will have a very full debate on that when we get to it.

And will establish a new way to manage the interaction between development of protected site and species. While the Nature Restoration Fund will provide another route to address the impact of development, of protected species, we are delivering already a suite of measures to practically improve the interactions between bats and development. As well as progressing actions recommended by the landmark Corrie review, on environmental regulation, which will remove duplication and ambiguity, and inconsistency for developers, Natural England is expanding its and recognition scheme for batch licences which provides a streamlined route to licences that save developers time and money under and recognition permissions are determined three or four times more quickly than for standard licences.

In addition, Natural England are expanding their popular pre- application which can expedite mission. By developing a pilot test quick and cheap about roof survey options so less spent on surveys and development can begin sooner. Having said all that I hope noble Lords will beg leave to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First can I thank the noble Lady the Minister for her reply and I'm grateful to all noble Lords for grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this group. As my noble friend Lord Howard of As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising made clear his amendment is throwing down the gauntlet to the government. If media reports are correct ministers have plans to deliver reforms that will unlock housing while maintaining genuine
17:15
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
protections for endangered wildlife. But my noble friend made it very clear that he thinks that the government should get on with it. We believe in protecting our green and present land and we make progress on environmental issues and we were in government but we also believe in common sense. The much lampooned HS2, one of the most ridiculous situation that my noble friend had to deal with, are clearly perverse outcomes and the government should My other amendments, I thought there was a risk that the debate would move into different directions, as it has.

And I believe there is an urgent need for progress on the impact of asylum hotels on local communities, across this country. Consultation and local engagement is essential and that is why we felt it was appropriate that the planning consent should be required in these cases. It will also get away from what we've heard from my noble friends, Lord's banner, the fact that they are complex issues and there are differing decisions being made, which makes it extremely difficult for local authorities, particularly, to understand whether it is worth them acting on behalf of their communities, or not.

I just hope that the government will take these amendments and look at them further. Maybe they are the wrong amendments, but at least we have had the discussion. Let's see what we can do together and I am always open to having more discussions with the noble Baroness the Minister on these issues. How can we use this vehicle to get an urgent delivery, for local people, to get a voice and it is the voice they want, before decisions are made.

Decisions that are made about their communities. That is all we are asking for. A voice of local people on decisions that are impacting more and more on their communities. My Lords, we reserve the right to return to this report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stage, but at this point I wish to redraw my amendments. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment... The question is that the clause 51 a stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. A moment 106, Baroness Pidgeon, not moved. 107, Baroness Pidgeon, not moved. 107, I rise to move amendment 107. The other amendments in this group in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, Viscount Hanworth.
17:18
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord, Lord Lucas, Viscount Hanworth. I am not personally someone who naturally embraces the cutting edge of technology and I am very glad that the two noble Lords have put their names to this, because I think they will know far more about it than I. I was truly excited by the potential of the subject of these amendments. That is a digital twins, which I will explain or attempt to explain what they are. I'm excited because I know from my experience of years of chairing and planning committee that explaining proposals, different options, examining different possibilities and translating them into plans is very hard.

Doing a planning for real exercise with maps can't really take on board all of the changes that it bracing various options can bring. -- Embracing. This digital twin is a very positive evolution from static models to dynamic digital replicas of what is proposed. And these amendments are deliberately framed around the consultation elements of the various parts of planning law that we are seeking here to alter. As digital twins aren't just about better project planning and delivery, they are also about winning public confidence and consent.

An issue that my noble friends at Baroness Pinnock spoke about earlier, just how very important it is to take a community with you, when you are trying to deliver change. In the case of the new towns, to which amendments of 1956, 80 and 99 relates. This is 1956, 80 and 99 relates. This is going to be incredibly important. -- 196195, six, eight, nine. That is whether they are new terms, or extensions of existing developments. Of course there will always be disagreements.

Proper modelling of the kind advocated by these amendments would be a critical tool for engaging with those who would be affected by the development and it will demonstrate the pros and cons of the various options. For example the model can take on board the demographics when it comes to planning whether it is for schools, or right through to care homes, so they will model what is likely to happen with the population and whether that is going to be relevant to what is proposed.

It would be a critical tool as well for when various transport options are being designed as they can model traffic flow, taking into account the model of the working week for example. That is a very dynamic and changing issue the changing way that we work. And we don't want to be designing transport systems that are actually rooted in some thing that happened 10 years ago. So that's the part I find the most exciting, the community engagement for a digital age and a digitally literate generation.

The other advantage though is the one that should excite the government and the Treasury more perhaps. As we know, this country's record on delivering a major infrastructure projects on time and on budget is sadly woeful. We need only look at the recent past, whether it is HS2, which began life at an estimated cost of 37.5 billion. The latest figure I think is 80 billion. That is with the northern link cancelled altogether. So half at the infastructure aim for So half at the infastructure aim for half the cost.

And there are lots of other examples which I hope that Lord Lucas and Lord Howell worth of their experience quote. I am sure Lord Hanwell will talk about the operational project at 18 billion. And now not expected to be online to the 2030s. The price a tag having more than double to 40 billion. So the government, I know, are well aware that the public will begin to oppose, necessary infrastructure, when they can see inefficiencies, cost overruns at really no benefit to them.

And a big pricetag. That is exactly the sort of thing that we are trying to avoid. By bringing forward the amendments with this digital model. As a country we have to find a way to deliver more infrastructure, more quickly, on time and crucially on budget. So, a digital twin is a virtual replica of assets that can be tested, stress modelled and monitored in real-time. It offers a precisely that capability. So, if advanced digital twins of the kind now available had been mandated since the start of HS2, Ministers and engineers alike would have had the data to foresee overruns and mitigate the risks.

That is what I am hoping that we can achieve if we cannot bring this technology into common use. In 2016 there was a digital technology which was known as the building information model to and that was mandated for use in government projects in 2016. That's is, the level 2 one is essentially collaboration on static models. What these amendments proposed is projects requiring development consent, nationally significant infrastructure projects and new towns should be required to deploy building operation model level three.

Meeting that standard would see construction news really, genuinely advancing. The integrated model of the asset which has continually updated. That is the important point. It is continually updated with real-time data, capable of assimilating scenarios and predicting performance and informing decisions, throughout the lifestyle of the project. I know the government's plans are, in some cases a decades long. So these cases a decades long. So these projects do have a long time. So, the building information model level 2 allowed us to design better but level three, to design better, but level three will allow us to build better.

And the good news is that we in Britain are leading the way on this digital twin technology. I will put on record that I have had conversations with, as far as I know the only British company that is the only British company that is involved in this, building the simulations. Vacancy relate how populations of whole countries function. How their lives might be made better by new infrastructure. I would invite the Minister to indicate if she might be willing to meet with them, alongside me and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas and the noble Viscount Hanworth, for a demonstration of these issues.

It is actually very exciting as well that I think this is a such cutting edge technology that has been developed here in Britain, by an independent British company. So although we felt the failures, particularly keenly of cost and time overruns, they are far from a uniquely British problem. Research from the University of Oxford shows that more than 90% of big infrastructure projects, the world over, go over budget and are delivered late. So there is a huge opportunity here, both for us, in the government's plans for infrastructure and development, but also, I think for exporting this technology.

I do hope the government will seize it. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... 51 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At 107 might appear to be a technical and specialised in nature. I would insist that it is I would insist that it is fundamental to modern, modern methodology on infrastructure methodology on infrastructure planning. I will talk briefly about the problems in planning, before dealing specifically with the topic dealing specifically with the topic of digital twins. The cost of making
17:27
Viscount Hanworth Portrait Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
-
-
a detailed plan is cheap, relative to the cost of delivery and good planning increases the likelihood of rapid delivery. With a speedy delivery, the chances are reduced or a project being thrown off course by unexpected events. Overruns of cost and time. Can be limited by careful planning. What is liable to imagine that the recent infrastructure projects of the UK have been uncommonly affected by rising costs and delays. As has been mentioned, in international comparisons they've shown that such experiences have been common to many countries.

Nevertheless, many of the dysfunctions of project management in the UK can be attributed to the economic nostrums that arose in the years of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative governments. And during the period in question, the doctrine of outsourcing was widely propagated. It proposed that organisations should concentrate on their core activities, which are the things that they do best. The functions that had hitherto been performed in house should be assigned to external providers, possessed of specialised expertise. And it was proposed that this recommendation should be followed equally in public and private sectors.

The doctrine allowed outsourcing and responsible for many of the problems that have beset the HS2 role project. It was supposed that a specialised contractor could be relied upon to undertake both planning and the delivery of a project. Frequent revisions of the master plan created confusion and delay. The overall direction of the coordination of the project was the responsibility of the weak and ill- equipped company that was HS2 Ltd. What is required in a major infrastructure project is a firm and a detailed plan and an active cooperation of a contractor, involved in this delivery.

An example of how this can be achieved has been provided by the projects of build the Hinkley C and the Sizewell C nuclear power stations. One can still the arrangements despite the delays and cost overruns that have affected the project. Some of these are attributable to political indecisiveness and some are to the misfortune of the Covid pandemic. An imitation of which the project has boasted is to replace all of the contractors in one big open plan office located at the construction site.

Whereas under our arrangements conflicts between different contractors might lead to solicitors letters or to legal injunctions. They can resolve these arrangements through encounters between people sitting at adjacent desks. The fact that such arrangement has been described as a novelty is indication of the state has been reached in many of our infastructure projects. Another significant innovation of the nuclear project has been the resort to computerised planning and monitoring. The relocation of a pipe or even of a sporting bracket with a nuclear power station can have a significant impact on adjacent installations.

Such difficulties are bounded on construction in France and in Finland of the precursors of the British nuclear power stations. When a computerised model is available, the consequences of any relocation represented in the model in advance of any implementation. In the computer's model of digital twins, material structures, to which they will eventually correspond. The use of computerised assistance Worker standing is an arbitrary point in a construction site is like to be carrying a digital tablet that shows the ground plan and identifies the location.

Attached to the workers helmet our earphones under microphone that enable direct communication with the relevant person in the design office. These are spectacular examples of what can be achieved with modern technology. The HS2 project would have profited from the creation of a digital twin at the outset, it was only at a later stage at the beginning of September 2022 when the project had already become chaotic that a digital twin was proposed. Notwithstanding the late start the latest digital twin is destined to become a realistic version of the HS2 network that will have an ongoing and vital role in the running of the railway in all its aspects.

The technology of digital twins has wide applications and many of them of our humble nature. The digital twin of a modest housing estate that has originated in an architects of this can be used in the process of a public consultation. It can demonstrate what is intended for more effectively than conventional architects plans and static artist drawings. The planning process can be democratised by giving a widespread access to the digital twin in the process of soliciting comments and suggestions from the affected parties and from the wider public.

Amendment 107 also proposes that an adherence to level 3 of the building information modelling standards should be required of all digital twin models whenever planning application has a statutory duty to consult with local authorities and other prescribed parties. In this respect the amendment is aligned with the government's own agenda, the government is building an information modelling program that commenced in July 2011, its intention is to encourage the adoption of the PAM model technology by public and private sector organisations that are involved in the procurement and delivery of buildings and infrastructure.

2016 as mentioned, the requirement to adopt level 2 PAM standard was imposed on such contracts. It was intended that Level 3 should be mandatory by 2025 and this has yet to happen. The amendment proposes that this requirement should be administered in a rigorous fashion. I would conclude by asserting that Britain is leading the world in digital twin technology. There are in fact many companies that are buying for reference and the market is expanding quicker than they are.

Stamps -- steps must be be taken to maintain our advantage and support can be given by ensuring that all government and public contracts adhere to the highest standards. Digital twin modelling has become a valuable export industry. I am familiar for example with a digital twin that was commissioned by the Indonesian government to model the entire transport system of the island of Bali. This is not just backtracking in real time every traveller in possession of a mobile phone. A detailed record of their movements has been used in a simulation of the likely effects of a proposed rapid transit system.

I should conclude by observing that the remaining amendments to which I been mentioned in this group are destined to ensure that digital

**** Possible New Speaker ****

twins will be used in every relevant context. Is very nice to see amity across

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is very nice to see amity across the House after the last group will stop I imagine digital twin of the House of Lords would get to House of Lords would get to amendment 135 by 7 o'clock. The amendment 135 by 7 o'clock. The digital twins offer such an ability for local councils and their officers and members of the public to really get to grips with a plan. Because otherwise you are presented with an ecstatic, it's really hard with an ecstatic, it's really hard to change, it's just shall we push it through or shall we retreat, with it through or shall we retreat, with a digital twin when you can adjust, look at different ways of doing it, look at different ways of doing it, you can absorb comments as they come through at a really low cost and through at a really low cost and arrive at something which is a much more involved, much better solution at the end of it.

What I really want at the end of it. What I really want to urge the government in this case, given that digital twins are part of the industrial strategy, is to use the industrial strategy, is to use this as an example to develop the government role as a partner/customer, as a way of helping new small businesses and technologies really cut their teeth, get a really worthwhile first contract or two out of the way, not to stand back but to be part of the developing of a strong new British industry.

There is an opportunity here to do that, particularly with the government's new talent program

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I really hope they take it. I'd like to 100% endorse the speech given by Baroness Miller and her supporters, I think she introduced it very engagingly and introduced it very engagingly and very comprehensively. I therefore have scribbled out most of what I have scribbled out most of what I was going to say so done the House double service in that respect. A common difficulty for those citizens common difficulty for those citizens who wish to examine or question -- who wish to examine or question -- or question a develop in proposal is the extent rather the scarcity of information, expertise and resources that they have often against a large
17:37
17:38
17:39
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will briefly speak to the amendments in the name of Baroness Miller, can I also say that we do seem to have broken out into a spirit of cooperation which I'm greatly pleased about. As noble Lords will know modelling and simulation are used to drive efficiency in infrastructure and planning projects I can recall as a project engineer more than 30 years ago using simulations and realising just how valuable they are to avoid mistakes and to also bring people on board as to exactly what it is you board as to exactly what it is you are proposing.

That therefore it has the potential to reduce costly mistakes in the planning process, deliver infrastructure that is better, more adaptive, more resilient and as other members have commented, also help bring residents and others on board because they can see what is actually there. I would also hope allow developers to modify their plans to reflect what the public wants because it can be done public wants because it can be done However this technology is moving at some pace, as are other technologies such as AI.

It is therefore likely that future legislation will be required to keep pace with these future changes, and ensuring that the law remains flexible and futureproof and does not inhibit element is going to be very important. Also how we use this to be integrated into the planning system as opposed to being a stand- alone nice little model that you look at without -- actually if we're going to look at amendments and look at how changes can be made we have That now mean that we need to produce whole volume of paper documents or is there some output we can integrate.

I think it's a very complex issue that we need more thought on but it's a great opportunity. May I ask the noble minister how they intend to ensure that this planning law evolves, how it can be integrated and I do apologise for that. So that planners are able to realise the full potential of technology and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and contributions to this debate and also thank Baroness Miller for amendments relating to modelling and simulation technologies and commend simulation technologies and commend her forbearance for waiting this long to actually get to this group.
17:42
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
long to actually get to this group. Of what I seem to be very important amendments will stop I also like to thank the Viscount for his tour de force of the use of twin... Twin modelling. So Lord Lucas, Lord Teverson and Lord Jamieson for their welcome comments as well I just want to turn to amendment 107, the six to require applications for development consent orders to provide and publish a digital twin model as part of the consultation process. This digital model would need to meet a specific standard the building information modelling level 3.

We agree that there is great potential in the development of new technologies such as digital twin modelling to support the planning system. The Prime Minister recently recognised the great achievements of planning AI examples, speeding up the planning system and local authorities. We also recognise the use of digital twin model -- modelling could make the potential benefits and impacts of the large- scale infrastructure project more accessible and transparent for the communities affected. While there is great potential here we do not think a disproportionate and required of every -- to be required of every applicant at this stage.

The purpose of the bill is the speed up the process by which nationally Projects are consented to deliver the infrastructure this country needs. Requiring digital twin modelling at an early stage in the project design is likely to add cost and delay for applicants, particularly given schemes are likely to change during the pre- application stage. As noble Lords will be aware the bill also removes a statutory requirement to consult before an application is submitted to Planning Inspectorate. The government wish to mandate this in future it already has the power to do so.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act gives the Secretary of State and by extension the planning expect powers to request additional digital products when applications, when applicants submit applications. I will now turn to amendments 195, 196 and 198 and 199 which will provide develop in corporations with the power to undertake modelling and simulation to build information modelling level 3 standards in order to evaluate the impact of the activities. As noble Lords will be aware development corporations to deliver large-scale development and structure projects which take years to deliver.

We would expect that robust and up-to- date modelling and simulation is under taken by develop in corporations to plan and deliver each stage. However we believe these amendments to be unnecessary, development corporations already have broad ranging powers to do anything that is necessary to achieve their objectives. There is therefore no legislative bar that development corporations undertaking this level of modelling and simulation. Nonetheless where appropriate we encourage develop and corporations to make good use of digital tools to promote greater information sharing and collaboration across the projects they deliver.

Therefore I kindly ask the noble Baroness to beg leave to
17:45
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I appreciate Lord Lucas managed in less than a minute and 1/2 to explain in a much more down to earth way what it took me probably eight minutes to explain. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell very much for his kind remarks and for lending support to this. And to Viscount Hanworth for his explanation of some of the other issues surrounding this. I was encouraged by the remarks of Lord Jamieson and I'm glad that we did have a better sense of unity breaking out in the chamber.

At least if my amendments serve no other purpose it is brought us back together in a certain way. I think the Minister -- thank the Minister for his reply and I'm interested the powers are there for the secretary of state to require this technology. I think it's going to be necessary to Secretary of State really pushes this and uses those powers because very often it takes a long time for people to grasp the use of that technology whether it's because the cost of investing in it or because it is simply lack of vision.

I hope those powers will be pushed and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Seem to imply that it would impose extra time and cost on planning. I would like to contend planning. I would like to contend that in fact it expedites planning and reduces the cost. I hope you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will consider that assertion. Is your lordships pleasure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. We
17:47
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment by leave withdrawn. We come now to amendment 108 will stop --.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm delighted to be addressing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm delighted to be addressing amendments 108, 109, 155, 156 in this group. I would like to thank this group. I would like to thank the noble ladies Baroness Penn it and Baroness Willis for their support to these amendments. I look support to these amendments. I look forward to hearing from Baroness forward to hearing from Baroness Brenda who will outline Herman Mentz in this group which are closely in this group which are closely aligned to mine. The background and starting point to this group of amendments is especially that since amendments is especially that since Flood Re came into effect and after Flood Re came into effect and after 2009, houses built since that date will no longer qualify for flood will no longer qualify for flood insurance.

The reason for that was if they are built on a flood plane they won't qualify for insurance they won't qualify for insurance after that time and flood rates for after that time and flood rates for simple reason that they did not want local authorities to give planning permission to houses on functional permission to houses on functional floodplains. That is quite an obvious starting point. I welcome the fact that the government has commissioned a review, it's called the flood ready review which is currently being undertaken.

I think this hopefully will report fairly soon, possibly while the bill is still going through the House. I would be interested to see what the future holds following on from that review. The review will look at property flood resilience measures which are a simple, low cost proven intervention installed in the home to resist surface water flooding. Significantly reducing the amount of time and cost of recovering from the flood. In my previous life is a shadow floods Minister, one of the most poignant and satisfying things I had to do was visit homes where there had been a major flood, both in my own constituency and elsewhere.

I am only too aware that people can be evicted from their homes for 3 to 6 months for public health reasons while the House is being put back in shape. The type of property flood resilience measures that I'm looking at and I think the review will look at our self-closing air bricks, nonreturn valves on toilets, sump pumps and such. Governments own studies have found that these measures provide significant cost-effective opportunities to improve flood resilience. Property flood resilience significantly reduces the time and cost of recovering from the flood.

I hope the Minister will respond positively to the amendments I'm about to go into some detail. The flood cost -- flooding costs the UK economy 2.4 billion pounds a year. The average cost of repairing a home after a flood is 30,000 pounds. The average time spent out of the home is nine months. 4.1 million current homes are at risk of surface water flooding. This is a comparatively recent type of flooding, really only identified since 2007 and follows on specifically from the measures that were outlined in the Sir Michael pit review of that year.

There are now three times as many properties at high risk of flooding from surface water compared to those from rivers and the sea. 3.1 3.1 million current UK homes are exposed to flood depths where property flood resilience measures would be most affect if and could realistically benefit from such dimensions. 83% of properties exposed to surface water risks are unprotected, far higher than proportionate for River coastal flooding. The government will be well aware that by 2050, 6.1 million homes will be at risk of surface water flooding and the number at high risk is expected to have increased by 66%.

These amendments are very timely and could stand the flow of increase properties at risk. In the 12 local authorities with the highest flood risk, there were 7,000 homes being granted recent planning permission on floodplains. In 2021/22, seven% of new homes were built in flood zone three. Identifying those most at risk of flooding is especially appropriate. Recognising that surface water flooding is now posing a greater threat than either River or coastal flooding and the fact that we subsequently in a subsequent group much later in the bill look at my own pet subjective sustainable drainage, I'm looking forward to my meeting with the noble lady the Minister and her colleague from Defra to discuss that.

I would argue that introducing flood resilience measures to new properties as well as retrofitting old would be an extremely valuable opportunity. If I could turn to each of the amendments in turn, I omitted to declare my interest, for which I apologise profusely. I'm cochair of the all party Parliamentary group for water, I am vice president of the Association of drainage authorities and I have co-authored a number of reports with policy connect and Westminster sustainable foundation which is a local thinktank in London and we have co-authored a number of reports on bricks and water to date and we hope to go on to do 1/5 and I'm drawing very heavily on the recommendations and those reports and I would be delighted to share them with the noble Lady for some reading perhaps during conference recess which is a quiet moment for the Minister.

Amendment 108 looks at residential building on flood claims -- floodplains. The idea of this -- floodplains. The idea of this amendment is clearly that... Basically ensuring local authorities cannot grant to planning permission for residential properties to be built on what I would describe as functional floodplains or on those areas at high risk of flooding. As establish if they are not going to be covered for insurance, it seems very unfair on a house owner who may not need a mortgage to find out that subsequent to buying that house, they are not eligible for flooding.

It is narrowing it down to flood zones three or 3B that would be excluded. -- 3A. Amendment one away that looks at property flood resilience measures that I described briefly before, particularly raised electrical sockets, nonreturn valves and utility pipes, air bricks covers, resilient wall plaster and others such as the Secretary of State herself may wish to identify. These property resilience measures I believe are only being installed at a fraction of the pace required to make vulnerable homes insurable once the Flood Re insurance scheme is withdrawn in 2039.

That might seem a long time away, but that's only 14 years that the flood race game expires. Amending Building Regulations to require the use of property resilience would offer an affordable way to accelerate uptake, meaning houses built in high risk flood areas are adapted for that purpose and would constitute a far cheaper option than retrofitting while bringing benefits is infinitely more expensive. If I could turn to amendment 155, it looks at local plans and planning applications regarding flooding.

In particular, I would like to point out the exception test are planning tools that would help both venture new development are directed away from areas at a high risk of flooding, but also make development that are necessary in areas of flood risk safe throughout their lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. There so often the displaced water is simply moved to existing or other developments. However, these tests currently our only guidance. What I would propose an amendment 155 is to put on a statutory basis that can only help ensure that local planning authorities place to regard on them when preparing local plans and considering individual planning applications.

If I could turn now to amendment 156 that looks at the strategic flood risk assessment maps, making sure that these would be included the most up-to-date flood risk assessment provided by the environment agency. In this regard, statutory duty should be placed on local authority -- local planning authorities to do so. Strategic flood risk assessments are vital to ensure that planning decisions taken into account risks all sources of flooding, including allowance of climate change. They would also help to identify if any proposed development falls into flood zone 3B, the functional floodplain, placing a duty on local planning authorities to keep strategic flood risk assessments up-to-date and that would ensure that they could reliably inform the development of local planners.

And incorporate the latest information from the environment agency's new national flood risk assessment. The noble Lady was temporarily unable to listen because she was being consulted by the party managers, but I am sure she shares my concern that 7,000 new homes are being built and just 12 local authorities alone on floodplains and that seven% of new homes were built in flood zone B in 2021/22 alone. With those remarks, I hope the noble Lady the Minister will look favourably on these key amendments to put them on a statutory footing and I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after class 51 insert the new clause is printed
18:00
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

51 insert the new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. Is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady who has provided a noble Lady who has provided a Coppejans of Introduction in detail to all of the amendments in the group, number of which in her name to which I've attached my name and I look forward to hearing from the noble lady on this topic. I'm going noble lady on this topic. I'm going Going to start with amendment to do seven a in the name of Baroness Grender because in researching this I found the most perfect case study to follow the recommendations which I'm sure we will hear from from the noble Lady shortly, as the need to build to allow for the practical reality of the world we live in today.

This comes from flooding in York in 2015 and the noble Lord not currently in his place tweeted at the time, he was of course as the Archbishop of York resident in the palace then, he tweeted out to say, we are fortunate that back in the 13th century they built with flooding in mind so when the water subsides it soon washes through the original flood drains, putting for Attended Attended over Attended over the Attended over the past Attended over the past century Attended over the past century to think we can just ignore nature and natural forces.

We will build a wall, we will just put things down there and assume that nature is going to adapt to us. I think that amendment in particular but all of these amendments on acknowledgement of the fact that we now live in a climate emergency world, many of these issues are much larger than they were previously, we cannot ignore them any more, we shouldn't have ignored them previously but we certainly cannot ignore the now. Picking up first of all amendment 108 about not building on floodplains, it was actually many years ago that I was chairing a session at a conference in flooding and I had a phrase I have repeated many times since and I make no apologies for that.

The floodplain is not beside the river, floodplain is part of the river. If you think about, you know that lovely little green scratch that might be called green scratch that might be called Meadow flat or Whitland or something. Just beside the river with a beautiful view over the river. And we put housing on it. That's exactly the same as putting the House in the middle of the river and that's what we are doing and we cannot afford to keep doing.

That's why I make no apologies for this amendment. If that is the only place where we can put housing then we should not be building new housing in the river. The noble Lady Baroness McIntosh spoke of a great many other things I had my pulse I will avoid repeating them. Just to note that as the noble Lady said there was a government review on measures which we should be taking on flooding, I also note the environment audit couldn't committee has conducting an enquiry right now and the other place on flood resilience.

The concern is obvious, For all of these to report, many of the measures here in terms of taking action to protect people, their lives, their property from flooding. We already know what to do, we don't need further enquiries on that. I will just point if noble Lords are interested there was an excellent report out on 26 June the UK climate resilience roadmap which was the Green building Council and quite a number of other largely commercial organisations. Just to highlight a couple of things from that, that found that flooding will make Peterborough, I note the noble Lord will be particularly interested in that he is not in his place, flooding would make the Peterborough and the Welsh village of Fairborn likely uninhabitable by the end of the century.

Which is not very far away at all. I don't know about Fairborn but I know that we are still putting new housing probably in very vulnerable places in Peterborough. I will just point very briefly to the Committee on Climate Change, pointing out how far we are from tackling climate adaptation measures. That we need to take. It's recommendations most recently, just to pick out one, we need to integrate adaptation into all relevant policies. Policies also of course read law, and so surely these amendments I'm hope we don't hear positive worlds! Words from the Minister on these amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Declare an interest is noted in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Declare an interest is noted in the register, I am delighted to add the register, I am delighted to add my name in support of Baroness McIntosh's amendments 108 and 109, I also support the other amendments in this group all of which, we are all this group all of which, we are all coming together and the core purpose which is strengthening our which is strengthening our resilience to flooding through the planning system, I particularly support amendment 135 the which seems really sensible to me.

We are seems really sensible to me. We are standing here and it's really hard to believe we are having this
18:05
Baroness Willis of Summertown Portrait Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
discussion as we just route through a summer of heatwaves, but as we all know and we have heard from, already from Baroness McIntosh and Baroness Bennett that actually, flooding is becoming increasingly common and all the predictions on it are very scary when you look at them, actually how much land is flooding, we see it year in year out. It is increasingly costly to the UK and we've heard about the costs involved, but another point is not just the housing that's impacted, the increased flood risk is impacting all aspects of urban infrastructure.

38% of all roads in England are currently at risk of flooding. 37% of all railways, 34% of all water pump stations and sewage treatment plants, and 59% of grade 1 agricultural land. It is not just a housebuilding issue it's an issue of the whole urban infrastructure. Another thing hasn't been mentioned and I just want to flag, it's not just economic risk and the risk to lives and livelihood it's also the risk to health. A lot of research shows now that flooding can cause long lasting mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, PTSD, all of these add a burden to the health budget as well as everything else.

We've heard from many and even from the Climate Change Committee at absolutely critical we build mitigation strategies into our land management policies, very much following on from the previous, this is where the issue comes. We do have natural capital assets in this country that are perfectly adapted for filling this role. It's in the name, floodplains. They have been here hundreds if not thousands of years to do this actual role. It has been highlighted in the government's own 2024 state of natural capital report, which they made the point, they recognise them as crucial natural capital assets for flood management, by storing and slowing water flows.

The Office of National Statistics natural capital accounts in 2024 also recognise their value, for example the total asset value of natural capital in this country in England was estimated at 1.4 trillion. They didn't disaggregate floodplains in there, but these explicitly noted that wetlands and floodplains are really significant part of these natural capital assets contributing to this cost. Through the regulating services and risk reduction. Not only does housebuilding impact hugely on the people whose houses are flooded, but also by building on the floodplains we are taking away our one-way or natural way of maintaining and enhancing our resilience to flooding.

What's wrong with the planning system? I keep hearing about the National Planning Policy Framework and I keep being told it's Framework and I keep being told it's alright, it's covered in the NPPF. This time around I've gone back through it in detail to see well what is it in the NPPF that is going to allow us to actually stop building on floodplains? Of course the problem with it is it is guidance, it is not mandatory, it does not stop people from going ahead and building, as we heard from Baroness McIntosh, the report by Lucullus it showed in 2024 7,000, over 7,000 dwellings are currently in the planning pipeline for areas of existing very high risk of flooding.

Over 7,000 houses! When they flood should we be surprised? Over 1,600 dwellings have already been giving planning permission in the first half of 2024. Despite the precautions and despite people saying it's fine, they are covered in the NPPF, there is no existing law against granting planning permission for and construction of homes on the floodplain. Even the Environment Agency advice they have given has been ignored in the building of these houses. So there is a big problem here, I don't think the legislation we currently have all the guidance we have is being adhered to, and the problem is only going to get worse.

If we are going to build on the floodplain and we absolutely have to put in some of these mitigation measures have been so elegantly described in this amendment right Baroness McIntosh. Therefore I support these amendments wholeheartedly. One last point, we have got, I welcome as we all do the increased government investment of 2.65 billion to protect communities from flooding which was announced earlier this year, that's fantastic doesn't make sense to have that being pulled in the opposite direction of the legislation we have for housebuilding on floodplains.

To conclude we do need much firmer -- legislation to prevent houses on floodplains and if there really are no alternatives then we absolutely also have to have legislation that means the houses are built are able to withstand the flooding that will happen let's be honest about it, it's not if it's when.
18:11
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The three amendments in my name in this group are particularly focused on the pressing issue of flood risk and I thank other Noble to peers who have tabled amendments in this group raising this all- important issue. This is not an abstract problem but one that devastates families, undermines communities and is set to worsen dramatically as our climate continues to change. These amendments were originally raised in the House of Commons by Hannah Morgan MP, the member for North Shropshire from one of England's most rural and flood hit constituencies.

Helen Morgan has taken the initiative along with Baroness McIntosh of setting up a new all-party group -- called -- on flooded communities. She has rightly recognised that flood risk demands urgent solutions her determination to give voice to people living in constant fear of floods and repeat flooding is bringing national attention to a critical issue affecting homes and livelihoods and writing communities. Amendment 135 the -- lighting. I thank the noble Baroness for her support for this, seeks to bring and solve a problem raised by the noble Baroness of paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework advice that currently stands only as guidance and this brings it onto the statute book.

Under this clause we are considering an application when considering application for developing consent the local planning authority will be allowed obliged to assess whether that element might increase flood risk or reduce flood mitigation to neighbouring properties or land. This would help prevent the frankly indefensible practices we have already heard about of building on floodplains. It would ensure that drainage systems be properly accounted for in you develop in. Too often these systems, whether attenuated ponds or so-called sustainable drainage systems are left unadopted and therefore unmaintained.

Or are simply inadequate to begin with. Of course we all understand and recognise that local authorities under extraordinary financial pressure are rarely in a position to enforce standards strongly, especially when the NPPF is merely guidance as we have already heard, rather than enforceable law. This would help protect communities from situations where drainage systems are not up to standard and are left unadopted, including by water companies. In Shropshire for example there have been multiple new develop and switch despite having assistance in place and usually as I have mentioned before an attenuated pond, they in turn have caused flooding to the existing neighbouring properties.

This amendment also links directly to an excellent proposal in the House of Commons by Gideon Amos MP member for Taunton and Wellington, which would bring into force -- force schedule for the flood and water management act 2010. This would make what accompanies statutory consultees in the planning system, ensuring their expertise and infrastructure responsibilities are considered when future developments are improved. If we want to protect new homeowners this is common sense, we know that what accompanies often have struggled with capacity and excluding them from the table during the planning process is a recipe for yet more flooded homes.

This approach protect these new homebuyers from the risk of facing flooding homes and inadequate sewage systems including raw sewage backing up in the gardens and in downstairs toilets. Amendment 227 a turned to resilience of new homes themselves and I thank Baroness Bennett for her excellent historical example, but as changes to the climate result in more intense and regular flooding throughout the country, we already heard from Baroness McIntosh about surface flooding and this new and dangerous phenomenon on which already affects at least 3.4 million properties make it one of the most significant growing threats to our communities and we've heard about the Environment Agency warnings on This proposes that within six months of this bill becoming law the Secretary of State would make regulations under the building act 1984 requiring property flood resilience measures in new builds.

These measures are not futuristic, they are simple, practical, already well-known to the development sector. Resilience and wallpaper in flood adapted air bricks, these can make the difference between needing a full year rebuilding and being livable again in a matter of weeks. It's that much of a difference. Having floodwater in your home is horrendous, it can take a year to dry out. The filth and trauma can remain with families for many years. If it happened several times in a row, second turn to desperation, particularly as homes become harder to ensure and sell.

As we have to ensure and sell. As we have heard, the Flood Re -- scheme is due to end in 2039. This deadline feels imminent and urgent for those affected. It is causing significant anxiety and flooded communities and communities that risk flooding. Exceptions to the flood race game, such as homes filled -- flood race game -- Flood Re scheme... They are now able to find affordable insurance. Turning finally to men at 135C, the bill is a missed opportunity to address flooding, flood risk management or coastal change very happy to be corrected if I have this wrong by the noble Lady the Minister, but there seems to be no mention of this within the bill.

Let's not forget, there are currently 6.3 million properties at risk of flooding in the UK and we have already heard that is expected to rise. Amendment 135C would hold developers to account ensuring they demonstrate how their plans contribute to climate and flood resilience and would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual review so government and parliament can see whether progress is being made. It would also ensure that no local planning authority can improve an application for development unless it is satisfied that the applicant has considered how the plants would contribute to climate and flood resilience in the nearby area -- approved.

Flooding causes immense distress, such as the year takes for house to dry out or the stench that lingers long after, it is the mental toll, the trauma, the fear every time the rain falls harder than usual. The sheer impossibility of selling or insuring a home that has suffered from repeated floods. The bill as it stands seems silent on these matters, but if we are serious about building homes that are safe, resilient and insurable, then the amendments within this group are really important.

For the sake of millions of families and millions more decades to come, as we face up to the tragic reality of the climate emergency, I asked the government to take this opportunity in this bill for flooded communities right now and for the ones I'm afraid we're going to see in the future.
18:19
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to discuss a serious issue of flooding risks. Let me first start by thanking my noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering for their hard work and amendments to this bill which I shall discuss further detail in a moment. Flooding threatens our communities and livelihoods with increasing frequency and severity, as the noble Baroness mentioned, there are some 6.3 million properties in England that are located in areas of risk of flooding from rivers or surface water.

I personally and I'm sure others have as local councillors experiencing ever-increasing incidences of flooding on our patches. Flooding negatively impacts the efforts of many aspects of people's lives, as the noble Baroness mentioned some examples, I can also attest to examples in my own area and seeing people flooded out of their homes to were three times in the space of three or four years. It does upset their health, their finances and their mental stability -- sorry, mental health. Can the government confirm that protecting communities most at risk of flooding is a priority for this of flooding is a priority for this government.

My noble friend has rightly submitted amendments 108, 109, 155 and 156 to help ensure that the consideration of flood risks is not overlooked in the planning permissions decisions. We support her and her objectives and hope the government will take this issue as seriousness it deserves. We also think the noble Baroness Grender for her amendments 135B and 135C for having regard of a developed impact on flooding in flood resilience in the broader area. There are concerns regarding the potential scope and practicality on the broader point of assessing the impact on climate resilience.

On amendment to 270 and the end Corporation of flood resilience -- and the incorporation of flood resilience, it should be on a risk-based approach. -- 227A. As we enter the autumn months, it's imperative this government is well- prepared for the flood risk soon to be faced by millions up and down this country. What procedures does the government have in place to fulfil its duty of ensuring that strategic flood risk assessments are up to date? And can the noble Baroness the Minister take this opportunity to ensure -- assure the noble lords of the government's flood preparedness is adequate and ministers stand ready to implement flood recovery measures rapidly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

where flooding occurs? I would like to thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the noble Baroness Harris -- Baroness Lady Baroness Harris -- Baroness Lady McIntosh and Lady Grender. And also think many members of this chamber, think many members of this chamber, Baroness McIntosh and I had many discussions about flooding during the passage of the levelling up bill
18:22
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
the passage of the levelling up bill and I know lots of members of this House work very hard to draw these risks to the attention of the House and the wider public. I agree with what the noble Baroness McIntosh said about the devastation it causes, I visited Calder Dale, I was doing a peer review there shortly after terrible flooding they experienced in 2020 and the impact of that was still very lives, one of the shops -- some of the shops were still shut because they were damp.

One of the things that struck me was the only way of communicating during that flood, which from memory happened over the Christmas time, the only way they could communicate was to go back to pinning notices on the notice board because all the infrastructure, the IT infrastructure and everything had gone down, they could not use phones or travel so they were pinning notices on the old village noticeboard they had there. These are terrible events. The amendments raise very important issues about how we plan for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in the context of climate change.

I can assure all noble lords, but Lord Jamieson asked me the question, particularly to the government takes these issues very seriously. We are acutely aware of the costs which arise from flooding, the increased risks associated with climate change and of the need to maintain a robust approach to managing these risks. I agree with him as well, we cannot overestimate the impact, not just that flooding itself has come which is awful, but also the fear of flooding when people live in properties that are subject to flooding.

My area is not a flood prone area, but we occasionally get flash flooding when there's a big storm, which causes water ingress into people's properties and I remember talking to a constituent about their terrible fear as soon as it started to rain quite heavily, they would be worried that that would happen again. How much worse it must be if you live in a flood prone area. I can only imagine. It's not just the flooding itself, it's the fear of floods as well that impacts on people.

The noble Baroness McIntosh in the noble Baroness Penn it mentioned the work being done by the Environment Agency and they have commissioned an independent review of property flood resilience, it's not just an untargeted review of this, it's a specific review around property flood resilience and the review will seek to identify current gaps and opportunities to grow the property flood resilience market resulting in a new action plan. That will report to the Environment Agency and Defra to the Environment Agency and Defra in autumn 2025.

It was Baroness Willis that refer to the investment the government is putting in two flood resilience and to maintain flood defences and she is quite correct, we are investing 2.65 billion over two years, that is 24/25 and 25/26, to build and maintain defences and that includes an additional 108 million that we are reprioritizing into asset maintenance, ensuring an additional... Will have the respected level of protection maintained or restored. I am repeating that again because I hope that shows the government does take these issues seriously.

Let me begin with amendment 108 which proposes a statutory ban on residential development in areas that fall within flood zone three. While we fully recognise the importance of directing development away from areas at highest risk of flooding, this amendment would prevent development in larger urban areas that are already protected by robust flood defences. For example, significant parts of whole and central London lie within flood zone three, but do benefit from engineered flood protection. Under this amendment, development in these areas would be prohibited even work could be made safe for its lifetime and does not increase flood risk elsewhere.

The National Planning Policy Framework already includes strong protections which make clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk including floodplains. I understand the scepticism about the NPPF, but when local authorities submit local plan with housing set out in it, I don't think there is any planning inspector who would accept a plan that indicated that it didn't conform with the NPPF in terms of placing houses and flood risk areas unless there was significant mitigation areas put in place to prevent it.

Our policy means new housing and most other forms of development are not appropriate in a functional floodplain where water has to flow or import like, Baroness McIntosh mentioned this, where it has to be stored in times of flood. Where development is permitted, it must be demonstrated safe for its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users. Turning to amendment 109 which proposes mandating property flood resilience measures in all new homes at high risk of flooding and amendment two to 7A which proposes introducing a requirement for specific flood resilience measures in all new homes.

Improving resilience and property subject to flood risk is an important objective. Reflecting this, and the building resilient... In areas at risk of flooding. While ensuring the properties that do not require further flood resilience measures are not burdened with unnecessary costs. Requiring flood resilient construction for all new dwellings would be difference proportionate -- disproportionate. Designers of new homes may also choose to follow the construction industry research and information Association code of practise which includes installing flood resilient features.

I will turn out to amendments 135B and 135C which would require local planning authorities to assess both the flood and climate resilient impacts of developments and whether a development could increase flood risk to neighbouring land alongside introducing an annual reporting duty. For the secretary of state. Assessing the flood risk implications of development as well as climate mitigation and adaptation more broadly is already requirement under the national planning policy from work. The framework is clear that for development to be acceptable, it should not increase flood risk elsewhere and should be safe for its lifetime if located in an area where flood risk is goose -- exists.

The minute 155 seeks to place other aspects of national flood risk policy onto a statutory basis. Namely the sequential and exception tests. While we can agree about the importance of these policies, it is important that the policy and complex issues like flood risk are capable of being adjusted as new evidence and issues arise. As I mentioned earlier and I will mention again, the national planning policy framework plays a very powerful role in the planning system. It's something to which both plan makers and planning decisions must have regard.

It's not guidance in the usual sense of the word, it is a very clear part of the statutory planning process. These amendments would only not only replicate this, but also introduce unhelpful in flux ability in our ability to keep policy under review. The proposed requirements set out in amendment 135C would also impose a significant reporting obligation on the government. Local planning authorities are already responsibility macros possible for ensuring appliance commissions and conditions including monitoring and taking enforcement action if necessary.

Finally, amendment 156 on strategic flood risk assessment maps would require the local authorities to ensure their maps are based on the most up-to-date data from the Environment Agency. This is already expected practise, local authorities are required to use the latest available data when preparing strategic flood risk assessments. In the Environment Agency regularly updates its flood mapping tools. Mandating updates and statute could impose administrative and financial burdens, particularly for smaller authorities. While we support the intent behind these amendments, we believe the current planning and building control frameworks provide robust and proportionate safeguards.

However, I want to reassure noble lords their concerns have been heard. The government is committed to consider whether further changes are required to manage flood risk and coastal change through the planning system. When we consult on the wider planning reform including a new set of national policies for decision-making, I will refer back to my department and to Defra as well as members concerns about the end of the flood race which I think is both noble Baroness is have said, although it is 14 years away, that can go by very quickly when you're looking at the end of the key policy like that.

For all of these reasons I hope they will beg leave to withdraw their minutes. --
18:32
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
Grateful for all who spoke on the two leading Baronesses or experts very much in this field, Baroness Bennett and Baroness Willis, I'm very grateful indeed. Baroness Grender and my amendments are very closely aligned as I said earlier. I have to say that while I'm grateful to -- for the formal response I received from the Minister I think she is missing the point. I think it was very eloquently put by both Baroness Bennett and Baroness Willis -- Baroness Willis what the role of floodplain is.

It is just not fair that the flood is specifically excluding them for any form house for insurance for flooding, they should be there. I think also the point was made very firmly by those who supported this group of amendments that the NPPF is nonstatic, and I quoted the figures for those number of houses increasingly which do not meet with the group greatest will in the world and they share what can only be a concern on the Minister that the NPPF is not being adhered to, but what I would propose given the lateness of the hour and the other groups to be debated, I ask for an urgent meeting with the Minister and with the co-signatories of the amendments and with Baroness Grender as well, and perhaps our own Frontbench because I really do believe that we have got to crack this.

We mean this in a helpful way to the government, because it doesn't matter who is in power in effect, we have to ensure that we are giving the best support we can to those developers who are developing houses, to meet the government targets, but that they are flood resilient to the best agree. I hope the noble Lady will agree to such a meeting, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw.
18:34
18:34
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to have the opportunity, I fear that my preparation will not be as polished as customary. The genesis for this group of amendments was the ad hoc committee on the scrutiny of the Licensing Act 2003, I would just like to record my deep sadness that since that time two of the leading members Baroness Hallett and Lord Blair who contributed greatly and I learned a great deal of knowledge -- lent a great deal of knowledge and expertise to the work of that committee had very sadly passed away.

I know Baroness Henig supported me vigorously when I tabled similar amendments to the levelling up bill, now the act. I am delighted to say that amendment 110 I have the support, for which I most grateful, of The Earl of Clancarty, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. Lord Hunt and Lord Parkinson for family reasons cannot be here this evening but no I have their staunch support. Sadly amendment 111 I am very much on my own but there we go.

May I recognise indeed that Lord Foster you also was a leading light and great authority on the committee and is a great authority in his remarks and delighted he is in his place evening. The purpose of tabling these amendments is similar in one respect to the previous group. We have if you like the principle of agent of change which is recognised by the government but I would like to see it enshrined in law. What I would welcome is that there has been recent press release from the government has analysed grossly by the Institute of licensing and many of those in the industry, and the press release from the government is very good news indeed.

Obviously I think it might be a different department to the Minister standing up the debate this evening. The government has announced reforms to planning and licensing laws aiming planning and licensing laws aiming to reduce bureaucratic barriers and town centres with a wave of new cafe's bars and music venues. I think what is important in adopting the two amendments that really I hope there should be nothing objectionable in them putting in them to the government simply to establish the principle that it should be for those wishing to put a new develop and in place against an existing music or other cultural venue, the onus is on those developers to ensure that the change of use will be recognised and that if you like the ongoing existence of the current venue will indeed be secured.

Why is this important? In 2024 the number of venues making a loss increased from 38.5% to 43.8%. Thereby this is an industry which is very much under threat I think if you look at developments since 2020 the impact of probably hit the sector, the music venue sector and the hospitality sector more the hospitality sector more generally, more harshly than any other sector. I welcome the fact that obviously the agent of change principle is again guidance in the NPPF and the use of section 106 agreement between local council and developers have been vital tools, but I would make the strongest possible submission to the noble Lady that there are real concerns about the way they are not being respected as they should be and I would like the noble Lady to agree or if she feels the government could come forward with amendments that are perhaps better crafted than those I have drafted, then I would welcome that indeed.

I would like to see this amendment 110 calling for the agent of change with existing developers and businesses and the men 110 giving a general duty of local authorities as I have set out in amendment 111 will be given the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

force of statute, with as few remarks back to move. Amendment proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 51 insert the following new clause is printed on the marshalled List.
18:40
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

is printed on the marshalled List. I have added my name to amendment 110 in the name of Baroness McIntosh 110 in the name of Baroness McIntosh Noble Baroness says just one example of the effect of this amendment it would be significant help to grassroots music venues which is such an important part of the music industry site ecology, as individual artists cut their teeth in live music venues the loss of these venues is not just the loss to the local community which is of course important in itself, but the music industry as a whole precisely because of their importance within the overall ecology.

The government should be doing everything possible to protect these venues which is a major reason why existing guidance should be turned into law. As the music venue trust say we with all most every constituency housing grassroots music venues this amendment will unusually have an impact on over 720 venues right across England and communities from small villages up to big cities. As UK music point out this has been inspired by similar protections in Australia where in cities like Melbourne this has helped revitalise the night-time and cultural economies.

When a similar bill was introduced into Parliament in the UK in 2018 it had the backing of music stars such as Paul McCartney, Chrissie Heinz, Brian Eno, Virgo Sharkey and many others. In 2019 the agent of change principle was made statutory in Scotland. Although it remains, has been said a material consideration for UK, better than nothing but not nearly as effective as it might be. We have of course the current situation with the government is keen to build new housing so there is an immense practicality about this amendment as well as a moral right and principle.

It would pre-empt and avoid the complaints and ill feeling and potential court proceedings with the loss of important cultural assets and of course as was pointed out in the other place earlier this year, such legislation is I quote, supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smallest pubs clubs and venues, to the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will benefit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs. One can add potentially sports venues as well anywhere indeed where sound is a significant aspect of the activity concerned.

Of course any loss of these assets will On the local economy and wider economy as well, not to mention the local pride in their own cultural facilities was up there is a strong argument that locally appropriate soundproofing should be a default concerned the new build in particular. Also as a music venue trust points out, full legislation would increase red tape and speed up the planning process which also means housebuilding would be speeded up as well. The music venue trust makes the important distinction about how the process operates in Scotland and in England.

In Scotland because the agent of change principle is statutory there an objection submitted by the music venue trust is able to refer directly to the national legislation alongside the impact of omitting the alongside the impact of omitting the principle. So that as soon as the planning committee receives the objection they can go straight back to the developer to ask them to change their plans it is a relatively simple and speedy process. In England because it is not statutory, there is a constant back-and-forth between the music venue trusts, emergency response service and the local authority with the same venue often appearing in their service multiple times for different applications and sometimes a venue does not even appear under noise impact assessment.

All of this contributes to what is a slower fundamentally unsatisfactory process in England leaving many applications awaiting decisions for far too long. These are really significant concerns that making the agent of change and support statutory would address. I finally say that I believe this is a very important amendment. Such legislation was a recommendation of the DCMS Select Committee 2024 special report on grassroots music venues, the government do need to take this very seriously, I fully support it.
18:44
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Apologise as other parliamentary Responsibilities mean I haven't been able to take part so far in this very important bill but in view of my previous involvement in issues around live entertainment and particularly music venues, I was very anxious to speak very briefly in support of the noble Baronesses to amendments. When I was in the other place in 2012 I had the honour to lead the arguments in favour of what became the live music act which had been sponsored in your Lordships house by noble friend Lord Clement- Jones.

The purpose of that act was to reduce regulation on performers and on venues to ensure more opportunity for live music and the growth of live music venues within this country. More recently in 2017 I had the opportunity to serve on your Lordships committee so ably chaired by the noble Baroness that looked at the 2003 licensing legislation, during the course of our deliberations on that we discovered that notwithstanding the aims of the live music act, the number of live entertainment and particularly music venues was actually reducing.

We discovered that one of the potential causes for that reduction came about because of protests that were being made by residents and occupants of premises that had been built subsequent to, We came forward with the proposal to introduce the principles, the agent of change principle that has already been referred to. All members of the committee were absolutely delighted that the then government agreed with the arguments being made by the committee, indeed in the response, the government said then existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them because of developments permitted after they were established.

As a result, as we have heard, the principal was included within the NPPF, it was included in section 182 guidance and in the planning practise guidance on noise. Everybody should have been happy. Unfortunately, as we have heard, despite all of that there have continued to be reductions in the number of live music venues. It is quite clear that further action is needed. It can of course, and I suspect the Minister will make this point, be argued that very often the cases that come forward, applications that come forward, that failed to, as they should, make reference to an existing live music premises, but that then the local planning authority fails to pick it up.

She could with some justification argue that there might not be a need to make changes, but that which the local authority planning department that should be responsible for doing something about it. She will be well aware of the huge pressures on local authority planning departments and huge difficulty. I would like to argue, the pics of the point made by the noble oral clink already, that were we to put to the agent of change into statutory legislation, that would make the life of local councils and their planning departments much better and it would help the government achieve their own objections.

If we place the agent of change principle in legislation, it would significantly shorten the planning process because it would empower local authorities to have something specific and enforceable to go back to developers with when they do not consider the existing music or live music venues. The agent of change principle will not stop some develop goals -- developers failing to include reference to this issue in their applications, failing to refer to existing venues. As the noble Earl pointed out, in Scotland where it has already become a statutory requirement, it would change considerably because it would mean an exemption from an existing preference -- premises or an organisation representing them, they can put in a very simple objection.

All it has to have is two things, it points to the existing legislation and the absence of reference to it in the existing application by the original developers. It makes it very much easier and quicker to deal with these objections. When the planning committee receives the objection, because the agent of change is statutory, they can go straight back to the developers and point out the error that they have made it, speeding up the process both for residents who are concerned about and for the music venues.

I support amendment 110 by the noble Lady and its supporting amendment, which nobody else appears to have so far picked up, amendment 111.
18:50
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
First of all, can I thank my noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering for these amendments. They are aligned with the shared principle of fairness where development will impact existing communities and infrastructure. In this case, they speak of the need to ensure that businesses already existing in an area do not suffer as a result of the development. I absolutely agree that often this is music businesses or noisy businesses that cause these discussions. They should absolutely be protected, they were there first and everybody should put up with them in my opinion.

They should not suffer as a result of any further development, or they should not have unreasonable restrictions placed upon them, which I've seen in the past, which does not seem fair. I asked the noble Baroness the Minister if she believes that the agent of change principle should have a statutory weight on it rather than solely in the NPPF. I think that is the important issue here. Moreover, a minute 111 tabled by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering touches on that role of local government and being the arbitrator between the business and the developer -- amendment.

This highlights an important issue as we seek to balance the need for social stability with the growth the Chancellor's promising and I think these issues will come forward more and more in the future so we need to get this sorted. There is no denying that we need more housing, that is clear, but development must always go hand in hand with the local economic needs. Without that balance we risk creating a dormitory town stripped of social fabric and opportunity.

I'm asking how will the government ensure that local authorities across England are supported to strike this essential balance?
18:52
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I want to thank the Baroness for tabling these amendments and the Earl of clank are to the -- The Earl Earl of clank are to the -- The Earl of Clancarty for their comments. I share her desire to ensure new developments don't place unreasonable restrictions on existing businesses and are integrated effectively into their surroundings. The point that Baroness Scott made about these are the things that make our communities vibrant and alive, live music venues, we have just had our fantastic festival in Stephen H which is a series of music venues right along our High Street -- Stephen H.

These are things that bring people together and make it a good place to live. The agent of change principle is already embedded in the national policy framework. I would reiterate my comments earlier that although the national planning policy framework is not a document itself, it forms part of the statutory planning process. The government is clear that where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on the new development in its facility, the applicant or agent of change is responsible for providing suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.

Local planning authorities can also use planning conditions to make development successful by addressing specific concerns such as environmental impacts of noise pollution. By the use of engineering to reduce noise at the source or the use of noise insulation to him -- mitigate the effect on residence. Where they receive complaints, local authorities are obliged to take reasonable steps to investigate post office allows them to consider a variety of factors in determining whether a complaint constitutes a nuisance in the eyes of the law.

Additionally, Local Licensing Authority's can incorporate the agent of change principle into their statement of licencing policy if they consider it useful to do so. This is at their discretion as they are best placed to understand their own local context. I understand the desire to embed these principles into law, but we believe this to be unnecessary given the provisions that already exist. It also increase risking the number of legal challenges to investments. We will consider how the agent of change principle can be better implemented within the planning system through national planning a save reform and for these reasons I would kindly ask the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh to withdraw her amendment.
18:55
18:56
18:56
None Portrait Amendment 112
-

regard's assets of community value and demolition through Permitted Development Rights. I'm very grateful to my noble friends, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Lord Carrington a Fulham for signing this amendment. They both informed me they cannot be here at this point, but I know they support the spirit. I will be also talking to the amendment tabled by the noble oral about assets of cultural value which is also been supported by my noble friend, Baroness McIntosh. This particular amendment is designed to make sure that when communities who go to the trouble of putting together an asset of community value, by the way is quite a reasonably high bar, not just proving that something has been endured by the committee -- community, it's also a certain element of showing that if it did come up for sale that they have the wherewithal to be able to buy that particular asset.

But there's a very easy way for somebody who is somewhat frustrated by wanting a change in use of that asset, the original owner, is right now they can demolish it. He suddenly evaporates. They don't need planning permission to get rid of it, there is no protection for the assets of community value. You may say with this ever happen? It has. I do recall a place in Suffolk, is often widely known for this story about having UFOs.

They used to be in error -- it used to be a US airbase, it was handed over to the UK government who continue to use it there, but over time it wasn't needed. So it was sold to a developer. It's a lovely community and reasonably good for developing more homes. The developer put out this wonderful brochure for selling this vision. The thing people may be aware of American Air Force facilities were generally military, is that they tend to have big buildings, ambitious buildings, even their schools have huge corridors.

There was a wonderful sports hall and wonderful theatre. The selling of this community, right next to military bases still nearby as well, was part of the mission and also led to it in effect becoming a place where the Council thought it was good to grow and extended over time its boundary. The deal was, I don't know who did the original deal, is that the developers had to make sure that both the theatre and the SportsCenter stayed open for at least 10 years.

Pretty much a day or two after is my recollection, the developers closed both facilities. They wanted to basically convert them or get rid of them, make them commercial, shops and so on and more housing. And understandably, the community was up in arms. This went on for some time, I tried to persuade the Council to do compulsory purchase and the like, but by and large councils are reluctant to do that, partly setting a precedent, but also the amount of legal time it takes and the money.

The owners had put in planning permission. It was clear this was not going to be granted, then all of a sudden they started leveling it to That way there was nothing there, the building to become somewhat desolate for whatever reason I think the Town and Country Planning Act was never enforced, this policy was very damaging for the community several of whom had moved here for these sorts of facilities for top my amendment is somewhat straightforward and it proposes changing, or adding assets of community value to the schedule be which has B1 I think it is, that already has a list of other buildings that cannot be demolished through developers used to be only the case that only a pub could not be demolished without specific planning consent, over time I think this may be encouraging for the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I think in 2020 and 2021 and indeed if things like concert halls, venues for live music performance, theatres and a variety of other things were added.

I think assets of community value deserve to be added as well. I'm conscious that I had considered also whether to extend consider whether more sports facilities should be included as well, I'm aware that clause 60 of the English devolution and community empowerment bill which has had its second reading in the House of Commons, yet another bill coming I'm sure that ministers thrilled that prospect, honestly that Ms minister demand -- deserves the gong for the amount of dedication she gives to undertaking this.

I think in terms of speaking briefly if the Minister could not have accommodated this time Statutory Instrument could be tabled or it could be considered in the next bill, I think this is a simple thing for the government to do that will be much welcomed and within the That will be coming soon. Just briefly about 185H assets of cultural value, I think it's a really interesting approach of course the Saudi listing and other activities that can be done, but again this is a potential opportunity for communities to really engage with the cultural assets in the community, my late mother was a person who danced at the cavern club and the Jacaranda, that certainly gone through a few changes over the years but we would not want it to suddenly disappear and should be recognised for the stories and the heritage they bring to communities not just in the great city of Liverpool but many other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

around the country. With that I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 51 and that the following new callers is printed on the marshalled List -- new clause 4 top

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List -- new clause 4 top I rise to speak to my amendment
19:03
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment , which while probing amendment nevertheless asks the government give some serious thought to it as give some serious thought to it as it does address a gap in our thinking about the arts and arts practice. I'm grateful for the support of Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. I'm very grateful UK Pickering. I'm very grateful UK music for their input into this amendment. This amendment would establish a system for locally identified and protecting physical identified and protecting physical That is to say the spaces or buildings in which the arts take buildings in which the arts take place, whether that is a music venue, rehearsal space, recording studio, an arts centre, theatre or visual artist studios, just to list a few potential examples and one can a few potential examples and one can think of others.

This amendment is intended to work alongside and complement the community value scheme. I should also say I support amendment 112 in the name of amendment 112 in the name of Baroness Coffey. Indeed the national level my amendment would be helpful level my amendment would be helpful and complimentary to funding bodies such as the arts Council whose such as the arts Council whose concern is primarily for artists and art organisations though I acknowledge then you create a foundation fund which will be concerned specifically I believe with the repair and selected with the repair and selected buildings was of course most arts are being produced in local, non- residential physical business spaces.

Public and private. Sometimes purpose-built, but certainly most often furnished for a particular cultural use. If individual artists and organisations do not have access or will lose access to the spaces to with which to work rehearsal and they cannot work or at least cannot do so in the optimum environment. Irrespective of the value of the work including commercially or the value placed on it through its support by a funding body. That is the crucial importance of buildings to the arts, which we always seem to be in danger of overlooking, and buildings are always somewhere, always in local communities.

I want to address early on one potential criticism of such a scheme which is the arts should not be preserved in aspect. Fashions change, new ideas coming. However the great danger in the present day is of the unnecessary loss of assets which is still relevant, still have currency, but without there being any form of replacement. The music venue trust cites examples of music clubs which have had to close, days after they have sold out events, such are the often overwhelming contemporary pressures on our cultural assets.

125 grassroots music venues, 16% of all DNV is close in the UK in 2023. 25 closed last year, but we are still talking about an overall downward trend. GM these are of course important to the local level, as a circuit of clubs for performers that is itself of national importance. Lost so many grassroots music venues threatened that circuit. I will cite one other example is that of theatres. The theatre is at risk register 2025 compiled by the Society of London Theatre and UK theatre finds that 40% of theatre building space closure without urgent investment.

Sometimes of course such buildings also have strong architectural merit. There is a real concern for our cultural assets in the current climate of economic uncertainty, alongside other pressures such as discussed in the last group. Gore such pressures include energy and other running costs, rent, business rents and depletion of capital resources alongside the selling off of council buildings and the contemporary pressures of housebuilding and redevelopment all of these things are piling enormous pressures on our cultural buildings which ought to be understood as having a significant value both in themselves and as part of the local infrastructure.

The loss of such buildings is a loss and often an irreplaceable loss, not just to the arts but to the local community which often takes huge pride in their own cultural facilities. The crucial thing here which is what this amendment specifically addresses is that we do not think enough about the particular relationship between culture and locality. But local cultural values not the same necessarily as local community value. I hope the Minister will agree with that. At present it is all too easy for our cultural facilities to quietly disappear without any local protective system in place to question that disappearance, and as I have intimated this is something that is currently happening across the whole country.

Such a system would give power to the local people for the protection of their own cultural buildings and spaces for top but as well as the social effect there is the effect in terms of the local economy and the ripple effect that can be created in terms of additional jobs and trade. Of course this is something that local people will understand more than anyone. In summary the value of the scheme as it is not just for the arts in the abstract, but for the local people themselves, whom these cultural facilities serve, that is the crucial point.

The scheme has that significant geographical local dimension, I look forward to the Minister's reply.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to support my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to support my honourable friend Baroness Coffey on her amendment 1124 when I first read
19:09
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
this my mind immediately went to pulse -- pubs, historic pubs and of course we are losing their matter exonerated rate. But then I realised having done some research that since 2017 it has an impossible to demolish a pub without seeking planning permission, so this immediately the noble Baronesses come straight into the concept of other non- pub things. Then my mind went to the crooked house. That wonky pub in the West Midlands, and are not going to say the owners were crooked there have been arrests and the police are under investigation.

But that was a building that was on the local environmental record. I just wonder whether the local noble Baroness might consider strengthening her proposal because this is something the stun on an ad hoc basis by the local council, historic England publishes some criteria pubs aside for some other assets which aren't quite yet assets of community value. The assets of community value isn't as restrictive as you might think, there is no restriction on gifting the pub is no restriction on it being sold, designation doesn't last forever it's only for five years.

Provided the uses maintained. I wonder whether there is any merit in saying that where a property meets the Historic England designation then her anti-demolition provisions ought to be extended to those pro tem so at least we don't accidentally and carelessly lose these buildings, non-pubs, those of the cunning immunity buildings accidentally given additional breathing space. To those local communities to put a bit forward for protection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to lend my support to both amendments in this group, in
19:11
19:12
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
Clancarty for tabling in 185H and also thank Baroness COP24 tabling amendment 1 January, 2012 both of which I support. In speaking today I declare my interest as an artist member of Dax, the yacht design and artists Copyright Society. These amendments represent a vital evolution in our planning framework, or we have long recognised the importance of assets of community value under the localism act of 2011, we have yet to adequately address the unique vulnerability and significance of our cultural infrastructure.

Amendment 185H and 1 January, 2012 address this vital gap by establishing a complimentary scheme specifically aimed at safeguarding spaces where creativity thrives and community and cultural expression flourish. As the noble Earl has said Britain's cultural -- challenges the we of witnesses the heartbreaking closure of countless music venues, recording studios, rehearsal spaces and artists studios for top spaces that are not merely commercial properties but the very bedrock of our creative economy. These venues serve as incubators for emerging talent, repositories of cultural knowledge and gathering places where communities forge their identity through shared artistic expression.

I speak from personal experience, in the late 1990s I was a member of qubit studios and -- and artists cooperative with the public gallery and 32 studio spaces. Based at the time in King's Cross before its redevelopment by the urban regeneration specialist Argent. At that time artist led spaces like qubit prevented historic building from falling into decay. Giving the area of focus beyond drugs and prostitution for which it had become known. And sparked the creative energy which would later underpin success of the King's Cross regeneration.

That pattern has been repeated across the country, artists acting as cultural guardians, only to be displaced when values rise and protections prove absent. As Neil Smith the late geographer once observed, artists are often shock troops of gentrification. They pioneer in forgotten places but they are very success makes those places vulnerable to speculative displacement. The cleverness of this amendment lies in its recognition that cultural assets serve your purposes. Advancing the cultural well-being of communities or safeguarding spaces essential for the development of specialist cultural skills.

To a planner a small rehearsal studio may seem inconsequential, yet it may be where the next generation of musicians learn their craft. Or where community groups are that you create, celebrate and connect. -- Gather to create by building on a tested framework of the assets of community value scheme amendment one H85H offers a proportionate and It provides communities with a genuine chance to intervene, while the recognition of cultural value as a material planning consideration ensures that cultural significance is weighted properly against commercial pressures.

This is a rebalancing, not a blocking or decision-making. Importantly, the amendment embraces flexibility. Cultural needs change and it's right communities can assess and adapt over time. That responsiveness avoids creating burdensome redtape while ensuring protections remain meaningful and rooted in local priorities. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill seeks to deliver housing, energy and transport at speed, yet infrastructure is not only physical, culture is also an essential infrastructure contributing to growth well-being skills and identity.

Just as we would not casually permit the demolition of wear away wine -- railway line, so too we should not allow the destruction of races that sustain our cultural lives. Who wants to live in a neighbourhood stripped of cultural vitality? Reduced to a landscape of shops and houses alone, with no places of creativity to encounter our shared identity. As a celebrated urban theorist, James Jacobs reminds us, new ideas must use old buildings. Protecting our cultural spaces ensures those old buildings remain affordable -- fertile ground for future activity.

We would do well to remember her wider point, cities have the capacity of providing something for everybody, only because and only when they are created by everybody. It is precisely this democratic and participatory spirit that these amendments honour by allowing local communities, not just developers, to shape the fate of their cultural assets. The timing could not be more pressing, our cultural infrastructure remains fragile, threatened by rising property values, changing consumer habits and ongoing digitalisation. As the noble Earl has said, without legislative intervention, we risk losing irreplaceable cultural assets before communities can mobilise to protect them.

This is a balanced and pragmatic proposal respecting both community needs and property rights while safeguarding the places where Britain's cultural future is being written. I urge the House to support both amendments and to give cultural assets the recognition and protection they deserve.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wasn't going to say anything, I
19:19
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wasn't going to say anything, I have kind of been deserted, but it's fallen to me. Actually listening to everyone I will just say a few everyone I will just say a few words. As I'm going to wax lyrical on another day about Permitted Development Rights, I feel I probably do have to stand and support this amendment. Really because I believe in the planning system. I actually believe that many developments would still be built, but if they had planning permission they would be built far better.

I have faith in the planning system to actually do what is right. It took me back to my own experience of the 2011 community assets bill and actually we had loads of rows about it, about the interpretation about it. I remember myself in the monitoring officer really at loggerheads where there is a vociferous campaign to keep a Taekwondo space that was in a basement of a derelict factory and designated as community value. All the parents joined in and the grandparents.

But actually we designated for 60 social homes. You can imagine where the mayors priorities lay on that. I wrote to the Minister and got what I would call a typical ministerial reply saying this is a local decision. But I was given a little line that gave some leeway to say that political choice and discretion could come into it. On this instance I took a leaf out of what the Earl said and offered a replacement. It was as simple as that.

We managed to juggle things around and we got the social housing and they got a replacement. But it did show how difficult that interpretation was. I just wondered whether there had been any work done on what has happened to these assets of community value and how successful or not that it's been. On the venues, I think it's a really tricky one. I have every great sympathy with what both noble lords have actually said. I kind of believe that in the end, communities come up with ideas and innovations to make things happen differently when things are threatened.

In my experience, music venues don't disappear quietly, they disappear noisily and there is a lot of noise about it. We had a particular pub, my son was one of the musicians that played their, there was a great deal when it closed, but something like it popped up somewhere else and a little bit of support was given to help it to pop up somewhere else. I absolutely understand what you're saying, nor do I actually believe the deteriorating buildings that are outmoded and underused should necessarily be protected for sentimental reasons.

I am also pleased to tell the noble Earl that another of our grassroots music venues which we thought had really gone has just been given a new lease of life, it was in our local paper last week. The message from the people taking it over and taking a risk with it was if you don't use it you lose it. I think that's another thing. I would also like to tell him of the saga of a very old scenery store in Watford for the Palace theatre.

When I visited our assets, I christened it that it was a pigeon graveyard. That's how derelict it graveyard. That's how derelict it was. I didn't stay in there very long, but I was determined to get it into community use, which we did and it was used for many years as a space for dance, Pilates, you name it. Rooms for charities to do their admin. But that fell off, it wasn't used we were in a dilemma in the current mayor has actually just redone it and dinner re-deal with the palace theatre for a rehearsal space.

So it has done the full circle. I don't see any reason why a good council would not and should not list their assets and know what matters to them. We have a wonderful pumphouse that is many years old, it's difficult to maintain but I'm sure there'd be massive protests if that were to close. I think these amendments are worth considering even though I think it probably is something that should be in local plans to be built locally from the ground up.

What it does provide is a moratorium on a sailor demolition which is important and gives a window for the community to have their say. And perhaps appreciate that what they might lose. We know from experience, like with libraries when they were under threat, the community stepped up in many libraries and other facilities are used and have new life. I'm interested in what the Minister has interested in what the Minister has to say and will thank you for prompting me to say something and realising it was something that was quite close to my heart.

It wasn't mine to speak on, but I felt that was...
19:25
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendments 112 and 185H standing in the names of my noble friend and the noble Earl. At the heart of this debate lies a recognition that housing is not merely the business of bricks and mortar, nor simply the provision of shelter. It's about the creation of places where people may live, thrive them along. It's about communities, places to go home. Cultural values matter profoundly. It matters in both housing and community building. When we lose the local pub, the music venue, the sports club or the community hall, we don't simply lose a building, we strip away the places in which people meet, share experiences and forge common bonds.

They are the lifeblood of our neighbourhoods. Assets of community value are often deeply rooted in local history and identity, as we have heard many times this afternoon. Protecting them is a necessity to living communities send a gift to future generations. In government we invested in the community and cultural assets through the Levelling Up Fund which the government has since scrapped. We will is a party continued to champion our cultural assets in opposition. Amendment 112 in the name of my noble friend has the benefit of simplicity.

This is a straightforward change of law that could save many important community assets. Amendment 185H is a little more complicated. If the government were to accept the principle of this amendment, we would hope the ministers would be able to flush out a little more detail of their intentions on the face of the deal -- bill. What we don't want is a need for delegated powers and then it going into the ether. If we are to build not just houses, but homes.

Not just developments, but communities, then these questions of importance.
19:27
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I want to thank the noble Baroness in the noble Earl for tabling these amendments. Which relate to the assets of community value scheme. And others for contributing to the debate. This is an important scheme to enable communities to identify local assets that are important to them and to protect them for future community use. I'm grateful for the commitment of noble lords to ensuring the scheme provides robust protections for a broad range of community assets, including cultural assets.

And I thank the noble Baroness Coffey for mentioning the club, some of us are heading up to Liverpool in a couple weeks time and I will renew my acquaintance with that club. The Earl talked about a relationship between culture and locality. If there was ever an iconic one, it is that relationship between Liverpool and that club. I will come to amendment 112 first, which would add assets of community value to those buildings that are accepted from the demolition permitted development right will stop this would mean the owner of the listed asset would need to submit a planning application if they wish to demolish it.

Concert halls, live music venues in theatres are already excluded from the demolition permitted development right. In addition the secretary of state and local planning authorities have the power to remove certain Permitted Development Rights more widely in their area through the making of an article for direction provided there is justification for the directions purpose and intent. I trust the explanation provide sufficient reassurance to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord and therefore would kindly ask them to withdraw that amendment. Turning to amendment 185H, this would create a separate assets of cultural value category that would operate in a similar way to the existing assets of community value scheme.

It would specifically protect arts and cultural spaces that are of importance to the community or foster specialist cultural skills. This would enable community bodies and other bodies to nominate cultural assets and if the listed asset is put up for sale, provide a set period for this body to put in a bid to purchase the asset to maintain it for cultural purposes. The cultural value of the asset would be a material consideration and planning decisions. Noble lords will be aware the government has recently introduced English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill which contains new provisions to give communities a right to buy valued community assets.

Through this change we have amended the current assets of community value scheme to ensure it is as strong as possible at protecting locally important assets. This includes updating the assets of community value definition to help bring more assets into scope of the policy, including those that support the economy of the community and those that were historically of importance to the community. I recognise the intentions of the noble Baroness in ensuring communities can use the scheme to protect a broad range of assets, it is our belief that the current scheme already provides adequate protections for community assets.

The existing definition especially refers to the cultural in The department will be publishing statutory guidance for local authorities will stop this will include clear expectations in relation to the type of assets that local authorities should list as assets of community value if nominated, including cultural assets such as those referred to in these amendments. And the planning system also offers protection for cultural assets. National planning is clear that planning policies and decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs.

If for example theatre was designated as a listed building as many are, it's demolition would require listed building consent. That said, I hope the baroness will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw her amendment. I really enjoyed that debate, not
19:32
19:33
19:35
19:37
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful to Lord Lucas for tabling amendment 113, he is quite right I wasn't intimately acquainted with the procedure of termites in France however I do now know far more about the House -- the horned Beatles and I had done and I will concede to look at this or he may have been chamber Monday when we talk about wood being used in construction. I mentioned an office developed I visited just across the river from Parliament. Which users makes extensive use of wood in this construction and I think we will see more of that and to good use, good building material and a good use of wood so it's very important that we take these matters extremely seriously.

It seeks to prevent planning authorities from granting permission for newbuild homes if timber construction products specified planning stages are not termite resistant. Fortunately for us termites are not endemic in the UK even though there was an infestation recorded in the 1990s that was subject to a successful eradication program. While I appreciate the intention of the noble Lord the building regulations rather than the planning system is the appropriate way of establishing minimum legal requirements in the design of new building work. The sanitary arrangements we have in Due allows to remain vigilant.

The covenant takes the rule that mandating termite resistance in any would use the construction materials in newbuild homes would be a disproportionate measure. Needing to increase costs for developers and consumers and adding to local planning authority burdens. However if the threat were to emerge guidance on timber products for new development and suitable wood treatments could be included in approved document made which accompanies the building regulations for structure. That being said they hope the some reassurance to the noble Lord, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.
19:39
19:39
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page