Lords Chamber

Tuesday 9th September 2025

(began 6 hours, 10 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
-
-
Keyword in my noble friend's question was the word holistic. That is that the victims only have to tell their story once within the Lighthouse model which I visited like many other noble Lords. What can my noble friend say about extending that holistic approach into the criminal justice system so that those victims don't have to keep repeating their story as the cases proceed within the court system? Tackle I first of all take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend for her service in my noble friend for her service in the Ministry of Justice, both in opposition and in government and his opposition and in government and his service to both government and to my party and his party.

And also could I thank him for being an office body for the past 13 months as well. We for the past 13 months as well. We have had four of us in a small have had four of us in a small office. He makes an extremely important point and the key point is that we do not ensure that, we do ensure that the victims of ensure that the victims of transsexual abuse are not retraumatised -- child sexual abuse. retraumatised -- child sexual abuse. By having to relive the experience.

That essential to ensuring we have That essential to ensuring we have better support for victims of sexual abuse and I will certainly examine abuse and I will certainly examine the points he has made and discussed with him further and I wish him well with him further and I wish him well holding the government to account. holding the government to account.
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
None Portrait Oral questions: Role of Bureau Veritas as cladding examiner and lift inspector at Grenfell Tower
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rooker. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Use of UK-listed investment companies by pension funds investing in less liquid assets such as private equity, infrastructure and alternative energy
-

Second Oral Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The government recognises the
15:01
15:01
15:02
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful to the noble Lady for her question and can I take this opportunity as I always do to pay tribute to her expertise and the consistency of her campaigning in this area. I do fully understand the points the noble Lady is raising energy recognise the important role investment companies play in providing access to private markets. The noble Lady talked about the mansion house court recently and hope she will agree the industry is moving in the right direction in terms of diversifying the investments.

The mansion house accord in that 17 of the largest workplace pension providers voluntarily committed to invest at least 10% of the Defined Contribution in private markets by 2030 with at least half of that invest in UK private essence. I do understand the concern about the scope of the proposed reserve power in the bill she mentioned. The approach we have taken quite deliberately is to ensure the powers are suitably targeted and contain guardrails, so they are not intended to be open-ended but should be capable of serving as a backstop to the commitments the pension providers themselves have made to the mansion house accord will be used only if we can consider the industry has not made sufficient progress on its own.

Nonetheless I'm grateful to her for her constructive engagement on this issue and happy to continue to discuss it with her, as we take the bill through Parliament her representations and those of the wider sector will be considered alongside our broader policy objectives, our aim remains to ensure the reserve powers effective, proportionate and delivers for pension savers and the UK economy. UK economy.
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
None Portrait Oral questions: Current state of negotiations for ending the war in Ukraine
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fourth Oral Question. Tag I beg leave to ask the question standing
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Firstly could I apologise to the noble and gallant Lord, I didn't intentionally try to cross over the seriousness of the situation we face. I was just trying to point out the necessity for us to continue the actions we are taking in order to try to achieve a successful outcome. As part of that, of course our involvement with the Americans is extremely important. As I've said at this Dispatch Box on many occasions before, we try very hard to work, sometimes we know there are issues and points made by President Kabore on his behalf, but we try extremely hard to be positive, build a relationship with him because the involvement of the US in Europe and beyond is essential to the peace and security of our nation and our alliances.

That is what we will continue to do, and I know the noble Lord will appreciate that as well. On the issue of spending and the European pillar, he will know that for many decades we simply did not, all of us as a European collection of nations, did not spend enough on defence. We are now starting to see increases right across Europe, including in our own country, those increases in spending which will allow us to deal with some of the challenges that we will face.

As for our own nation, I know the noble Lord wants us to go further and faster, he will note the commitment has been made to 2.6% by 27. The increase to 3% in the next Parliament should circumstances allow. And we will publish the strategy yesterday, the aspiration of 2035 for defence and security to reach 5%. So there is a trajectory, not as fast and as much as the noble Lord would want, but I think across Europe we are seeing an increase in defence spending which we all welcome.
15:23
None Portrait Business of the House
-

Now come to some instruments previously debated in Grand Committee. Kingham Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council housing and regeneration functions regulations 2025. Baroness Taylor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the order paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the two motions in the name of Baroness motions in the name of Baroness Taylor of Stevenage be agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2020 3B offers Ann Prudential measures consequential amendment regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequential amendment regulations 2025, Lord Wilson. With leave of the house I bake to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With leave of the house I bake to move the motion standing in the name

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Any members who wish to leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House House to House to be House to be again House to be again in House to be again in committee House to be again in committee on the Planning and Infrastructure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. I beg to move the house do again resolve itself into a committee on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill. The question is that the house do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the house do now again resolve itself into a committee on the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The of the contrary, "Not content". The After clause 1, I apologise, after clause 51 amendment 115, Baroness
15:27
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – committee stage (day 5) - part one
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hodgson. I rise to speak to amendments
15:27
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments 115, 116 and 117 in my name. All 115, 116 and 117 in my name. All these amendments address additions which, if included when a house is built, will help a home be futureproofed, cheaper to run, and also address the challenges of climate change. Amendment 115 inserts a new clause after clause 51 to ensure rainwater harvesting systems are a compulsory part of new developments and events a local authority from granting planning permission unless these are included in the design.

Unlike many other countries around the world, the UK has very little regulation around the collection and use of rainwater. This year we saw a wetter spring, increasing storms and flooding, followed once again by a hotter drier summer, drought and hose pipe bans. Taking water from the mains supply has a financial cost and an environmental one as well. Rainwater harvesting cuts reliance on mains water, relieving pressure on available supplies from water companies and increasing resilience. The World Bank reports rainwater harvesting could also reduce the carbon footprint associated with water treatment and distribution.

Harvested rainwater can be used to water the garden, flush the loo, use in a washing machine. It is often soft water, reducing the need for softeners in hard water areas. Subject as to how it is managed and how large the systems are, there is also a potential reduction in localised flood risk. Obviously the financial and environmental safety is will be higher for commercial and industrial buildings, funds and schools, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the environment and financial long-term benefit to individual households or community and cooperative models.

In fact, stats from the US show households in the US could reduce by using harvesting. The UN said that with urban populations expected to reach 68% by 2050 it is clear that with climate change pressure as well as rainwater harvesting will play a critical role in sustainable urban water management here as well as abroad. The government's revised draft regional water management plans updated last December highlighted that by 2025 in England we are looking at a shortfall of nearly 5 billion ill of water per day, between sustainable water supplies available and the expected demand.

Legislation under the last government set a target to reduce the use of public water supply in England per head by 20%, surely this is one small change that could also help meet those targets as well as the overall financial and environmental benefits. In addition, technology developments in recent years have made the systems more efficient and user-friendly. Amendment 116 inserts a new clause after clause 51 to require local planning authorities to only grant planning where developments of five or more houses include a communal ground source heat pump.

I know that this isn't a perfect clause, but my thinking is that there is also an opportunity to make our housing stock more sustainable and resilient. After all, the Environment Agency reported that last September it has an ambitious target to increase the number of heat pumps installed from 55,000 per year to 600,000 per year by 2028. Indeed, the same report stated much of this demand for ground source heat pumps would be for new build Welling's, a proportion could be met by networks of individual domestic heat pumps on shared ground heat exchange loops.

I therefore propose via this amendment that in developments of five or more properties where new infrastructure is often part and parcel of the plan, developers should install communal ground source heat pumps under the new roads, driveways and shared spaces between the houses in the development. The tarmac only serving to increase and insulates Individual heat pumps can be expensive to install and houses may not have sufficient garden space. This seems like a logical step that helps diversify their energy supply.

Amendment 117 also inserts a new clause after clause 51 to prevent running authorities from granting planning permission unless it incorporates roof mounted solar incorporates roof mounted solar panels on each dwelling. We touched on this last week in regard to Amendment 89 and the importance of putting solar on rooftops and not on agricultural land. It makes eminent sense that we ensure that all newbuilds incorporate solar technology. The only makes sense with regard to climate change but government research suggests average households can make savings of £500 on the energy bills from solar panels, they can help protect households from changes in energy prices because they will not completely rely on the grid or foreign suppliers for electricity, providing some independence and buffer against fuel poverty.

Whilst helping our national and security in the wider context. The Energy Saving Trust highlights that urban areas have the lowest density of domestic solar panels with London ranking in the bottom with five council areas having the fewest solar panels in the UK. The EST argue that local authorities regulate the installation of solar panels differently. And that these regulations can sometimes be a barrier to domestic installations, so this clause would override any of these obstructions. Putting solar panels when a house is built ensures rollout as some may argue solar panels are too expensive to install later.

This amendment also builds on the consultation that was started by the Conservative government into the future homes standard and indeed I note there has been a PMP on this issue in the other place. I was heartened to hear the noble Lady the minister's response to Amendment 89 last week that deploying rooftop solar remains a key parity for the government and that they will be publishing the future homes standard this autumn and that the new standard will ensure solar panels are installed on the vast majority of new build homes once it comes into force.

But why wait for this to be done? Why not now include this in the bill? Climate change is not going to go away. Any new housing that is going to be built should be good quality, well-designed, aesthetically pleasing and with relevance to these three amendments, they need to be future proofed to ensure resilience going forward. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause
15:34
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 51, insert the new clause aspirin the marshalled list. -- As printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled list. I support all three amendments but for brevity I will only dress my but for brevity I will only dress my marks to 1. With regard to have fun and, the private builders was push the House by Alex Wilkinson. -- Private members bill. As she rightly said that as ecological issue with us that there is insufficient water because of the changes in our weather patterns from climate change. If the government isn't prepared to listen to those reasons surely from an economic point of view this amendment makes sense.

Firstly because we are already facing housing develop not being built because there are water shortages. Secondly if the government wants to get the large number of new data centres introduced, it is going to need a heck of a lot more water. It has been estimated that the large data centres use the equivalent of 50,000 homes worth of water a day. Unless we use every single means at our disposal to utilise water properly, we are not going to be able to build the homes we want and we will not be able to build the data centres we want also so we need to look at measures like this, right now.

Some Labour members might be saying, the public won't like the idea of using rainwater harvesting, but there has been a survey by Public first, 4,000 residents in the UK which asked them that question. And there was overwhelming support for the use of rainwater harvesting, both outside and people's gardens and inside in their homes, as the noble Baroness has had in places like Flushing the blue or in a washing machine. -- Flushing the toilet. It is not just us who are making the case for rainwater harvesting.

An independent view recently, a specific recommendation was made about the need for rainwater harvesting to be addressed urgently. And so when there was a repeat of the statement in this House on 23rd July, I asked the Minister Baroness Hayman of Ullock whether the government would not wait for the water bill to pickup this recommendation but look at opportunities like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to bring forward changes to Building Regulations so that rainwater harvesting could be mandated to a new home.

The Minister, somewhat surprisingly, thought this was a good idea. I don't often get quite such positive responses from the front bench opposite. And promised to take the matter forward and discuss it with the Minister for water. So I hope in the noble Baroness comes to her feet and response to these amendments she can show the House those discussions have taken place, that the government is taking the issue of rainwater harvesting seriously and that building regulations will be mandated and changed.
15:37
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
It's a great pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a great pleasure to follow lady ladies and to offer support to 115 to which I attach my name and the general intention of both 116 the general intention of both 116 and 117 in. In the interest of time I will restrict myself to 115. I I will restrict myself to 115. I don't often take the Lordship's House back to my straining origins but when this amendment came up I but when this amendment came up I have to do.

-- My Australian origins. Going back to place in north-west New South Wales, if noble Lords would see, and there's a photo of me sitting on horse somewhere on of me sitting on horse somewhere on the Internet, in a field, paddock, we would say, that is dead flat, we would say, that is dead flat, dead dry, not a blade of grass on dead dry, not a blade of grass on it. I remember as a science student, the farmer was explained to me how to live here and he took out the back to the water tank.

And this is back to the water tank. And this is a very large tank. That court water a very large tank. That court water of the farmhouse roof. And there was no town water in Australian farming. That entire operation, the entire That entire operation, the entire household, depended on the water they caught off the roof. I remember the farmer wrapping on the side of the tin tank and saying, that is where water is. And we are in trouble. Now you might think, that's Australia, that's far away, just place.

Well it has an annual average rainfall of 684 mm a year. There are parts of the south-east of England that have annual rainfall of 700 mm per year. Essentially the same amount of rainfall. And of course there is also the impact of the climate emergency and the fact that we are seeing more weather extremes, more drying out. And I will say that there is really something for Britain to learn from the Australian practices that are being enforced over history that really can be imported here in a win-win benefit kind of way, no one loses from the proposal of amendment 115.

I think as has been mentioned we use in the UK about 150 ill day of water per capita, that compares to France which is 128, Germany 122 and Spain 120. This is water that is expensively treated drinking water that we are using four kinds of practice we do not need to use drinking waterfall. I will quote the Chief Executive of the Rivers Trust. We need to finally implement the use of rainwater where we can, such as car washing, gardening, washing pets, filling paddling pools and flushing other countries have used this approach for decades and we need to join in.

I stress that element because of course, and I don't think we have mentioned the issue of flooding, and many of us have learnt, many of us have been speaking about the need for land management to slow the flow. What could be a better way to slow the flow than to catch that water so it's not prodding out into our drains, flooding out into our water treatment plants, our rivers and the seas? Catch it and have it available to use. Often we talk about water use, there's a lot of finger waving that goes on.

People should switch the tap off when they wash their teeth. People should have shorter showers. But what we really need is a system change that makes doing the right thing to do the easiest, cheapest and simplest. The natural thing to do. And that's exacting what this proposal is putting forward. This is just a win-win round. For householders, cutting their bills, or preventing flooding, protecting the environment, and of course. Energy. I had to look this up and we don't think about this much but moving water around and treating water uses a great deal of energy stop I looked at the stats.

We don't seem to have good stats in the UK but globally, the United Nations says that 8% of energy use goods towards treating and moving water around the world. Such a waste when have the water falling on your roof that you can use right there. To have pumped it out to reservoir, prompted back in, all of that energy use as well as everything else. This is just really a simple commonsense

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not? Many good things come from Australia, and of course she is one
15:42
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
Australia, and of course she is one of them. The tapping on the tank she describes is exactly what I have been doing in Leicestershire in recent weeks. I do have some experience of water harvesting, both of domestic roads and commercial buildings and it's not difficult because roofs are designed to channel water in the pipes. It is simply a matter of intercepting that water and using it. I do have a couple of practical concerns the first is that anybody who has done this will know that even a modest rain shower will give you an awful lot of water.

And as a result, any housing development or business premises going to find itself with a very large need for water storage somewhere on that site. Either underground or above it. But is my first concern. My second concern is how that water is recycled. I'm not squeamish about drinking or anything else, no main sport. Have raised a family on water drawn from an underground stream, but offer mains. But water left standing in a tank will grow bad and it'll grow algae very quickly.

If that is not the solution, we need to find out how to treat it. Furthermore, this is a real issue, the water companies and Ofwat will not even contemplate the danger of mingling water collected danger of mingling water collected by third-party with mains water. In the header tank, in pipes, anywhere. Because they are liable for the quality of that water. So if you include with rainwater, they will not allow you to draw mains water. The golden thread here is to find a system whereby rainwater is the norm and the mains's backup.

But we are a long way from that at the moment. Until the regulatory and practical storage issues are solved, I thoroughly support this amendment, to be clear, spirit of it, but the practicalities of it need to be worked out effectively into the design of water systems supplying domestic and commercial premises.
15:44
15:46
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
nine water butts all collecting rainwater when it rains. But I would say further to what Lord Cromwell said, there are some issues. For instance, what falls on roofs is not necessarily arriving in a clean uniform. And particularly in some urban areas and others it may be contaminated by things like bird droppings, and that can be quite a serious issue. Lord Cromwell rightly refers to this problem with having refers to this problem with having dual plumbing systems in houses.

There is a serious issue to do with potential cross contamination and who is responsible. But I think in terms of the generality that has being put forward is right in that being put forward is right in that we need to conserve this, and so we aren't using expensively treated water from the mains supply. It is daft to be using that for washing the car or watering the roses. The roses don't care how much bacteriological contamination there is in it, they love it.

From that point of view, the more the merrier. A vehicle doesn't mind what you wash it with either, most of the time. There is this question of infrastructure. My late sister, who died earlier this year. I learned a great deal from her then I didn't learn from being a chartered surveyor, she was a very senior hydrologist. Her point about rainwater harvesting is that you have to be careful about the infiltration that is necessarily and naturally occurring. When rain falls and a hard surface it runs off to a drain, it then disappears, or does it go into the soil and replenish an aquifer? If it's all being put into the loo and going off down as firewater then you lose that infiltration process.

The more we build and the more hard surfaces we have, the more we have to be concerned about infiltration. In our previous committee day noble Baronesses raised the point about flooding. And of course, infiltration is part and parcel of that. If you have all the run-off ultimately going to the same point somewhere down the modern piping system which conveys water very quickly, you will end up with trouble. If you can contain that water in some way, by storage and infiltration, then you stand a better chance little by little of dealing with some of those problems.

But it is a fine balance as to what is happening, and certainly requires a lot of investigation. Now, onto the other amendments that attracted my attention, namely the ground source heat pump installation. I absolutely take the point made by Baroness Hodgson, the only thing I would say is that if a heat pump shall we say requires 3/5 of what you might call the energy demand in order to provide heating, that means that 3/5 of what that the alternative would be, oil or gas, is put onto the grid.

The chief problem with the grid is that it doesn't have the distribution capacity, and not sure -- I'm not sure it has the generation capacity in total, other noble Lords are more knowledgeable on that than I am. This raises a particular problem with housing development. And I will call -- recall not so long ago going to visit a small housing development in North Dorset. The developer there had had to provide the energy for had had to provide the energy for cooking and heating via an LPG bulk storage tank, which noble Lords will know is a very expensive way of funding your energy.

That was done because the tank was provided free of charge, provided the gas was purchased from the particular supplier. The reason for that was because there wasn't sufficient capacity in the local grid to power these things from an electrical standpoint. So that ties in to some extent with the point the noble Baroness raised to do with the question of solar power. And yes, I agree that ought to be part and parcel of it. Maybe there's a link to be made between the solar power and the efficiency thereof and the ground source heat pump.

I know nothing about the wattage that is needed for a ground source heat pump, but I say there is this trade-off and balance between that 60 percent of what would otherwise be the carbon load being transferred onto either the grid or a solar onto either the grid or a solar panel system. I know there are now things in places like Austria, they refer to them as balcony panels or balcony sheets. These are flexible sheets of material, which is entirely composed of solar PV materials.

And people put them up and they can power small appliances. There are other people who tell me that solar panels in certain configurations have become so cheap they can now be used as fencing panels, because it's a cheaper way of doing it. I don't know what the rate of deterioration and attrition is these panels, that's obviously a fairly important consideration because they contain things that aren't really recyclable, and there is the problem of end of life disposal. But I think there is something that perhaps the noble Baroness could encourage the Minister to be thinking about and working on, getting this balance right so that at least we cut some of the consumption.

Maybe not the whole of it, but some of this consumption of these expensive to produce and increasingly scarce resources. For that I very much support this group of amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would just ask the noble Lord and Lord Cromwell perhaps rhetorically, Lord Cromwell perhaps rhetorically, whether they are aware of the one million systems project in Brazil. Which aimed to do what it said on the tin, and indeed has done so, and the tin, and indeed has done so, and has expanded subsequently. This is in the semiarid area of Israel home to 18 million people. Brazil of to 18 million people. Brazil of course has a lot less infrastructure, it's a lot more infrastructure, it's a lot more economically poor than the UK, yet they have been able to deliver a they have been able to deliver a program that is award-winning, it won United Nations awards and has had all sorts of impacts.

I hope noble Lords would acknowledge other noble Lords would acknowledge other countries have achieved this, maybe it's not an unreasonable expectation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's not an unreasonable expectation for us to achieve it too. There's a lot we could learn from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's a lot we could learn from Brazil as well as Australia. I am in favour of the amendment, I would just add I didn't realise water just add I didn't realise water butts were a declarer will interest. And if they are, I had better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

declare that I have some. The gathering of rainwater is the greatest example we can learn from, from Bermuda. They have limestone roofs which are steeped, and the roofs which are steeped, and the roofs which are steeped, and the water comes onto those rooms, and because it's limestone the possibility of purifying that water possibility of purifying that water is high. And the sunlight also works as a purifying element, event goes through the tunnels into systems. through the tunnels into systems.

Under each house. That's how they get their water. Absolutely clean, get their water. Absolutely clean, absolutely pure. So if you want to capture more water so it can be used capture more water so it can be used for drinking it's not by mixing what you used that come out of the taps, but it is doing like the miracle of Bermuda. No rivers or nothing, the Bermuda. No rivers or nothing, the only thing they have is rain. When it comes everybody is very glad, and it comes everybody is very glad, and all their tanks are filled with beautiful water.

So if you want to capture more rainwater, why not capture more rainwater, why not learn from Bermuda? learn from Bermuda? I just wanted to respond to Baroness Bennett's comments, she invited me to acknowledge other jurisdictions do this better. And I agree. They do do it better, they don't always have the same regulatory baggage we have seemed to managed to have in this country. Perhaps there is something that can be unpicked and dissolved.
15:56
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I would like to begin by thanking the noble Lord Carlisle. Although he sat opposite on the opposition benches he always approached his ministerial duties in your Lordship's House with courtesy, with commitment and with friendship. He was diligent, engaged and unfailingly respectful in his dealings with me and my team. And while we did not always agree, I greatly valued the constructive spirit he brought to our debates.

I wish him well in whatever comes ahead, I will miss working with him. I thank Baroness Hodgson for tabling these probing amendments, which raise important issues about the way we prepare our housing stock for the feature. Amendment 115 on rainwater harvesting and amendments 116 on communal ground was forced heat pumps and 117 on solar panels speak to the wider challenge of how homes can be made more resilient to climate change. It is something we would mostly support, but the question for government is how far the practicality and at what cost such measures should be mandated.

Can the noble Baroness the Minister clarify whether in the government's view and current building regulations already provide the right framework to provide the right technologies such as rainwater capture, ground source heat pumps and solar panels, or whether further regulation is envisaged. Has the Department carried out an assessment of the costs and benefits of making such systems compulsory? Including the potential impact on house prices and affordability. And how these costs might be lowered in the future.

Also, the capacity of local electrical grids to support these, and other potential loads such as the EV charging. There is also the question of consistency. To what extent are local authorities currently able to set higher environmental standards for new developments? Does the government believe this local flexibility is the right approach, or should there be a centralised approach? Finally, how is the government weighing the balance between affordability for first time buyers on the one hand, and the need to reduce the long-term costs to households and infrastructure from failing to invest in resilience on the other? These are the issues I hope the Minister will address, because it is that balance between ambition, practicality and cost which must guide policy in this area.
15:59
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank noble Lords for their contributions today, and Lady Hodgson for moving these amendments. I would also like to echo what Baroness Scott said about Lord Carney, he was a friend and a good Minister. I think we really appreciate the effort he put into this house, and I wish him well for the future. I think we actually had a good debate this afternoon on these issues, I would also like to declare my interest in water butts, since I have two in the garden.

I completely agree with Lord Cromwell when he says they feel rather when he says they feel rather quickly -- Phil. I would just like to move on amendment 115, I'm grateful to the Baroness for highlighting the vital matter of sustainable water usage in new developments. The government acknowledged the critical nature of sustainable water management as recent dry spells demonstrated, with further increases expected. This year it's becoming even more pressing. That's why in December 2024 we revisited the National Planning Policy Framework to require the inclusion of sustainable drainage systems for all new developments that pose drainage These can incorporate rainwater harvesting which helps regulate sites.

Further to this we are a caloric ways in which rainwater can be effectively delivered within you developments, for instance there is potential to enable duo pipe water reuse systems which will allow water companies to manage non-couple water at scale which, while mitigating the risk of contamination from plumbing connections. The support of this examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and constructive sectors to satisfy systems. Additionally we are reviewing the Building Regulations, and Baroness McIntosh mentioned this, with a view to strengthening water efficiency standards thereby reducing demand on the mains water system overall and I know Baroness Parminter mentioned about this, I don't know what that means but I will investigate and get back to her.

Throughout this work we must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements as A1 size or date, may not be suitable in all local contexts. It could instead risk unintended such as increased expenses board developers and homeowners. Turning now to amendment 116 regarding developments with five or more hours of ground source heat pump, the government agrees with the principle of increasing the deployment of low-carb and heating in new developments. However, the amendment would be likely to limit developers and local authorities to utilise only one technology type and communal development, restricting consumer choice and potentially limiting innovation of emerging technologies.

The Building Regulations set the energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for designing and constructing new homes. There currently set in performance terms without prescribing the specific technologies. This means housebuilders have the flexibility they need to innovate and select the most cost-effective solutions. The government will help ensure new housing developments align with net zero objectives through the proposed future homes standard which we intend to publish this autumn. The future homes standard would mean that in general new homes would be built with technology such as heat pumps and heat networks, and with solar panels as default.

I now turn to amendment 17, 117, which seeks to require new housing developments to incorporate roof mounted solar panels. As discussed at committee last week, deploying rooftop solar remains a key priority for the government and it continues to be one of the most popular and easily deployed renewable energy sources. The government recently confirmed that the future homes standard would be published this autumn and will include solar panels which will need to installation on the vast majority of new build homes.

This will save households hundreds of pounds off the energy bills each year and boost the nations energy security with clean homegrown power. This will build or regulations which already encourage solar installation on new homes in the second quarter of this year, 70% of new dwellings built to the latest standards. We agree with the intent of the amendment, it would not be necessary to include in the bill as it would pre-empt the publication of the future homes standard which has been developed following close consultation with industry stakeholders.

The standard will include the necessary exemptions and guidance to achieve a smooth implementation and ensure the majority of new homes are built with solar panels in the years to come to stop for these reasons I kindly ask the noble Baroness to beg to to withdraw these amendments. The noble Lord the Minister for his response and I would like to welcome him to his new role on the frontbench. And in doing so I would also like to pay
16:06
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
tribute to the work of Lord Khan, and echo what my noble friend on the and echo what my noble friend on the frontbench has said about him. I think also, I should declare an think also, I should declare an interest of owning a what about, again I did not realise that was essential at the beginning of these essential at the beginning of these amendments. More 60, can I begin by thanking others who have spoken to thanking others who have spoken to this amendment and especially Baroness Parminter and Baroness Bennett who added their names to Bennett who added their names to amendment 115 and I was delighted to see the cross-party support for the concept of these amendments.

I concept of these amendments. I absolutely note the noble Lord's, absolutely note the noble Lord's, and the Earl of Lytton concerns but I would say that I'm sure where there's a will there's a way. And I remember a couple of years ago, I was in Tunis for a conference and I went around the Old Souk and I went went around the Old Souk and I went to this little house that was set up as a museum and got talking to the owner.

Among other things I said, owner. Among other things I said, what do you do for water? It was Midsummer and hot. And he said, with me, and he took me to the floor and pulled up, a stone with an ability pulled up, a stone with an ability to lift it, and rather like we heard about Bermuda, there underneath was a whole water supply that had been gathered during the rainy season. I note what the noble Lord the Minister says about not prescribing once I and that we must be open to innovation but I suppose I would urge that in all the interests we have talked about, that we use now what we know, and somehow leave the door open to innovation in the future because we need to build homes that are equipped for the future and developers will always have and I to their financial pockets and will resist including future proofing as a tool course expense, but some of them do make huge profits and would urge that there is little room to address these issues within that.

This is a perfect opportunity to include measures in legislation rather than wait for some opportunity in the future and these measures are good for the environment and will hope people who buy these homes with their bills -- will help. I will ponder on what the Minister has said and I will withdraw the amendments this time. Toback is it your lordships' pleasure the amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 116 stop not moved. 117.

Not moved. Amendment 118 has been debated. Baroness Pinnock, not moved. 119, Baroness Pinnock, not moved. After clause 51, amendment 120.
16:08
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Before I start I am going to miss the noble Lord on the government benches who always managed to respond to any questions I had with a smile. Despite him living in Lancashire, I even forgave him for that. If we wish him well from his benches and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will pass those questions on for our sand we look forward to the noble Lord Wilson also responding -- will pass those questions on.

Amendment 120 in my name seeks to ensure transparency and decision-making in the planning process. The integrity of the process is vital. From my own experience, I know that object is to planning application can readily feel that they don't get their way, because shady deals have been done. Transparency helps to cure any such allegations. They have unfortunately been recent examples of senior national politician becoming far too close to involved, with the developer, and making hasty decisions based on the pressure from the developer in regard to funding and costs.

So the example have in mind is that, and I'm quoting from the BBC report, in 2020 the Housing Secretary at that time Robert Jenrick MP accepted that he approved a £1 billion housing development in the east of London unlawfully. The 1,500 home development on the island dogs was approved on 14th January, the day before the community infrastructure levy charges placed on the developments were increased. The timing of the decision meant Conservative Party donor Richard Desmond avoided paying around £40 million.

And Mr Jenrick eventually accepted his decision was indeed unlawful. After the government's own planning inspector voted against the scheme. The inspector described the 44 story high building is harming the character of the area and despite the clear direction from the planning inspector Mr Jenrick rejected advice and approved cunning permission for the project. Obviously planning permission was later rescinded following the legal challenge made by the local council. And I've quoted largely from the BBC report of that event.

However, it is clear from this example alone that safeguards are needed, so amendment 120 in my name, and that of the noble Baroness Bennett, which will require local planning authorities to maintain and publish a register of planning applications where the applicant has donated to the relevant Secretary of State within the preceding 10 years. This proposal aims to increase transparency regarding potential conflict-of-interest in the planning process. The amendment will mandate local planning authorities to create and publish a public register and the register will list running applications that have been determined by the Secretary of State for Housing and planning or whatever the name is at any point, and the applications included would be those from applicants who have made donations to that Secretary of State in the past 10 years.

That's not much of an ask. But it is yet another safeguard in the planning process because whenever applications reach Secretary of State, it means that they have, are very controversial and have been either called in following referral to the planning inspector. So the planning system absolutely depends on public trust. If they are to believe that the process is A1. And given that, I do look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister, noble Lord the Minister, welcoming greater transparency and very simple process to throw light on some of these more controversial decisions.

I beg to move. Tabak amendment proposed, after clause 51, insert the following clause register of planning applications from political donors and the word is printed on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the marshalled list. It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock and to noble Lady Baroness Pinnock and to commend the noble Lady for introducing what I think is a practical, sensible unnecessary
16:14
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
amendment to the bill. Before I get to that I want to join the chorus and say sincere thanks the noble Lord Khan who we have found to be very approachable, extremely hard- working and certainly going to be very much missed. This amendment which aims to ensure that the planning authority maintaining a register of applications is area where the Secretary of State has been made to terminate in over it, where there has been a political donation associated with it, as the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock said, this might be called the general amendment.

I will leave that there. I won't go back over that -- the general trick amendment. I will make a serious point, the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock spoke about the Kate Safeguarding planning process Kate Safeguarding planning process and I think that is something more important than that, safeguarding or making a step towards restoring trust in the political process and that is something that is far more important and crucial and I don't think there's anyone in this chamber would disagree we have a huge problem with trust in politics.

We have policies that people pay for and that is causing enormous damage. This would be a step towards people feeling like they know what's happening. Might be, and I will remind noble Lord that long ago in Elections Bill I put down an amendment to say no one could donate more than £1000 a year to a political party or campaign. I would suggest we might have a different feel of politics if that had gone through but given it has not and people do donate millions of pounds, hundreds of thousands of pounds to individual politicians or political party at least being able to see that transparency where people are making decisions that are then going to affect the income, wealth of those people to massive potential expense, having that transparency is expense, having that transparency is And if it's not there in the register, or even if it is, there are going to be muttering is these days on social media.

Nothing will be secret. And indeed, lots of things that will not be true will be claimed on social media anyway. This amendment is a protection for the Secretary of State, because if claims are made of what's happening behind-the-scenes, what's being suggested, people with anonymous media accounts making all sorts of claims, if there's a formal register of the truth it would be a real protection for politicians as well. We have huge problems with our political system. This is a small

**** Possible New Speaker ****

step towards tackling some of them. I haven't been in your House for
16:17
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I haven't been in your House for that long, but this is the most that long, but this is the most outrageous possible amendment. It's a baseless smear against somebody, and for the noble Baroness to say it's a safeguard, my Lords this is a stunt. It will do nothing to improve transparency in politics, and the last two speakers talk about trust in politics while suggesting backhands and under the counter deals, that this is planning, there is some sort of corruption at play.

I've been a council leader for 20 years, I can tell you that when I ran my counsel whilst it was easy to have cheaper marks in the local paper about brown paper bags and so forth, not on one occasion was I ever aware either colloquially or in experience the suggestions of bribery or corruption. That's at the heart of this. And you mentioned the former Secretary of State of the other plays, and I do, you suggested money passed hands.

The suggestion was he met a person who subsequently related through his company, quite properly, fully declared to the properly, fully declared to the electoral commission, at a dinner. That's not improper, at politics we need to meet people outside the Westminster bubble to find out where we are. Of course, that aside, the substance of the amendment is a nonsense. Because we already have an organisation, a trusted public body that is outside the organisations you seek to smear. The Electoral Commission.

Every few weeks and certainly every quarter there is a summary provided of any donation by any individual, or any company, that exceeds £500. Not just an individual, but to political party in general. That's where people want to look if they want to find malpractice or malfeasance. But it is not the local hard pressed planning officer, they are not the people to act in judgement on this. This is just a stunt. And I hope that even before noble Minister stands up, the noble Lady will think of withdrawing the amendment without further debate.

Because this is an assault on the political integrity of our country. It should be beneath the noble Baroness and those who speak in favour of it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure this amendment actually hits the target of potential corruption in relation to
16:20
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
potential corruption in relation to planning. For my view is that the central problem is not with central government, but with local government. We are all becoming accustomed to Lord Fuller who is very eloquent at describing his council that he's been involved in as a paragon of perfection over the last 20 or 30 years, and of course I accept what he says about his council down there in Norfolk. But those of us who have been in legal practice over the years, and/or have been members in the other place, and/or in other ways have had to deal with allegations of corruption, are well aware that there is a centuries long history of local government corruption taking place in relation to planning issues above everything else.

I accept, of course, that there are protections, and I accept that most councillors like Lord Fuller would never consider being involved in corruption. But my experience of doing corruption cases, criminal cases, in relation to local government is that the people who commit the corruption, whether councillors or officers, are not the ones who subscribe to the regulations and registers that have been set out. So what I would say to the noble Lady the Minister is that we must continue to be extremely vigilant about corruption in relation to planning.

There is an enormous amount of money involved. And I hope she would be of the view that to call this kind of amendment and appalling stunt is to lose oneself in the backwoods of local government, and not to even be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

frequent reader of newspapers. This has gone a different way, hasn't it? I am grateful to the hasn't it? I am grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock for bringing amendment 120 122 the attention of the house. And not attention of the house. And not knowing which way it went, and not totally agreeing with my noble totally agreeing with my noble friend at the back, I do think this raises an important point of principle that does deserve to be principle that does deserve to be considered.

At first glance this is a very specific proposal, but the noble Baroness is right to highlight the broader issue that lies behind the broader issue that lies behind it. Without the political point it. Without the political point scoring. It is the need for transparency, it's the need for integrity, and public trust in the planning system. And I think we all planning system. And I think we all recognise that planning decisions as we have heard are among the most contentious and the most sensitive areas of government, both nationally areas of government, both nationally but also locally.

Undue influence or even the perception of it can do even the perception of it can do real damage to public trust in local communities, but also public trust communities, but also public trust in Ministers and government. The noble Baroness is therefore right to remind us that we must be vigilant about the conflict-of-interest, and that transparency is the best safeguard against suspicion. I think the principal the noble Baroness presses is a sound one, but there is of course the question of whether it is practically deliverable.

Do our local planning authorities that are so often, as we hear everyday, under resourced, do they have the skill and capacity to deliver on this requirement? I don't think they do. requirement? I don't think they do. But we should look at the HM LG take on this situation. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord the hearing the noble Lord the Minister's reply on this one.
16:24
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Lords and Baronesses for another interesting Baronesses for another interesting debate. On an issue around which we obviously need to continue to be vigilant. I thank Baroness Lady Pinnock for tabling amendment 120, which seeks to introduce a requirement on local planning authorities to keep a register planning applications made by political donors which are decided by Ministers. The right honourable member for Taunton and Wellington brought this clause forward in the other place, and in doing so he referred to a particular planning case which had raised cause for concern.

Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss that case, but I would like to echo the sentiments of the Housing Minister when I say I also share those concerns. However we believe this clause is unnecessary. Local planning register authorities are already required to maintain and publish a register of every application for planning permission, and planning application decisions that relate to their area. This includes details around application decisions where the Secretary of State or other planning Ministers who act on his behalf has made the who act on his behalf has made the decision either via a cooperation or an appeal.

This is set out in article 40 of the town and country planning development planning procedures 2015. In addition, the Secretary of State decisions on planning cases are also published on GOV.uk, in order to provide additional transparency. The details on GOV.uk include the decision letters that set out the reasons for the decision. When determining applications for planning permission to Secretary of State and other planning Ministers working on his behalf operate within the ministerial code and planning propriety guidance. The guidance makes it clear that decisions on planning proposals should be made with an open mind, based on the facts before them at the time.

Any conflict-of-interest between the Ministers and their other interests should be avoided. Planning Ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the ministerial code. The ministerial code makes specific provision for the declaration of gifts given to Ministers in their ministerial capacity. And gifts given to Ministers in their capacity as constituency MPs or members of a political party fall under the rules relating to financial interests. Also before any planning Minister takes decisions, the planning propriety guidance sets out they are required to declare anything that could give rise to a conflict-of- interest, or where there could be a perceived conflict-of-interest.

Planning case unit within the Department uses this information to ensure planning Ministers do not deal with decisions that could give rise to the perception of impropriety. For example, if the Minister in question declared the applicant of the proposal is a political donor. They would be recused from making the decision. We therefore feel there is sufficient capacity on casework decisions made by the Secretary of State and Ministers working on his behalf, it is not necessary to place an additional regularly burden on therapies.

-- Authorities. I therefore kindly ask her to Begley

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw the amendment. Going back to a previous group, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Going back to a previous group, I think we had late last week, do you think we had late last week, do you think it could be useful that noble Ministers taking planning decisions Ministers taking planning decisions had a little more training, as we suggested?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggested? Actually on this particular issue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Actually on this particular issue we do take training. So, well, we do take the training and it is deemed take the training and it is deemed at the moment to be necessary. This is all kept under review.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is all kept under review. I thank all, nearly all, who have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank all, nearly all, who have taken part in this short debate to raise the issue of how important
16:29
16:31
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
With the amendments in this group being supported all around the House, it suggests to me that there is a strong opinion that the bill should not be so silent on green should not be so silent on green spaces. My amendment 1216 to make it mandatory that provision for green space must be included in any application for new housing developments. It does not seek to be prescriptive as to what type of Green's, but it leaves that open to community consultation.

Now, noble Lords will be aware that in the revised National planning framework it recognises green space is important and includes it in its golden rules, where it says, and I quote, that provision of new or improved improvements to existing green space that are accessible to the public, where residential development is involved, the objective should be for new residents to be able to access good quality green space with in a short walk of their home with a few on site provision or access to off-site spaces.

The problem with that is that it's rather vague wording and the green space are only an objective, not a requirement. At worst, that requirement could be fulfilled through off-site provision and we must learn from past developments to ensure that green space provision is integral to the developments and it must be there at the master planning stage. Now, let's look at some of the advantages which I am sure noble Lords are very aware of. The BBC estimates suggests that approximately 28% of people live more than a 15 minute walk from their nearest public park.

And the green space index reports that 6.1 million people have no park or green space within a 10 or 15 minute walk. space within a 10 or 15 minute walk. Well the thing is that a 10 or 15 minute walk with a couple of toddlers or for an elderly person is a round trip of 30 or 40 minutes. Later in the bill we will get into the issue, so I will not discuss that here, except to point out that if local delivery of mitigation is prioritised, high quality to green space will be baked into the plans, so those are all positive things that we need to look at, the boosting of mental health and overall well-being and a long-term study by the University of Exeter found that living in greener areas significantly reduces mental distress and increases life satisfaction and I am sure we can all remember during the COVID lockdown is the disparity and access to green space, particularly for those without gardens, it really those without gardens, it really became starkly clear.

And, actually, it really intensified the public's demand that parks are valued because people suddenly really realised the value of their local park, be it big or small. Then, of course, there is tackling physical inactivity. Proximity to parks and open spaces encourages physical activity, people living within 500 m of green areas are more likely to take at least 30 minutes of daily exercise. And it has been estimated that access to quality green and blue spaces could save £2.1 billion per yer in health costs.

That is before we get onto the environmental benefit. So, a the environmental benefit. So, a green space, trees, grass, involved in carbon sequestration and air quality issues, trees, shrubs and grasslands absorb CO2 acting as carbon sinks, vegetation filters, for example, particular matter, ozone, is really important in those areas, so it improves urban air quality and reduces again the health burdens and green space tend to reduce the local temperature when it is hot in summer through shading and cooler microclimates lessen the reliance on energy intensive air- conditioning cutting emissions for electricity use, green space are a really win-win and everywhere.

And the noble Lords have just been talking about flood risk reduction, water management, and green space with their permeable soils, vegetation, and sustainable and burn drainage absorb rainwater and reduce run-off and during the debate we have just had on water management we did not mention, for example, the city of Philadelphia that had a very similar issue to the one we in London have solved through the Thames tunnel. They solved it by making masses and masses of green space and actually they spent less money and they have got the win-win situation already.

So, that has a lot of advantages, without mentioning the biodiversity and ecosystem services that we can get through those planters. And strategically planting trees to provide trading in summer which I mentioned for wind protection in winter. And it improves the thermal comfort for people in those areas. There is masses of research and dozens of statistics to make the case for accessible quality green space. But I make the case, partly, and I have read a lot of this research and papers, but I make this case because of the sheer joy and relaxation I personally enjoy from a walk in the park, whether it is here in London or at home in Devon and I want to ensure that is our contribution to this bill must I certainly support the other amendments in this group, for example Lord Tennyson and Lord Gascoigne who were so right up green into spatial strategies and I have added my name to some allotments and communities that are particularly specialist Green Spaces Bill I believe, and a great promoter of community cohesion, but I will resist going on about that as I am looking forward to hearing from Baroness Bennett.

The final two amendments in this group seek to give developing corporations a duty to provide green space. Again, an extremely correct ambition. So, the Government must see there is in this bill because nowhere does it place any mandatory duty for the provision of green space and it is not essential, it is not an optional extra, should not be regarded as an optional extra, given the large number of years that have tabled amendments on this issue, I do hope the Minister will bring forward some constructive wording before report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stage that fulfils the aspiration all around the House and I begged him. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 51 insert the following new clause provision green space and new
16:39
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
provision green space and new housing developments and the words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak to my amendment 138, but first, if I may, amendment 138, but first, if I may, just join in from a previous group to Lord Khan who momentarily was with us I would like to just wish with us I would like to just wish him all the best, as the Minister can testify My shadow alongside my can testify My shadow alongside my Noble Friend on the front bench, any Noble Friend on the front bench, any East Lancastrian and I would like to wish him all the best in whatever he goes on to do.

My amendment is in goes on to do. My amendment is in this group which is 138 and what I am seeking to do is to insert green space in allotments and community gardens into the considerations of the Spatial Development Strategy and I would also like to thank the Noble Lord Tennyson for adding his name to it also. Fundamentally, I see this as pretty aquatic proposal and it sets out that these should be sets out that these should be considered in allotments as it is not stipulated a percentage just not stipulated a percentage just that they should be considered and as the noble Baroness said just as the noble Baroness said just moments ago this sits alongside a number of other amendments, all of which are pushing in a general which are pushing in a general movement for more green space and I support all of them, in the name of the noble Baroness Bennett support but also very key to hear from the noble Baroness Willis on her amendment to all six because she broadens it out to include not just the so-called green infrastructure but that infrastructure also, something that is good.

As the noble Baroness Miller did say, all of these together nursing that where possible we should try to put them forward and I unconscious that after all of the group set to go, I will not repeat some of the things I have said previously, nor the words that have been said by far more articulated people than in this group shortly but what I would want to do is haps Echo but the Baroness was saying that hopefully, respectfully, if I may say to the Minister, what you are seeing is a group of people from across this House that are really keen to put more in than is in the Bill as it stands and item sure when the Minister response there will be many words that are arguing right is supportive but not necessary and I sure the words will be that this is great but hopefully what you will see from when we all speak and what is done in the amendments already is that it does not need to be stipulating anything specific.

Even just in this bill they have to that would be and it is something that I do think the council would, because, as I say, it is in the revised NPPF and it is something that I think developers will want to do and also the other think it is not just about nature, as important as that is, I not sing it is not important, this is not just about nature, this is, as the noble Baroness molasses, this is about building communities and develop movement is that actually people will enjoy living in.

My, I hope that we can find some language after this group has discussed and we go into the next stage of the bill, some way of coming together that the movement can support and we can find some language to put in the bill.
16:42
Baroness Willis of Summertown Portrait Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 206 in my name and before I do that I wish to declare my interest as in the register and I thank the Noble Lord and the noble Baronesses for their support in adding their names. I will also speak to amendment 138 and I also wholly support the other amendments in this group, in particular Lord Gascoigne's amendment 138 and Baroness Bennett's amendment 149. All are seeking to put in place ways to legislate greater access to green and blue spaces in our landscapes.

And, with this, multiple co-benefits that bring this to people, climate, and nature. So, my amendments to all six and 138B are similarly tensioned and are a two-pronged approach to future proofing existing commitments into legislation. Added provisions that ensure that access to green space incorporated for both spatial acquirement strategies and develop movement corporations. And to ensure that our planning system contributes more to the delivery of these vital spaces. Without statutory requirements, the reality is that opportunities to include green and blue, things like open water features, ponds and wetlands from the design stage are really often missed and the evidence is quite strong on that.

And these two amendments then would ensure that when developers build new towns that they design access to these spaces from the outset. Now, at second reading, I did make this precise case and we have made a commitment and also in the Government environmental approve movement plan, 2023, it is currently under review, that every citizen should be within 15 minutes walking distance from a green and blue space. That might not be enough, but I do think we need to think about this 15 minutes.

In the response, the Minister indicated that further legislation was not required because this is already part of our planning system through the NPPF. I want to propose to counterpoints on this and would be really grateful if the Minister could set out further clarity about how to further strengthen measures the Government and what strengthening measures the Government needs all that this commitment is being realised. The first is a number have already said, MPA PF is only guidance. And yes not subject to interpretation by decision-makers and changed by current and future Governments.

And time and again we are seeing the loss of urban green space because there is a few, even in some of our current laws, that it is fine to build over green space and move outside the city because it is better for nature outside the city. So, what has been happening as a result of this? The evidence on the impact of this is clear. The environment agency did state of the environment urban environment and environment urban environment and They use land cover mapping to look at urban green space, between 2001 and 2018.

And they saw a decline from 63% of urban green space across the country, in cities, down to 55%. So, you might say, over 17 years, 8% loss is not much. But let's put this into hectares. This is 120,000 ha that has been lost of urban green space, even though, with it in place, and most of this would have been patches of land use for recreation, community allotments, for people to be able to walk their dogs, gain food, and gain significant physical and mental health benefits that we now know are associated with being around green and blue spaces.

And since this time, since 2021, the situation has got worse, not better. Other published evidence indicates the loss of urban green spaces and redevelopment areas in cities, over the past few years, is up by 34%. So the idea that the NPPF is fine, protected green space, is not there, in the evidence-based that we have in front of us. This leads onto my second point. While the NPPF gives guidance of spaces within a short walk of their home, what does this mean in practice for all development? The taskforce advises residents should be able to relax in shared inclusive open green space close to home, but is this a short distance on foot or in a car? Also, I just want to make the point, this 15 minute walking distance is not just plucked from the air.

The whole target is based on very robust scientific evidence. Let me just give you won example from the UK. This is from a paper published in This is from a paper published in 2023, in the top medical journal. The researchers looked at the medical records for the mental health of 2.3 million adults in Wales over a 10 year period. And then they use satellite imagery to locate those individuals and how far they were away from urban green space.

What they found was absolutely fascinating and something we should all take note of. The further you live from green space, such as a park or blue space or community garden, the greater the risk of common mental health disorders. In fact, they got it down, the statistic was very strong, every 360 m further away you are from that green space, the higher the incidences of common mental diseases. Now, what was also really crucially highlighted in this research was that people with a lower socio-economic status benefited the most, in terms of mental well-being, when they had Green Spaces Bill you buy.

So, -- When they had green spaces nearby. So, we know we have great inequality to green spaces in the UK, wealthy people live closer to pleasant, leafy areas. With this bill, with so much of the focus, rightly, on getting those with lower socio- economic status into housing, please can we not, therefore, make this inequality even greater, by denying the close access that urban green and blue space, which we now know and blue space, which we now know from a vast evidence-based, is critical, for mental and physical health.

As we heard before, it is not just a support for health benefits, you also get the stacked ecosystem services. Natural capital. It is important for climate change mitigation, education, and nature recovery. So, we are sorely in need, we sorely need the spatial aspects of access to green space written into legislation so that delivery is issuer, both in the developed new housing developments and new towns, and also, when building on Brown Forsyth's. This is the point of my two amendments and others in this group and I hope the Minister will accept more needs to be done to future proof new developments for people and planet.

people and planet.
16:50
Baroness Fookes Portrait Baroness Fookes (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support most warmly all five of the amendments in this group. I believe that they are very important indeed, approaching it as they do from slightly different points of view, but they all make the same fundamental point. The importance of building in arrangements, so that from the start we look at the importance of green space for people's health, well- being, and for nature. As others before have most eloquently explained all the virtues, I will not rehearse them at this point.

But I do make one little point which may add to this. Through a personal anecdote. Some years ago now, I was very seriously ill. But when I was moved from intensive care finally into a ward, I was lucky enough to be inside a window where I could see the tops of green trees, birds coming to and fro, and underneath, there was a small pool where ducks were cracking. I love ducks, and every time I heard them quack, I smiled.

I am absolutely convinced it was a real help in getting better. And I believe there is strong medical evidence that those in hospital who have access to Green Spaces Bill cover far more. -- Access to green spaces cover far more. I have been in politics a long time, I am somewhat cynical and do not believe in good intentions, unless they are backed by law, to make things happen. So, this is why I am so strongly in support. I do have some worries.

Which have been occasioned by the amendment 121, ably brought forward. Because there, it is saying that new housing developments should have built in a requirement for green spaces. But in practice, what might happen, the government is devoted to building more and more houses, because they are needed. Other Green Spaces Bill, which are so important, with those housing developments, are they going to get equal weight? I believe there could be conflicts in practice, as this policy is developed.

What I do not want to see, is that by excluding the new housing developments, from proper green spaces, we are actually starting to build the slums of the future. I won't live long enough for that, if all the older 80s are thrown out, I shan't be here much longer, but while I am here, I will fight. The other points that arise I think come from the need, really, as I say, to make sure that we have proper regulations.

There is no substitute for that. Even then, of course, implementation is equally important. A law that is on the statute book or a regulation that is in place, that is not implemented, is also in danger of being as though it didn't exist. So, I believe that is another point which is very important to consider. In the past, both the noble Lady and I served on the horticultural sector Select Committee. I would advise ministers, if they have time, to take a look at this, because many of the points we are discussing today were brought forward very strongly and backed by some excellent and expert people.

I have a copy here. You will be relieved to know I will not quote extensively from it. But it does merit consideration because, as I say, it is a backing for everything we are talking about this afternoon. we are talking about this afternoon. But on that point, my Lords, given the time, I will not detain the House further. Safe to say, let's go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for it and make the government change its mind. I am really privileged to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am really privileged to follow the noble Baroness, who I admire greatly from afar, she is absolutely spot-on on this occasion as well. Several noble Lords have read out
16:55
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
the benefits and the value of nature rich green spaces close to where people live, so I won't go through those, but I want to focus particularly on amendment 183, B, and 286, in the name of the noble Baroness Willis, and can I commend her erudite book on green spaces and health, which is an excellent evidence-based exposition of the whole case for Green Spaces Bill. And including mental health improvement. And I commend particularly in the interest of transparency, since she sent me a transparency, since she sent me a free copy.

Apart from all the evidence her work provides on health and mental health benefits, can also give an example from the work of the Woodland Trust which I was privileged enough to share recently, and what they are calling free equity, where they have mapped the prevalence of woods and trees and discovered that in line with other relationships with green open space and deprivation, the poorest communities have the least wooden communities have the least wooden tree cover. And that means that deprived populations are not only deprived in the socio-economic sense, but also in an environmental sense.

So, the Woodland Trust are engaging with local authorities, developers, and others, in those most tree deprived areas, to focus on the creation of green wooded spaces. In order to enhance health, mental health, and well-being, and improve the environment for these deprived communities. The model comes from an American example which covers the whole of the United States and was developed by the Woodland trust, equivalent in the states. Good things do come out of the United States. And Chicago, which was an example, an early example of where this was really promoted with some vengeance.

Showing also expected benefits beyond mental health and well-being there were reduced crime rates, enhance community engagement, and the whole project of creating more Green Spaces created also community leaders of the future, who learned their skills as community leaders in treeplanting schemes and community green space. And strangely enough, went on to champion a community action, on a whole range of issues, so it is about community cohesion, it is about development of leadership, as well as about creating these very, very important green open spaces and I would commend to your noble Lords the Woodland Trust website, tree equity.

I hate the term, it is very clinical, but something that is very important. At the moment, although it was better than it was, the creation of green spaces associated with developments depends wholly on the commitment of local authorities and developers. And some developers and some local authorities are good at doing this. And some of them are not. Guidance and the NPPF only encourage, and as the noble Baroness pointed out, the NPPF is very vague in defining what standards are to be achieved, both in proximity to where people live, and in terms of the quality of green open spaces being achieved and I have seen development proposals, where planning a few trees is the best they can muster.

What we need is a much more fundamental approach, as we already pointed out. Master planning to be in a space in which it happens, but encouragement had requirement built into spatial strategies, and local plans, a responsibility of development cooperation is, by statute, not simply by exhortation, as happens in the NPPF. I know the Minister will tell me, because she told me she was going to say this this morning, that the NPPF is a requirement to lead on legal authorities.

And developers. But the reality is if you look at the terms of the NPPF for this issue, it is an exhortation, rather than anything that can be measured in terms of performance. So, I do hope the noble Lady, the Minister, can tell us whether the government is satisfied with developer and local authority performance on green space delivery. And if she is not satisfied, whether she would seriously consider making these amendments, that it becomes a statutory requirement, put in the face of the bill.
17:00
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to join in this rich debate, in which the House is blooming with eloquence. As we focus on the value of green and blue to all of our of green and blue to all of our futures, to our health and well- being, and I want to particularly commend the contribution of the noble Lady, Baroness Willis, in noble Lady, Baroness Willis, in terms of adding blue spaces. It is what I want to focus on, I need to cross-reference amendment 115 that we started with.

We are used to, historically, the 21st century approach was to go there are some water, get away, get rid of it. Like it is a problem. It actually, of course, water is crucial, absolutely critical, to our life and well- being. And we need to treasure it and evaluate, and hold it around us, rather than treated as a waste product, which is far too often the case. I'm also going to add an extra colour. I want to think about valuing brown spaces. Or at least thinking about valuing the soil, which is of course the foundation of the greenery of which we are aiming Italy in the context of a roundtable I was out yesterday with the sustainable soil science of Durham University, chaired by Doctor William Sheldrake.

And we heard that from some academics from Finland doing some absolutely wonderful and innovative research from the National in Finland, looking at the public health impact of healthy soils. Some really interesting research done with preschoolers and ensuring that nurseries had soil and what positive impacts that has on everything from their immune systems to their wasted diabetes. A whole range of really measurable impacts of a healthy natural environment and soils. And it was calculated that healthy soils, people with healthy soils could save the NHS £19 billion a.

Let's have green, blue, and add Brown as well. And when you're talking about this far too often we hear people talking about good soils are vital for biodiversity, no, good And April health world for all of us. With those general comments and offering great support for all these amendments I will specifically focus on amendment 149 that appears in my name and find the Noble Lord Gascoigne, Baroness Miller and Baroness Willis for supporting it and I will note this is actually an amendment that was withdrawn that I have picked up from a Labour MP in The Other Place, Sarah Champion.

It was amendment 91 in the debate on The Other Place. This is the broadest of broad cross party support. Now, it picked up points made by many others that the Governments seeing these green space it would be nice to have if not nearly good enough, this needs to be looked at. That is why pointing to the actual proposals in this amendment, a special development strategy must include policies related to the vision and protection of gardening and allotments. It requires planning authorities to act, not just suggest to them it might be a good idea which is exactly where we are now.

And I note that this is an amendment we have seen from the cultural society, members of the natural community garden and the national allotment society and I should declare my flush .horticultural society. No, just to make the case I am not sure that I need to but I think it is important that allotments and community gardens are vital for health and well-being stuff for food security and the issues, the coming issues of our age, and for environmental sustainability.

And these are community spaces and people where people gather, do outdoor activities and make social connections, where they learn as well as producing food. The fact is there is a huge shortage of allotments in the UK now, nearly 160,000 people are under local authority waiting-list. And 8 million people in the UK have no garden at home. The honourable member for Rotherham in The Other Place referred to the fact that the conversations people have already referred to that she had spoken to the Minister who said in response there is nothing to stop local authorities doing this.

Well, no, but we need to say that this is an essential. And as the honourable member for Rotherham said, is person's space to grow should not be dependent on their postcode or the whims of their local council. The loss of allotment land over the last 75 years, 60% of allotment land has 75 years, 60% of allotment land has been lost over the last 75 years and there have been and I note in Sir Chris we decided in 2024 making access to green space more equitable would go a long way towards removing barriers to improving physical activity and could significantly improve the increasing urban population.

They want to make sure that these issues are tackled. Just one final thought and the honourable member described these as small but mighty green spaces which I think is a lovely freeze. But we are thinking about land use strategy and the Government is thinking of the land use strategy and one of the things were very aware of is we do not have enough land, they have multiple uses and allotments and community gardens with all the different ways that they contribute to society are pretty well the definition of multiple uses benefiting society, community, and nature.

And I will finish with a final suggestion that the report stage we should not be competing against each other when we think about this I think we should be thinking about an amendment that can incorporate all of the elements in this group and bring them together and if the Government has not already seen the light, let's make sure that the House sends a very strong message to incorporate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all of these elements. I will be very brief as nearly
17:07
17:08
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I want to just add I think three key points from a health perspective and one that I think may have been covered. So, the first point is that we are going to image transition in thinking about health and on the way to create health and prevent diseases. And people may well be very well aware that the links between nature and health and activity have been known for jazz. And indeed go back to the Greeks. The key difference today I think is the quality of the evidence that we have about that impact and it is due to the researchers including my Noble Friend Baroness Willis that we now understand the physiological evidence about the impact, how being in nature actually affects the body and the biological mechanism behind this.

And as the Noble Lady has shown herself and I quoted earlier this element that green space in urban areas is even more important than it is in rural areas. So, that is the first really significant point I think, is it the quality of evidence is now there. And the second point is that the health system is starting to act on that quality of evidence. If I say that the evidence for this is now as good as for many and based on that same sort of considerations and publish in the same sort of journals, then there is no reason why we should not be thinking about how as many people are we go beyond the bills.

And, in a way, maybe I need just to have stated a very simple point, that last year alone, it million people were prescribed antidepressant. That is an astonishing number. And that is one of the areas where one might well think that being in nature and the activities involved would have an impact. The third area I want to point to is actually just Government policy. And it is very clear that the new Labour plan, sorry, the new NHS plan, sorry, rather, with its transition to the community prevention are described that it leads to create the sort of healthy environments this amendment and others in this group envisage.

I should have said at the beginning that I actually have my name on the Noble Lady Baroness Willis is amendment to all six and there are some strong health considerations here that are different from those that have been around before, there is policy, there is evidence, and there is action starting to happen within our health systems and it seems to me that if this Government has the ambition about leaving the country in a better place than they found it simply numbers of housing units, then it needs to catch this tight and ensure that there is an implementation and that we are creating healthy homes, but let me add just one final point which there has been recognition about the allotments, the importance of allotments, and it is not just there, the being part of nature, physical activity and also engaged on social networks and the activities around that and at the heart of it the sort of measures in these amendments.
17:12
Lord O'Donnell Portrait Lord O'Donnell (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords I would like to follow my Noble Lord, former colleague, as someone that has championed the well-being should be the goal of Government and also as a former secretary to the Treasury I think I take a slightly different slant on all of these things and also the green space having a huge impact on mental health is huge, far what has been said here. And by our Noble Lord with the final pages 2372239, a good analysis of these, economic evidence that looks at the difference between house prices or you have got Green Spaces Bill you do not and looks let what we call the hedonic price indices and the interesting part of that is the price differences underestimate the impact of green space on the well- being.

It is even bigger than those economic numbers would give you, so I am a massive fan of taking account of the well-being effects of planning what we do. Now, the permanent secretary of the Treasury says yes but let's not. Let's be very careful about unintended consequences here. If by what you do you end up with lovely inner-city Green Spaces Bill allotments and all the rest of it that no one can afford and all the poor end up in places where only dear can afford it and they end up with more community time which is extremely bad for their well-being and for their mental health.

Then you will have problems. I think there is a solution to this which I hope the Minister will take on board which is the Treasury has a wonderful thing called the Green Book supplementary guidance on well-being which could actually analyse all those things and I am prepared to bet we would give you a big net benefit from doing more on Green Spaces Bill however I do not know without that analysis the unintended consequences on housing supply, where it is, the distributional impact, who knows.

All I would suggest is please get the Treasury guys to do some work on this using the latest estimates I think it would strongly backup your case.
17:14
Baroness Sheehan Portrait Baroness Sheehan (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
To start, I apologise to your Lordships house for not being able to take part in the second reading of this bill. And I just played other Parliamentary responsibilities. I find myself in the position of where everything that needs it has already been set, not yet by everyone, so I will take that little proviso, and carry on anyway. So, I rise today to strongly support amendment to all six in the name of the Noble Lady Baroness name of the Noble Lady Baroness Willis.

And that I value adding my name and support, very strongly actually, to all the other amendments in this group for the reasons that have already, so eloquently, been outlined by others in your Lordships house. Amendment 206 is a little different in that it would require every development corporation to prioritise green and blue spaces for all communities and we have heard the benefits of Green Spaces Bill we have heard not so much about blue spaces, but there are many. But the difference that it makes to all communities has been highlighted very strongly by several noble Lords with strong evidence to back up that claim.

Now, these spaces are parks, woodland, riverside, lakes. But essential infrastructure for biodiversity and climate resilience. With proven benefits for public health, air quality, and, really importantly, community cohesion. All leading to healthier, happier lives, especially for those living in the poorest I just want to emphasise the importance of blue spaces, such as ponds and lakes, and large, such as rivers and wetlands. They reduce flood risk, call urban environments, support climate resilience, and nature recovery.

Even as we deliver much needed homes and infrastructure. Experience has shown infrastructure. Experience has shown very clearly that, without stringent obligations, new developments risk perpetuating an urban legacy, where green and blue spaces are seen as afterthoughts. However, embedding access into the remit of every development corporation at an early stage would guarantee that our investments in new towns, neighbourhoods and infrastructure leaves a legacy, well-connected open spaces for people and wildlife. So, in conclusion, my Lords, may I reiterate my support for the other amendments in this group.

All of which had the same sentiments at heart, but single out 138 138B, in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Willis, which is complementary to amendment 206, it is intended to achieve the same thing. But this time, for strategic development plans. Whereas 206 refers only to development corporations. I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, has taken on board the strength and the feeling across the chamber on this set of amendments and will respond accordingly.
17:17
17:19
17:20
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas is absolutely right. Starting with perhaps good intentions, but starting with firm foundations is absolutely critical, to make sure we have nature at the heart of every community, as we develop the 1.5 million new homes that the government is set to do or intends to do, before the end of the Parliament. My Lords, I particularly commend the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. And there has been a reference, rightly, to blue space.

I came up in with the concept in the improvement plan. It is about rivers and about sustainable drainage, and how the ponds in new estates can be truly made into environmental oasis. One of the biggest inspirations was when I went to visit the Canal and River trust, and we were discussing their activities in Birmingham. And as we know, there are more canals in Birmingham than there are in the entirety of Venice and yet, the interaction between residents there and there canals is minimum for the people will be living in high blocks without exposure to nature.

There, there was an opportunity to think about how you develop what you have, as well as it being almost a complete desert, actually, of parks in certain cities, like Birmingham, being not the best example, there are plenty of other cities who have designed parks in over the years. So I think it is vital, instead of just relying on NPPF which can be changed at the stroke of a pen, by a minister, from one reshuffle to the next, to actually be able to make sure that this is set firmly in legislative considerations.

In the development, the second part of the noble Baroness Miller's amendment is part two, that is an actually get maintained. There is nothing worse than seeing, you see it already with a number of things that aren't properly looked after, not water, and so we end up with stuff just dying. And that is not inspiring for anybody. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, referred to social describing. I was intending to speak about later in groups, but it is right, and as has already been pointed out eloquently, the science is there, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis has set this out comprehensively.

I first met the noble Baroness when she was director of science FQ garden. So, we have the -- At Kew Gardens, so we had our back-and-forth. There are a few things that are worth considering. The noble Baroness, Baroness Fookes, is right to talk about regulation, but I'm worried we end up overregulated and almost missing the point, literally, not seeing the wood for the trees. So I intend to speak more on that in group 6 and also the noble Baroness, Lady Young, she branched out into considering trees.

It would be very helpful to have that paper from the Woodland Trust shared. One of the things about setting routes, that is what communities are about, and of course, we do not want them literally of routing homes, that is an important factor, when councillors are considering, and I would commend the long-standing policy of Liverpool City Council who plans lots of trees but in a particular plant underground and when they are mature, they literally lift them up the ground, take them off to a park and replant there, so they are not damaging the infrastructure that has been designed, in order to make the rest of it facilitated.

It is also vital that we get reason not blocking light and interfering with other aspects of telecommunications and the like. So, in terms of the government, it is really important that having heard this in both houses, that they do proactively consider how this comes back at report stage. Because I know if it doesn't go through this time, we will come back again when we get to the next local government bill about community empowerment, and we know from all the protests rightly, communities value this sort of infrastructure.

They want it to be developed. It is the one thing most communities do agree on in terms of developments, that is why it is important we get amendments appropriately tabled by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government at the next stage. My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to my own amendment, 194. In this to my own amendment, 194. In this group. At the end of what I think might be heading towards the end of what has been an incredibly
17:26
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
impassioned debate, with very little disagreement about the broad principles and every one of these amendments. And it is an extremely good group of amendments. And I particularly like, would like to thank Baroness Berridge, the noble and learned Lord Carlisle, for the support of my own amendment, 194. At this new clause would ensure that development corporations include provision for green space in all new developments. And as we have had so much in this discussion, Green Spaces Bill not just an optional extra, they are an essential part of infrastructure, they are an essential part of delivering healthy, sustainable, happy, fulfilled communities.

This is an amendment that was originally tabled by my colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, the MP for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that green infrastructure is planned alongside traditional facilities, that we think about. Like GPs, transport, and water connections. Development corporations must ensure that green spaces are included, and as the noble Baroness, Baroness Coffey, has mentioned, community gardens, this is not just about planting trees, this is about creating lasting accessible space, for everyone, and making sure our communities do not have to fight for every single square inch of that greenery.

We have already heard much about the findings from Natural England. That can reduce the need for GP appointments by 28 %. At the noble Baroness Fookes who gave an impassioned and convincing speech, I can confirm to her the National Institute of health are the ones who identified that acute hospital patients feel better and leave sooner if I have greenery, just outside their window. Let alone a hospital garden. So, there is direct evidence and we have much of it from the noble Baroness Willis.

And I think for that. -- And I thank her for that. Given how much we have heard, I will cut out quite a lot of the speech I did prepare to speak about this specific amendment. But only finally to say, I strongly support what the noble Baroness Bennett suggested, in the sense that there is a huge amount of consensus in this group of amendments. It seems to me that there is potential for us to work together, and possibly, and I am just looking at whichever ministry -- Whatever minister is so meeting with us, getting together with the relevant ministers and seeing if we can find some way of ensuring that this is not merely nice to have, what an absolute integral essential part of infra structure going forward.

So, finally, if I can reference this back to the lovely ducks that were so supportive outside the noble Baroness Fookes' window, when she was very ill, let's get our ducks in a row, my Lords, get-together, and see if we can drive this forward as a united chamber. a united chamber. a united chamber.
17:29
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I rise to comment on this group of amendments which are different ways all concerned the provision of green and blue spaces. Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raises the vital issue of whether minimum requirements for green space should be set in a new housing developments. May I ask the Minister, therefore, whether the government are considering such a standard and, if so, whether it standard and, if so, whether it would vary between urban and rural contexts? Turning to amendment 138, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, noble friend, Lord Gascoigne, it invites us to consider whether the current rates of strategic division under the development of strategies is sufficient in respect of green spaces and allotments.

So, does the government accept that the definition may be too narrow, and if so, are they minded to expand it to give strategic planning authorities more fix ability -- Flexibility to deliver for their residents? Amendment 138, B, tabled by Lady Willis of Summertown, invites us to consider the role of strategic authorities, and whether green and blue infrastructure will be fully incorporated with Spatial Development Strategies, under the national planning policy framework. This is a vital issue. And can the government set out if we can expect the revised NPPF.

And how their intentions are will ensure that these matters are addressed in that revised NPPF. It is an area, as we have heard this afternoon, of clear interest to the House and one which greater clarity from ministers would be most welcome. Amendment 194 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, addresses the role of development corporations. May I ask whether the government are considering placing a formal duty on these bodies to provide for green spaces in their plans and how such a duty might differ from the obligations already Lee, amendment 206 concerns green and blue spaces, including places for food growth as part of the development.

That raises the broader question how should such ambitions be reconciled with the pace and scale of the delivery that the Government expects as we have heard and could the noble Baroness the Minister consider this question as part of her broader response. Taken together, these amendments open up practical questions of provision, maintenance strategy and delivery and I look forward to hearing how the Government intends to respond and whether it sees merit in drawing these together into a more coherent approach on the infrastructure.

approach on the infrastructure.
17:32
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, hope noble Lords will forgive me if I just take a moment to thank my Noble Friend for all the work he did while he was a minister in our department. I will not step on the toes of the great Lancashire/Yorkshire debate, I am afraid, but it was true to say that Lord Khan's unfailing good human and his ability to convene and affect collaboration even across barriers of faith and religion that are deeply historic in nature gave him, what I think, was a superpower which was great and he did so much work in the communities aspect of our departments work and also on elections.

I would like to especially commend his work on the Holocaust Memorial bill which was a very difficult bill to navigate. I think he dealt exceptionally well with the work on that bill. I do hope that he will continue to use the networks he has built and developed because in a time when there are forces that are trying to divide us and we see that everyday we need Noble Lord to bring us all together and I would like to pay tribute to the work that he did in that respect.

And I will of course Him but he is a loss to our department. Could I also very briefly because I know he will heed me doing it but thank my Noble Friend Lord Wilson for stepping in at what was very short notice to support me with some of the work on this bill. So, turning now to the amendments in this group I want to thank all noble Lords that have tabled amendments relating to the provision of green and blue spaces and, of course it is very important as we drive forward as we have heard my new Secretary of State's urging us to build but as we do that it is very important that we maintain the aspects this afternoon.

And demonstrating in this role this is supporting healthy and inclusive communities and we recognise very much the importance of providing much the importance of providing these alongside new homes. And I want to pay tribute to the members of this House that have contributed to the evidence-based in this regard. And particularly she was kind enough to give her book also. And very thorough and insightful monitors. I very grateful to all members of this House that have contributed to this evidence base.

That is why existing policy and provisions already in the bill are intended to achieve just that. So, I will first enter amendment 121 tabled by the noble Baroness lady Miller who I know has a passion for protecting green spaces. And ensuring local people can use their voices to shape development in their own areas. National planning plays a powerful role in the tanning process because it must be taken into account both in the planning process and in determining this. And I sure we will talk about the slots over the course of the bill but it does require local plans to make sufficient provision for green infrastructure and be based on up- to-date assessment of the need for to-date assessment of the need for open space.

It is not an optional or just an encouragement to do it. The designation of land as a local green space also allows the communities there to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them. What will of course be having national development planning policies coming forward. The Noble Lady Baroness Scott asked me without they would vary between urban and rural sites in terms of the provision, what they're going to specify about provision. And I will take that back because I think it is a key point.

And we do expect in due course that phrase that we all love so well to have further revisions to the NPPF. Additionally, new major housing developments on release must be comfortable accessible Green Spaces Bill step the green infrastructure framework published by England supports planners and communities to plan for high quality and multifunctional Green Spaces Bill so these policy provisions provide a strong basis for securing green space alongside new developments, however they also allow local planning authorities to take pragmatic approaches where necessary which rigid legal requirements would prevent.

Look 30s can use planning obligations and conditions to secure the long-term stewardship of the green space and we heard a bit about that this afternoon, the local funding has been cut. That was a disincentive to local authorities to provide green spaces. But we continue to work with That obligation and condition so that covers the long-term maintenance of these spaces as well as the initial provision of them and we recognise there are too many examples of poor maintenance or of residence being left to facing explicit charges and we will consult on a range of the maintenance of communal facilities as part of the injustice of the fleeceholder states that we have so many examples of, unfortunately, around the country.

Turning now to amendment 138, 138B, Turning now to amendment 138, 138B, and 149 I acknowledge the intent to ensure green space, green infrastructure, community gardens, and allotments, and even ducks, which I appreciated that point greatly, they are all given consideration at strategic level. The National Planning Policy Framework launch new spatial requirements are required to have regard to sets out that the plan should attempt to achieve healthy lasers that promote social interaction and healthy lives. For example, through the provision of green infrastructure.

I was interested, think it was not tennis that mentioned the social interaction point around allotments. Having been a councillor for many years, sometimes that social interaction is not quite as positive as we might want it to be. But I do absolutely take his point. Furthermore, where strategic planning authorities consider these spaces to be a strategic one the already able to set policies that reflect this. Section 12 D foresee states that Spatial Development Strategy can specify or describe infrastructure relating to promoting or improving the social or environmental well-being of that area which we expect could include community gardens and allotments and green spaces.

Equally, policies in relation to allotments and community garden act could be included within the terms of section 12 one which covers policies in relation to the development use of land. As I mentioned at second reading, we need to keep the context at that level that allows for planning authorities to set more detailed policies and site allocations through their local plans. And the way that we are shaping the planning system in previous sessions of the bill I hope will allow local councils to spend more time thinking about local plans.

We believe that policies for the specific development are better set at local novel where the needs and opportunities in each area can be considered. I will now turn to amendment 194 tabled by the noble Baroness lady Brenda and the amendment to all six tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Willis. These amendments will place duties on developing corporations in respect of the provision and maintenance agreement infrastructure. I want to thank them for acknowledging the pond ruled that the development corporations have in the develop movement of housing and other info structure, including those green and blue visions.

As a lifetime resident of Britain's new town built under the corporation, the thing that also always surprises people around my town is how green it is, they think it is an urban jungle. It is not. And in terms of blue infrastructure, the wonderful facility we have 120 acres of parkland, including four lanes is without a doubt, the most popular asset of our town. I really take on board those that do truly value these spaces. Development corporations are crucial to growing the economy and delivering much needed housing.

Large-scale develop movement and regeneration projects must go hand-in-hand with green and blue infrastructure. We do not want to see just houses. We want to see thriving communities and we know just how many benefits the provisions can bring to individuals mental, physical well-being, social interactions, and as well, interactions, and as well, importantly, to the climate and to wildlife. That is why it is crucial that they take forward the provision and stewardship of green and blue space for stoppages with highlighting that the department corporations are already subject to the same provisions of the National planning framework that underpinned requirements to plan for and provide open space elsewhere.

Development corporations take on local authority planning powers the planning policies need to be informed by the National Planning Policy Framework. Although some develop movement frameworks not take those powers, delivery of the property projects coordinated by those development corporations will also, ultimately, be subject to the provisions in the national policy planning framework. I have already set out the role and benefits of the framework in relation to green infrastructure. It is also worth underlining its role in relation to plan making. The framework specifies that the plan should set an overall strategy with patterns, skill, and design with the quality of places, making sufficient provision for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure.

The Noble Lord Chris talked about evidence and he has made some very key and important points there. Because, fundamental to local planning production, and to the future strategic planning production will be that evidence- based. I think it is really critical. Any local councillor that has such a public inquiry on their local plan will know that is inspected in great detail by the planning inspector and the evidence basis absolutely key. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into consideration when preparing the development plan.

And we have seen this work very well in practice, for example in absolute urban develop movement corporation there is a strong track record of providing almost 15 ha for parts in recent years. And this yet aiming to provide at least 10 ha of parks and provide at least 10 ha of parks and Is the support we are looking for with the develop movement corporations. Therefore believe that up-to-date local planning coverage will ensure that green space such as the community gardens, play areas, and allotments, are planned for the right level and reflect local need.

I not entirely convinced that it would help to remove the freedoms that local authorities currently have to shape the green, blue, brown spacing the way that best suits their communities. And Baroness Coffey talked about empowering communities. While the direction of travel of the amendments could be that we impose conditions on them by national Government. I am not sure that is entirely helpful. I am sure that this dialogue will continue as we go through the process of the bill and I happy to have conversations.

I would also like to thank Lord O'Donnell for his very practical suggestion of talking to Treasury colleagues about the Green Book supplementary guidance on well-being which I think I hope the Treasury has a focus on it because if they do not, we are all in if they do not, we are all in trouble. I will take that back. So, for all these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Lords topic leave to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I accept completely the relevance that we must not tie their hands. that we must not tie their hands. But given the supply of allotments But given the supply of allotments is far less than the demand for it, does she even agree with me that there needs to be a slightly firmer approach? I suggested a metric poster perhaps that is too poster perhaps that is too aggressive. But at least some sort of norms in the planning policy as to the quantity of the area to be given to a given amount of population, otherwise I worried that population, otherwise I worried that this is just going to be like affordable housing which is in the next group which is a sooner planning permission is given it is planning permission is given it is haggled down to the minimum that the developer can get away with.

And I hope that we can be a bit firmer on hope that we can be a bit firmer on this, otherwise we are back to good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this, otherwise we are back to good I will take back the points the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will take back the points the noble Lord makes. I think the important thing not to lose in all this is the right solution, this is the right solution, different solutions apply to different places. And if I might give a brief example, about green space, not about allotments, but if space, not about allotments, but if you have a development which, in the case of one of the ones I was responsible for, literally backs onto that very park with all the lakes I was talking about earlier, that as it happens, there is green space in it as well.

But he might decide, as you walk out of your house, you are in a 120 acre lake park, you might not need so much space actually in the development itself. So I think all these local issues have to be very strongly considered. When there is a waiting list for an allotment, you -- You may want to make provision elsewhere, but I will take it back where the wording may be necessary.
17:47
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, it really was an honour to take part in a debate of this nature. The themes that came through was so strong about inequity, and the fact that we have in this House, the Baroness Willis and Lord Layard, who have done research into these issues, pointing to a very strong roadmap, where we should be going collectively, towards the report stage, as the noble Baroness Bennett said, we could coalesce around something, that I would say to the Minister, we don't want to clash with the government's wish to empower local authorities, to do the best by their communities, what their communities want.

But it was the noble Baroness, Baroness Fookes, who said noble intentions are not enough and she was absolutely right. And incidentally, she has done so much in this House through her all- party group on gardening and horticulture, to introduce us to all sorts of things and I would like to put on record my thanks to her for that. We do need to coalesce around something, to put this firmly on the face of the bill, because of all the reasons the other noble Lords have said, good intentions are not enough and the NPPF, however it is beefed up, is still pretty vague.

So, I think the Minister can shame, from everything that everybody has said, that this will be coming back at report, and I hope perhaps we can have some conversations between now and then. To see just what form we all have something better than just good intentions, but in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 122, after clause 51, amendment 122,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

122, after clause 51, amendment 122, Lord Best. I rise with some trepidation after that terrific group on Green after that terrific group on Green Spaces Bill's but I rise to speak to
17:49
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
Spaces Bill's but I rise to speak to amendment 122, together with 141 and 151, all of which address the issue of affordable housing delivery. Amendment 122 introduces a freestanding new clause which provides for regulations to ensure that affordable housing gets delivered where it is a condition of planning consent, usually through a so-called section 106 agreement. We are all only too familiar with the problem that affordable home is for local people are expected from you development, it failed to development, it failed to materialise.

With the excuse of liability, housebuilders back out of delivering all or most of the affordable they promised. They say they have discovered conditions they had not expected or encountered, problems with subcontractors or higher interest rates, building costs, or something else. And now they may not be able to make a 20% profit from the development. And it is the affordable housing element that they insist must take the hit. Despite affordable housing being a condition of planning consent, precious few such homes may appear.

My Lords, the price the housebuilder pays for the land should reflect their obligations to provide affordable housing and related infrastructure. It should never be acceptable to claim we had to pay so much for the land, and now we cannot honour our agreement to build the affordable home. Indeed, the government is planning practice guidance explicitly states under no circumstances will the price paid for the land be a relevant justification for failing to record with relevant policies. And yet this continues to be exactly what happens.

The amendment recognises that the level of affordable housing in every development, the section 106 agreement, is subject to complex negotiation between two unequal parties, the local planning department and the housebuilder. As a report from a National Audit Office set out in June of this year, there is a serious imbalance between these two, with local planning authorities being hopelessly under resourced while large developers can employ expensive consultants and legal experts, to find ways of negotiating their contributions down. The government commendably is finding ways of better resourcing local planning authorities.

This amendment adds support for planners, by cutting down on the imbalanced and interminable arguing over affordable housing numbers. The affordable housing element becomes nonnegotiable. Amendment 121 empowers the Secretary of State, to make sure developers actually deliver the affordable home, that were a condition of planning consent. It adds a further detailed by bludging the housebuilder to provide a minimum of 20% of the homes for social rent, or the percentage that is set out in a deal local planning authority's framework, if that is higher.

The definition of social rent housing is that used by the regulator of social housing in its rent standard. My Lords, how important is this contribution by the housebuilder to affordable housing? Over recent years, the obligation on the housebuilders have produced nearly half, 44% last year, of the total program of affordable home. However, according to the National Audit Office, the value from the contributions of developers for both infrastructure and affordable housing fell, from 6.4 billion to housing fell, from 6.4 billion to 5.5 billion last year.

We cannot afford for this vital program of affordable home funded by developer contributions to be depleted by housebuilders, reneging on other planning obligations. My Lords, amendment one to choose keeps it simple. It dismisses -- Amendment 122 keeps it simple, about what is viable, what is profitable. It requires straightforward fulfilment of the planning of occasions accepted by housebuilders, who have escaped Christmas abilities and reduce or scrap the quota of social homes, they were a bigoted deliver. It introduces a baseline of 20%, a social rent, for new homes, in all relevant developments I know the noble Baroness, the minister, recognises the problem with which this amendment seeks to address, and I hope she will find it acceptable.

My Lords, I go straight on to speak to amendments 141 and 151, again, in my name, and again supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Carlile. Thank you for the support from those. These two amendments go together as a backup my earlier amendment. While the earlier amendment is just about developer contributions to providing affordable home, these two amendments relate to all developments that will be covered by the Spatial Development Strategies, outlined by the bill.

amendment 141 stipulates development strategies stipulates development strategies can specify or describe the amount of affordable housing, as well as other kinds of housing. This amendment 141 spells out that the affordable housing should be mostly for social rent, rather than, for example, shared ownership or middle market renting. And amendment 151 market renting. And amendment 151 then defined social rent, as an amendment 122, it states social rent is the accommodation, rented according to the vent standards specified by the Regulator of Social Housing.

-- The rent standards. This is the rent level that applies to most existing council and housing association properties. It is based on a measurement that combines earnings data with property values. It represents the form of affordable housing, which actually helps those on average incomes or less. My Lords, using the common definition that rents are only affordable if they absorb 1/3 or less of the incomes of the occupiers, the current arrangements are producing pathetically small numbers of new homes, for those in the bottom half of the income distribution.

If the 1.5 million new homes planned for the course of this parliament were to contain a similar quantum of social rented homes as the current arrangements, then as little as 8% of all the new homes would actually be affordable to those on or below average incomes. This does not sound like a very fair distribution. Of all the new homes we are planning to build. Fortunately, government is determined to see more of the social rented housing created. My Lords, this amendment chimes with that intention.

The government has stated that of the 300,000 affordable home study funded by the Spending Review's £39 billion for Homes England to provide it social and Affordable Homes Programme, of that, 300,000 homes a year, 880,000 homes should be for social rent. If achieved, this would represent a significant rise in the proportion of homes that are genuinely affordable. Amendments 141 and 142 greatly improve the government's chances of actually delivering this outcome. 141 establishes a majority of the housing within the development strategy must be for social rent.

Defined by amendment 151, and this requirement would cover affordable homes in the publicly subsidised housing program. As well as those affordable is that are built by the housebuilders in fulfilment of their planning obligations. So, the amendments accord with the government's ambitions and give greater relevance to the new Spatial Development Strategies. They will ensure a meaningful proportion of the 1.5 million new homes, will be for those in the health of the population that cannot otherwise afford a decent home. I know the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be sympathetic to these amendments and I beg to move.
17:58
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed, after clause 51, insert the new clause as printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the Marshalled list. My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendments in this group, 137 and amendments in this group, 137 and 171. And to give wholehearted support to the amendment so eloquently and coherently proposed eloquently and coherently proposed by the Noble Lord Best, which I and other noble Lords have signed. It is other noble Lords have signed. It is interesting that this group of amendments demonstrates all too amendments demonstrates all too clearly the overwhelming need for many, many more homes for social many, many more homes for social rent.

It is deeply troubling that the number of homes in that category the number of homes in that category being built has fallen significantly. Despite the government's own stated ambition to government's own stated ambition to tackle the housing crisis, and for " A significant amount of those homes" A significant amount of those homes" To be for social rent. We all know that social housing provides that social housing provides stability, dignity, and opportunity, stability, dignity, and opportunity, for those in most need. Yet, year after year, we see promises outstripped by reality, leaving outstripped by reality, leaving rising numbers of families trapped in temporary or unsuitable accommodation.

Currently, my Lords, accommodation. Currently, my Lords, 130,000 families, which have 169,000 children within them, in that accommodation. I regard it as a national scandal. Following welcome funding announcements from the government, the main issues genuinely now appear to be delivery and affordability. Both deep and entrenched problems. And in a small way, the amendments in this group are seeking to be part of the solution. Without urgent action on both fronts, all our aspirations remain little more than warm words.

While communities across the country continue to feel the harsh In addition to the figures already mentioned by the Noble Lord Best, which I knew he would do well, I want us to look very briefly at the net delivery. And that is the number of homes built minus the homes lost in that category which is a true reflection of numbers. Official figures which now helpfully separate the tenures which they did not do until recently when they were all lumped together as affordable, they continue to show net losses.

In the guaranteeing March March 2023, 22/23 there was a loss of 404,060 homes. And in 2023/24, despite a rise in the actual delivery of affordable homes, the social think you resulted in just 700 new net homes. After accounting for the losses by Right to Buy and other schemes, just let that sit in. Only 700 net new homes for social rent we have over 130,000 households in temporary accommodation. Hence the irrefutable need and scale for homes for central rent and the urgent need to put pressure on the right places, which is what these amendments seek to do.

The first right place being very definitely the new Spatial Development Strategies. This is the aim of my amendment 137 and that of Lord Best 142. This has to be possible and desirable, more so given that the Government is given more weight and greater strategic importance to these strategic plans. No, the Liberal Democrats have an ambitious target of building up to 150,000 social homes per year as referenced in my amendment 137 which one might say is totally unrealistic, given the current trends and that there are significant barriers in the way of achieving that goal ever.

Despite the urgent need, but numbers aside, it illustrates the depth of the problem and our figures were based on evidential need. And it demonstrates our aspiration to solve it. Amendment 137 merely points out that if the Government is serious in its determination to provide more homes for social rent, then it would surely want to ensure that all specialty strategies, spatial strategies, should and must specify how they are going to do it, or it is all just words.

Such legislative pressure is vital, as we all know that any wiggle room is so easily exploited by the major housebuilders by using the viability loophole that we have spoken about so often in this chamber. The other wicket issue is affordability. I was particularly shocked by Lord Best's analysis about the percentage of social homes delivered, but if it continued in that trend only 8% would match the definition of truly affordable to those on low incomes. Despite all our best intentions, it will barely our best intentions, it will barely make a dent in the need.

Which is why we support Lord Best's amendment 122. My Lords, given that the bill allows for local authority to describe the amount of formal housing, as well as other kinds of housing, which we will go onto debate in other groups, it is essential that all planning authorities have an obligation to meet the government's desire to build more social. Which is why we all heartily support Lord Best's amendment 141 which makes it very clear that affordable housing should be mainly for social rent rather than a shared ownership or so-called affordable rent.

These definitions are important and clarity is clearly being sold, both in amendment 158 and 151 from the Noble Lord Best. We And assurance is muchly needed. Look forward to the Ministers response, because the terminology is still misleading. In fact, we are these benches would question the continued use of the phrase affordable at all. A term that, for many, is fast becoming meaningless. When ordinary families, young people, and key workers here that new development will provide so-called affordable homes, the day to cope.

A time and time again they discover what has been delivered as far beyond their reach. We know that affordable is defined as 80% of the market value. But in areas where the market is overheated, a significant part of that country, 80 % for is still too much. It doesn't matter if you are teacher in Watford, nursing leads, or a keratin combo, these homes are not affordable to you. To conclude, we should be honest with the public. Words matter, and to call something affordable when it is blatantly not affordable when it is blatantly not as misleading.

Worst, it erodes trust in both Government and developers. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, we must return to clear robust definitions that are understood by all and linked to local incomes and not the inflated market. Which is what my amendment 171 is trying to do by giving local authorities more power to be more specific about what that term means in their area. I know the Noble Lady the Minister shares our passion and recognises the need for more social.

As does her Government. I therefore look forward to her reply.
18:07
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
I have added my name to amendment 122 along with others linked to the provision of Social Housing Act. This is of interest to those of us that are concerned about the provision and there is not actually very much in the bill itself, if you look through the first few pages the contents, the word housing appears nowhere. In the whole of chapter 2, 21 pages, I found the word housing twice. And that was it apart from a reference on the definition of affordable housing 74.

And the amendments in this group are not actually amending anything in the bill. They are all inserting additions after clause 52. Apart from future debates about housing and the construction, this group of amendments and the next will have much of the evidence on the housing provision. Amendment 122A moved by the Noble Lord Best will hold the feet of developers to the fire when it comes to the provision of social housing and section 16. And we have heard debates in the past about ensuring social does not miss out about the build out last and the developing extenuating circumstances of the so-called financial viability assessments.

And as Lord Best says half of all affordable houses are now provided under section 106 that seeks to maximise this resource. Lord Best explained what happens in practice, the developer will attempt to build the affordable houses last in order to maximise the cash flow by selling them first. But towards the end of the development that they do not quite at up and the last thing he wants us to do is anything that impact on the value of the market, so he will not want to touch the green space, playgrounds, or the car parking and will try to squeeze out the affordable housing.

And research by the CPR Easter shows that developers and land promoters used in viability assessments get out of building almost half of the affordable houses available and they found almost 18% of those, 34%, the system at the moment favours the developers that can overbid that smaller developer and the sophisticated assessments the under resourced local authorities. But more recently we have had the opposite problem, our developers providing social with their being no registered social landlord to take over and I arrange this before the resource on July 3 and the Minister kindly wrote to me until I ninth and told me that the Governments homes England clearing service asked and we can judge the scale of the problem at 113 households larger than 14 local planning authorities registered.

And the Minister told me about this and I quote Moore action is needed for those parties to ensure that one in six homes are built to a good quality and marketed at a reasonable price, purchased quickly and efficiently, by social providers, so is the Noble Lady able to tell what further action might be? And what progress has been made? Last December they estimated there were 17,000 affordable homes stalled due to a lack of providers in the market. So, how many are there now? Amendment 141 refers to Social Housing Act which I have added my name.

It is with asking the question about why we need social. The market can provide most of the essentials in life we can claim but actually no country in the world has a market that has met housing need. And worldwide social provides affordable homes for families and individuals and if you look at all prosperous European countries a reliable portion of Social Housing Act we do. So, all Governments have supported the housing markets in this country by supporting the ownership initially through mortgage interest tax in 1999 the starter homes initiative, or by supporting social, which is what this amendment is about, section 106 of the housing association with the homes program.

And whilst we did try and alternative in the market approach he wanted to move local authority events over to market events and Housing Benefit to take the strain and under that scenario there would have been no social rents. It was an explicit shift from the water subsidy to personal subsidies. I have to say that if Margaret Thatcher removed them from the Government before the 1988 Housing Act was introduced because the experiment simply did not work. It did not work because it meant an annual increase in rent which were unpopular, price was paid at local elections it had an impact on the retail price and saw public expenditure to the Treasury it is assumed that the DHSS would be happy to finance an ever-growing Housing Benefit bill which they were not and remember Tony Newton complaining the housing program, so we have referred rightly in my mention of the traditional rents that low market rents, capital subsidies or central mono six or those retained by social landlords.

And I was struck about one sentence in the briefing for this debate and I quote that social housing has lost its universal status, is becoming an assist service and relying on the infrastructure. They are right, nearly 60 years ago when I first became a local councillor if homeownership was beyond your reach you put your name down on the council waiting and in due course you would get an offer. Now that is no longer the case. This is strictly targeted at those in the most pressing need under the provisions of the persons act.

The local authorities are struggling even to meet those commitments which will be accentuated as the asylum seekers are part of hotels. But it is the ambulance analogy that shelters are running that focus on for a moment the risk of being controversial in the real ambulance takes you to a hospital where you are better and this takes you to Social Housing Act and the benefit of that housing to put you together again you are not discharged but still there are people in the shelter.

But so it raises the contentious issue of security of tenure for social. Given the pressure on social there should be some incentives that I emphasise to encourage those that have benefited to move on and to make way for those in desperate circumstances that generated the original talent. This is not to detract for more social housing made by the noble But it is to raise the question, given the changed circumstances, over the last 60 years, whether we need to have a look at lifelong security, if we are to make the best use of a scanned resource that social housing is.

-- Scanned resource.
18:16
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
I share the aspiration we should build sufficient and affordable housing in order to house those who need it. I don't propose to repeat what has been said in the three excellent speeches we have heard so far in this debate. I want to turn to a particular issue with which I hope that the Minister who replies will agree. One of the ways in which we ensure that affordable housing is built in sufficient numbers is to ensure that the contractual relationship between builders and the councils who give them planning permission is a fair one and it doesn't give undue advantage to the contractors.

It has not always been the case that that is so. And indeed, there are examples very recently and I will refer to one very major one. Some years ago, however, one of the things I did in my legal life was act as a part-time Chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The U.K.'s anti-trust court. One of the cases in which I sat and gave judgement was a case in which a number of household name builders had entered into cartel arrangements, in order but it was ensured that one of them will win each contract.

It was so endemic in the building system, their academic, who I will not name, from a university I will not name, a respectable university, wrote a book respectable university, wrote a book on how to enter these cartel arrangements. I didn't do the builders much good because the tribunal which I was sharing -- Find them a very large amount of money, each related to their turnover. But I haven't learned their lesson of This year, group of the largest housebuilders in the UK, have agreed to a series of legally binding commitments, to ensure that they are acting lawfully.

And to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, and they have done that, following an investigation, by the competition and -- Competition and Markets Authority, the CMA, they took a very pragmatic view and did not make a finding that they had been cartel, but I leave video lordships judgement as to whether that was the case or not. -- I will leave it to your lordships judgement. And I will tell you what the housebuilders have agreed to. They made the following commitments to the CMA.

First, not to share competitively sensitive information with competitors. Specifically including the prices for which houses are to be sold. Well, my Lords, if you are a builder, you don't need to make an agreement with the CMA, to know that you should not share competitively sensitive information in a competitive contract situation. Then they agreed to support the homebuilders Federation and homes for Scotland to produce guidance on information exchange for the housebuilding industry. That is a ditto to the one I just read.

And then they agreed, very well, very pleased they did, to pay £100 million in aggregate to programs supporting the construction of affordable housing in the UK. Somebody would have done a calculation and how much they gain from their anti-competitive agreement and I have no doubt that the £100 million, was a conservative estimate of the game they had made. And then they decided, generously, to introduce enhanced in-house compliance measures, and training programs. No doubt, my Lords, to deal with corruption among individuals within the industry.

So, given that case and the one I mentioned earlier, surely one of the most important things, and I am sure the government will agree with this, as we should be alive to the risk of corruption in the building industry, so that the housing is built without giving the housebuilders money which they do not deserve and have not earned legitimately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the... Very quick, Lord Carlile, I have a meeting with them next week and perhaps you would like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to join me. Thank you for the invitation, but
18:21
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for the invitation, but looking at the parliamentary program for next week, I suspect I am going to be here about 11 hours a day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be here about 11 hours a day. I look forward to spending 11 hour days with the noble Lord Carlile on important legislation Carlile on important legislation this House is considering. I rise to speak to this because it is absolutely vital that we get going with the building of social housing. And there are good examples of where we can be creative in considering this. But the underlying element of what is being put forward in speeches by noble Lords already is absolutely right.

When a housing developer make the commitment, this house, this parliament, has to strain every sinew to make sure that councils do not let them off the hook. And it matters about local communities, it matters in terms of local plans, the whole essence of a large part of this bill is that a lot of decisions are being removed from elected councillors by this government. And that is when confidence and trust in our local government starts to fade away, when promises made by developers, housing and other issues as well, including health and other section 106, evaporates.

My noble friend, Lord Markham, has set up a housing association, in effect, in Ealing, using and being creative with how financing of that could be done. In order to make sure that these are ongoing sustainable homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to the fact they had been just a net change of 700 homes when it comes to social rent. My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, started to refer to the fact that we weren't getting registered social landlords taking up some of the homes they had done.

In the East of England, we actually have the social landlords flagship proactively landlords flagship proactively selling office rent housing, and not locally, but doing aspects of that elsewhere. Many miles away from where that social rented housing is being displaced. Thinking through also, what my noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, talked about about lifetime tenancies, of course, the logos change, so the councils should be considering short-term tenancies, proactively considering the composition, and demographics that are happening and that local community.

Very few councils actually took that up. And I do understand why, to some extent, these homes are homes that people want to have, but they are also precious uses of space and thinking of the next group. While there is a good intention to have design for lifetime we also need to consider this is where some other, perhaps cruder, economic policies have come through in the past. And have not always been welcomed. I will say to the noble minister...

Sorry, the noble Lady, the Minister, I would suggest she also looks back at a policy from a few years ago, with a two prong of benefits to bricks. Because the government today is spending at least £35 billion a year on paying rent, through the benefit system. So, we do need to constantly think about where resources are being deployed. In recognising the display do need more homes and people come onto land banking later. But let's make the most of every single home that we already have today.

Including social housing and what we can do to get onto it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have been thinking in terms of solving the problems we are discussing, by building more houses.
18:25
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
discussing, by building more houses. But I would like to raise a point, which I will describe in a little more detail in a moment, where building more houses is, I think, quite the wrong way of approaching the problem. I am talking, of course, about the National Park in areas of nationally important landscape. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was referring to his time in local government, 60 years ago. I can't quite go so far back down memory lane, but I was involved in the Lake District's special planning board 40 years ago.

And the problem there is a problem that still exists, indeed in a more exacerbated form, despite our efforts to try and address it. Which was that people who lived and worked in this community were unable to find any accommodation, as their parents and grandparents and great grandparents had before them. And, my Lords, it is not simply a matter of social implications. The kind of people who were finding, still finding it very hard to find accommodation, either in all, in many instances, quite close to these kind of important landscape areas, are the very people who are essential for looking after it properly.

There was a real it properly. There was a real problem. And if we don't, in some sensible way, resolve the difficulty, there are going to be even more problems. My Lords, let me illustrate it. In the hamlet of chapel style in Langdale, which many of your lordships will know, which is one of the most admired and visited and esteemed parts of Britain's premier National Park, 80% of the housing stock, approximately, second homes. The one thing you mustn't do to resolve the problem of housing up Langdale is to build more and more houses.

Because that completely destroys the very rationale of the place being so special. And against this background, I think it is important that this relatively niche problem, and I use those words advisedly but not disparagingly, is to look at it carefully, because it doesn't lend itself to many of the kind of solutions that have been canvassed in the context of the problems elsewhere in the country. We do not need more housing stock in the Lake District. What we want is more housing stock that exists to be occupied and used as the basis for looking after the National Park itself, which, in turn, is in the interest of everybody else who comes to it, enjoys it, the rest of the country.

It is not a question, I think, of social housing and affordable homes, we have to be much more imaginative about the ways we do it, and we have to find a way of taking quite a bit of the existing housing stock, out of the open market, and in my view, probably you would have to use planning covenants, to put it into a restricted local marketplace, where local people could afford to buy local people could afford to buy them, and or lease them.

And in turn, commit their activities to looking after the area in question. My Lords, I raised this point on a number of occasions over the years, and I have never got anywhere with it at all, and I know perfectly well why. That is, it will cost quite a bit of money. But, if these places matter, and they do matter, and widespread degradation through building something that I don't think any of us could earn, some of the noble Lords may have seen in the paper, what the Egyptian government is doing at Saint Catherine's Monastery, it is absolute the outrageous and a monstrous way to treat a World Heritage site.

Many bits of the Royal economy could feel very let down by housing policy because it is not actually addressing the particular problems that they are facing. The solutions that have been canvassed. Many of them I have no trouble with at all. But they are essentially for urban areas. Not entirely, essentially for urban areas. And there are issues and problems in rural areas. Many people feel let down there. And you can see from recent opinion polling, that many of them are pretty disillusioned with the existing political classes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to add a few points in relation to this debate, which I
18:30
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
in relation to this debate, which I think has been a really good and interesting debate. I should of course remind the House of my registered interest as Chair of Development Forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire, as much as I enjoyed the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood's speech, I will not follow his track, I will revert to places where there is a very high demand for housing, and a very serious problem of affordability for housing. And I really want to follow Lord Best's speech in particular.

perhaps first just to ask if he once responded, it seems to me he is looking to focus a target, in effect, on the social rented sector by reference to the definition he includes. Not the definition for social housing which is in the bill. So he has effectively said social rent, under section 69 of the housing regeneration act, but not section 70 of the housing regeneration act which relates to low-cost homeownership. So the targets he refers to would have the effect of squeezing the availability of support for low-cost homeownership as such, I wonder if that is his intention because it is not one I am sure I would be wholly But I support the delivery of affordable housing.

He mentioned the National Audit Office report from June this year, I wanted a follow-up on a few points. One of them, we have asked questions about the take-up of contracts for affordable housing under section 106 entered into by developers. In addition to what he asked, the National Audit what he asked, the National Audit Office said they felt the scheme should become a permanent scheme. Since they published their report in June the government provided a substantial and welcome increase in the affordable homes program.

I suppose now the question is, to what extent are homes England through the affordable homes program going to be able or empowered to use those resources to take up those contracts, even if they don't themselves go on to own the homes but act as a clearinghouse by taking up those contracts then making them available to registered providers who can access the affordable homes program. In addition, the National Audit Office said that they wished the government would proceed with issuing financial viability guidance.

We will talk later in the bill about further issues relating to viability guidance. At this point I know my frontbench colleagues share my view on this, that one of the things we need to do is to see to what extent in order to deliver more housing there are powers that are available to the government that need to be used, and need to be used quickly. Part of that is the issuance of guidance that will allow these procedures, like section 106, to make progress.

The government has powers to reform section 106, and the community and Infrastructure Bill, and haven't done it. They have the power to issue guidance relating to viability, new guidance, and they haven't done it. Can the noble Lady the Minister tell us when progress will be made on those? I just think the final point is about section 106, Lord Best said last year the developers provided less by way of section 106. I think that is principally because they provided less housing, so it's a simple consequence.

If we can deliver more housing and more market housing we should be able to deliver more, I way off resources, for the delivery of affordable housing. The noble Lord and the House I think will not criticise developers who feel somewhat unhappy that as the National Audit Office reported last year there were £8 million in unspent section 106 contributions. This is overwhelmingly for infrastructure that hasn't been delivered. But they quite rightly, I think, think it's not helpful for local authorities to be placing obligations on them, taking substantial resources which sometimes can imperil the viability of a project.

And then not delivering the infrastructure. I think as Lord Carlile accurately said, it's a contract in effect between developers and local authorities. Sometimes the developers let down local authorities, but also sometimes local authorities let down the developers.
18:35
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
After such an expert series of speeches on this section I hesitate to rise, but I do feel compelled to support the noble Lord best. And others, who have introduced a critical series of amendments and raised a challenge to current practice. I will say to Lord Inglewood, and I fully understand and recognise what he has said as somebody who has had a long-standing association with the explore national park, -- Exmoor national park, I suspect we are dealing with the process and proceeds of Hulk housing rather than the situation he refers to.

Important though that is. In the past I have had to wrestle with development appraisals, and I recognise the points noble Lords have made about that. The system is rather opaque, you can variously tweak the process to decide on your profitability, on what your relationship with your subcontractors, what you are prepared to concede by way of section 16 obligations, and what you are prepared to pay for the land. All of these in one model.

The model, I have to say, is complex unless one is familiar with the algorithms that stand behind it. It's quite difficult, and certainly very difficult for local authorities to find their way through that. We've heard that affordable housing is funded out of development of market housing. Lord Lansley made market housing. Lord Lansley made the point. At -- Lord Best pointed out it's what we mean by affordable. 80 percent of the market price in the south and south-east of the country, for instance, is still totally unaffordable to anybody with limited means.

And particularly if it is pegged to the selling price of market housing, which selling price of itself often carries a premium as a result of marketing processes. And that premium is instantly lost as soon as the house is second hand and on the resale market. It very often doesn't, market prices don't catch up with that premium on the second hand market for some years. And sometimes it's quite a long time. For somebody of limited means in need of a home it isn't a matter of voluntary choice, but what is economically possible.

Their own priority as a candidate for an affordable home, based on housing need and length of waiting list. For many people this is something of a lottery. The affordable housing component of a residential development scheme is of course subject to this viability. The core financial ingredients of which are largely owned and the intellectual property of the developer. Bearing in mind what I've said about the general complexity of the whole process, that adds to the problems we are dealing with.

And of course, the developers are agreed on some quite trenchant views. Lord Carlile has rather spectacularly reinforced those this evening. I have no remit to necessarily speak up for housebuilders, some of them are clearly thoroughly exploitative. But I don't think that's all of them, and I feel certain there are some that are decent, honest and disposed to be transparent as far as they are able to do so. But my professional work certainly has revealed there is a great deal of opacity to goal process.

So the nature of the affordability offering ranges from what the developer term might say optimal, being a shared ownership, because it releases a sum of money for the development. Through affordable rent, and what might be regarded as the least profitable bit, social rent. That is often driven by these accountancy processes and profit motives. Social rent components thus inevitably get seriously squeezed. The whole process of affordable housing may get further eroded by being fitted out to a lower standard than market housing, but I will leave that to one side.

It just gives a little insight as to how much cheese pairing goes on in the whole process, and how many adjustments might be made before the final product comes out. I acknowledged the problem of rolled up costs to land acquisition, and the expectations of the parties under original sale of land. Though I would have to venture to suggest that the developers profit, taken in the round, is substantially exceeding the sum paid to the original landowner.

Part of that is rolled up cost and risk and finance, all sorts of other things that are going on at the same time. Also a fact that satisfying this housing need depends on the perceived profit from the development at any given time, and the ability of developers to defer starts or to go slow on a site depending on market conditions adds to the problem of congestion in terms of providing affordability. Those in need of genuinely affordable rent are effectively seriously compromised.

Mention has already been made about shared ownership by other noble Lords. That is, I think I'm right in saying it was Lord Young of Cookham who a few days ago or maybe a week or so ago mentioned something about shared ownership problems. My mailbag is often punctuated by people who are unable to get round the resale of their properties because there may be a pre-emption problem, or they have to get consent from their registered provider, or something like that.

And then circumstances change and everything goes back in the melting pot, they have to start all over again. For owners who are trapped in these difficult to shift situations, even without fire safety remediation problems, another thing, if that's what ownership looks like then we should be prepared for people to start switching off. Because it's not good enough if you are offering that as an ownership approach. Just as another aside, I've heard it recently said that house prices are driven by availability of credit, not inherent value of the product.

But if so then there just has to be a better way of dealing with this. Without choking off land supply. And I think it starts with shortening timescales, de-risking the current protracted processes, making planning more cost efficient, less contentious, less uncertain, and probably with a not- for-profit construction model. Protracted timescales allow for far too much wiggle room, and reconfiguring of the offering that is made. And give too much space for poor practices to take root.

I've tried to work out how such a model would be achieved, possibly through community infrastructures in which local need and desire would come a long way in front of him bulk market housing. But I'm not there yet. It raises questions also about clustering of social housing versus pepper potting. And building the inspirational sort of developments that deliver best quality rather than having some sort of stigma attached to them because of the nature of what is produced. And we have in the past in this country succeeded spectacularly with schemes, I'm thinking of some of the great industrialists who produced wonderful developments that were really well thought out, and they were produced for their workforce.

We ought to be able to do the same sort of thing for those in critical need of social housing. My view on this is that if one is concerned about the attitude of landowners then maybe it's time to start asking the question as to whether getting maximum price at some uncertain point in the future wouldn't be offset by having greater certainty of outcomes, and transparency, and being able to plan for that over a timescale of what might be appropriate.

With that I will sit down, but I think that is something
18:46
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
The amendments in this group raise important questions about the definition of affordable housing and how far the government's current proposals will deliver against the need that is obviously widely recognised. The term itself is a much used, however often detach from the realities faced by families across the country. These amendments draw attention to the gap can arise, between the policy definition and the practical affordability and they raised the question of how local circumstances are to be given proper weight.

There is, in addition the matter of delivery, my lords, as we've heard. What is the expected scale of provision for social rent in the year ahead? And how does that compare with the assessed levels of need. Every independent analyst pointed to social rent as the tenure under the greatest pressure. The amendments in their different ways put this issue squarely before the House. And before Ministers. Before the noble Baroness the Minister stands up, we welcome the affordable housing tenure plan and the money that has been invested in it.

My lords and that is a planner where the money is back loaded and into future governments and spending reviews, so it is by no means certain as to when we will get that and also, my lords, it is now that that money is required. My lords, as we've heard, we have also had the President of earlier legislation, including the law, where they accepted the principle that local plans must take account of housing need.

That's not just one tenure of housing, but it is all tenures of housing, whether it be private housing, whether it be social, whether it be affordable, whether it be housing for young people, or older people. Local authorities were,, are under that act required to look at those needs, in their area and have plans to deliver those, those are tenures of housing. And those figures should be subject to scrutiny, through the consultation, for the local plan. By local communities. The question I have now is how this bill intends to carry that principle forward.

Is it going to enact that part, or is it going to have other plans of its own. My lords, the amendments collectively pressed for clarity, accountability and ambition, unaffordable housing delivery and we need to deliver the homes people need and I hope the Minister would take this opportunity to explain what steps the Government is taking to deliver that right number of affordable and social rented homes, over this Parliament. And I hardly need to remind your Lordships' House macro, before I sit down.

The government is also well behind, in its delivery of its manifesto commitment of 1.5 million homes, that we all urgently need.
18:49
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
That has been a very interesting debate on social and affordable housing. As members of this House housing. As members of this House will know, I come personally and the government is very supportive of the intent of amendments in this grouping, which is to increase the delivery of affordable and social housing. You will already be aware that this government is committed to delivering the biggest increase in its social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritise the building of new homes for social rent and we did, as other peers have indicated.

We did allocate 39 million over the course of this Parliament, to social and affordable housing. The biggest amount for generations and we have indicated that 60% of that should be social housing. In a Baroness Thornhill spoke powerfully about the crisis we face when we came into office and frankly, I've said it before, 169,000 children in a temporary emergency accommodation is a shameful record. We will tackle that and we are working on it, immediately and we are doing everything we can to address it.

The investment made at the Spring Statement, which was at the 39 million followers of year funding which has been made a phone available for the 21 to 26 affordable home program. It will support the delivery of up to 7,800 new homes, more than half of those being sent social rent homes. That is significantly up on the 700 that was mentioned. Furthermore we have also announced changes to allow councils to retain 100% of receipts generated by Right to Buy cells.

This isn't A1 off thing. The noble Lady Baroness Thornhill spoke about the net gain, in housing. There are other issues we need to address, including Right to Buy. And we recently consulted on wider reforms, that consultation, has closed and we consulted on a long term rent settlement that would allow rents to increase, above inflation, each year, for five years, from 2026. That consultation has closed and we are looking at responses from the sector, to deal with that. It is our intention to give a long term rent settlements, so that our peas, resident providers can have the certainty they need to invest in housing.

Turning 1st to them at 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord S, which seeks to set out a minimum proportion of social rent provision on a new development to require any affordable housing requirements to be fully implemented on developments. I want to thank the noble Lord, as ever for being such a passionate advocate, for affordable housing. The noble Baroness Thornhill mentioned the definition of affordable homes, it is now specific in the NPPF, authorities should separately set out social housing need.

Not just that broad term, which was never very satisfactory of affordable housing. The government is in agreement with the noble Lord best, that we need to significantly increase the number of affordable homes built each year, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We will continue to take steps to deliver a planning system that supports at this and the noble Baroness Scott mentioned the target has not yet been achieved. We do need to lay the foundations for this. We need the funding that we put in to deliver social housing.

We also need this planning bill, to go through, to make, free up the planning system, so that we move forward quickly and I know our new Secretary of State will be very focused on that. I've already spoken to him today about this. We will continue to take the steps we need to deliver a planning system that supports it, but I don't believe this amendment goes quite in the right direction and that we need to go. A revised national policy planning framework provides greater flexibility, for local authorities to deliver the right limits to suit particular housing needs.

The framework makes it clear that local authorities should when producing the local plan, assess the need for affordable housing and homes for social rent. And then plan to meet these needs. This includes setting out the amount and type of affordable housing that should be secured, new development. The noble Lord Lansley mentioned viability guidance. We are reviewing the planning practice guidance on a liability, to ensure the system works to optimise developer contributions. Allowing negotiating only where that genuinely necessary.

We will produce this guidance later this year. So, I look forward to discussing that, I'm sure, with noble Lords. We will also acknowledge that there are times where flexibility is necessary to ensure sites can commence, where there is a change in circumstances. Such is the change in the economic situation. The noble Lord Karl Darlow referred to the CMA report, which resulted in £100 million to the major developers. We do need to consider we talked about it before, in your Lordships' House how to make sure that that doesn't get recirculated for profits for the same developers that caused the same developers that caused the problem in the first place.

Those that were fine. We have already allocated a package of support for SME builders and I hope the very significant sum allocated in the affordable housing program and other funds that may come forward will help to support local jobs, training, apprenticeships, supply chains and those SME builders, it is very important that we all focus on that as well. Consequently we must aim to balance the strengthening the developer contributions system, with retaining the necessary degree of flexibility, allowing negotiation and renegotiation to take place only where it is genuinely justified.

Planning obligations entered into under section 106 of the Town and under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 legally binding and enforceable. A local planning authority may take enforcement action, against any breach of a planning obligation, entertained within the section 106 agreement. Including any breach of the formal housing commitment. We will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing as we take forward a set of national policies for decision- making, later this year. Turning to amendments 141, 150 K and others are tabled by noble best and Lady Warwick of Undercliffe.

These amendments seek to ensure that the majority of any affordable housing specified or described by strategic planning authority, in its Spatial Development Strategies housing for social rent as defined in paragraph 7 of the direction on the rent standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and eight of the direction of rents 1923. The current wording of the bill gives strategic planning authorities the flexibility to plan for a broader range of affordable housing types allowing them to respond to the specific needs of their areas stop the noble Lord Inglewood rightly mentioned the issue of national landscapes.

And they do indeed in this new planning Bill retain the very strong protections that they hold. We are very interested, we have talked a lot about the rural exception sites, where housing is necessary, having that work with local areas to determine where that housing should go. Having potentially local lettings plans to go with them. And there are some strong measures already that the House put forward particularly on empty homes. On second homes in terms of council tax measures and so on.

That can be taken. Insisting that Spatial Development Strategies must specify or describe a certain amount of one particular type of affordable housing could prevent authorities from including other important forms of affordable housing and setting out the amount or disparate boy distribution of housing that they considered to be strategically important to their area. This can significantly reduce the variety of volume of affordable housing delivered. Turning now to amendment 137 tabled by the noble Baroness lady Thornhill which will require a Spatial Development Strategy to have regard to the need to be a specific type of new social harms you each year.

-- Target of social homes each year. It already enables a Spatial Development Strategy to outline an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other type of housing so social housing, certainly, that the authority deems strategically important for its area. Turning to amendment 171, this asked the government to commit to update guidance in relation to affordable housing on a full agreement that we've got to ensure affordable housing is genuinely affordable to local people and addresses of local needs. That is why we make changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right limits to suit housing need in their areas.

In addition have committed that new investment to succeed the current proposed program will help particular focus on delivering the homes are referred to earlier. The noble Baroness Thornhill has referred to in net new homes and delivery, delivery of new homes is only one element, so are changes to Right to Buy, provisions which the government have already outlined. Planning policy already supports many of the aims of this amendment requiring local planning authorities to assess at the range of affordable housing needs in the area and set out the types of affordable housing to be prioritised, for their areas.

Just touching on a couple of other points. The noble Lord young and Baroness Coffey remind us of the fact that there are economic benefits to providing a social housing. I think, than a Baroness Coffey referred to the benefits to the BRICS campaign. It is very important as we look to reduce the benefits bill that the £30 billion, or 35 billion I think she quoted two howls, often how someone in expensive accommodation doesn't meet their needs. It's a much better focus, on delivering the social housing, will be can ensure it meets the needs of those that live in them.

The noble Earl Lytton referred to the noble Lord Young's amendments on a shared ownership, they are part of the Renters' Rights Bill and we've had very useful meetings with the noble Lord, no doubt that will come back to us when the bill comes back, from ping-pong. We have already made a clear commitment to consider further steps to support social and affordable housing, as part of our intent to produce a set of national policies, for decision- making in 2025. It is part of these changes that the content and timing for further updates to guidance are best considered.

For these reasons I kindly ask the noble Lords to beg kindly ask the noble Lords to beg kindly ask the noble Lords to beg
19:00
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
Another really good debate, I'm grateful for all notable piers -- noble peers who participated. The point was made that the net after reduction for those social rents we lose each year, the net increase of actual social rented homes, the most important and in demand of social and affordable housing, went down to something like 700 gained each year. After right to buy and other mechanisms. It has seen a loss of social renting, making the case even more desperate.

The noble Lord young, whose support I have relished over so many years, he pointed out the CPRE had sampled a range of schemes and discovered that instead of the 34 percent affordable housing that was expected from those developments, only 18 percent actually emerged. This is the developers outwitting the planners. Funnily enough, 34 percent I think is the number of affordable homes in powdery where they have not reduced the amount in subsequent negotiations but have maintained the figure they started with.

Thank goodness. But a demonstration of what we are losing at the moment in terms of the homes that we so desperately need. I was fascinated to hear Lord Young talking about housing benefit taking the strain, and the policy that went behind that. And how he now does not hold to the view that that is the way to do it, for rent to be market rent and to take the strain. Better to reduce social housing with a grand upfront at the beginning, then have a lower housing benefit bill for the years to come and have all the other advantages that go with that.

His points on security of tenure were taken up by one or two others, and I think amendment 152, which is coming up later, is all about people moving from under occupied council housing housing association homes into something more suitable for them. More accessible, more manageable for them. But also freeing up a council house or social rented property, and that may satisfy to some extent the point made by Lord Young. Lord Carlile mentioned the anti- competitive actions and legal cases he has been involved in...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respectfully I will ask the noble Lord to move to the point of whether he will withdraw the amendment or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not. Eager anticipation as to whether I would withdraw the amendment. I would withdraw the amendment. Suffice it to say, the support Suffice it to say, the support around the House has been almost complete, and I'm deeply grateful for it. The noble Baroness the Minister mentioned the many good things the government is doing at the moment, but I fear that leaving it to local authorities to decide when there is such an unequalled tussle between the local authority and those who wish to reduce the amount of affordable housing and social rented housing is not going to work.

It hasn't worked so far, and I think we may need to return to this. But in the meantime, I do this. But in the meantime, I do indeed beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure at amendment 122 be withdrawn, amendment by leave withdrawn.
19:05
19:06
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
It's a pleasure to introduce this group of related amendments, which are all concerned with how planning in general and housing in particular can play a positive role in promoting mental, physical and social health and well-being. Building what I would describe as a healthy and health creating society. The noble Lady the Minister will recognise some of the amendments in this group, which are very similar to ones the government supported so effectively in opposition when I tabled them in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.

We even won a vote, I believe. I hope that she will support them, I suspect she won't. And I understand that government of course does have to choose. However, I hope this debate will provide the noble Lady with more ammunition to argue for change within government. There are very good and powerful arguments behind these amendments which I know will be set out by noble Lords in this group. Let me thank Lord Young and Lord Carlile for adding their names Lord Carlile for adding their names to my amendments.

And also Hugh Ellis and 30 CPA for their invaluable advice and support. Before turning to my own amendments I want to speak about sport and physical activity, these amendments make points about both, it's not just the activity gets involved that is important for health and well- being but the social aspects as well. Two of the amendments in this group, 13 2 1/8 de set out definitions and purpose of planning. It seems to me both these definitions of planning surely include ensuring the health and well-being of the population and not damaging it.

I also support Baroness Levitz amendment on the code of practice for design. This will be very important. There are two overlapping arguments for my amendments, I won't repeat what I said in the second reading speech but I will touch on some of the points. The evidence from health research, if you like the straightforward health arguments, and what I call the evidence of experience. The salutary tales from recent history. Fully planned neighbourhoods with poor amenities, badly designed homes, little or no access to nature, inadequate insulation for heat or noise, that aren't secure, that aren't well heated in winter or cool enough in summer, a recipe for personal and societal stress.

They can be directly linked to risks of mental and physical illness and disease. And stress itself is implicated in increased inflammation and linked to many long-term conditions from heart disease and diabetes to depression and anxiety. It's also clear that the Department of Health understand this very well. In the new NHS plan there is reference to the importance of a healthy neighbourhood. That is what all these amendments are designed to achieve. Turning to the evidence from experience. The current housing system is too often failing to promote people's physical, mental and social health, especially in most deprived areas.

Wider society at least £18.5 billion per year through poor educational achievement, loss of productivity, and ongoing costs to health and care services including 1.4 billion to the NHS. Across the country to many homes are being built at poor quality, fully located and unaffordable. A recent survey showed that 1/3 of people across all sectors described their new homes as poor quality. PVR, permitted development rights, has only made that word. Having said the problems, it's also clear that on the positive side well-designed safe homes with access to facilities provide part of the foundation for successful and prosperous lives.

Prosperity the ambition of sustainable growth goes hand-in-hand with healthy safe environments. Existing guidance and environments. Existing guidance and advice is not -- has not insured promoting good neighbourhoods, there is no evidence that other nonmandatory guidance will help. And that is why am promoting these amendments, and as anyone who has any role in government will know that when setting out these guidance to authorities some of them follow it very well, some of them don't. So I think the question for the noble Lady is, if this is to be contained in what is in a sense guidance, what is the way the government will be dealing with the people who do not follow the guidance? I do entirely recognise we need more homes, I would also have referred to the children the noble Lady the Minister referred to living in temporary accommodation at the moment, a terrible situation.

Let me turn specifically to the amendments, taking mine in turn. Number 123 says that any national or local planner for strategy or develop and must be designed to promote the physical and social health and well-being of people. This reunites planning and health, the two were once inseparable in government policy. It takes account of the vital role that planning has in improving health and well-being. The next amendment, 18 well-being. The next amendment, 18 well-being.

The next amendment, 18 SF -- 18 SF 18, SF places a duty on strategic authorities on health promotion and health inequalities. It uses the same language but replaces strategic authorities with local planning authorities. The effect of this amendment is to place the obligation on planning authorities to improve health inequalities. The obvious question,, the obvious answer is if this is appropriate for the top tier authority to take regard of the matters, why is it not also for the planning authority? Or is the higher-level authority simply irrelevant, and the words of the other bill words without any follow-through in planning itself? Amendments 189, 191 and 193 place similar duties on development corporations.

They already have in this bill duties on sustainable development and climate change. I would add further positive promotion of the physical, mental and social health of their residents in its area, by ensuring the creation of healthy homes. These three elements of sustainable developing, climate change and health improvement fit very naturally together, as earlier debates this afternoon have already shown. And actions to address one tend to reinforce the others. My final two amendments, which are very familiar, are about healthy homes and neighbourhoods.

Two to six places a duty on the Secretary of State to place a conference of regulatory framework for the planning and built environment designed to secure the health and well-being of neighbourhoods. 351 provides a schedule for that. This means dealing with all the health issues I mentioned earlier in this group. The current arrangements haven't worked. And if not this regulatory framework, which I'm not wedded to the detail of, but if not this then what is the government going to put in its place? Because if the government has the ambition to create Decent Homes Standard elements, which I think it does, then it needs some leavers in place to make this happen.

It's as simple

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as that. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 51 insert the new clause on development plans to aim to improve health and well-being. The words of health and well-being. The words of which are on page 5 of the which are on page 5 of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which are on page 5 of the Arrives to speak to 3 amendments to my name. If I start by thanking the Lord for his generous comments
19:15
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
the Lord for his generous comments in regards to the members are tabled. I completely in reverse, I'm supportive of what he has put before the committee. During the last sitting of the committee I spoke to a series of amendments on the importance of physical activity and well-being, in the context of planning law. I now rise to speak to 3 further amendments 138A, 138, S SC and SD. That represents and supports at the physical activity sector.

I thank them for their consistent high quality work on their work. In the interest of the Wide World of Sports, recreation physical activity, for which they're widely renowned. Amendments 138A allows me to follow up the exchange I had earlier committee with my noble friend Lord Lansley, the importance of Spatial Development Strategies. This amendment requires all such strategies to be designed to ensure that the use and development of land in the strategy area, supports the delivery of local strategies to improve health and well-being.

Including those which seek to ensure adequate provision for sport and physical activity, in the form of access to green space. Active travel infastructure and sport and physical activity facilities. Such as gyms, swimming pools and leisure centres. Amendment 185 allows for a new clause of the requirement of plans to include provision of facilities physical activity, by requiring that any national or local plan relating to the development of an area must be designed to meet communities in need for sport and physical activity facilities, for the health and well-being of the community.

Again, this would include gyms, swimming pools, leisure centres, and other community sports facilities. Furthermore accepted it will require the secretary of state to issue guidance to local planning authorities on how local plans, strategies can be designed to achieve the aims outlined. The new clause would be a quiet national or local development plans to be designed, in a way, that ensures adequate provision of facilities, for sport and physical activity. My third amendment 185, SD also provides for relevant plans needing to align with the updated national policy planning framework.

The commitment to take action to reduce health inequalities and recreation. It is vitally important that we take action to reduce health and by ensuring new residential development plans include adequate provision for sport and physical activity facilities, to meet the needs of the new residents. And appropriate consideration is afforded to increase provision, for increased residential developments. By using To ensure that they are committed without the considerations within the planning system. And that there should be a presumption My Lords of approval from the developments related to sport and physical activity provision.

And that this new clause would ensure appropriate afforded to communities within the N NPF to ensure a reduction in health and the quality through the provision of physical activity. So why is it important to see these amendments on the face of the bill. First I believe these amendments will take provision in the NPPF framework. It highlights the importance of physical activity facilities in the communities and why they should be given consideration in developments. On the question that the value of physical activity, behind my amendments physical activity offers community activity, social and economic value, both in the direct benefits and improved well-being.

The wider value of society including state. Sport England calculated that during 2022 to 2023, sport and physical activity generated 107.2 billion, social value, which was largely comprised of 96.7 early on in primary value or well-being. Including £2500, per active adult and 4,100 per active young person. When it comes to secondary value, I think it is very important, he savings amount to 10.5 When it comes to secondary value, I think it is very important, he savings amount to 10.5 billion which covers 1.3 billion in reduce to GP visits and mental health service usage and 9.3 million in the prevention of chronic health conditions.

Leisure facilities at My Lords or at the heart of our communities, for many the other social hubs where people can make and see friends. This makes a leisure centres key opportunities for promoting community integration and cohesion. Which is worth 231 Which is worth £231 million across 23, 24. Moving communities impact 23, 24. Moving communities impact report. The value is even greater more deprived communities. We have proportionately experienced the greatest gains of public leisure participation, with 99% most required compared to 5% in the least deprived areas.

This reveals leisure facilities are key drivers, social economic activities. The looks to streamline planning there is a risk of access to physical activity despite its social value contributions, we are inadvertently impacted on the push for new residential developments. Without specifying protection physical activity in the n NPF. There is a danger that public leisure facilities will be lost community centres and drivers of health and well-being and particularly so because of the fact that it is a discretionary line for local The intention to remove Sport England as a statutory consortium highlights this threat to physical activity facilities.

Greater clarification of terminology will be required to ensure that physical activity provision is not considered to be low value. Therefore at risk of being developed. I hope these are compelling arguments for why these amendments should be considered by committee and I hope gain a fair wind and potentially advance to be included in the bill. I beg to move. included in the bill. I beg to move.
19:21
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords Best and Monaghan who have very much as set out the case for other amendments, in this group. And it is really worth focusing on how we need to debate, consider and act on much more the parlous state of health in the UK. And the very significant contribution that the built environment, our housing, our streets, the state of them, the way people are forced to live is having a terrible impact on people's health.

It is not the way I would do it, but if nothing else, think about the economic impact of that on health. I'm going to focus only on the three amendments in this group, to which I have tabled. They are a fairly diverse, two of them are quite specific and one of them is much more general, purpose advert as the noble Lord previewed. So, to start with 124, this is about the display of advertisements. So this is an amendment to section 21 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, currently it allows the regulation of public advertisements for ability or public safety.

This adds in environmental impact, as reasons for which it can regulate. If you just think about, as you're coming into the Hause today, or as you're going home tonight, how much you might inadvertently be bombarded with advertisements for gambling companies, for junk food. For polluting substances. The odds are there is a lot of them and this is having a negative impact on public health stop there are many members of the Lordship's House focusing on how gambling, out-of-control gambling is a public health issue, in our country.

Now I pay tribute to the inspiration for this amendment, coming from the campaign group add free cities, which wants a complete ban on all outdoor corporate advertising. As one of the campaigners see it these ads or in a public space without any consultation about what is being shown on them. They cause pollution, often and they are for things that people can't afford don't need. You should spend money to fix that misery. This is not just dreaming up some new idea. If we go back to 2006, So Paulo, the largest city in the southern hemisphere banned all outdoor advertising.

The clean city law, billboards removed, 300,000 law, billboards removed, 300,000 exhibits too loud. Global in 2014. They said but not going to have digital advertising in fact we're going to take that advertising of streets altogether. In Amsterdam it banned adverts for petrol and diesel cars and air travel. Something we've also seen increasingly happening with local governments, with Bristol City Council, Norwich, Sheffield, Edinburgh. These protecting people, protecting public spaces that people have to be into. Thinking about the public in health impact of this.

To quote. To Nathan, from the Institute for social marketing and health, the University of Stirling, there is consistent evidence that exposure to marketing for unhealthy commodities, for example alcohol, food, or drinks, high in fat, sugar and salt is linked to consumption. This is being pushed on people and they are suffering, their health is suffering as a result. In fact, many people will be familiar with Transport for London's ban on unhealthy food advertising. A study found had prevented almost 100,000 obesity cases.

We can think of the positives instead of just the negatives. What about in those spaces we have community arts. One of the things that are cities, towns and villages really lack is more community, arts, murals, local projects are indeed lets have some more trees. That lets have some more trees. That Outdoor sitting found that 4/5 billboard advertisements are in the poorest parts of England and Wales. This is increasing inequality. Something different there. Moving on to amendment 132, this is something very different.

The House is used to very different. The House is used to debating purpose clauses and we put an amendment down at the start of the course, but this is about planning functions and all planning functions. What is the purpose of planning. What are we trying to achieve. We have a lot of Peace Now provision in different places, but why not say as an overarching principle what the planning is for? Our attempt and I'm happy to debate the details and we look at the long-term public interest.

The way that is spelt a bit more, it addresses the long-term common good for current and future generations. That phrase future generations is a term that many noble Lords will recall from a Private Members' Bill that Lord Bird brought forward. I forgot how many sessions back. Copying the model of the future generation act in Wales. We cannot just govern for the moment. We know our democratic system has a problem. This is a way of looking at impacts on future generations.

It draws on well-known laws of seven generations which comes from the great law that says you should make every decision on the impact it will have in seven generations time. This is thinking about the future, thinking about leaving this place better than we found it. This amendment refers to the Climate Change Act and the environment act 2021. I predict what the ministers will say. This explicitly lays down that planning must consider planning considerations and it also says the processes must be open, accessible and efficient.

I come to amendment 227 which brings me to grounds that the House has heard on many times the House has heard on many times and I reference amendments that I and Baroness Boycott and others brought to the children's wellbeing and Schools Bill about school uniforms and the concern about poisons, the threat to health contained within school uniforms. This looks at the threat to health from new buildings. Noble Lords are probably aware forever chemicals are in many things that are in our buildings and part of the fabric with an increasing understanding of the buildup of these and the reason why they call for everything because we are being exposed to them from our clothing, buildings, food, and this is building up and up and our bodies cannot get rid of them.

Our environment cannot get rid of them. This is a simple amendment. I cannot write an amendment that deals with these issues for government now, but we are on a poisoned planet and living in poisoned buildings. This identifies some of the issues and explicitly draws attention to something many campaigners reach out to me about, artificial turf. We were talking about how we need more green spaces and natural environments. The absolute opposite of that is taking a piece of ground and covering it in plastic because and covering it in plastic because Artificial turf gets extraordinarily hot if it's unshaded.

It also, older versions are made of poly, newer ones are polyethylene. They are all going to be shedding micro-plastics into the environment the whole time. That's what's happening when it's there on the ground in use. I would really question whether any Vilda, particularly any housebuilder, is putting down plastic turf that small children will probably play on, breathe that plastic in, get it on their hands, swallow that plastic. How they could possibly justify that. Then finally there's the disposal point.

There is no recycling facilities for plastic grass in the UK, it's all going into our waste. I think 227, a simple review amendment, is something the government should really look at. I hope the noble Lord the Minister is going to indicate they are prepared to look at this.
19:32
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 18 SA, I welcome the speech by Lord Crisp. He referred to this as Baroness Levitz amendment, I should say that 48 hours and about 41 minutes ago she was asked to go on the government front bench. By the time we got here yesterday morning it was too late to remove her name from this amendment. What I learned in that 48 hours is that if at home you say yes Minister often enough you can get your own way much more than you used to.

My intellectual inspiration for this amendment comes from a man, a wonderful friend, called David Leavitt OBE, who was also my father-in-law. He's a very distinguished architect, and recently in his 90th year was given a lifetime award by the RTE texture and -- architects Journal for social housing. I paid you be to his work. I know from my time as a barrister and part-time judge and MP, that the lack of a decent home in which to live blights the lives of all too many of our fellow to citizens, and plays a large part in them coming before the court.

To me, decent housing is essential to the reduction of crime, especially among adults or, good housing brings justice. This amendment is designed justice. This amendment is designed to achieve that on a large-scale. What is striking about this otherwise inspiring bill is that it says little about the design, the architectural design, of the 1.5 million homes that the government is going to build. I think we all agree, nobody wants to build badly. National planning already makes it clear that poorer quality design should not be allowed.

Yet the general quality and design standard of much volume housebuilding in this country continues to be poor. I spoke earlier about financial irregularities, but it's not just that. It's the way in which the thinking about building takes place. That's what leads to put design. Not only does it affect the people inhabiting the houses, but it contributes to local dissatisfaction with local government and opposition to further developments. Whilst there is widespread support. -- Support for streamlining our planning processes, words I use cautiously with Lord Banner in the chamber, there are legitimate concerns about the quality of new development of existing cheques and standards being weakened.

There is widespread disquiet about whether the housebuilding industry has the ability or the incentives to make the change needed to deliver both the quantity and the quality of homes that are required. And if it does have the ability, is it willing to make that change? The problem lies not with national planning, which is pretty clear, and the fact that the guidance is currently under revision demonstrates ongoing commitment by the government to achieving good design. In my view, the difficulty lies at local level as a result of the erosion of skills over time, inadequate training which has been discussed earlier, and pressure on budgets.

Few planning authorities have sufficiently strong processes or policies to allow the change confident in the knowledge that they will be able to successfully resist planning appeals. Without enforceable design standards, local authorities have no firm policy footing to reject inadequate schemes. And so such developments are frequently approved on the basis that they meet housing needs. Thus an all-too-familiar scenario is that an outlying planning permission is sought and granted on the basis of some attractive early visual impressions, but where all the important design matters are reserved and thus the images produced in fact have no contractual force.

Because of national housing targets councils feel under pressure to approve outlying permission. The site is typically then sold to a housebuilder, and later the reserved matters submission poses a generic design based on standard house types, on a typology that has nothing to do with local circumstances, and places to much emphasis on roads and cars and too little on people and their needs. little on people and their needs. What we are trying to achieve is that if somebody lives in social housing, new build housing, they will say in the years to come, I come from such and such a place, and they will try to live there for as much of their life as is economically possible.

So when the final scheme looks nothing like what was promised, currently many residents and councils feel misled. This leads to a built in resistance to future applications. To allow this situation to continue I would suggest would be a betrayal of the excellent vision which has led to the promotion of this bill. But the good news, as this amendment reveals, is that no radical change is needed. The tools already exist within the existing planning system. All we are proposing is basically a tweak, an adaptation that would set the threshold for good quality design and will give the already excellent national standards more traction at local level.

Doing this will embed consistency and predictability, which will help local authorities, the community developers and landowners. Consistency and predictability will simplify and thus speed up the planning process, and reduce the need for appeals. And thus, the quid pro quo for housebuilders is that those who comply will get their planning permission much more quickly, and will therefore be able to maximise their profits by building well within the permitted building well within the permitted period. So simply, what this amendment proposes is a code of practice which requires a set of templates incorporating core design standards.

If these are given greater weight through the National Planning Policy Framework then it will make it easy for local authorities to apply the principles at local level. And this amendment has been developed with a team of leading architects and planners, whose publication place making not plotting will probably be published tomorrow. I've actually seen a draft of it during the course of this debate. Once these core quality standards are embedded at local level then local authorities should require compliance with them at the earliest practical stage in the planning process, and ensure they are not left to the reserved matters stage.

Clear, predictable and measurable design requirements would enable officers to sign off significant components of planning applications, leaving much streamlined areas which would then be the subject of proper democratic debate and decision-making in the council chamber. Proper local accountability, but much more quickly and efficiently. So that would be exactly what Lord Fuller would love in his council chamber, in South Norfolk. And would have good cause to speak of proudly in this chamber. If so he wished.

And indeed, so enacting a code of practice would allow applications which demonstrate compliance with the standards to be processed speedily within the current system. And the promise of speedy approvals will provide incentive for housebuilders to incorporate these measurable standards in their applications. The aim of this amendment is to find a practical way to use the best of architecture to provide the best in housing design quickly and efficiently. I hope this approach will appeal to the noble Lady the Minister, who has such long experience of local government and of the planning process, and has demonstrated extraordinary understanding of it to us in the chamber in recent days.

I observe this amendment is one of several related to design and quality, and I would urge Ministers to at least include the basis of our amendment as part of their experience of the planning procedures at local level to proceed with this bill.
19:41
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
I support amendment 132, considering the purpose of planning. To my mind there would be some advantage in following the precedent of Scotland, where a similar purpose clause exists in their planning legislation. It would provide a guiding light to remind everybody involved in the planning system what planning is actually for, why we are doing all this. To my mind there are two particular advantages in practice to this. Firstly, it would remind those responsible for planning decision-making that that decision-making isn't just about those who shout loudest.

Which very often tend to be the vocal minority as opposed to the silent majority, who may wish to live in an area but can't find or afford a home in the area. It would provide that daily reminder that planning is about the long-term public interest, not short-term expediency. And to my mind, for reasons I outlined last time we were here, it would in combination with the proposal for statutory chief planning officer that was discussed in Lord Lansley's amendment, to buttress the independence of independent planning officers from undue influence.

Which to my mind would be all the more important in a world where the national scheme delegation exists, in order to give full effect to that scheme delegation and for it not to be undermined by undue pressure on officers. I have a few quibbles with the drafting, that's not for the day. Maybe something we can take up later. I would urge the government to consider this amendment very carefully.
19:43
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
I want to intervene briefly to support Lord Crisp. I commend him for continuing the campaign he has promoted for some time through a private members' bill, through amendments, promoting healthy homes. But the challenge that faces him is that health and homes are in two different government departments. Successive attempts to bring them together have so far failed. Paradoxically, 100 years ago the Minister of health was actually responsible for housing. And health. In between the two world wars that led to a more integrated approach to both health and housing, indeed my great-uncle was Minister for Health in the 1930s, and as health Minister he introduced the Housing Act in 1935 which set down standards for accommodation.

Something which the noble Lord's amendments seek to build on. Winding forward, and again very briefly, the importance of bringing health and housing together was central to the Black report published in 1980 about inequalities and health outcomes. Saying "The consequence and importance of housing policies for other areas such as health policies have received increasing recognition in recent years". As have the problems of coordination deriving in part from the location of responsibilities for housing, personal and social services and health services.

Then we had the just and report. What I found compelling was the Resolution Foundation report that said poor quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health. The debate in the other place on this amendment, it was new clause 9, there were two backbench speakers. It was all over in under 1/4 of an hour. I see a smile on the face of the noble Lord on the government bench. Including two other new clauses, but that does underline the importance of this underline the importance of this The minister dismissed duty on health and may be there may be a conflict with what he said on the noble Ladies position.

It contains no policy which requires decision- makers to positively promote health and well-being or promote harm to people. It simply asks them to have regard to health inequalities and aim to achieve healthy and inclusive and safe places. The acid test of if that is adequate is the kind of poor quality housing illustrated in the TCPA publication a home to buy for is still being built. Lord Carlile referred to design. The decent homes standard on housing standards does not address the planning design or construction or quality of new homes where they are located and it does not address measures of health.

Neither the NPF nor the decent homes standards nor this bill contains any requirement for new development to remote health creation. Part two states the development policy and sustainable development strategy should have regard to consider health inequalities. And it does not require any action. What Lord crisps amendment does is raise the stakes and that is what I supported.
19:47
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to give a few words of support of my noble friend and I will use his expression today. Sporting activity and group sporting activity is an incredibly important part of building community in our country. It is something that really brings them together and as it is a contributor to health, we have heard about the Department of Health, they may not be represented here, but ministers are able to carry a message to them.

If you don't have good sporting facilities, and activity, you cannot utilise this. I would hope that when the Minister comes to respond they will Tellers how they are going to work this in and the duty that looks at all of the benefits in this new structure. We have a great deal about driving something forward. If we drive something forward and others have said it that it is unpleasant, does not deliver a decent environment and Lord Crisp made comments on this that got to the part of it.

This is just one specific part of that. If you are not doing that, you will create unpleasant environment and we have done it in the past. It has been used in Billy Connolly's description. He moved out somewhere that rapidly became a slum with new buildings because it had no buildings because it had no facilities. Could the Minister give us a description of how they will work these things in, access to green space, access to infrastructure and sport and physical activity.

If these things are excluded from planning upfront, those making the decisions will not follow upon them. If you don't have to, you won't because you are busy and you have a prime objective. I would hope they would have to deal with this because if they don't, they have to put it in the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 123 in the name of Lord Crisp, Lord Young, Baroness Bennett and Lord
19:50
19:51
Baroness Sater Portrait Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 138 a, 185, and 185 180 5S of why these are so important and should be considered. We must ensure any national or local plan or strategy relating to planning and development must be designed to provide access, spaces and facilities and preserve existing sites for physical activity to improve the health and well-being of society. A local plan and strategy is critically important. Exporting charity I chaired shows that children and young people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods, typically told not to travel outside their immediate locality and other barriers they have less access to opportunity for sport and play.

Sport England survey shows that those in the lower groups are more likely to be inactive due to safe and affordable spaces. This disparity has not allowed limited school facilities with data showing the correlation between services available and activity levels. The Centenary was supported today and publish the green space index and it was estimated that 4000 new parks would be needed to maintain current levels of accessible green spaces across the country and the current level is not enough.

To preserve these park spaces and sports facilities, planning will need to be truly focused if our country is not to be worst off. The facilities fund is helpful and detrimental as the fund was providing its worth. If we are to tackle health and social economic inequality, we need to improve it for all including those in the most deprived neighbourhoods and to do this means making sure integrating sport and physical activity in all planning decisions is an absolute requirement.

Street games of any other demonstrate the importance of local community facilities, sports fields, leisure centres, gyms and parks. We note how they improve lives and if the issue, obesity, isolation and physical and mental health, crime and antisocial, these organisations help aid social cohesion and provide places with social interaction provided they have access to the right facilities. They deal daily with rebalancing of issues of health inequalities and without concerted efforts, they will be unable to do their work.

For these reasons and more I hope we can prioritise the issues raised and I support these amendments because they protect the provision of sport and physical activity in the National Planning Policy Framework. Sport and physical activity become the underpinning of health and the underpinning of health and well-being within community and help eliminate inequalities.
19:55
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
As president of the LGA and chair of sport Wales and recognising the devolved nature of planning it would be remiss of me not to mention investment for physical activity in Wales is £5.98 billion a year. The noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle raised the future generations act. An incredibly important lens for us to make decisions on things like sport and physical activity. We have got a chance to really cement opportunities to be active in communities.

In terms of sport, we do not get to talk about it in the chamber. We are in the middle of an exciting moment in women's sport. We have the women's open, the Euros, the World Cup rugby, but sport is a small part of activity which we need to concentrate on. All of the people who played in these amazing tournaments started somewhere, but tournaments started somewhere, but to be good at sport you need lots of people being physically active and to be physically active you need access to play but also a place to do it.

I would like to thank the All Party Parliamentary Group on sport. We met before coming to the chamber and we had representation from the sport recreational alliance, cricket, tennis, Sport England and the FA who talked about what we are missing. In terms of grass pitches on current demand, we need 12,000 extra let alone after the summer of sport when we hopefully get thousands of more young women who want to play. We say we love sport, but we must be more active.

UK active have produced reports and I was chair at the time, generation inactive and also turning the tide of physical activity which highlighted the challenges that need addressing. We have a generation of young people more likely to die before their parents because of inactivity. People hit frailty in their 40s and live with it for decades. It is costly for society and bad for the individuals because it excludes them from society. One in eight children between two and 10 are obese according to a survey published in 2024.

Approximately 39% of sports facilities including sports halls and pitches are located behind school gates and are inaccessible outside of school hours. There is a need to open them and we cannot afford to lose more than we have currently. I was delighted that Lord Moynihan talked about swimming pools. We saw the challenges of keeping them opening Covid and this is not sport for the sake of sport. The Royal life saving Society estimates 328 UK and Irish citizens lose their lives to accidental drowning each year.

Keeping swimming pools open is incredibly important. Without protection of these facilities we are dooming another generation to a lack of opportunity and it is going to have an increasingly negative impact on their health. If I look back to the summer of sport we have seen, players like George Evans, Alessia Rousseau, they provide a moment of inspiration. We need to do more than that, providing the right facilities where we make the elite pathway and not just be really good at sport.

We need to channel the future generation and we need to look at the legacy we are leaving for boys and girls who follow behind who desperately need somewhere to play.
19:59
20:01
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak on this important group of amendments. The role of planning and promoting well-being and the standards and adequacy of housing development. Let me begin by thanking noble Lord to tabled these amendments, their recognition of the need to place health and well-being at the heart of housing policy and planning is both welcome and timely. In doing so I want to express our appreciation for the sentiment behind the amendments, it's not just about number of units delivered about quality-of-life of those who were living them.

I note the amendments tabled by Lord Crisp. Taken together, they seek to integrate health and well-being considerations into housing and three duties on authorities, reporting requirements and potential enforcement provisions. The link between housing and public health is well recognised, but as many such proposals the issue of -- is one of balance. The noble Baroness Bennett also brought forward a thoughtful proposal, amendment 124, on advertising. This raises an important issue of public health, and the role of advertising.

The baroness mentioned gambling advertising, I would also add the instance of junk food, particularly close to schools for instance. Amendment 132 on the disclosure of environmental reports on marketing materials and 227 on enforcement powers, they raised important questions on consumer protection and transparency. We look forward to the government's reply. Next I wish to recognise the valuable contribution of Lord Moynihan, and talk to his amendment 138 a. As he often emphasises, creating space for sport and physical activity can give wide-ranging benefits, not just for fitness but for community cohesion and long-term public health.

His amendment would add the promotion of health and well-being to the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies. This raises an important and thought-provoking point, we look forward with interest to the government's response. Lastly I wish to turn to the issues raised by Baroness Lea of, who already underlined the importance of vernacular in local design and planning. The spirit of her amendment is a constructive one, namely that there should be a preferred approach to the consideration of architectural style, grounded in sound principles and framed by appropriate local context for building design.

Where that is fitting. Such an approach ensures that it's not just functional but also reflective of the character and heritage of the community it serves. That's why the previous Conservative government set up the office of place, to ensure that good design was part of building. Unfortunately this current Labour government has closed the office. We should not just be building new units, were we must -- we must build homes. Part of successful communities. I look forward to the Minister's response on how this government will ensure good design.

Across this group of amendments there is a unifying theme that housing should not just be about shelter, but about creating places that sustain life, health and community. Whether through higher standards, clearer duties, better design or fairer advertising, these amendments challenge us to raise our ambition. But ambition must be tempered with practicality. The central question is, how will we embed these principles in a way that is workable, proportionate and does not risk unintended consequences for housing delivery, affordability or local discretion? I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the government intends to respond to these important proposals, and how it will ensure the planning system and housing policy place health and well-being of people and communities at their heart.

at their heart.
20:06
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank all noble Lords for their amendments tabled under this grouping. We've had a very useful and interesting debate on this topic. I'm very grateful to the noble Lords that put amendments in who have deep expertise and who are great advocates of on the issue of health, housing and communities. That's greatly appreciated. The government agrees the quality of our homes and the wider environment around them are intrinsically linked to the creation of healthy communities.

Taken together, planning policy, guidance and building regulations tackle these important matters and collectively promote the creation of healthy communities and homes for the people who reside there. It may be helpful if I quickly outlined some of the provisions at the outset to show the difference between the national policy framework and the design code, building regulations and the future home standard. That sounds more like a PhD essay than a quick intervention. In collectively promoting healthy homes and communities. Firstly, the NPPF has the goal of creating sustainable development right at its heart which includes supporting a strong vibrant and healthy community, and ensuring a sufficient number and range of phones can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations.

I'm not sure about 70 years, Baroness Bennett talked about that, we will do our best. The framework sets out they should aim to create healthy places to enable healthy lives through promoting good health and preventing ill-health, especially where this would address identified local health and well- being needs and reduce health inequalities. That is all set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. It's very clear what's expected. The framework also recognises the importance of open space, sports and recreation facilities in supporting the health and well-being of communities.

It's clear local plans should seek to meet the identified need for these spaces and facilities, and seek opportunities for new provision. Further considerations on healthy and safe communities are set out in the planning practice guidance, which supports the implementation the NPPF in practice. Secondly the national design guard -- died and code are part of the suite of guidance. They illustrate how well designed places can be achieved, they provide detailed advice on creating safe inclusive and accessible homes, buildings and public spaces, prioritising walking and cycling and green space and biodiversity in new development, that promotes activity and social interaction.

All new homes developed under a permitted developing rights are required to meet their space standards and provide adequate national -- natural life -- light. Local authorities can consider the impact of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers during the decision-making process. All new homes, whether delivered through permitted development, right, or following a planning application are required to meet fire standard safety. They must ensure they protect people's safety health and welfare. We continue to review and strengthen the standards, for example this autumn the government will publish the future home standard which will increase the energy efficiency requirements the energy efficiency requirements in building regulations.

New homes will be equipped with low carbon heating and in most cases solar panels, making them fit for the future, comfortable for occupants and affordable to heat. At the same time we will publish our response to the call for evidence on new overheating requirement, which has been in effect since June 2022. This requires new homes are designed to minimise overheating and thus remain resilient as our climate changes. Turning to amendment 123 on health and well-being in developing plans, and 138 a, 18, 18 SD on providing adequate provisions for sport and activity and making sure they are in the planning system and in new spatial strategies.

The provisions in the NPPF I outlined mean these matters will already be taken into account. Within close 52 of the bill new section 12 D1 has strategies related to green space, active and sports, physical activity facilities, providing they are of strategic importance to the area. Lord Crisp mentioned the English devolution and community empowerment bill in the other place at the moment, closed 43 of that bill I would say is a general duty which applies to all of the duties that Combined Authority's have to have regard to the need to improve health inequalities for their area.

It's not a specific planning duty, where planning is concerned we believe we should deal with those matters through the National Planning Policy Framework. Turning to amendment 124, which seeks to include environmental impact on public health as additional considerations to take into account when regulating advertisements. The advertisement regime is designed to ensure outdoor advertisements are in the right areas, a light touch system concerned with only two issues. The impact on public amenity and public safety. Amenity includes oral amenity and general characteristics of the locality.

But safety is largely concerned with the transport network, for example distractions to road users or safety on railway lines. The content of advertisement is subject to a separate regular trace system which is overseen by the advertising standards authority. To widen the scope of matters which can be considered through the advertisement consent regime, particularly in relation to public health, is likely to bring the focus more on to the content of the advertisement stopping flat where the case it would create an overlap between the two regulatory regimes, at present there is a clear distinction.

This risks causing uncertainty and confusion. Therefore, while I understand what
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page