Lords Chamber

Monday 27th October 2025

(began 2 hours, 49 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are arguments around how we control the number of individuals, both families and individuals, both families and migrant children who come to the United Kingdom. And that is an argument that we're having now to look at how we can tighten the look at how we can tighten the rules to stop the flow of people who are coming here through illegal channels. But we still have a channels. But we still have a responsibility to ensure that a five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten year old child does not suffer year old child does not suffer because of the trafficking in many instances, or the poverty or the instances, or the poverty or the war that has driven them to come to the United Kingdom, even by sometimes by illegal means in the sometimes by illegal means in the first place.

So the purpose of the strategy is to ensure that how we protect and develop those children, protect and develop those children, so we don't create a whole set of different outcasts in future. And I think it's really important that think it's really important that whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, the children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't suffer as a result. My Lords that concludes our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords that concludes our questions for today. And any member who wish to leave the chamber now Conduct Conduct Committee Conduct Committee appointment Conduct Committee appointment as Conduct Committee appointment as Senior Deputy Speaker.
15:14
15:15
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Role of the Attorney General’s Office in the decision to drop the China spy prosecution
-

Thursday 23rd October on alleged spying in Parliament. My Lords, the
15:15
15:17
15:18
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, before we restart the first group, I wish I rise as I did last week, to remind the House of important guidance on report stage, which will help proceedings run smoothly. First, paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states that debate must be relevant to the question before the House. Whilst debate on the Bill are being important and no doubt interesting, a number of earlier contributions strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated.

I would urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny, whilst allowing us to make good progress in good time. Secondly, I remind noble Lords of the companion guidance that members pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and should not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving or pressing an amendment. Paragraph 8.8. Two of the companion speeches appeared to be getting longer at this point, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we will be able to get towards in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more timely manner. To my Lord, before you sit down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To my Lord, before you sit down, can I just clarify that a number of 67, I think government amendments came in very late to this bill, came in very late to this bill, which have therefore not had a committee stage. I hope that the noble Lord and the Minister are going, as well as the Minister are going to accept that some of those will need committee discussions as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will need committee discussions as well as report. Yeah. Well, it is report stage of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, it is report stage of the bill and all. I would say, as long as the debate is, as long as the debate is relevant, then we have no debate is relevant, then we have no problem with that. After clause 51,
15:38
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
problem with that. After clause 51, amendment 84, Lord Inglewood, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I arise to move amendment 84. But first ought to make a declaration. My interest, I. Think, most.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think, most. Unusually, it's been my lot in my life to have lived in a listed building in the midst of a listed building in the midst of a listed park for all of it. I'm also president of Historic Buildings and Places, which is used to be known Places, which is used to be known as the Ancient Monument Society and a member of the Gardens Trust. And just a bit of a context to my just a bit of a context to my comments, I'm as well as being a member of the bar.

I'm also a Chartered surveyor and a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. And if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Society of Antiquaries. And if I might just point. Out. To members that, according to many authorities, landscape is many authorities, landscape is England's probably greatest contribution to 18th century European sculpture. Now, my Lords, European sculpture. Now, my Lords, we turn back to the debate in committee. Your Lordships will recall considerable discussion recall considerable discussion about the education of planners. This is important because, in addition to what might be described as the core disciplines, there is also a huge range of what you could say are very important and perhaps say are very important and perhaps slightly esoteric, more peripheral matters which.

Cannot really be considered part of the core considered part of the core knowledge or syllabus. And think, for example, about listed buildings. And we all know there is a crisis And we all know there is a crisis in the number of conservation officers in this country thinking about man made, planned landscapes, battlefields, theatres, and so on. The required expertise to deal properly with these things is not widely, easily and quickly available, either necessarily in local authorities or in other public bodies.

And my Lords, we know that it is for this reason, a process of consultation with outside expert specialists and respected organisations is embedded in the system to give access to often specialist but very relevant skill and knowledge. The detailed system for doing this is not identical in each case, but that isn't relevant to my argument. For my part, I'm especially interested, amongst other things, in the context of this debate about the work of the Gardens Trust, previously, the Garden History Society, whose focus is on man made planned landscape, which includes public parks, but also the British versions of Versailles and also in a different direction, outstanding domestic gardens.

These things can be quite extensive and are a crucial aspect of place, which is now becoming recognised as an important contributor to our general well-being and economic prosperity, something which I became very aware when I was a member for six years of the Northern Powerhouse 11. This is a specialist discrete academic discipline and the Gardens Trust is at its centre in this country. Many of the places that are concerned with are very fragile. After all, plants die and are easy, easily lost.

And for example, my Lords. If any of your Lordships wanted to go and look at East Bay Park, which was the great architect Vanbrugh's one of his most important commissions in Dorset, when you get there, you look over a farm gate and see a green field. It's all gone, but it's still the site of it and all the foundations and everything that are there. And as Thomas Brown, the the 17th century writer, aptly commented, green grass grows where Troytown stood. Now, my Lords, I should add to what I said that about my interest that my home has always been the focus of a listed park for over 300 years.

But because of abandonment and then the planting, an epidemic of rhododendrons supplemented by almost no family records because of disputes and problems with the with treason, almost the knowledge of everything has been lost. And despite English Heritage over visitors inspections over the years and many other experts visiting the place, the the knowledge of the place is more or less completely vanished. But now my Lords its full extent is now becoming uncovered again, and it appears to be a large scale, more or less intact, significant, albeit battered, very rare survival of a complete pre capability.

Brown Park of about 1700 1710. They're very rare and it was completely lost. Now I mention this not to pat myself on the back or to tell you all how perspicacious I may have been, but to make the point that this kind of important things do get easily lost and require genuine expertise to be identified and revived. Now, my Lords, we all know that the theme of this legislation is growth. And goodness knows, my Lord, we urgently need it and I support that.

And as part of this wider process, the government has issued a consultation on the role of statutory consultees. Unhappily, that consultation appears to me to have been stained by the triumphalism of a notion of growth at all costs, everywhere, for anything, regardless of everything else, conveniently overlooking that in places such as where I come from in Cumbria, the environment is one of the most important aspects of promoting long term growth, as I discovered when I chaired the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership.

If this is destroyed, then the goose that lays the golden egg ends up as Christmas dinner. It's happened in many places all around the world to nobody's benefit. Now, noble Lords have said on a number. Baroness has said on a number of occasions that the value placed on what I call non growth aspect of the planning system is in no way diminished by the proposed procedural and process changes under way, which seem to me to be essential and which in very general terms, I'm a strong supporter.

On occasions, though, something else other than growth is more important than growth. Otherwise, my Lords, what's the point of the town and country planning system? The involvement of the amenity societies harnesses a great deal of real expertise for more or less no money, and takes pressure off some of our overworked and often under-resourced public agencies who are having difficulty already in fulfilling their roles and Lords let let's argue about that particular point, because it's self-evidently, manifestly the case.

Now, the purpose of this amendment is to focus on this general but very real problem in the context of the wider reforms being proposed, and specifically in respect of the Garden Trust, which I have said, I am a member and I know it and I support it. What I very much hope is that the noble Baroness can confirm the importance that is ascribed to what I might myself describe, I hope, without any disparagement, as some of the essential fringe disciplines of planning will not be eroded further, and that the kind of political puff aspects of which are hugely and vigorously disputed, which has accompanied some of the publicity surrounding the consultation process, will not deflect from the proper value placed on the facts and principle based assessments and inputs of these organisations, which are often provided by those who have actually retired from serious professional work in this sector and have a very real knowledge, and which are provided at almost no cost to the public purse at all.

They add very real expertise to the proper work of a land use and planning policy system in this country. I appreciate, I appreciate finally, my Lords, that my amendment may contain all kinds of drafting and other shortcomings. I am relaxed about any possible criticism of that, but I firmly believe in the underlying argument as part of the core of what this bill should be about. And I very much hope the noble Baroness can confirm this and give comfort to all the volunteers who are making such an important contribution in the wider public interest to the physical future of England and Wales.

My Lords, I beg leave to to to move amendment proposed after clause 51. Insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled list. I rise to speak specifically to amendment 84, to which I've added amendment 84, to which I've added my name. Although I support many of the amendments in this group, we know how important public green know how important public green spaces are to communities and for nature, and that there's widespread public support for their protection.
15:47
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
public support for their protection. And that's why, as I understand it, registered parks and gardens, along with battlefields, were given protection in the Town and Country Planning Bill in 2015. And I thank the Gardens Trust for their briefings on this and the noble Lady, the Minister and her office for a helpful meeting and correspondence about it. At the moment, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, registered parks and gardens are not considered statutory heritage assets, which would make them part of the same process as listed buildings and instead have their own process of consultation with Historic England as the statutory consultees for battlefields and grade one and two Parks and Gardens and the Gardens Trust dealing with grade two parks and gardens, which is 65% of them, and importantly, three quarters of registered public parks are grade two.

So the Gardens Trust is tasked with looking after most of our public parks. And they appear to do this very efficiently. From their statistics. They were consulted 1842 times last year, and 99% of the time they responded within the agreed deadline. They voiced an objection to planning in only 6.6% of their responses, and their government grant for fulfilling this consultee role, for giving bespoke responses to planning inquiries on time and with expertise was £43,000 963. Clearly, there's no way that anyone else within the planning system could deliver this expertise for less money and with any greater time efficiency, and there's no evidence that they're causing a major blockage to housebuilding and actually having not heard of them before this matter arose, I'd actually like to thank this charity for their service to this country and its public parks.

I understand that the government is considering removing the Gardens Trust's statutory consultee role. This slightly bespoke role that was created for registered parks, gardens and battlefields. And I think we all, however, appreciate the work that they do. So this amendment aims to protect the service whilst making the administrative process simpler, by putting the registered parks and gardens into the same planning process as other heritage assets. Where there's an existing and well understood statutory consent process whereby the Gardens Trust would be the amenity society that would be notified if there were planning proposals that might affect registered parks and gardens or importantly, their settings.

I know the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has amendment 109 coming up, which I believe would have a similar effect by commencing section 102 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, in which this area planning was already tidied up and that might be an alternative to this amendment, but it would be very helpful if the noble Lady the Minister in her response to this group, could indicate the government's intentions regarding making best use of the efficient role that the gardens Trust play in helping give advice on our much loved grade two parks and gardens and their settings.
15:50
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may be allowed to speak to my amendment 107 in this group, I my amendment 107 in this group, I appreciate I jump a little far down the line. The reason why I put this the line. The reason why I put this down is at the moment, we have a situation where we're removing consultation and when you're doing consultation and when you're doing your planning or removing enough as much of it, and the case of much of it, and the case of efficiency when it comes to sports fields, my Lords and it comes to planning, I think we have the most planning, I think we have the most attractive thing for a planner to attractive thing for a planner to come to a piece of reasonably flat, reasonably well drained land.

What reasonably well drained land. What better to put a House on if we are going to lose these, we lose going to lose these, we lose something which is an asset that keeps on giving. Now, much will be keeps on giving. Now, much will be said about, I'm sure. And the minister said it's when the. And I must thank the minister, both ministers on the front bench at the moment for actually meeting me and trying to privately and trying to convince me that I didn't have much to worry about.

For all their courtesy, for all their time, I failed to become convinced because there's, as I said, there's just so tempting and it's so tempting for a local authority or anybody else helping here to come in and say, let's put a field on there. Now, of course, we've got things like these summoned by councils, some owned by schools. Schools can get rid of them. More independence now. Can we protect them? Why? Because my Lords if you don't have somewhere to play a sport, that sport dies or becomes not unavailable to you in that group.

And if some sports clubs own their own pitches, they may not own enough to have a second or a third team. And if you get rid of your second or your third team, the the the first team is under threat and thus the existence of the entire club. It's that simple. There is that much pressure going down there if you don't get people involved. If they're not involved every week, they will do something else. They will leave and you lose this asset. Community sport my Lords is probably one of the best community builders.

You're going because you're not just involving in the exercise pattern. You're involving in a community of its own that feeds into other communities. My Lords let's remember it to make sure that somebody can play this game. They will sit on committees. They will take on the legal responsibility of being a secretary or a treasurer for these groups. Everybody who's run a political party knows how people are just dying to do these roles all the time, don't they? I mean, everybody wants to spend legal responsibilities and bank accounts.

People do this willingly. Well, they do it my Lords to get out there and make sure. And the and these sports facilities are something that allow it to happen. If you take away this defence of the something which allows searching a key activity, you are putting these under threat. OK, not everyone's going to disappear overnight, but some will, some will be moved and some will not be replaced. My amendment suggests that if you are going to do this, you must put something in its place.

I think that is not too much to ask. Please can I hope that the government, when they respond to this and at the moment I would like to vote on this, unless there is some great revelation coming from the government, in which case I shall say Hallelujah and sit down. But, my Lords, can we please make sure that this ultimately community activity, which in this country is largely conducted without much government intervention, private groups getting involved and bringing their own time and often their own money, but they need to be supported to allow these other activities to take place.

I would suggest having the the amendment I put, I put down here in position, or at least something very like it would not be too much to suggest that something as important as community grassroots sports have at least their pitches defended and give them a chance to continue to function as they currently do. function as they currently do.
15:55
Baroness Willis of Summertown Portrait Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
Noble Lords I I'm surprised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Name, and I also thank the noble Baronesses, Baroness Young of Old Scone, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Gascoigne Chilthorne Domer and Lord Gascoigne for their support in adding names to this amendment. And this amendment very much actually builds amendment very much actually builds on from the previous amendment just being discussed. It simply aims to ensure that spatial development strategies include provision for publicly accessible green and blue publicly accessible green and blue spaces to local and for local spaces to local and for local communities.

This would empower planning authorities at the strategic level to make accessible green and blue spaces routine, rather than the coincidental and and the sort of existing postcode and the sort of existing postcode lottery that communities currently face of being able to benefit from face of being able to benefit from access to nature and also to sports fields. And the reason but the reasons for the access to nature reasons for the access to nature and blue green spaces. Cities are they're well rehearsed, and we know that they provide this myriad of social, economic and health upsides for people, as well as for people, as well as strengthening urban climate resilience and creating opportunities for wildlife.

Now, at opportunities for wildlife. Now, at the committee stage, the government made it clear that, of course, it recognises the importance of blue and green spaces and the benefits they bring and its intent to maximise them in cities, all of which is extremely welcome. However, in all responses from the Minister at the committee stage, the noble Lady of the Minister concluded that provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework and the yet to be published national development planning policies are sufficient to provide green and blue spaces, therefore making a statutory footing unnecessary.

But peers did make the point that it's not just any green space, it's it's accessibility to people that is critical. And this is the point that's made in the government's own actually really quite excellent, accessible green space standards published by Natural England in 2025. And in this standard, Natural England made the point and the government through it, it committed to providing access to good quality blue and green space for every citizen within walking distance of their home. The reality is, however, that without these strong provisions, developers often see the delivery and placement, and it's the placement I really want to emphasise here the placement of group of blue green space as optional and with the voluntary provisions of green the Green infrastructure framework not leading to consistent delivery of quality spaces in the right places.

In fact, it's natural England's own data that shows that 87% of the UK population have no accessible local green space within 300m of their home. Now, in many cities, the emerging evidence indicates the location of new green space provision is occurring, but it's making the inequalities in access to green space worse. So, for example, looking at the mapped evidence from the largest populated English cities outside of London. So Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, for example, over the past four years, between 2020 and 2024, and using the most up to date land cover information, it's clear that over this interval in time, significantly more areas of blue green space up to 9% more, in fact, have been created in rich parts of the cities, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation index categories nine and ten.

So the very sort of wealthiest parts than in areas of high deprivation categories one and two. So what's happening is this is making already large inequalities in access to green spaces, cities even greater. So to put it bluntly, without a strategic steer and legislation, developers and local authorities are prioritising, intentionally or unintentionally, the delivery of green space in wealthier areas. On such an important issue. I think we need to understand where the results from the government's own green infrastructure mapping database therefore supports the evidence and shows us that the NPPF is actually working to protect and enhance access to green and blue spaces in the right places.

And so I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister could write to me, having asked her team to query this database to examine the change in doorstep local and neighbourhood standards green space over the past five years for the most populated cities in the UK London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. And according to the answer, I will then decide whether to bring this back to the third committee stage to test the opinion of this House. I hope the government would agree that this this amendment is pragmatically worded.

It continues to allow flexibility for local authorities to do what is best for their area, for their communities. Since but, you know, really, this simple measure would cost measurement or amendment would cost the government nothing, but it really would provide a clear mechanism to deliver a commitment for accessible green space, ensuring, not least that the government's own priorities for access to green space can be met.
16:00
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I declare I'm Chair of Sport Wales and also president of the Local Government Association. of the Local Government Association. When the noble Lord, Lord Allen, talks about those who volunteer for talks about those who volunteer for sports clubs, it is a tough job. But people do it because they know absolutely the impact that this has absolutely the impact that this has on people's lives. I think it's a very sensible amendment, and I think we have to accept that we are think we have to accept that we are living in an activity crisis.

So the World Health Organisation has said that a third of adults worldwide do not reach the necessary levels of physical activity, but slightly closer to home, the Sport England Active survey from last year shows specifically around young people that while the levels of participation is stable, without significant and sustained action, significant and sustained action, we're going to be hitting a much bigger physical activity crisis. And currently between 5 and 6% of And currently between 5 and 6% of children have difficulty with movement skills, which absolutely impacts the ability to engage in physical activity.

So if we look at women, there's about 80% of women women, there's about 80% of women in this country who are not fit enough to be healthy, which should raise a number of red flags. But playing fields are just part of the jigsaw of physical inactivity and how we should try and tackle it. So I do believe that we have to do absolutely everything we can to protect what we have. I think we also have to understand we're in a cost of living crisis.

Some sport participation has got much harder to be involved in. So for a lot of people this is a really cheap and easy solution for them to be active. And if the noble Lord decides to take this to a division, I will be supporting him.
16:02
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment 118. Now I'm slightly at a loss because I expected the Conservative frontbench to do a blinding speech on 96, which my amendment more or less is similar. Obviously, I think mine is better because I mentioned biodiversity and reuse and things like that, but I suspect that my amendment, which I had hoped to put to to a vote, probably wouldn't be the Conservative 96. So I would just like to say that both of our amendments, 96 and 118, are supported by the Better Planning Coalition.

As an obvious step forward on improving what we have already. While I'm on my feet on a, I would just like to say that I refute the concept of a grey belt. A grey belt is green belt that has been left to rot, and what we should be doing is recovering that grey belt and making it green belt again. The green belt is absolutely necessary for our health, which is what other noble lords have said. Yes, we need to protect the wellbeing of, of of the land, of ecosystems, of people, of, of towns and villages.

And we really have to remember that this is something we rely on for our ourselves, including, of course, farmland and what we are seeing. What I'm hearing from farmers all over the country is that they are losing farming, good farming land. We potentially, given climate change, are going to face some huge challenges in feeding ourselves and the loss of farmland will be a disaster. So I do think my 118 is a great amendment, but I'm prepared not to put it to a vote.

If 96 is moved. moved.
16:04
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords I rise to speak briefly to my amendment 95 and 98, and I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for her support for protection of good agricultural land. Amendment 95 is a broader application of the principle that was debated and rejected by government and Liberal Democrat backbenchers in this House last week. We on these benches believe that food security is national security, and unlike this government, these are not empty words. We do intend to put that into practice.

We remain concerned that the principle of protecting best and most versatile land grades one, two and three appears to be trampled at will, not just for solar farms under NSIP, but also other developments. My Lords, we must do better. This land is responsible for supplying the lowest cost, highest quality food produced in our country and is far more productive than weaker grades of land building. Without due consideration on the lands we need to feed us is frankly, shortsighted. Amendment 98 asks the government to report annually on how much of our land is being converted from agriculture to tarmac, steel, photovoltaic panels and concrete, and provides the basis for a more informed national debate on how we treat our productive lands? My Lords I won't test the will of the House on these amendments, however, I would be most grateful to receive assurance from the noble Baroness, the Minister, that the government takes this issue as seriously as it should.

This was not entirely clear from the response to the debate on solar farms on BMV this week. I would also like to speak even more briefly in support of the concept of the noble Baroness Lord Willis amendment 88. Well planned development needs to take into consideration access to green and blue open space, but also how this space can contribute to nature connectivity.
16:06
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
The. speak very briefly in support of my amendment 121, a vital step towards bringing clarity and scrutiny to the government's Grey Belt policy. This amendment simply asks the Secretary of State to publish a clear framework for Greenbelt designation within six months of Royal Assent and to lay before both houses. Its purpose is straightforward to ensure this policy is defined and transparent and subject to oversight. This concept has received remarkably little scrutiny or discussion during the passage of this bill, and the concept of the grey belt has shifted since it was introduced in the Labour Party's manifesto.

It was first presented as previously developed land and disused car parks. This, in fact is largely brownfield land already, but since then it's expanded in ways that raise serious concerns. Our party is not opposed to using grey belt land sensibly, but we share the concerns of the Lords Built Environment Committee, who described the rollout as incoherent and rushed. They found it unlikely to have significant or lasting impact on planning or housing delivery, and suggested the concept might be largely redundant. The current definition, as your Lordships may know, includes land in the green belt, comprising previously developed land and or any other land that does not strongly contribute to greenbelt purposes.

The Local Government Association and many councillors, including in my hometown of Solihull and also my former constituency of Redditch, warn that this vague language especially contributes little, could invite subjective judgements and threaten greenbelt protection in places like Solihull and Redditch. With no other surrounding towns, the greenbelt could be vulnerable and small House builders have warned it won't help them, especially given under-resourced planning departments and the risks are clear. Inconsistent criteria and monitoring could lead to uneven treatment and uncertainty.

There's no plan to measure progress or success. In short, this policy has shifted without sufficient clarity or scrutiny, and my amendment offers Parliament the chance to correct that. And I commend it to the House. the House.
16:08
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Added my name, and I thank Baroness Willis for all her work on this, and also thank the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this, and also thank the. Minister and Baroness Hayman for. amendment. The fact is, without this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The fact is, without this amendment putting the green and blue space on a statutory basis, I feel that this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

feel that this. Will be a. Planning bill for the privileged. Baroness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness. Willis this. Afternoon as. To why this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To why this. Might be. There is. Also further evidence discovered by Wildlife and Countryside Link, who conducted Countryside Link, who conducted regression model analysis using official ONS data sets for first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

official ONS data sets for first time buyers by local. Authorities. By local. Authority areas in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By local. Authority areas in. 2023, and they compared this. With the ONS data on the number.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the ONS data on the number. Of adults in each authority who were first time buyers. Now. My Lords first time buyers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. My Lords first time buyers are the very. People who really are going to need green and blue space perhaps the most. They're going to perhaps the most. They're going to have young families, wildlife. And countryside. Link then analysed and mapped the percentage rates for mapped the percentage rates for those first. Time buyers with in-depth green space data and found a statistically significant correlation between lack of green space and higher numbers of first time buyers. In other words, the first time buyers are going somewhere because it's cheap, because it lacks green space, because it lacks amenities.

So of course things are cheaper. But that's exactly what surely this planning bill should be resisting. When we met, the minister said she didn't like this amendment because it's too prescriptive. Now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. She's right that local development plans should decide what green and blue space there what green and blue space there should be. I don't have a problem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with that. However, the fact is, if there's no statutory requirement for the network of spaces that's. Easily.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Easily. Accessible, we can see that there will be far fewer of those there will be far fewer of those green spaces. This amendment is absolutely in line with Defra's stated aims, and it's absolutely an amendment which would contribute substantially to the to sustainable substantially to the to sustainable urban drainage delivery. This amendment would not tie the hands amendment would not tie the hands of the local or regional planning authorities. It just points them in the right direction and makes sure they head in that direction.

And I hope that Lord Goldsmith and his colleagues will bear in mind that colleagues will bear in mind that swift RICS and other nature friendly construction methods will friendly construction methods will not result in more swifts unless the network of green and blue spaces exists to provide food
16:11
Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

sources. 88 in the name of Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

88 in the name of Baroness Willis and various other peers. And I also very much support your Darlington Baroness Grey-Thompson amendments. About Fortfield. I just wanted to make a few points that somehow often don't come up about green spaces. In 2008, when I worked for the then Mayor of London, who then Mr. Johnson, we started a project called Capital Growth. It was a simple and madly ambitious idea to create 2012 new community vegetable gardens in London.

By the time of the Olympic Games, it was a steal entirely from Vancouver, who had done something similar. But we only counted our gardens as one garden, whereas they counted each plot in their garden. So I think that we won in four years. We created 2500 gardens. All of them are still there, contrary to not contrary, but supporting the notion that a lot of these spaces do end up in much more wealthy areas. Once communities were given the chance and a tiny bit of money.

In fact, 78% of our gardens ended up in the most deprived areas of London because that's what people wanted. And very many things happened that you didn't anticipate. One was that all the local police came and said, that garden has transformed this area. And just to give you an example, you would be in a place where there was a high rise block where an area had been designed back in the 50s as a place where mums could walk with their babies in the in the midday sun and the area would be full of needles, beer cans and people wouldn't go.

They'd stay up in their tablets because they were basically frightened to come down. You took over a space and you created a garden. People got pride. People came down, just altered things. It altered things dramatically. And we saw it over and over again. So the police were pleased. The doctors were pleased, the community was pleased, and people started to take ownership of their public space. Now we set up a system by, by. We challenged every borough in London to create 60 spaces.

They all rose to the challenge. But my point in supporting the noble Baronesses amendment is that if we don't make this happen, nobody has the chance, and it is not something that should be the privilege of people with money. This should be accessible to all, not just because it's healthy makes you eat better. We had wonderful groups selling to local restaurants, were having barbecues, they were feeding kids. The knock ons are amazing, so please don't think of it just simply in terms of one single thing.

The point about plants and gardens and gardening is that it spreads dramatically. And one final point before I sit down, I was reading an extraordinary book the other day which talked about heat in urban areas and during the heat dome over the west coast of America. The researcher had gone and measured in Portland, Oregon, the heat in the middle class areas where there was lots of trees and the heat in the poorer areas where it was just concrete. The difference was 20 degrees.

So we must have these spaces as the world's climate change is, because it does really work a lot better than practically anything else.
16:14
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
You. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So we fully. Support amendment. 88, in. The name of Baroness Willis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The name of Baroness Willis. And. Put my name to it. As well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a time of huge opportunity. You know, we're going to be building an unprecedented to be building an unprecedented number of houses. We're going to be creating ten new towns. And the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

creating ten new towns. And the value that can be added to that effort by open. Green spaces. And blue. Spaces, delivering.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spaces, delivering. Some of the benefits that have already been spoken of around the chamber is tremendous, and it's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chamber is tremendous, and it's. Really an opportunity. We mustn't miss. And it is true

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We mustn't miss. And it is true to say that at the moment, deprived communities don't get as good a communities don't get as good a deal on this as richer communities, and the work that the Woodland Trust has done on tree equity has Trust has done on tree equity has shown that the poorer communities have far less access to open spaces with trees. Now, these are vital with trees. Now, these are vital for health, for mental health, wellbeing, air quality. We heard wellbeing, air quality.

We heard about heat, natural flood risk management, the huge range of management, the huge range of things that apart from allowing people to have room to enjoy open spaces, is also going to be delivered by these these open spaces. I to thank ministers for seeing us about this amendment, and I can understand the reluctance to be prescriptive at strategic planning level, but that puts a huge burden on the the national planning policy framework and reliance on it. And the reality is, I came to the conclusion that the noble Baroness, the minister, who was an exemplary leader of her local authority, and I guess kicked her local planning authority round the block until they did deliver exceptionally well on many issues.

But there are local authorities that don't do that. And we've got to be clear that this is a moment in time when we're going to be building all of these houses, creating all of these new urban settlements that we really have to grip the issue and have a statutory requirement on the face of the Bill. I welcome that Defra are going to produce a policy on access, which will come after the publication of the next environmental improvement plan. But by that time, the legislative opportunity will have passed.

So I think we need really to put the requirement for green bill.
16:17
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
And to support amendment 107, in. brief comments. First, in declaring my interest as chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 through to the London Olympic Games in 2012, and being a member of the London Organising Committee for those Olympic and Paralympic Games. I have to say that what Baroness Boycott has said today is absolutely right, and the work that she did at the time was exemplary and really important for the success of those games and the emphasis on environmental protection, the environmental work that went on in green spaces and the gardens were commendable.

And I hope that that's taken very much in into consideration by the noble Baroness, the minister, when she comes to reply to that amendment. I also want to offer the apologies of my noble friend Baroness Thatcher, who was two minutes late in arriving for this set of amendments, and it came from another important meeting. She was she's passionate about this subject. She's just whispered in my ear that she was strongly supportive of what the noble Baroness Grey-Thompson said in her speech, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in moving 107 and if he moves it to a vote, I'm sure she will be supporting him as strongly as I will.

We did at committee. And here I take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, concentrate on a number of facts which is not worthy of repetition, because they were so well made at the time. We looked at the looked at the active communities who were supported by playing fields. But in my brief contribution today, I just want to add to the points that were made about Sport England and a number of facts which were not before the committee at that stage, and which I hope are taken into consideration by the Minister in her response.

Because the bill before us threatens to weaken the statutory protection for playing fields by potentially removing Sport England's role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting these spaces. And these changes would reduce independent oversight. Independent oversight is vitally important regarding these playing fields. The change would reduce independent oversight and advocacy for safeguarding playing fields, increasing the risk of their loss to development, especially in areas already under reserve for sports provision and, if removed, my Lords local authorities would not be required to consult Sport England when considering planning applications that affect playing fields, removing a critical safeguard that is protected over 1000 playing fields in the past year alone.

Statements from the Chair of actually the Chief Executive of Sport England, emphasised that removing this statutory role would. And I now quote for the record, leave a huge hole in the protection system, a sport. England's involvement in planning has led to improved or safeguarded conditions in 90% of recent cases. My Lords school playing fields are particularly vulnerable. Over half of UK playing fields are within school grounds, and the bill does introduce more flexibility for local authorities to sell such land for capital generation.

So my Lords concerns remain that weakening Sport England's oversight could make these disposals more likely. And it is for that reason that I support amendment 107.
16:21
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
I congratulate all those excellent speeches we have heard so far in support of it. The provision of green space is terribly important when building homes. My Lords, I'm in despair to see so many developments of little houses packed tightly together, with little or no garden space and no small green spaces in the public areas, could I urge the Minister to dig out the excellent 2020 report commissioned by our own department called Building Back Beautiful, which, inter alia, made the point that communities are more likely to approve of new housing if it were of a beautiful design and harmonious with the local architecture.

In fact, the full title was living with Beauty Promoting Health, Wellbeing and Sustainable Growth. It was written by the urban design expert Nicholas Smith, who is the founder and chairman of Create Streets. He was also the Chair of the advisory board for the Government's Office for place, and is an academician of the Academy of Urbanism. Chapter ten is called Create Places, Not Just Houses, and says the research is remarkably consistent. Most of us prefer places where we can walk in, where there is greenery frequently present, and where we find the streets and squares beautiful to look at and be in.

We prefer places that do not cost the earth, but can help us live in harmony with it. I do urge the minister to read it and implement it, especially the next chapter. Chapter 11. It is called nature re green our towns and cities. I make no apologies for quoting the first few paragraphs of this chapter, since it makes the point better and more succinctly than I can. It says sustainability and growth are not in conflict, rather they are in symbiosis.

This is true of all three scales building, place and settlement and has been evident in our visits. It is also reflected in Pauline and well-being data. Much of the evidence we received stressed this point. It says there is a considerable body of evidence that shows that green spaces in rural and urban urban areas are highly beneficial to health and wellbeing, and also provide space for people to meet. The perception of beauty is an important factor. Realising these benefits, put simply, sees the report green is good for us.

As Natural England themselves argued in the evidence to us, the presence of greenery in the urban environment normally has a positive impact on our mental and physical health. Street trees seem particularly important. They are associated with cleaner air, slower cars, fewer accidents, they provide shade and hot summers and are perhaps astonishing given the complexity of human life. Street trees have a measurable effect on human health, even taking into account income, age and education in all three scales, the report says they believe that it is necessary to regreen our lives.

It is important not to be naive. However, many essentially very poor development proposals attempt to cover up the shortcomings, with some token tree planting. A strip of grass or a couple of trees cannot rescue a polluted, ugly and profoundly inhumane space. My Lords, I agree entirely with those words. If we cannot rescue those places currently built, but at least we should stop building new ones in the in the future. The London National Park City briefed me a few years ago that their research suggested that people would not walk more than about 250m to a park or green space.

Therefore, my Lords, I say to the Minister, the answer is in these amendments build the green space into the gardens and the streets and little parks, or accessible green space and all housing developments. If people will not go to the parks and green spaces, bring the parks and green spaces to them. Thank you.
16:24
Lord Krebs Portrait Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak very briefly in support of. Amendment 88.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the name of my noble friend Baroness Willis of Summertown, and in particular, to reiterate the point that she made in her introduction to the amendment that if, as we've heard on many if, as we've heard on many occasions, the government's view is that this amendment is unnecessary because the matter is covered by the NPPF. Well, please, could you show us the workings? Can you show us the workings? Can you demonstrate to us with firm data that indeed the NPPF is working to that indeed the NPPF is working to protect green space in our towns and cities and villages? If we don't have the data, how can we actually believe what the government tells us? And of course, we then tend to fall back on anecdotes.

And we've heard a number of anecdotes already this afternoon. I'll just add my own. One of my penances in life is that I support Oxford United. I live in Oxford and Oxford United. I live in Oxford and as one of my friends said, when you support Oxford United, you support them through thin and thin, but them through thin and thin, but near the Kassam Stadium, which is in a more deprived part of Oxford in a more deprived part of Oxford Blackbird Leys estate, there used to be a very nice little green park.

It was small, but it was a bit of It was small, but it was a bit of greenery where children could run around and kick a ball. Just in the last year or so that green space has been completely covered, wall to wall with houses packed in and no green space left. So we've got some anecdotes like that that make us anxious. We don't quite see where this green and blue space is being protected, so I do hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will respond to my noble friend Baroness Willis's request, and that probably not at this moment, but in writing, send us all the data that actually shows the NPPF is delivering what the government claims it delivers here.
16:26
16:26
16:27
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I rise. which hasn't been addressed yet, but that very much fits, I think, as a package with two amendments that have been already widely addressed the noble Lord, Lord Addington's on playing fields and the blue and green spaces with noble Lady Baroness Willis. And I think these three really fit together as a package. My amendment, which is the same as the one that I brought at committee, seeks to ensure that planning authorities take all practicable steps to ensure sufficiency of play opportunities for children.

Now, I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just made the case. Playing fields? Yes, for organised sport, we desperately need those the green and blue spaces. But somewhere to just kick a ball around is not necessarily a playing field, but it's a really crucial space for children to develop their physical skills as a noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson spoke about, but also to develop their social skills to get together to play. Now, I spoke quite extensively at committee and I'm not intending to repeat everything I said.

Then I'm going to pick up a couple of points that were raised then to take them forward. But I will just begin by apologising to the noble Lord, the minister, who did make great efforts to reach out and have a meeting with me before this report stage. But I'm afraid his emails arrived just before and as I was in Ukraine with limited communications, and it's entirely my fault that meeting didn't happen. I apologise for that. That was the circumstances. But I think this is not just my amendment.

It's not my amendment at all, really. At committee, the noble Lord, Lord Addington sort of asked, where did this come from? And I said then that it came from play England. And if you look at the history of that, I think it is worth tracing through this little. The 2024 manifesto was the first from play. England was the first to call for play sufficiency legislation. Now at committee, the noble Lord, the minister, referred to the NPPF change that came in December 2024. But as we've heard from from multiple noble lords, there's not really evidence that that's working.

And the other point is that is, of course, a policy which could be changed, which is very different to having on the face of the bill, having written in law, that's much harder to change, to say planning authorities must consider play sufficiency. Now, as I said at committee, this was debated quite extensively by the standards of the other place, and there was broad expressions of support for it. And I'm afraid that nothing the noble Lord, the minister said at committee, convinced me that there was there was any argument against this.

And I also do just want to note that the noble Lord Committee asked at committee, was I aware that there is an APPG on play? Well, yes. I am a member of the APPG on play together with eight other members of your Lordships House, including several from the government benches and 32 MPs, which I think makes it a very significant All-Party parliamentary Group by the standards of these things, and a recognition of the importance in which this is very much being held.

Now, a number of noble lords, I think noble Lady Baroness Miller among them, referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Link study out this morning about the lack of green spaces around where first home buyers are making their first homes. And of course, many of those first home buyers may well have or be going to have children who desperately need these play spaces. And I note that the times this morning in its paper edition put beside that the report from the House of Lords Environment Committee out, I think, this morning talking about how if the government is going to build new towns, those new towns need to be built as communities with the infrastructure in place.

And of course, part of that infrastructure must be play infrastructure. I referred to the UN convention on the rights of the child, and also to the fact that Wales and Scotland already have comparable legislation to this. And it's worth noting, perhaps, that Wales, of course, has the future of the Well-Being of Future Generations Act, which is something which which almost demands that this you have something like a play sufficiency duty. So, my Lords, this is one, two, one e which is out of scope for our where we're going to schedule to get to tonight.

Whenever we get to, I will listen very carefully to what the noble lady. I think the Minister says this time I'm open to consideration, but I certainly reserve the right to put this to a vote, because I believe this is absolutely crucial and very broadly supported when we come to it on Wednesday.
16:31
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To speak. In support of of the noble Baroness Willis and her amendment 88, which I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

88, which I. Added my name. I should just refer to my interest involving peers of. The planet and also flag that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The planet and also flag that I'm Chair of the Built Environment Select Committee. Baroness Bennett is the Built Environment Select Committee whose report was in the Committee whose report was in the times. Don't don't worry, but watch this space for those who are interested in it. We'll have that debate in due course and look debate in due course and look forward to it. Baroness Bennett, I don't I don't want to wish to prolong the the debate because I think we're probably at the end. think we're probably at the end.

But I would just like to raise one point, which I think is is building on what everything that everyone on what everything that everyone has said so far, which is just about vision. And ultimately, where do we see nature in development. And we've covered a lot today already. We've covered a lot in committee stage of the of the bill. And as was mentioned, the NPPF does reference aspects, but it is open to interpretation and is vague. And there are, again, as we discussed there are, again, as we discussed before and today, some real issues, real issues for some people in the real issues for some people in the country.

And on the amendment specifically, there may be some who query or and therefore object to query or and therefore object to this amendment on the basis of the use of the word network. And basically, ultimately, it's for those on the ground to decide what network means. It be it large or small, but it allows for pragmatism in an effort to seek to do as much as is possible. But ultimately, if I may say, it is about doing more than one, and therefore it is about what more can be done with the entire site, rather than just looking through the lens of trying to do the minimum.

And this isn't onerous. It is. It is very pragmatic, and it also doesn't stipulate the quantum of the size of what nature is needed. And both my party and I think this, this government still honours the concept of the 15 minute walk to nature. But this amendment doesn't go anywhere near as that. So therefore it isn't as onerous as that and as prescriptive. And there's just one final point, and it's an anecdote, if I may, that I can't compete with the the fine words of Baroness Boycott in her story of her many fantastic work that she did in London.

And last week when we were meant to debate this group, I think on Wednesday it was there's a, there's a piece of land where near where I live in, in Surrey. And about a year ago I was driving past and I saw some school kids planting some bulbs, and I thought how absolutely amazing it was to see then building, putting some bulbs in. I think it was miserable weather last year, and I thought how amazing it was to see these kids putting these bulbs in on this, this plot of land.

And last Wednesday, when we were sitting earlier to debate the bill, I charged in valiantly to make my train, thinking we were going to have a vote. And I charged in and I walked past the same bit of land. And it's just for clarity. This is just a piece of grass. Ultimately, with a few trees, a path through the middle, surrounded by roads, residents, residential properties and some shops nearby. It is nothing special, but it is something that is special in itself because it is unique and it is pleasant for those that live nearby, for the dog walkers, for the shops, it's something to enjoy.

I can't imagine that the upkeep is anything too onerous, but it is enjoyed by those nearby. And as I ran past, I saw these school kids yet again one year on planting more bulbs and I thought, I've got to get in, I must get in. And I sort of, you know, smiled as I charged past and I thought, do you know what? No. Forget it. I'm going to forget the vote. I backed up and I went to speak to these kids, and I spoke to someone called Doug from the council who has been involved in this project over the last few years, and I met my own councillor, Lib Dem, I hasten to add.

But we'll forget that called Kirsty, who's really been driving this idea with the council and the school kids getting them involved in a little bit later there were some some of the local businesses that came along too. But the point is, in this small endeavour, it showed exactly why. To me, nature is important, because it's not just important in itself for biodiversity point of view, but it's where it brings people together and improves that area, and it brings people of all ages together to do something.

So I would just like to say that is why I care about nature. That's why we support this, this amendment. And I think I would like to pay tribute to those behind it. And Minister, if I may, I would. I was flicking through the last time we debated this. And so I think I there's no finer quote than I think the minister, if I may, there is a growing body of evidence illustrating the crucial role that green space plays in supporting healthy and inclusive communities, and we recognise the importance of providing these along new homes.

So therefore, I do hope that the government can find a way through on this issue. amendment. amendment.
16:36
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
96, in. requires the prioritisation of brownfield and other sites, and also to speak to my Noble friends amendment 239, to which I've also added my name about the protection of villages which I raised at committee with regard to amendment 96 and brownfield sites. Your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships know I spoke about this in in the committee stage. It is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is. A no brainer, a double win that saves our countryside and green spaces that are rich in nature. And spaces that are rich in nature. And we've heard so much about the importance of green spaces here this afternoon already. And whilst improving areas it. Blighted by uncared for, dilapidated and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sometimes poisonous brownfield sites in the heart of our communities. The minister responded at committee. Stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stage. Saying that the government are clear that the first port of call for development should be brownfield land, and. Suggested brownfield land, and. Suggested that the NPPF already. Covers this point and that Lord. Jameson's amendment and mine at committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment and mine at committee were not needed. I instead ask. If. This is what the government supports, then what is the harm of supports, then what is the harm of applying belt and braces and having it also spelt out here too? Would it not demonstrate their true commitment to this principle? Either way, it still feels as if there's a long way to go. I reiterate the stats. I hope people will forgive me that I shared from will forgive me that I shared from the CPRE.

I haven't been able to find more recent ones yet, and they reported that in 2022, there were a record breaking number of brownfield sites identified for redevelopment, lying dormant enough for 1.2 million homes on 23,000 sites, adding up to 27,000 hectares. The CPRE highlighted that the majority of brownfield sites are in town and city centres, where there is both the need and the scope for new homes and regeneration. Indeed, it will also fit with the travel aspect of subsection nine B in this amendment.

As many of us have said throughout the progress of this bill, it is not simply a question of more homes. We need the right homes in the right places. Much of the current urban brownfield land is known to blight the communities where it exists, leading to poor, poorer socio economic indicators. It's much better to reuse already developed urban land and buildings, as the carbon emissions are lower per capita than greenfield development. I understand that development for developers, there can be a problem that cleaning up land before building can increase costs, but perhaps there is a way that the government can help with this.

Hence, I hope the government will think again on this issue and accept this. What I consider to be a sensible amendment with regard to amendment 239. I feel passionately about the protection of our villages, their identity and the way of life, and I am delighted that my noble friend decided that they wanted to run this from the front bench. Villages and their communities have, I've said before, have been hewn over centuries of rural life and livelihoods, and ki are a key part of the UK's reputation as a green and pleasant land.

This amendment would insert a much needed protection to match that which is currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework, and would level the field playing field to help preserve the special character of individual and historic villages in particular, which would be lost if one village spreads into another, or if a town spreads out into a village. The practicalities and perhaps unintended consequences of implementing this bill poses a significant risk that in opening up development, we will lose these village gems.

Or, in the worst case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a styleless urban sprawl. During committee, the minister argued that the villages were already protected by current guidance for local planning authorities on the restriction of village development and by green belt provisions. But surely is it? It is clear from the debate that we had that this is not necessarily the case in practice. And, and whilst and, but to cite some greenbelt statistics, it's not simply about that the government's own statistics on the green belt state that around 12.5% of the land area of England is currently designated as green belt, focusing around 16 urban cores with national parks included.

This would take the percentage up to around 37% of land being protected by one or more type of protection. Overall, however, there has been a decrease in greenbelt of around 660 hectares between March 2024 and March 2025, the bulk of which was due to six local authorities adopting local plans. With changes to the green belt. And that is just it, my Lords. The green belt can be changed. There are large areas of the country, more rural areas of the country, further away from urban centres that do not fall under any protections and could be impacted by newly planned development or new towns.

Under this government, these villages should have the same protection currently afforded to towns across the country. The government said that an amendment along these lines would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop some strategies. I am afraid I disagree. This amendment is about creating guidance or updating current guidance. Local authorities make their decisions using guidance already. This should only aid this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments, all on acts, on green spaces, the green belt and playing fields and my belt and playing fields and my Lords. This is one of the largest groups of amendments that will be debating today. And I think that's debating today. And I think that's a reflection of how important these issues are held in your Lordships House. My Lords, wild places have always played an important part in my life. In the past, I've been my life.

In the past, I've been very involved with promoting outdoor education, so these matters are also important to me personally across this House. I think there's a recognition of that. We need new a recognition of that. We need new homes and that these new homes are communities that we create, the places that will become dependent on the quality they provide on on having access to really good green having access to really good green and blue spaces. My Lords, the the and blue spaces.

My Lords, the the impacts of just merely being nearby to good quality green and blue spaces are still not properly understood, but this is an ever understood, but this is an ever growing area, and research really shows that this access reduces stress. It improves over well overall wellbeing. It increases the levels of physical activity, enhances social interaction. It gives people a greater sense of community, and it has direct economic impacts and particular benefits for those in the most deprived sections of our communities.

The minister herself has spoken throughout different parts of this debate about how important the new town that the minister grew up in means and the new towns. I put it to the minister that new towns are held in such high regard because they had green and blue spaces actually designed into them. Fundamentally from the start. So these are not nice to have. These are fundamental issues for our community's wellbeing, and they go on to save millions of pounds in unnecessary societal costs from inequality, depression and poor health that result from not having these facilities.

I want to briefly thank Baroness Boycott. She made an extremely important point about climate change as as our climate heats up and the urban heat island effect is something that causes misery and health impacts, and particularly for the poorest who suffer the most. So the need for green and blue spaces in our towns is growing ever more important. One statistic I'd like to just give the House before I move on to the amendments, is that the amount of time our children spend playing outside has declined by 50% in the space of one generation alone, so we need to reverse that.

We need a cross-sector, strategic approach to these things, and we need to ensure
16:46
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that the big House builders don't squeeze out these essential requirements for human existence. requirements for human existence. So turning to amendment 88, in the name of Baroness Willis of Summertown, Baroness Miller and Summertown, Baroness Miller and Lord Gascoigne, this would require strategic planning authorities to include a network of green and blue include a network of green and blue spaces in the statement of policies, which will relate to the development and the use of land in development and the use of land in the area.

This amendment is one we support. It's one that's supported by the National Trust, the Better by the National Trust, the Better Planning Coalition, and we very much support this. This is also much support this. This is also vital again, really for our new towns. Amendment 107, in the name towns. Amendment 107, in the name of my my noble friend has been spoken to very, very clearly and spoken to very, very clearly and well. And we've lost so many of our school playing fields. So these, these these matters are important.

Amendment two three, seven in the name of Baroness Willis and supported by by the Lord Gascoigne, Baroness Young of Old Scone and Baroness Miller would require development corporations to provide green and blue spaces when securing the layout and development of new the layout and development of new towns. And again this this this is this is a crucial matter. Amendment 84, in the name of Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that under planning legislation, the Gardens Trust is a statutory consultee regarding planning applications.

And again, this is an important matter. Amendment 118 in the name of Baroness Jones seeks to have local plans and prepared by local authorities, must apply a sequential sequential I can't speak today approach to the location of developments such that brownfield sites with perhaps low biodiversity are used. Again, we are generally supportive of this approach. Amendment 121 by Baroness McLean would require the Secretary of State to publish a framework for the designation of grey belts.

Amendment 95 from Lord Roborough. This amendment is similar to the one and the noble Lord made this point himself to, in a similar vein to the one we had on solar panels and farmland the other day. And while we're sympathetic to this again, it it suffers really from that same point of being too prescriptive in its definitions. And for that reason we would struggle with it, my Lord, with with that I will, I will. There's, there's there's a lot of amendments in this group.

This is an important group. And I thank you. Lordships speaker. speaker.
16:48
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to strengthen. The bill's. Provisions around green infrastructure, heritage protection, infrastructure, heritage protection, sustainable land use, and, importantly, for play and sports importantly, for play and sports areas. In amendments 170 and. 121 E. areas. In amendments 170 and. 121 E. Amendment 84, tabled by Lord Inglewood, would recognise the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic gardens and designed landscapes are a vital part of our cultural and natural part of our cultural and natural heritage, and their protections must be not be left to chance.

Given that Gardens Trust's formal Given that Gardens Trust's formal status in the planning process is a logical and proportionate step. In logical and proportionate step. In our opinion. Turning to amendment 88, we strongly support the call 88, we strongly support the call for a strategic approach approach to green and blue infrastructure to green and blue infrastructure that is parks, waterways and green spaces that are publicly accessible. Protect which protect biodiversity Protect which protect biodiversity and my Lords enhance well-being. These provisions would help ensure These provisions would help ensure that growth does not come at the expense of nature or public access expense of nature or public access to it.

However, my Lords, this amendment includes the word network. This word my Lords carries a significant implication from strategic planning perspective, because once we define these assets as a network, local authorities could be required not only to safeguard individual sites, but also to consider the functional and spatial connections between those sites. That raises questions of a maintenance responsibilities and resources required to deliver a genuinely joined up approach. We therefore could not support the amendment as drafted, but there is another amendment later on in the debates about new towns, and I think it is a different issue in new towns than it is strategically, which could be across 3 or 4 even counties areas.

There is also a clear cross-party consensus behind prioritising brownfield development and protecting our most valuable farmland and greenfield sites. Amendments such as 95, 96 and 118 rightly push for a sequential, sustainable approach to land use, beginning with sites already in use or disused, and protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land for food production and environmental benefit. Turning specifically to amendment 96, tabled in my name, this amendment would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield land and urban intensification and to promote sustainable mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs and services.

It underpins the widely supported brownfield first principle, a principle that already commands public support and political consensus. But it also goes further, linking that principle directly to community building, sustainability and the protection of villages and open spaces that give our places their character. As conservatives, we're passionate about protecting our greenbelt and safeguarding the countryside from inappropriate development. This government have or have often relied on guidance rather than firm statutory safeguards, leaving too much to shifting policy documents and not enough my Lords to clear legal safeguards.

This is about joined up approach encouraging regeneration where infrastructure already exists, reducing needless commuting and making sure that the new development creates mixed, vibrant communities rather than those isolated housing estates we see too often in our on the edges of our towns. It is about putting what is already in the NPPF brownfield first compact growth and protection of the countryside into statute. I anticipate, the Minister may say, as she did at committee, I agree with the intent behind this amendment.

However, it is already comprehensively covered in the NPPF. But if we all agree that brownfield first is the right principle, then why leave it only to guidance which can be changed at will? If it truly is covered, then legislating to secure it should cause no difficulty. But if it's not, then this amendment is precisely what is needed. This is a proportionate and pragmatic step. It strengthens what the government claims they already believe in, gives local communities greater confidence that brownfield will be prioritised and protects our green belt and our villages from unnecessary pressure.

My Lords and I will be pushing this to a vote when the time comes. Finally, on amendment 239, in the name of my noble friend Baroness Hodgkinson, and my of my name, but spoken to by my noble friend Baroness Hodgkinson of Abinger. And I don't want to say any more, because she said it all, and I don't want to take time repeating it. But, my Lords, this is so important. And again, we will be looking at possibly dividing on this one when the time comes, because this is the protection, my Lords of our villages in this beautiful land.

beautiful land.
16:53
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in a very interesting debate for the very valuable contributions we've heard this afternoon. I've engaged with many of you on these matters over the preceding weeks before our discussions, and our debate has focussed on something on which I think we all agree. And that's the need to ensure that as we deliver the housing we need, we do so recognising the importance of green and blue space, sustainability, heritage and important uses that make our communities and the people that constitute them thrive and succeed.

Firstly, may I remind noble Lords of my letter regarding the strength and influence that planning policy bears on the protection of vital green and blue spaces across the country, the power which it exerts in practice, and the degree of flexibility it allows for sensible choices to be made at local level. The benefits of green space are not in doubt, as far as I can see, for all the reasons set out in our debate, and that is why there are such strong protections within the NPPF and in the planning system.

Turning now to the amendments. We've debated amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord. Lord Inglewood seeks to ensure the Gardens Trust are retained as a statutory consultee for planning proposals and that they are considered as a statutory amenity society. The government has set out its intention to reform the system of statutory consultation. We want a streamlined, effective system of consultation that avoids uncertainty and delay, and we will shortly consult on these reforms, including on the impacts of removing the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee.

Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher graded parks and gardens, so this consultation will help us deliver a streamlined system and address duplication. As part of our consultation, we will be very keen to test mitigations to ensure they continue to play a valuable role in protecting our heritage. Planning policy remains key. Registered parks and gardens are defined as designated heritage assets, and they will remain subject to the strong heritage policies protecting these assets in the National Planning Policy Framework.

These policies require local planning authorities to carefully consider the impact of a development proposal on a designated heritage asset, and if the development proposal would cause substantial harm to refuse such applications. I note the noble Lords proposal about amenity society status with great interest. Amenity societies are not subject to the full requirements of statutory consultation, but are notified of the relevant development. The government really values the work of amenity societies, and I should just add my own anecdote in here about the level of volunteering.

I was at our local community awards on Saturday, and I was delighted to see our amazing green space volunteers getting awards and their volunteers across our gardens, green spaces and parks. Those kinds of volunteers that look after our green spaces, whether they do so in committee rooms or out in the parks themselves, are incredibly valued, as are those who which we'll come to later enable and encourage sport and physical activity. And I pay tribute to those who won those awards locally for me on Saturday as well.

So the government is keen to explore whether this model would be suitable for certain types of development. Through our consultation, we believe there's an important ongoing role for the Gardens Trust, working with local authorities and developers. No decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts from the consultation. My department will continue to engage with the Gardens Trust to understand the impacts of these proposals over the coming months. Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Wallace of Summertown.

Can I thank her for the meeting last week to discuss the importance of networks of green and blue spaces to communities all around the country, and I was very grateful for the information and research that she provided, both to myself and officials from my department. The NPPF will, which will guide the development of new spatial development strategies, already highlights the needs the need for plans to support healthy communities. And I very much agree with the noble lady about equality in the provision of green space.

And I'm grateful for her for to her for agreeing to share the research talked about. And I'm very happy to respond to her on that in writing. And can I just say also to the noble Baroness boycott, I really commend her work during the London Olympics and what she did there. It was amazing work. And I went when I was out on one of my visits, I went to see a fantastic project on Balcony Gardens in Walthamstow, which has also invigorated that community and in my own area.

We started a community orchard project. So I do completely understand the benefits of these types of projects. Strategic planning authorities already have the ability to set policies that reflect the value of these spaces. Under new section 12 for a spatial development strategy may identify or specify infrastructure that promotes or improves the social or environmental well-being of an area. This could include networks of green and blue spaces. We should also remember that these strategic development strategies will not be site specific.

Instead, they will relate to broad locations and noble Earl some of the noble lords that have had meetings with me will be aware that my noble friend, the Defra Minister, Baroness Hayman, is currently working on a comprehensive access strategy which will come forward from Defra to indicate how that meshes in with the planning process. While an SDS may consider green and blue networks at the strategic level, detailed site specific matters relating to them are likely to be best dealt with through local plans.

My Lords, I will now turn to amendment 95, which seeks to protect best and most versatile land, and amendments 96 and 118, seeking to encourage a brownfield first principle. I absolutely agree we need to protect our best agricultural land. To that end, strategic authorities will need to have regard to ensuring consistency with national policy when preparing their spatial development strategies. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural planning.

Policy recognises the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land, and if development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be prioritised, so not in the top three grades that the noble Lord Roborough mentioned. Furthermore, the forthcoming land use framework will set out the evidence and tools needed to protect our most productive agricultural land and identify areas with the biggest potential for nature recovery. While I completely support the underlying objective of amendments 96 and 118, a legal duty to allocate brownfield land before greenfield land in local plans would represent an overly rigid approach.

It could mean that councils are forced to allocate poorly located or, for example, unviable brownfield sites before well-located greenfield sites. The government has now proposed options for brownfield passport to help ensure the default answer to suitable proposals is yes. We are now considering the views received to decide what further action could be taken to support development of brownfield land, including as part of further reforms to national planning policy. I would just comment on the comments from the noble Baroness Lady Hodgson on greenbelt policy.

We've lost six 600 hectares between 24 and 25 as a result of six local plans, I believe, she said. Greenbelt continues to protect around 12.5% of England from inappropriate development. And I would just say that none of the six local plans which release green belt land were examined under the revised 2024 National Planning Policy Framework, which is implementing our Green Belt reform. So I hope that's helpful. Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual report on the amount of land proposed for change of use through a spatial development strategy.

It's essential that the planning system is transparent and that the public understands the effects of planning decisions in their area. As I mentioned previously at committee, the government already publishes a range of statistics on planning and land use in England, including annual statistics on the extent of land designated as greenbelt, and quarterly statistics about the number of planning applications made and permissions granted. The formal allocation of sites will remain the preserve of local plans, which will include working out the precise boundaries, site area and capacity for development.

It would be impractical to calculate the amount of land any spatial development strategy is proposing for change of use and report on it. My Lords, turning to amendment 107 and 121 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington and the noble Baroness Lady Bennett. I'm grateful to the noble Lord for our meeting where we discuss this matter in great detail. We recognise the important contribution that playing fields, pitches and play spaces make to improving the health and wellbeing of our communities. That is why these important assets have such strong protections through existing planning, policy and guidance.

And I would just point out to the noble Lord Blencathra about his comment about trees. I did check this today that the benefits of trees in the streetscene are specifically mentioned in the National Planning Policy framework. There's specific mention of that, so I hope that reassures him. As I explained at our meeting and in previous debates, the NPPF sets out that planning policies should be based on robust and up to date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision.

This includes formal and informal places for children's play, including playing fields and pitches. The framework also sets out strong protections for existing playing fields, where they may be threatened by development, and the policy is very clear. Playing fields can only be built upon if they are no longer needed by the community, if equivalent or better provision would be delivered elsewhere, or if the development proposed is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

While existing policy protections are strong, we are considering what more we can do in this area as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision making on which we intend to consult this year. Further advice on play spaces are set out in the national design guidance, which government is in the process of updating. New guidance is expected to be published later this year. Spaces for sport, play and recreation are being reviewed as part of this update and on the points made by the noble Baroness Bennett and the noble Lord Russell Russell about new towns.

I would direct them to principle five of the report on the New Towns Taskforce, which says very clearly that new town should be health and safety places, health and healthy and safe places, which promote active lives for residents with easily accessible green spaces and recreational facilities. The noble Lord Moynihan mentioned Sport England and I would say that we are consulting on those statutory consultees, but any organisation can continue to contribute to planning, planning application debates.

Additionally, to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces, including improving play areas, the government has established the Parks Working Group with local authorities and industry specialists. Furthermore, our Pride in Place Impact Fund is providing £150 million of funding to up to 95 places to support the development of shared spaces, revitalise local high streets and improve the public realm. And this can include funding upgrades to public spaces such as parks and playgrounds. I would comment to the noble Lord Krebs about footballing vistas.

I'm lucky enough to be a Stevenage FC supporter, and Stevenage is opposite the most fabulous Fairlands Valley Lakes Park, where I like to think the kicking around of a ball at the noble Baroness Bennett mentioned may result in the players that eventually are destined for the stadium and second place in League One, so I look forward to that. My Lords, while we share the same objective here, we do not believe it's the right approach to address these matters through legislation, but instead through planning, policy and guidance.

Amendment one, two one and 239 I'd like to thank the noble Baronesses, lady McLean and Lady Scott of Bybrook for these amendments on the government's greenbelt reforms, including protection of villages. Amendment 121 seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a framework that sets the criteria by which land should be designated as green as greenbelt, setting out a definition of greenbelt and how greenbelt should be monitored. We believe this amendment to be unnecessary, as our revised framework is already clear on how greenbelt should be defined, with accompanying guidance setting out considerations for decision makers in identifying greenbelt land.

It's also clear on the circumstances in which greenbelt should be established, altered or reviewed. The most recent changes to the framework were subject to extensive consultation, and where we made and where we made changes in response to points raised. As Greenbelt is identified and amended within local plans, it's right that greenbelt policy is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework regarding amendment 239. Neither our greenbelt reforms nor our updated Greenbelt guidance make any change to the greenbelt purposes which seek to prevent the merging of towns and the safeguarding of the setting and special character of historic towns.

Neither do they remove appropriate and relevant green protections from land around villages. The framework states plainly that green belt land, including land in or near villages which contribute strongly to the relevant purposes, should not be identified as greenbelt. There may be other reasons to restrict or manage development in villages, including those not in the greenbelt, but neither the bill nor our policy reforms preclude local authorities from consideration of matters such as the character of a village or the location, scale and style of development, where relevant in the planning determination.

For all the reasons I've set out, probably a bit too extensively, I apologise. I needed to cover all the points in the debate. I do hope that noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendments.
17:09
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
Garden yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My my Lords, I'm very pleased to think that my amendment has led to such a wide discussion which has showed more or less complete unanimity, unanimity across the House about the importance of green House about the importance of green space in placemaking in this country, because that where we can country, because that where we can get unanimity like that, then there's potential of making progress. I'd like to thank the noble Baroness for her specific remarks relating to the Garden Trust.

And as they say, I shall Trust. And as they say, I shall think on them as I, as I was sitting here, just made me think, of course, what we're all trying to of course, what we're all trying to do is to change policies and law, but are we not, in fact, possibly creating a hydra? It's actually creating a hydra? It's actually going to make it, in general terms, more difficult for the planning more difficult for the planning process to work. Well, at the end of the day, planning is about of the day, planning is about physical specifics and not abstract generalities.

And the key to whether or not this debate has been worthwhile, I believe, is going to be whether or not the country is a be whether or not the country is a better place as a result of it. My leads, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw. My amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw. My amendment. Is it your pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 85, which already been debated. Amendment 85. Baroness Pinnock not moved. Not moved. Amendment 86 Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.
17:10
17:12
17:23
17:23
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. I rise to speak to amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments 163 A and 163 B tabled in my name. These seek to ensure that the Nature Restoration Fund is properly aligned with the planning process, and in particular, is capable of supporting the more large and complex developments. It's my view that the current drafting clause 66 is preventing some of the larger or more complicated schemes from using an environmental delivery plan. These kinds of larger, more complicated developments often evolve after development has started. We'll hear about more about this on hillside at whatever ungodly hour we get to it.

So, for example, outline permission may be granted, but a developer may subsequently seek to change the planning conditions attached to the permission. Maybe amendments to other aspects of development under section 96 A or otherwise. It may also be the case that larger developments need to apply for retrospective planning permission after development has commenced to regularise the development, when it's been built differently to the permission in its current form, clause 66 only allows developers to request to use an EDP before development has commenced, a single snapshot in time.

And whilst I can understand why it was drafted in that way inadvertently, it seems to me that it risks limiting the NRM by failing to accommodate the possibility of ever evolving development schemes. If the government is going to deliver it, its growth and housing targets, I would assume they would want to ensure the NRF could support the full range of development projects, particularly given it's the larger ones that tend to have the greatest tendency to evolve during their often decades long, certainly years long lifetimes.

Amendment 163 A wouldn't require Natural England to accept such development. What it would do is allow the design of EDPs to accommodate the scenarios where appropriate. 163 B similarly doesn't require Natural England to accept a request from a promoter of such development to pay the levy. But it does do is it makes clear that when deciding whether to accept it, this is guided by the Secretary of State's policy on the matter. I encourage the government to consider this amendment, in the spirit of which it's tabled, to ensure the proper functioning of legislation and help the Nature Restoration Fund navigate the complexities of the planning system.
17:25
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to respond to this group of amendments on the EDP consultation process. My Lords, we are broadly in support of amendment 87 table tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Coffey, and we we appreciate the amendments 163 and 16B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord banner, but we have rather more care in relation to these than a number of questions that we'd we'd like to ask about them. Turning first to amendment 87.

This strikes us as a sensible and indeed unnecessary clarification by requiring local planning authorities to have regard to an EDP relevant to the land in question, it closes an important procedural loop between the Bills new environmental mechanisms and the Town and Country Planning Act. I'll move on to the amendments, as I don't think that amendment is being pushed to a vote. Turning to amendment 163A, here we're entering more kind of complex territory, if I might, and I've listened to the noble Lord speech and in relation to his amendment is intended in relation only really to large developments.

But this amendment would allow developers to seek to use an EDP after development has already commenced. My Lords, this is a fundamental change to the way this bill was originally drafted. And although this amendment and the next one are both short, they would have profound impacts on the nature of this bill and the reasoning behind it. Considering the late stage we find ourselves in, it is worth treating these amendments with a degree of cautious scepticism. And I have a number of questions, really, that I wish to put to the Minister about these amendments, particularly as I understand that the Minister might be intended to support them to some extent.

I understand the reasoning behind them that projects evolve and that impacts manifest late in the process, and developers may wish to regularise matters through this pathway and indeed, in in principle, a degree of flexibility can be helpful for all concerned in the planning process, and this could help speed things up, which is indeed one of the core intentions of this bill. But flexibility, if poorly secured and accounted for, risk turning instead into loopholes and giving it could indeed give the government much more direct power and say over matters of importance.

EDPs were convinced precisely to ensure that environmental environmental protections is front loaded, assessed, integrated and approved before the first spade hits the ground. If we are now to permit post-commencement plans, we are blurring that critical line and this government clearly set that out in the original drafting of this bill. So again, this is a very, very fundamental change. And my question start really here. Might this invite retrospective justification of impacts that should really have either been avoided or evaluated in advance? And what is a mechanism in what is the mechanism that is that will stop deliberate misuse of this new clause? Should a developer be so minded to do that? So how will Post-commencement EDPs preserve the same environmental rigour as those agreed at the outset of the drafting of this bill? What safeguards will ensure the flexibility serves better compliance? Not convenient regularisation after the fact? And how? How will this affect the deterrent against starting work without proper authorisation? Credibility of EDPs.

Indeed, public trust depends on certainty that environmental obligations cannot be adjusted once the bulldozers roll in could increase. This could increase uncertainty for developers themselves. For all the talk of streamlining, streamlining, shifting assessments, Mid project can introduce delay, legal risk and even greater reputational exposure. What assurances can the Minister offer that such changes will not, paradoxically, lengthen timeframes and make further complications? Amendment 163B takes us a step further down this new road of divergence by requiring Natural England to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to accept a post commencement commencement request on one reading that offers consistency and greater ministerial oversight and control.

But on another, perhaps more troubling, it introduces a political lever over which the government can exert pressure over and that can impact the ability to have independent ecological assessments. Is it right that the government is given these new powers, and what effective challenge would there be to them should they be agreed? What grounds do what grounds do these powers? What? Sorry. Say that again. What grounds do these powers need to go through? What? What hoops they need to go through before they are given what I.

Both arguments cannot remain true, that the Natural England is independent and yet the government is is giving it direction. The government originally set this Bill out with Natural England being independent. So where is the logic to fundamentally flip that on its head? How will the independence of Natural England be protected under this arrangement if it was agreed, what, if any, real independent exists? Where this where this new arrangement to be put in place? Where would where would Natural England stand in relation to the government? It seems like the government is not only setting the homework task, but is also the sole person marking that homework as well.

If it did happen, would it be transparent? Would it be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny? It's really important that these decisions are published and that they were they would be open. Natural England must continue to exercise professional discretion based on evidence and on statutory duty, not on ministerial pressure or preference. Environmental regulations loses its legitimacy the moment scientific judgement is replaced by a possible political judgement. If the government was minded to allow post-commencement EDPs at all, then surely we need stronger guarantees of transparency, clear eligibility thresholds, independent verification and public reporting of any decisions.

Without this, this innovation risks eroding confidence both in the system and in its underlying environmental purpose. So, my Lords, with those questions, I seek some clarification from the minister. But these these are fundamental changes that flip key parts of this element of this bill on its head.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They're introduced at a very late stage, and they raise a number of issues of concern. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I will not make extensive comments on my Noble friend Baroness Coffeys amendment
17:33
17:34
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I thank the noble Baroness Lady Coffey for amendment 87, which would require decision 87, which would require decision makers to take account of the environmental delivery plans when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. I agree, of course, that it's crucial that EDPs are integrated into the planning system. I hope I can provide the noble Baroness with the necessary assurance that her amendment is not necessary at its heart, and EDP enables a developer to discharge a relevant environmental obligation by making a commitment to pay the appropriate Nature Restoration Levy.

Once this commitment is made, the legislation removes the requirement to consider that specific environmental impact as part of any wider assessment, as the impact will be materially outweighed by the actions taken under the EDP. So while the planning decision maker will need to consider a wide variety of matters when making planning decisions, it's not necessary for the decision maker to consider the EDP itself. I therefore hope that this explanation that noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, turning now to amendments 163A and 163B, tabled by the noble Lord Lord banner, which would help ensure the Nature Restoration Fund works effectively for large scale development. It has always been our intention that part three of the Bill should support development as much as possible. As we have repeatedly said, the Nature Restoration Fund will benefit both development and nature. Therefore, we want to maximise its scope and therefore the benefits it will deliver. I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Warner for tabling his amendments and I've looked at them very closely.

As has been pointed out, the restriction in clause 66th May in fact preclude a proportion of development from being able to come within scope of an EDP at all, where, as is often the case, a large development needs to vary planning permission, for example, or apply for retrospective planning permission following changes outside of their control. We need to ensure the NRF can support such development, as failing to do so could significantly reduce the ability of the NRF to deliver the win win that we all want to see from, for nature and for development.

While, of course there will be complexities in how to manage large and complex development, this can be addressed through the design of EDP and supported with government guidance. As with any development, it will be for Natural England to consider requests having regard to that guidance, and I hope I can reassure the noble Earl that this is not a way of skirting around the planning procedures in any way whatsoever. This is about access to the Nature Restoration Fund. So all of the normal things that apply to planning permission would still apply.

This is just about providing that access to the NRF. Once the development has started. With that explanation, can I thank the noble Lord Lord banner for tabling the amendments for all the work he's done on this and for the meetings I had with him on it? And I hope the House will join the government in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting his amendments. I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it, Your Lordship, that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the group of amendments to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 87 A, which have already been debated. Amendment 87 a Baroness copy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 87 a Baroness copy. Not moved. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment amendments beginning with amendment eight with amendment 87 B after clause 51, amendment 87 B Lord Lucas.
17:37
17:38
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
the most important vehicle for nature recovery in this country. The local nature recovery strategies being developed by the 48 local authorities in charge, now can only design a recovery strategy if one knows what is there in the first place, or rather, what is not there or is lacking and needs to be recovered by my Noble friends amendment is wise and right. I would urge the government to go further, since many organisations collect species information, often working collaboratively to pool data and make it available for research and conservation purposes.

Now, the primary network for this collaboration is the National Biodiversity Network. The NBN, which brings together government bodies, charities, volunteer led recording schemes, data aggregators and networks. The NBN is a charity that oversees the UK wide partnership for gathering and sharing biodiversity data. Then we have the Biological Records Centre, the BRC that was established in 1964. The BRC coordinates and supports wildlife recording schemes and societies across the UK, working with volunteers. Recorders. It manages the online recording tools called I record and iNaturalist UK, and its data is published on the NBN Atlas.

Then we have the the. Then we come to the local environmental records centres. The lyrics the organisation mentioned in my Noble friends amendment. Now also my Lords, Natural England has divided England into 159 distinct national character areas called Ncas. Each NCA is defined by a unique combination of natural and human factors, including landscape and diversity. Geodiversity. That's geology and landforms, history, cultural and economic activity. Now that information, my Lords, is invaluable in helping authorities develop their airline strategies.

But so is all available data with government and private by Noble friends amendment asks that the biodiversity information collected in the course of planning application should be given to the lyrics, and I also add to that it should be given to the NBN and the BRC. Also, we cannot have enough data available for decision making where I depart slightly, what I depart from my Noble friends amendment is he wants to make it compulsory and legal. I would hope that's not necessary. I would hope that exhortation from the government to the local authorities would ensure that this information is sent to the three organisations we've mentioned in in our amendments.

Now, I hope that there will not use excuses all confidential in the planning application. We can't send it. That is nonsense, my Lords. It should not be deemed confidential and it should be passed on to those organisations. And if the Secretary of State wants another new slogan in addition to Bill baby Bill, I would suggest data, baby data, data

**** Possible New Speaker ****

data. My Lords I rise to speak. The amendments. In my.
17:41
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Name in this group, starting with amendment 87 PB is it about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bats which I will come on to in a minute? In the meantime. I would like. To say that His Majesty's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To say that His Majesty's Government has made a number of statements complaining about the obstructive planning laws which obstructive planning laws which impede building. The government is to be applauded in taking this sensible viewpoint, and I'm very happy to help the government by putting down these amendments, which will, I hope, alleviate one of the expensive and absurd difficulties that come in the way of those seeking to build. As I said at Second Reading, bats are an example of good intention being taken over by those concerned with the implementation of the legislation, extending their remit to an absurd degree.

I quoted at Second Reading the £100 million bat tunnel, or, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out at the time, ten doors to this House and my own case of having a House being demolished, which the bat people had confirmed was bat free. Nevertheless, they insisted on each tyre being removed one by one, which meant I had to employ six people for four weeks, removing tiles one by one for inspection by a bat person.

This cost £30,000, as opposed to one man and a machine taking half a day, which would have cost £500. The legislation, initiated under the Wildlife and Conservation Act 1981, goes through Natural England to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Ecological Management, who set the competency standards and. Bat inspectors are registered with them. It's become an industry of its own. Local authorities. In order to avoid criticism for not complying with the Wildlife and Countryside Act, go for the easy life and automatically demand an inspection for bats, even where it may not be a sensible or reasonable request.

This is then carried out by the registered bat inspectors. This would be fine, but it's abused as in my case, where with no evidence of bats, an extra £30,000 had to be paid to confirm their inspection. I recently came across the case of a young couple wishing to alter their attic to add needed extra accommodation. They were required by the local authority to have a preliminary bat inspection at a cost of £1,000.

Without this inspection, the local authority would not permit them to even apply for planning consent, something which might not have been granted. Why couldn't they put in for planning? And if planning was approved, then carry out a survey where at least they would be putting some money towards something positive. My amendments 203 B 203 C and 87 FC seek to ensure that there is some comeback to unreasonable requests so the system is not allowed to run wild as it does at the present time.

Yeah, my amendment 87 would enable some form of discipline to be imposed on local authorities in respect of the demands for Bat inspections. This is in line with government policy. It would assist in the development of housing, which the government is keen on. It gives me my Lords great pleasure to assist His Majesty's Government by introducing what I hope will be a first step in implementing the government's expressed wish to bring some kind of sense to the planning process.
17:46
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. OK. Let's look. My Lords I rise to speak briefly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I rise to speak briefly to amendment 87 B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. My noble friend is calling for better recording and storage of recording and storage of biodiversity information, and this is a noble aim. We agree with him that increasing our understanding that increasing our understanding of biodiversity in the UK is a good thing, and we would support measures from government to support this. So could the noble Baroness the Minister please outline some of the steps ministers are taking to the steps ministers are taking to to to record biodiversity? My Lords, turning to amendments 87 FB and FC turning to amendments 87 FB and FC and amendments 203 B and 203 C in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising.

These combined to form a constructive proposal for ensuring that bats are appropriately and pragmatically appropriately and pragmatically protected, while removing the time and cost burden on everyone in society from the unnecessarily prescriptive and arduous regulations that we currently suffer. That protections are a significant hindrance to everything significant hindrance to everything from loft conversions and roof repairs through to the largest developments. My noble friend is not suggesting that protection for those species of bats that are endangered or rare in the UK should endangered or rare in the UK should be weakened, simply that protections should focus on those.

We need to accept that our activities are going to have some impact on nature and ensure that our response to that is proportionate. Bats in buildings are an unusual issue, and that they do little or no harm to the buildings or inhabitants and are creating their own dependence on our activities. The fact that we provide this habitat should not be a cause for inappropriate encumbrance on the property owner. For doing so, we are creating a perverse incentive to remove that habitat for bats wherever possible, in order to ensure that we have reasonable freedom to enjoy our property.

Surely that is not the outcome we want or desire for bats themselves. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister is grateful to my noble friend's constructive amendments, and I look forward to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling amendment 87 B, which would require all biodiversity information generated
17:48
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted free of charge to local environmental record centres. I was very pleased to be able to provide the noble Lord with further information on this matter during recess. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for amendment 87 BA, which clarifies this amendment to require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted to the National Biodiversity Network and the Biological Records Centre, in addition to local environmental record centres, the government fully recognises the importance of robust biodiversity data in planning applications.

Although the idea of having a new slogan data baby data, I might have to get a new hat with that on it, which maybe that's not such a good idea. While we share the intention of improving access to biodiversity data, we don't believe the amendment is necessary. The statutory framework under the Environment Act 2021 already requires developers to provide a baseline assessment of biodiversity value using the statutory metric published by the Secretary of State. This ensures consistency and transparency without prescribing how data should be shared or stored.

When discharging the biodiversity gain condition, applicants can choose to share their data with local environmental record centres and many, many are already choosing to do so. I'll come to the Noble Lords point about how many in a moment, introducing a legal requirement to submit data would add administrative burdens and technical requirements without improving biodiversity outcomes. However, I will take back to officials the noble Lords points that this is not happening as intended. To consider what further encouragement we might give to help speed that data on its way.

And for these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for amendments 87 and 87 FC and for his concern to support the government in what we're trying to do. I'm grateful for that. His amendments concern Bat inspections during planning applications and the quality of those inspections and amendments. 203B and 203C, which concern legal protections for bats in planning decisions. The government is committed to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment, including bats.

However, we recognise that people can experience the kinds of costs and delays that the noble Lord has outlined associated with the existing system of bat protections, such as survey requirements. The government recognises that measures to protect bats should be efficient and proportionate. That's why we've already begun work to improve the bat surveying processes. Natural England's earned recognition scheme for Bat licences provides a streamlined route to securing a licence. Under this scheme, appropriately qualified Bat ecologists with a membership of an approved professional body can act more independently of Natural England through earned recognition.

Permissions are secured on average 3 to 4 times more quickly, and it also aims to improve survey quality to deliver better outcomes for bats. We are expanding this scheme and in line with recommendations from the review, Natural England has already updated its standing advice for local planning authorities on bats to remove complexity and duplication. In November, Natural England will publish a bat regulation reform roadmap, which will set out further plans to work more closely with planning authorities and to streamline licensing, for instance, expanding its pre-application advice offer, which can expedite planning applications and avoid unexpected surveys, as well as developing pilots to test quicker and cheaper survey options.

Government's already acting on this issue. The additional reviews and regulations that the Noble Lords Amendments 87 and 87 FC would require, we believe, are therefore unnecessary and would create significant new bureaucracy. Furthermore, 203 B and 203 C would result in likely non-compliance with international law, including the Berne Convention. So, with the explanations I've set out above, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 87 B as an amendment to 87 B Lord Young Catherine. Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to 87 B Lord Young Catherine. Not moved. Not moved. Amendment 87 B Lord Lucas. My Lords, I'm very grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful. To the Minister. For her reply. I shall not drop this particular issue, but for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment. And it's a pleasure this. Amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 87 D, beginning with amendment 87 D, which have already been debated, amendment after clause 51,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment after clause 51, amendment 87 D Baroness Coffey. Just a reminder, this is the amendment where currently an owner

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment where currently an owner of a building has permitted development. Rights to demolish. It unless it is a pub, a live
17:53
17:55
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page