English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

Finally, I particularly support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Boycott and Lady Freeman, on environmental assets, and I look forward to hearing the arguments on the other amendments.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 225 is supported by my noble friend Lord Freyberg and many outside this Room, including the Wildlife Trusts. Similar amendments were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will speak to in a moment.

When the Government first talked about the community right to buy scheme, we heard of empowering communities to create new parks and green spaces by helping them purchase and restore derelict land and green space of community value. This was in line with the Government’s definition of “sustainable development”, or the so-called three pillars: the economy, society and the environment. One of those—the specific facility of the right to buy derelict land or green spaces for their environmental value—has slipped out of the wording in the Bill. In the other place, the Minister responded to queries on this by saying that

“environmental assets will be captured within assets of community value … We will set this out in guidance, as we share the determination that environmental assets are captured within the provision”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/25; cols. 323-24.]

However, I do not think that is strong enough. We can see that through the way that the current right to bid, which this schedule seeks to update, has been interpreted. Looking into this—I have spent more time than I expected reading legal judgments—it seems clear that the current drafting of proposed new Section 86B, outlining what land can be determined to be of community value, is very close to the section of the Localism Act 2011 that it replaces, and hence is likely to fall into the same issues when it comes to green spaces that do not include an official community hub or organised activities. I do not think the guidance will be strong enough to overcome those issues.

I know that I do not need to use up your Lordships’ time, particularly at this time of night, by extolling the benefits of green spaces that go well beyond direct economics or narrow social value. This is not just about official sports playing fields; any field can be a place for play. Green spaces can act as important areas of flood mitigation or as filters for air, noise and water pollution. They can be harbours for wildlife that are important to people. They can be buffers and screens between one urban area and another, giving a sense of community—small patches of green that act as spaces where people can plant microforests.

Pride in place is as much about green spaces as it is about built heritage and culture. There is plenty of research showing this, as we have spoken about at length on other Bills, but it is not so easy to put the benefits of communal green spaces into an argument about economics or social value, especially given the need to demonstrate that these benefits are non-ancillary. Adding the explicit reference to environmental benefits to this Bill could allow communities to unlock everything that the Government envisage, and help communities to support the Government in achieving targets such as 30 by 30, which are currently looking very hard to get to. There are plenty of communities keen to look after a local field, river or piece of woodland—even a small strip of green or a verge—and plenty of private or philanthropic money that is available specifically for that purpose, which the country is otherwise missing out on the opportunity to use.

Of course, I recognise that the Government do not want to allow any blockers to their housebuilding plans, so there is an extra line in my amendment to exclude land that has already been earmarked for development in local plans. I can see that the exact wording of this schedule needs to be thought out very carefully to encourage what we want to encourage, and not open the door wide to use outside the envisaged scope. But I gather that what I am proposing works currently in Scotland, so I very much hope that the Minister will give a positive response to this amendment—in line with the Government’s stated determination that this schedule should encompass environmental assets—and bring forward a government amendment on Report.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled in this group Amendments 222D to 222F, 225A, 230A, 232A, 232B, 234ZA and 234B, and the Schedule 29 stand part notice. I do not want to say that I am against Schedule 29, but it is only by doing a stand part notice that I can get a sense from the Minister of what is really happening with that schedule.

I will start briefly with the other amendments. There is a lot of merit in them. My noble friend mentions going back to the community ownership fund in Amendment 222A. When I was an MP, I helped a community to buy the Racehorse pub in Westhall. I also facilitated or supported the purchase of somewhere called Holton Pits, which is really an environmental area that receives funding. It goes beyond the Pride in Place which is being used for certain communities around the country.

I will jump quickly to Amendment 234B, which is a bit of a cherry on the top. One of the ways to avoid taxpayers having to keep paying for this—although it is a good use of money in terms of building communities—is that one power a council has is that it can take action against the owner or landlord of particular buildings, or a land area, in order to clean them up. I am suggesting—this may go a bit too far, but it is worth considering—that the council has to inspect any asset of community value every five years and then apply a notice if it is derelict or in decline. The reason why it being in decline matters is that one of my concerns is that there is an element here of almost running down an asset of community value in some way, so that it almost starts to be rendered pretty useless or very difficult to recover, and that is not appropriate.

Let me give the example of a council that was concerned about a former theatre and sports hall. It had been closed to the community by the private owners and had become a real mess, with broken windows and so on. Initially, the council resisted designating it as an asset of community value, and then, ultimately, it was one of the ones that got demolished.

That brings me back to Amendment 222D—yes, Minister, it is back—which would remove the automatic right, or the permitted development right, for assets of community value. There is only a handful of cases where this does not apply. On Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it was very gracious of the Government to concede that this had merit and that they would consult on it. I have not seen any sign of consultation. Another reason given was that it was not usual to amend statutory instruments in primary legislation. Well, the Government are doing that regularly in their Bills, and it is happening in this Bill in Clause 45, so I will not accept that as an excuse any longer.

I want to understand what is going on with Schedule 29. It looks more or less like Section 87 of the Localism Act 2011, which is more or less being ripped out and replaced with new Section 86A. A lot of it is similar, and there are a lot of improvements. I may have misunderstood what it is trying to do when I tabled some of my amendments—I think I messed up on Amendment 222F in particular. More broadly, what is so wrong with Section 87 of the original Act that it needs almost ripping out and replacing in full?

There are a couple of things that give me a particular cause for concern, and they are addressed in my Amendments 232A and 232B. On page 297 of the Bill, subsections (4) and (5) of new Section 86B seem to give the Secretary of State powers to override, and to stop something becoming an asset of community value when a local council is determined that it should be. I am trying to understand that. That is certainly not in Section 87 of the Localism Act. There are elements that strengthen the legislation, including the provision on making the first bid, as opposed to just being ranked alongside others and having a stopgap of six months—this extends it to 12 months. But too often, well-meaning civil servants, giving advice to their Ministers, who know that they are supposed to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament, sometimes see designations as a way to block housing. It worries me that we are heading in this direction and that, despite a lot of this being good, we end up going the wrong way.

I turn now to the issues to do with sports in Amendment 234ZA. I have particularly picked on this because the original Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, which is referred to in the Bill, has this definition:

“‘sports ground’ means any place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air”—

so far, so good, but it continues—

“and where accommodation has been provided for spectators, consisting of artificial structures or of natural structures artificially modified for the purpose”.

I anticipate that a lot of this is really about local football clubs and rugby clubs that have stands or similar, as opposed to the many more sports fields around the country that do not. Communities could erect one, or the owners, under the permitted development rights, could demolish one, therefore removing it, technically, from protection under this provision, which will be for life. I am concerned that we are not covering that. I anticipate that the Minister will say, “Well, that’s provided for under the NPPF”, but I think this needs to go further.

I have also tabled Amendment 222E. If we are getting rid of the five-year limit for sports grounds, why not do it for all assets of community value? There is no point in having an arbitrary differentiation.

I have a question for the Minister. I have not been able to work out when Clause 63 and Schedule 9 will commence. It is not mentioned specifically in Clause 92, so I do not know whether it comes under subsection (1)(c) or subsection (7)—whether it will be on the day the Bill passes or whether it will be by regulations.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

At the end of the clause, in the list of health determinants, there is a particular exclusion for genetically inherited characteristics. Is that supposed to exclude people suffering differences in health due to the colour of their skin?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that that is not what is intended, but I will revert to the noble Baroness with a written reply.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Having broken my ankle before, I feel her pain. I will speak to Amendments 132 and 222B in this group and, if time permits, Amendment 241E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon.

The Minister will be aware of my interest in SUDS. What I am seeking to do here is align her department with Defra, because Defra is much keener than her department is on bringing in mandatory standards for sustainable drainage. I hope that we can bring them closer together so that they speak with one voice.

The importance of SUDS as a natural containment of water is twofold, but it is primarily to prevent flooding and to prevent floodwater from being displaced. For example, if as few as 30 or 60 houses have been built on a waterlogged field—it does not need to be a major development of 300 houses—it can displace the water into existing developments. I saw this when I was the MP for Filey, for my last five years in the other place. Flooding of sewage was caused when rainwater mixed with the additional sewage into the combined sewer. It went onto the highway, meant that households, including some pensioner households living in bungalows, had to be evicted for six months and caused £1 million of damage to Filey School.

I know that the noble Baroness will reply by saying that the Government published guidance in June 2025 and that SUDS is part of the National Planning Policy Framework, to which I would say, even more firmly than before, that these are, regrettably, not mandatory. Since my earlier attempts to put SUDS on a statutory basis during the passage of the levelling up Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, there has been a court case, which I will come on to now.

With this amendment, I am seeking to ask the noble Baroness to conduct sustainable drainage assessments relating to planning applications by strategic authorities, before those applications are approved. The assessment

“must include consideration of whether existing public sewerage systems have capacity to support proposed developments in planning applications.”

I refer to the excellent report by the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place, Flood Resilience in England, which was published last year. It makes two references to SUDS, one in particular. I quote its paragraph 48:

“We heard that the Flood Risk Management Strategy requires Lead Local Flood Authorities to maintain a register of flood risk assets, but that implementation is inconsistent and that many assets, especially SuDS and nature-based features are not captured”.


That was the initial background to this. It also emphatically recommended, in its conclusions in paragraphs 30 and 31, that more needs to be done on the whole issue of surface water.

I part company with the Minister in that I believe the guidelines need to be mandatory, we need a legal basis and we need to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, because of the ruling last month in the case of Gladman Developments Limited v the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Lancaster City Council. This is important and has caused much concern among practitioners, in particular the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, with which I did some interesting work on bioresources, removing the solids out of sewage and making money out of that, but that is for another day.

CIWEM is deeply concerned because this case set aside the sequential test. I quote from its letter, which I will make available to Hansard. The court judgment

“has a large impact on Planning, not just the Sequential Test which is worrying but also the status of SuDS in development. At the original appeal the inspector dismissed the application as A sequential Test was not carried out but required. The applicant then went to the High Court, contending that the inspector has erred in law, by treating the NPPF as establishing a requirement that planning permission must be refused in every case where the sequential test had not been undertaken… The court agreed and quashed the decision, finding that this is one matter that needs to be weighed up against the other factors and not a sole reason to refuse an application. The scheme was for 64 new homes in Lancaster”.

In the view of CIWEM and others:

“This not only weakens Flood Risk Policy but also the implication that weakens the stance that if a development does not include SuDS is this a strong enough reason in the planning balance to refuse an application on its own”.


That court case has driven a coach and horses through government policy, and I would argue most vigorously that we need to have a mandatory basis and set aside these voluntary guidelines. We need to have one mandatory standard respected by all planning authorities the length and breadth of the country—otherwise we are not doing our duty to householders to have a safe residence, free from the prospect of flooding and, in particular, free from sewage coming into their homes.

I turn now to Amendment 222B. I spoke in the clean energy Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has just taken his place, was an excellent Minister. He has now been replaced by another excellent Minister. I was staggered by the way in which these battery energy storage systems were criss-crossing north Yorkshire and the rest of rural England and causing complete havoc. We do not yet know what additional resources are being given to the fire and rescue services, but we know that they are not statutory consultees to these developments. We had a major wildfire—and there were 196 wildfires in England last year, which takes an enormous amount of resources in terms of water and the fire and rescue services. The wildfire came perilously close to burning down farms and residences, and it also imperilled livestock.

The thinking behind Amendment 222B is to ensure that fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees going forward. My main concern is that, for example, in my former constituency, the village of Scotton, which is very important to me, because my niece lives in Lingerfield, one of the villages next door to it, is going to have two of these large battery storage plants, and for good measure, one of the largest solar farms in the country is next door to it. There is another one elsewhere in what was my constituency, in South Kilvington, also perilously close to a school. If both those units were to go on fire at the same time, as well as there being a wildfire in a different part of north Yorkshire, what resources are there? To make sure that that is considered at the time of a planning application, I am asking that there be a duty to consult fire and rescue services and that they be statutory consultees.

Briefly, I bumped into the chief executive of the North York Moors National Park, who briefed me on the earlier amendment on national parks and strategic planning. I put on record that it goes the extra mile to ensure that it consults with every single body, including other planning authorities such as North Yorkshire Council and others, including NGOs, to make sure that any planning application on its land is fully considered.

With those few remarks, I hope that the Minister will finally agree to a mandatory duty for SUDS, and also that fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 241E is in my name. I hope that it does not need much introduction, because it pretty much does what it says on the tin. Where a spatial development strategy involves a national park, the national park authority should be involved in the development of the strategy. That sounds so much like a no-brainer that I would not be surprised if the Minister tells me that it is in the Bill already, but my understanding is that, without this amendment, although the national park authorities need to be consulted before a strategy is submitted, they do not need to be consulted while it is being developed in the first place.

This may come from the thinking that a national park is a big, empty wilderness just for nature, but the South Downs National Park and New Forest National Park are places where nearly 500,000 live, and even more work, and cover around 10% of the land in England and Wales, including key bits of national infrastructure, such as roads and energy projects. It seems clear that working with the national park authority is the best way in which to plan a spatial development strategy within or affecting a national park. The relevant national park authority has experience and expertise about so many aspects crucial to an SDS—infrastructure and planning, the rural economy, the tourist economy, opportunities for nature recovery and climate targets—so excluding it seems to set things up for failure. This amendment aims to give national park authorities a statutory role during the planning of an SDS in a really simple way, and I very much hope that the Minister agrees with its sentiments, at least, and will consider tabling a government amendment along these lines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 140 would strengthen the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the Government’s intention for devolution to support inclusive growth in stronger communities while maintaining local flexibility.

Devolution should give local leaders the tools to make a tangible difference to the lives of their citizens. However, if poor health and widening health inequalities continue to constrain economic participation and the effectiveness of public services, and if local growth plans are not used to drive better health, devolved leaders will fail to deliver real change to their communities. I believe that this Bill is a hugely significant moment for regional governance, with its explicit expectation that devolution should support improved outcomes, including health outcomes, for communities.

In many UK regions, long-term illness is now the single largest driver of economic inactivity. This can be seen most clearly in areas of historically high deprivation. The economic impact of poor health is stark. The Health Foundation’s independent Commission for Healthier Working Lives found that

“8.2 million working-age people report a long-term health condition that limits their ability to work … Poor workforce health is estimated to cost UK employers up to £150bn a year through lost productivity, sickness absence and recruitment costs”.

I warmly welcome the Government’s ambition to address regional economic inequality. Improving health and reducing inequalities are prerequisites for economic success. However, health currently remains largely absent from most local growth strategies, although not all. In the Oxfordshire strategic plan—the plan that I know best—health inequalities are a primary focus. The plan explicitly integrates social well-being with economic growth to address the county’s stark internal disparities. It pays specific attention to the foundational economy, which is to say the sectors providing basic goods and services, such as health and education, and identifies these as providential elements on which well-being depends.

Without considering health as a core objective and precondition for growth, local growth plans are less likely to be effective in delivering long-term sustainable growth. Some places in the UK are pioneering new approaches, including the West Midlands, which has implemented the inclusive growth framework. This aims to ensure that everyone benefits from growth by focusing on all types of investment, such as public, private, capital, revenue and time, which are all given attention. However, practice is uneven and lacks a consistent understanding of impact. This amendment aims to recognise the relationship between health and local growth so that further devolution reduces rather than widens inequalities.

I recognise that the number of co-operatives and mutuals is expanding and that the Government are calling for new growth plans across the mutual sector. That is very welcome—I am a Co-operative Member of the House of Lords. My amendment therefore dovetails with the current policy. It is right that local growth plans should promote co-operatives, mutuals and community wealth building—the practice of creating an inclusive and democratically owned economy. This puts people before private equity profits and champions the kind of economic development activity that gets overlooked by industrial strategies. Instead, it focuses on the everyday economy where most people work.

In Preston, for example, community wealth building is changing lives and has been linked to an incredible 9% increase in life satisfaction and an 11% rise in median wages. This has led to a reduction in daily antidepressant prescriptions of 1.3 units per person and a drop in depression prevalence compared to similar areas of 2.4 per thousand. I am sure that the Government would agree that these results should be replicated across the whole country.

I suggest that community wealth building is the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock growth for the benefit of all citizens, everywhere. Scotland already has a community wealth building Bill passing through its Parliament and I hope that this amendment ensures that England does not fall behind. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will take these things into account. Economic growth will be the lifeblood of mayoral combined authorities, but their ability to achieve that growth will be diminished if health and health inequalities are not an integral part of their plans. I beg to move.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I will introduce Amendment 141B in my name. This amendment is designed to help address perceptions that economic growth and environmental growth are in competition with each other. Tony Juniper of Natural England said it as eloquently as anyone could:

“we need to ensure that Nature and the economy are partners rather than seen as choices. That means weaving Nature recovery into the growth planning up front—the cheapest point at which to invest in Nature, and the one that also yields the biggest returns”.

In essence, this amendment calls for the Secretary of State to publish a local authority guide to constructing a win-win: best practice in growing the natural economy as part of the growth plans, and how nature-based solutions and easy mitigations to protect wildlife can help local economics.

The amendment covers a range starting with responsibilities to individual wild animals and birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which was picked up by the Animal Sentience Committee as something that was slightly missing when we discussed the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I cannot help mentioning my beloved bird-safe design of buildings as a specific example of something that might be covered. Just as a reminder to those who might have missed the fun and games on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, buildings that are poorly designed in their use of glass and light can pose a serious threat to birds and are thought to kill around 30 million a year in the UK. Simple tweaks to the design of buildings in the planning stages can make them much safer to birds at no cost at all. But not many people know this, so guidance is necessary. Local authorities can use that guidance as they wish.

The amendment goes on to cover broader responsibilities to the environment and natural world. It would carry best practice advice on all the environmental services that can be harnessed to reduce flooding and pollution and to provide green spaces—all opportunities that can help local authorities to reach environmental as well as economic targets. So many developments that have gone badly wrong at the interface between economic and environmental growth could have been entirely turned around if, at the very outset of planning, the right expertise had been applied. It could make all the difference if a guide to best practice was a necessary part of the pack given to support local authorities. Without it, more avoidable issues might arise to the detriment of both the economics and the environment.

I completely recognise that I am not a drafter of legislation and that this amendment is very roughly worded. I anticipate that the Minister will say that the schedule already allows the Secretary of State to publish any guidance that they want, but I hope that the Government grasp this opportunity to put forward their own amendment to the Bill that commits to publishing a best practice guide that shows that they do not believe that protecting wildlife and helping nature is an opposing aim to wanting economic growth and that helps local authorities to see how both can be done together in a virtuous circle.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I will be very brief. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and to recollect with great fondness the debate on bird-safe buildings. The Committee will probably be pleased to hear that I will not go further, but please, if noble Lords were not there, they should read it—is really important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to speak in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Royall, which is great, but I will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, wearing my ex-energy hat.

There are sometimes tensions between growth and environmental protections. I pray in aid the saga of Hinkley Point C and the waste of years and millions of pounds spent in relation to acoustic fish deterrence. There are many examples of very bad practice by some of the environmental authorities in the way they deal with these issues. The history of major infrastructure projects in this country is so appalling in relation to the length of time taken that we need to look at this very carefully.

The noble Baroness is probably aware of the Fingleton review into the regulation of nuclear power stations, which was commissioned by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and came out in the autumn. Broadly, they have accepted it, but at the end of this month they have to respond in detail. What Fingleton recommended is controversial. He basically said that there needs to be one overriding regulator. This is subject to pushback from environmental lobbies at the moment, but people interested in growth are saying that we really have to go with Fingleton. All it illustrates is that sometimes there are tensions and I am not sure that we have yet found a way through them. Clearly, we all want to protect the environment and our habitats, but we also need to have growth. It will be interesting to see how the Minister responds to this.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

This is supposed to be a guide to best practice. The noble Lord has noted some of the poor practices. A guide would help to avoid some of those. That is important. I totally agree that there has been some terrible practice and it is usually done through ignorance.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

We also have a terrible risk-averse culture among regulators in this country, which we need to tackle as well—but I really rose to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I have a later Clause 53 stand part notice, which partly covers the same ground.

Nye Bevan is a great hero of mine. He founded the NHS, but he made one mistake. He beat Morrison in Cabinet in 1947 in terms of the role of local government. Morrison of course had been leader of the London County Council, which, pre-war, had certainly been the largest hospital authority in the world. He argued that local government should be at the centre of the National Health Service. That was rejected, which was a great pity.

I have always believed that local government should play a much larger role, not just in health service provision, but also in health as a whole. My noble friend illustrated why that is important. She mentioned the Health Foundation’s report, which is stark in making clear that health outcomes in the UK are falling far behind those in other countries now. The country that we are most aligned with now is the US, whose health outcomes are pretty disastrous.

We know that we need a co-ordinated, system-wide approach, but what we have is fragmentation. The health service is outwith a lot of the discussions that noble Lords have been having in this Committee. It is very centrally driven. I had some happy years driving it from the centre, but I have concluded that it just does not work like that. We have seriously got to devolve. Local government deals with so many issues that relate to poor health, including transport, low incomes and poor-quality housing—all the things that noble Lords have been discussing. What I am doing, basically, is encouraging my noble friend the Minister to say that her department recognises that it has a bigger role to play in health than it may think.

Clause 44 is welcome. What we are trying to do is urge the Minister’s department to be as ambitious as possible and to do everything that it can to ensure that local government as a whole takes advantage of this. Mr Osborne’s agreement with the leader of Manchester City Council and its chief executive—in 2014 or 2015, I think—led to Devo Manc, which embraced health; it was the responsibility of the combined authorities rather than the mayor. There is enough evidence there to suggest that this is a good thing and that we need to build on it. My disappointment is that nothing has happened since then. The moment Mr Osborne left, no one in government was interested any more. I hope that we can resurrect it and say to local government, “We’re not going to improve our health without you being really important partners in this”.

--- Later in debate ---

What we have is a huge inequality of arms between those who are trying to support public health and to support people to eat healthily, and technology and huge multinational companies that want to make massive profits. It is crucial that we give mayors the power to take some action to rein this in. It is late in the evening. Let us be really optimistic and think about how instead of billboards we could have more public art, more community spaces and more trees. Let us give mayors some power to start to reshape their communities for people rather than for multinational corporations.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 159, to which I have added my name, and a series of amendments in my name. I apologise to the Committee that they had to be put in individually for procedural reasons, but essentially they would add to the list in Clause 44, and they all have to be done twice because it appears twice. I hope to keep this as short as possible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, these amendments were all suggested by researchers into the determinants of health to bring the clause into closer alignment with current research on the subject, as well as definitions, such as those used by the World Health Organization.

Everyone is delighted to see Clause 44 because there is good evidence that structural changes without changes in resourcing can make measurable differences to people’s health. I hope I can delight the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, further by picking on Manchester as another well-studied, brilliant example of the effects of devolution. The results showed higher life expectancy in the lower income areas, which researchers think are related to improved collaborations between different services rather than more money being spent. If this is a causal effect and can be replicated elsewhere, it would obviously be great, and it would be great to measure it. This is why the researchers want to get right the things being measured and being taken account of by a mayor.

This is where my little list comes in. First, it is important to take account of the right health outcomes. Researchers suggested the list of health outcomes in Amendment 159, which I did not prepare to speak about, but I think they are self-explanatory, so we can leave that there. The series of amendments in my name alter the list of determinants of these outcomes. They are things that we know might affect someone’s health, so we have to keep an eye on them. Some that are known from research are missing in the current draft of Clause 44. Amendment 167A would add the availability of housing to standards of housing in new Section 24A(5)(a) because homelessness and housing security, which are known to affect physical and mental health, would not technically fall under standards of housing.

Amendment 167B would add noise pollution as one of the environmental factors in new paragraph (b). It is well recognised by those who study public health that exposure to noise pollution can contribute to cardiovascular risks and poorer mental health, so we need to take it into account like we do other forms of pollution.

Amendment 167C would put educational opportunities and attainment alongside employment and earning prospects in new paragraph (c). In the WHO’s report, A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health, education is a key underlying structural determinant that can affect jobs, income and all the other downstream aspects. So improving access to educational opportunities is key to reducing inequalities, including in health.

Amendment 167D is more specific on the sorts of public services referred to in new paragraph (d), making it clear that they should include retail and health and leisure facilities—they can, therefore, include the negative effect of retailers of less healthy foods, for example, or the absence of active transport facilities—as well as education, employment and access to health and leisure facilities, encompassing all the key services that are known to shape people’s health.

Amendments 167E and 167F would modify new paragraph (e). As drafted, it is about the use of tobacco, alcohol and other lifestyle factors that may be harmful to health. Amendment 167F would explicitly add diet and physical activity as important determinants to be considered. Of course, we know how much these can positively or negatively affect health. Amendment 167E would therefore add “exposure to”, as well as “the use of”, to recognise that some people are passively exposed to not just tobacco but advertising for tobacco, alcohol and less healthy foods; this is a known determinant of health and driver of inequalities.

Finally, Amendment 167G would specify that

“any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors”

should include

“social and structural conditions, including social class, gender, race, ethnicity and any other characteristics or forms of social inequality that influence exposure to advantage or disadvantage”.

That would better cover the remainder of other determinants of health that are well recognised and to which we would want mayors to have regard.

I hope that the Minister will consider the substance of these amendments because, although they are not professionally drafted, they are based on professional research in the field and, I think, get at exactly what the Government hope to achieve: a great step forward in public health.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman. What I have to add is that my Amendments 160, 161, 163, 164, 165 and 169 would bring a more climate change-related and environmental aspect to the asks of the Government. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Bennett, said, we are really pleased that this is here; I very much feel that we can work together to build on it. Here, I note the work of Leeds University and the Yorkshire and Humber Climate Commission.

My first amendment is on energy. A 2023 European scoping review found that energy poverty and fuel poverty are significantly linked to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, excess winter mortality and poor mental health, with older people and children among the most vulnerable. A 2022 UCL Institute of Health Equity report found the same facts. It impacts population health at a structural level. In addition, I stress the low-carbon part of this amendment. Since the introduction of the ULEZ in London, gas boilers have somehow managed to become the largest source of nitrous oxide pollution. Air quality is listed in the Bill, but it is important to emphasise the interlinked nature: one impacts on the other.

My second amendment is on water pollution. Recent storms have highlighted—in fact, we were talking about this last night—the number of learning hours lost because of the fact that schools are flooded. We are extremely vulnerable to this, and we have very poor flood defences in our schools. I will not bore the Committee at length about the state of our waterways—every Peer in the place has already done this; I expect a Bill in the next Session—but, between 2010 and 2022, there was a 60% rise in hospital admissions for waterborne diseases in England. This is serious, as they are associated with gastrointestinal illnesses and reproductive and developmental issues.

On resilience, excess heat affects deprived communities more than wealthy ones due to the quality of buildings. A simple thing such as having leafy streets provides proper cooling.

I included my third amendment, on participation in democracy, because studies have shown that increased community involvement can have a really positive impact on health. Personally, I am very excited that, from this month, the National Lottery will devote either 20% or 25% of its entire funding to community engagement, such as community gardening and things like that. It makes a great statement about what really matters to people.

On food and diet, I very much support Amendment 168 on advertising. We know how bad food deserts are and how access to healthy food really affects poorer communities. Last week, I raised the issue of PFAS in a debate on the schools Bill. That is a Defra issue, of course, but it is relevant here because one of the prominent forms of exposure comes through our diet, particularly heating food in a plastic container in a microwave; that is, I am afraid, what lower-income families end up doing—so there is a double whammy.

Amendment 169 proposes a duty relating to allotments and nature-rich spaces. Again, this is something I have talked about a lot. I know that it is difficult for councils to create allotments because they are forever spaces, in a sense, but it is not difficult for councils to grant the right to grow in their communities and to issue meanwhile leases, which is what we did with capital growth in London; we created 2,500 spaces that are still going on now. These really make a big difference to communities. As I say, I am very pleased that the National Lottery is going in this direction on funding, because it will work with the Government and make a substantial difference to people’s real, lived experience.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, Motion K1 is in my name. I have a whole speech written but I am not going to give it because I greatly appreciate the words that came from the Minister.

The concerns around the EDPs are critical. Even this morning I had many emails in my inbox from all walks of life—from builders, nature conservation people and even other Peers—saying, “Please push on this one”. These EDPs are a very ambitious, bold new framework and we simply do not know how successful they will be. Therefore, this amendment is to say, please can we try it on the thing that is the biggest blockage first, then sequentially work on it once we have the evidence base? The Minister, other Peers and I had a very constructive meeting and an exchange of letters. The Government have listened in this case. We will start with nutrients and build from that, but we will learn on the way with the evidence. It is very important that this evidence comes back to this House and that an independent body looks at that evidence base, so that Natural England is not marking its own homework. That has always been a concern for many.

I thank the Minister for such helpful discussions. I believe that we will end up understanding how EDPs will work to effect for the biggest blockers, but for nature as well.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

I want to speak briefly to Motion K1. I too will not be giving the speech that I prepared, in the light of the assurances from the Minister, for which I am very grateful as this is a very important area. However, I hope that she can give a couple of clarifications.

First, the Minister mentioned public consultation on EDPs. How will that work? This independent evaluation of the evidence is so important, so it would be good to hear exactly how that public consultation will be done. It is fantastic that, as my noble friend Lady Willis just mentioned, the evidence is being assessed by an independent body, but who exactly is doing the monitoring and gathering the evidence? Is it Natural England, or are independent bodies doing it? Who is then assessing the evidence? Is that independently done?

Secondly, over what period is the monitoring of these first EDPs to be done before the report comes back to the House? It is important that we get the longer-term evidence before we commit to any more. The example of great crested newts has been given multiple times. It is a great species for doing district-wide licensing, but it has specific characteristics which means it is good for that, and we have a lot of knowledge and good data. The ponds for them are dug before destruction of their existing habitat, and there is a minimum 25-year commitment to those ponds. It is not clear that this will be the case for the new EDPs. It would be great to hear about the evidence-gathering periods and what period is anticipated for the commitments.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon]

246: After Clause 108, insert the following new Clause—
“National Planning Policy Framework: bird safety of buildings(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed—(a) amend the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that buildings incorporate, to the extent practicable, features, practices and strategies to reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings, and(b) issue guidance on such features, practices and strategies to reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings.(2) The amendments under subsection (1)(a) must apply to any building that is constructed, or of which more than 50 per cent of the façade is substantially altered, after the date of the updated National Planning Policy Framework coming into force.(3) The Secretary of State may issue exemptions to the amendments made by subsection (1)(a) for listed buildings.(4) The guidance under subsection (1)(b) must include—(a) features for reducing bird fatality resulting from collisions with buildings throughout all stages of construction, taking into account the risks and available information on bird fatalities that occur at different types of buildings, and(b) methods and strategies for reducing bird fatality resulting from collisions with buildings during the operation and maintenance of such buildings, including using certified bird-safe glass.(5) The Secretary of State must review the guidance under subsection (1)(b) on a regular basis to ensure that it reflects current knowledge on effective methods to reduce bird fatalities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce bird safety (in design and in the use of bird-safe glass) into the National Planning Policy Framework for new builds and non-heritage buildings being extensively modified.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her constructive comments in the debate. I think we all want to find proportionate ways to stop 30 million birds a year being killed on our windows in the UK. I was very interested in her suggestion that a targeted measure for commercial developments might be a way of solving this problem, or at least addressing it. The Wildlife and Countryside Link briefing supports this, stating that bird safety in a commercial building would cost probably around 0.5% of the facade cost. I hope that the Government might be persuaded to bring this forward in an amendment of their own at Third Reading. On that basis, I will not try the patience of the House further.

Amendment 246 not moved.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 122 in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, because it is important that guidance is issued to Natural England on a number of issues that are going to be relevant. I am particularly keen on proposed new subsection (6)(d) on

“the need to define the proposed conservation measures relating to an EDP during a pre consultation period and to seek expressions of interest from appropriate persons or bodies to deliver them”.

It is hugely important that the private sector is involved. I hear good words from Natural England about getting on with farmers and trying to work with the private sector. The results are absolutely appalling when you look at them, and the private sector is very fed up with Natural England. This rather echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who said that those of us who are keen on preserving and improving the countryside and biodiversity are very disappointed with how the Labour Government have behaved. It comes in stark contrast to what they said a few months ago when they were in opposition, which is where they will be again in a few years’ time; then they will be back in favour of the countryside.

I like Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, very much. I hope that she will press it.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, given the time, I will be brief. I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis; that is because I went to some of the very useful briefings on how EDPs will be prepared.

A couple of things stood out to me. One is that Natural England proposes to base its EDP preparations on modelling much more than on actual monitoring and measuring on the ground; it will not require demonstration of the success of EDPs before the destruction of habitats is allowed. The other is that, given the voluntary nature of EDPs, the proposal is that the scale of the conservation measures will expand or contract in proportion to how much is paid into the relevant restoration fund.

Relying on modelling is hard when it comes to species. Modelling physics, such as on the flow of nutrients or the spread of air pollution, is complex but it is nothing like as complex as modelling ecology. We can measure for the presence or absence of chemicals much more easily and reliably than we can for species. Further, models are only as good as the data you base them on, but we just do not have the biological records to support really precise, accurate modelling. I cite the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, which says:

“It should be emphasised that biodiversity datasets are, by their nature, incomplete … access to private land to collect such information is frequently difficult or impossible”.


Just imagine how much private land has never been properly surveyed, even for notable species.

I turn to my second concern: the scalability of EDPs depending on the money paid in. When we heard from experts at a briefing for Peers, it became clear that the intention is that, if only a few developers paid to use an EDP, the provisions would be scaled accordingly. This relies on the fact that the ecological requirements—and, therefore, the benefits—would scale by the same proportion, as well as the money, but that is very unlikely to be true. Ecology does not scale linearly. If you halve the size of a habitat, you degrade it by more than half, and you often hit thresholds below which things are not viable. That is one of the reasons why this kind of strategic, joined-up planning can help, but the lack of detail on exactly how this measure will work makes me fear that it has not been fully thought through.

All in all, it seems very risky to try to undertake using EDPs, as I understand them, as part of the planned work for species because the consequences of us being wrong are so high. By the time we know something might not be working, it will be too late to do anything about it because we will have lost the habitat and the animals and plants in it. Restricting EDPs to physical modelling, where we can have a lot more confidence in our accuracy, precision and scalability, seems a much more sensible way to progress.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I declare my interest as a director of my family farming company. I will not make a long speech.

I looked at my notes on Amendment 122, which is an important amendment. They read: “Guidance simply needed to stop the commissars of Natural England running amok”. That probably covers it. The amendment seeks to ensure clearer definitions, parameters and accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, outlined so eloquently; it also addresses the potential abuse of compulsory purchase. I will say no more on that amendment.

The vital amendments in this group are Amendments 130 and 201, which focus on the clarity, deliverability and efficiency of the EDP process. I also support Amendments 128 and 129 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is seeking once again to make specificity, rather than generality and vagueness, the hallmark in the construction of EDPs.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 203A, which is about permitted development for ponds. I listened in Committee to concerns that the original proposal I put in, for ponds the size of a hectare, could introduce other uses for something with such a permitted development right. That is why I have returned with a surface area of less than 0.25 hectares.

Your Lordships will know that the only way that Peers can adjust regulations is by putting primary legislation in place. But I encourage the Government to go through the statute book, think about the plan to achieve the Environment Act and how we are going to tackle the national biodiversity strategy plan, and make it as easy as possible for there to be thousands of new ponds around the country. That will help newts, amphibians, mammals, insects and plants—it is not always just about the fauna; the flora matter too. As a consequence, I am keen to hear positive noises from the Government before considering whether to test the opinion of the House next week.

On Amendment 140, there is a lot to be commended in what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said. This is about trying to make it as easy as possible for people, organisations and councils or whoever to do the right thing, because it is critical for the future of our planet.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, we should make our homes and houses and gardens as supportive to the lives of other species as is feasible, especially where the solutions are so low-cost. I was very happy to add my name to Amendment 140, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

I refrained from wading into the swift box debate previously, but I consider this amendment to be swift box-plus, and I support it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Krebs about the behaviour of swifts—I have had the joy of filming them in the tower in Oxford. I also know that these boxes are heavily used by other species. Therefore, I support the use of swift bricks, nest boxes and anything that costs virtually nothing.

I recognise that the Government are not keen to change building regulations. I note that adding spaces is free and does not have to be under the name of nature. Perhaps we could change building regulations to add some spaces without specifically saying that it is for nature —for instance, leaving gaps under fences for hedgehog highways. We do not have to commercialise this; we can just say that leaving a gap is a good thing to do.

My Amendment 246, on bird-safe design, is supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and by the Animal Sentience Committee, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. I have spoken about this in Committee, but I remind noble Lords that an estimated 30 million birds a year are killed by glass windows in the UK, and free or cheap solutions exist which can reduce these collisions by over 90%. Bird-safe design is already legislated for in many other jurisdictions, all based on good research done at major centres in the US and Europe.

I have spoken about bird-safe glass and how its patterned or UV coating can make it visible to birds. I want to make the additional point that these coatings, blinds or louvres, which we see often in glass office blocks, also help with thermal protection, so bird safety can easily be combined with net-zero building requirements, at no extra cost. That is just a little thought: the regulations that deal with one could also deal with the other.

I emphasise that most bird-safe design is free and does not get in the way of house or office building. For example, if a bird hits the office glass and falls into those little ventilation shafts or drainage grilles that you get at the bottom of big glass offices, they fall through the grille if it is too large and then come round in a space that they cannot get out of and can starve to death. Simply mandating that the grille size is smaller than 2 centimetres can stop birds getting stuck in them in the first place. These are the tiny things that can help. They are already specified in guidance in Canada, the US, Singapore and Switzerland. We have no such guidance here.

In Committee and in a helpful meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government said that they were sympathetic to the principles but did not want to change building standards to encompass nature as well as humans. I have changed my amendment to specify an addition to the NPPF instead, as part of its updating. The NPPF already includes things such as swift bricks but does not address bird safety at all. This is a big surprise to people from other countries, where bird-safe building design is much higher profile. We have a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 not to recklessly kill birds. Given that a simple and cheap change to building design could so dramatically reduce the number of birds being killed by our buildings, adding it to the NPPF and issuing a guidance booklet, as is done in so many other countries, is really necessary.

I very much hope to hear something positive from the Minister tonight. If the Government agree with the principles but have a different way that they would want to implement them then I am all ears, but this is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I think that whatever their plans are should be in it. I reserve the right to ask the opinion of House next week if I am not satisfied with her answer.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I fully support Amendments 140 and 246.

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about having a level playing field. I remember organising a round table in No. 10 a few years ago with developers and builders who all said that they would love to do various environmental things but, “We’re not going to do it if somebody else doesn’t”. In that case, it was because it was a bit more expensive. It was very often to do with boilers and so on. The measures that we are talking about here are very low-cost. I can understand Governments being loath to implement this, but when everybody has to do it, everybody will be happy. There are extra things that could be put on, I am sure, and that is going to be a danger, but we must look at this very seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 236A. I need to apologise to the House; the amendment is deficient in its drafting. I did not realise that in time to withdraw it but, as a consequence, I am happy for the Front Benches to completely ignore Amendment 236A. That said, I support Amendment 148 and if the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, puts it to a vote, I will support her.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

I rise briefly, because I spoke already on these matters on Amendment 130. All the concerns that I had about the scientific evidence and its basis are covered very nicely in this amendment. I would support the noble Baroness if she decided to test the opinion of the House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, I appreciate 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 the Bill should be about. I very much hope the Minister 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. I beg to move.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak specifically to Amendment 84, to which I have added my name, although I support many of the amendments in this group.

We know how important public green spaces are to communities, and for nature, and that there is widespread public support for their protection. That is why, as I understand it, registered parks and gardens, along with battlefields, were given protection in the town and country planning order 2015. I thank the Gardens Trust for its briefings on this, and the Minister and her office for a helpful meeting and correspondence about it.

At the moment, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, registered parks and gardens are not considered statutory heritage assets, which would make them part of the same process as listed buildings. Instead, they have their own process of consultation, with Historic England as the statutory consultee for battlefields and grade 1 and grade 2* parks and gardens, and the Gardens Trust dealing with grade 2 parks and gardens, which is 65% of them. Importantly, three-quarters of registered public parks are grade 2, so the Gardens Trust is tasked with looking after most of our public parks.

The Gardens Trust appears to do this very efficiently. From its statistics, we see that it was consulted 1,842 times last year, and that 99% of the time it responded within the agreed deadline. It voiced an objection to planning in only 6.6% of its responses. Its government grant for fulfilling this consultee role—for giving bespoke responses to planning inquiries, on time and with expertise—was £43,963.

Clearly, there is no way that anyone else within the planning system could deliver this expertise for less money and with any greater time efficiency, and there is no evidence that it is causing a major blockage to housebuilding. Actually, not having heard of the Gardens Trust before this matter arose, I thank the charity for its service to this country and its public parks.

I understand that the Government are considering removing the Gardens Trust’s statutory consultee role—the slightly bespoke role that was created for registered parks, gardens and battlefields. We all, however, appreciate the work that it does, so this amendment aims to protect this service while making the administrative process simpler. It would put registered parks and gardens into the same planning process as other heritage assets, where there is an existing and well-understood statutory consent process, whereby the Gardens Trust would be the amenity society that would be notified if there were planning proposals that might affect registered parks and gardens, or, importantly, their settings.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has Amendment 109 coming up, which I believe would have a similar effect by commencing Section 102 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, in which this area of planning was already tidied up. That might be an alternative to this amendment. None the less, it would be very helpful if the Minister, in her response to this group, could indicate the Government’s intentions on making best use of the efficient role that the Gardens Trust plays in helping give advice on our much-loved grade 2 parks and gardens and their settings.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 107 in this group—I appreciate that I am jumping a little down the line.

I tabled the amendment because, at the moment, we are removing consultation from the planning process—or removing as much of it as possible—for the sake of efficiency. Sports fields are the most attractive things for a planner to see: a piece of reasonably flat and well-drained land. What better to put a house on? If we are to lose our sports fields, we will lose an asset that keeps on giving.

I thank both Ministers on the Front Bench for meeting me privately to try to convince me that I did not have much to worry about—but for all their courtesy and time, I have failed to be convinced. As I said, it is just so tempting for local authorities—or for anyone else involved—to say, “Let’s put a house on this sports field”. Some are, of course, owned by councils or schools, and schools can get rid of them as they have more independence now.

Can we protect sports fields? If we do not have somewhere to play a sport, that sport dies or becomes unavailable to a particular group. If some sports clubs own their own pitches, they may not own enough space to have a second or a third team. If you get rid of your second or third team, the first team is under threat and thus the existence of the entire club. It is that simple. There is that much pressure. If they do not get people involved every week, those people will do something else—they will leave—and we will lose this asset.

Community sport is one of the best community builders, because members are involved not just in exercise but in a community of its own that feeds into other communities. Let us remember that people who want to make sure that they can play the game will sit on committees and take on the legal responsibility of being a secretary or a treasurer for these groups. Everybody who has run a political party will know that people are just dying to do these roles all the time—are they not? Everybody really wants to have the legal responsibilities and the bank accounts—do they not? People do this willingly—well, they do it—to make sure they can get out there and play the game. These sports facilities allow that to happen. If we take away the defence of sports fields, which allow such a key activity, we will put that under threat.

Not every sports field will disappear overnight but some will—they will be moved and they will not be replaced. My amendment suggests that, if we go ahead with this, something must be put in its place. That is not too much to ask. I would like to vote on the amendment, unless the Government provide some great revelation, in which case I shall say, “Hallelujah!” and sit down.

In this country, these community activities are largely conducted without much government intervention. Private groups get involved and bring their own time and often money, but they need to be supported to allow these activities to take place. I suggest that my amendment—or at least something like it—would not be too much to ensure that something as important as community, grass-roots sports have their pitches defended, to give them a chance to continue to function as they currently do.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

In the absence of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, I shall move Amendment 212, to which I have added my name. My noble friend sends his apologies to the Committee that he is detained elsewhere and cannot be here today. I am grateful, as is he, that my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Hintze have also added their names to the amendment.

At the beginning of our deliberations today, the Government Whip exhorted that we have swift debates, and I have moved a swift amendment. So, I am helping the Government yet again.

This is a subject we discussed in the levelling-up Bill and it was mentioned at Second Reading of this Bill. It is a simple amendment, which is probably why I am able to speak to it. It asks that a swift brick, which allows a swift potentially to breed in it, be added when a new build is made. This would apply only when appropriate. I point that out because some people have said that it may not always be appropriate.

I am sure that Members of this House know all about swifts, but here is a very brief résumé. They are migrants that come here quite late—normally at the end of April or in May—having flown all the way from sub-Saharan Africa or the Congo Basin. They do not stop flying. They mate on the wing. The only time they are not flying is when they are nesting.

These poor swifts have been declining in numbers. There may be a variety of reasons, such as a lack of insects and so forth, but one reason that has been identified is the success of insulation in houses. Cavity insulation means that the nesting areas that would normally be under eaves or wherever are not there. Imagine these poor swifts: they have flown all the way from the Congo, they are looking forward to going into the building that generations of swifts have been going to and they find that it is effectively blocked up.

The simple thing we are asking for is that the swift brick is placed in building regulations. I have a feeling that the Government might suggest that this could be planning policy, but I do not think that that is sufficient. I cannot understand why Governments—the previous Government were a little shy on this as well—will not accept this. I know that some people think it is perhaps overregulation or burdensome, and I heard it whispered, but I could not believe it is true, that there is lobbying from developers and builders. I cannot believe that that could in any way influence a Government, so I just ask the Government to reconsider.

This is in fact a great opportunity because, literally just a year ago, I think by a few days, campaigners, including my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, the swift campaigner the indefatigable Hannah Bourne-Taylor and others—I will not mention them all—met the then Secretary of State in Defra, the right honourable Steve Reed. He said that they were pushing at an open door because Defra has always been in favour—they are the friends of the environment—but sometimes other departments get in the way. This is therefore a great opportunity because we now have a convert to swift bricks in the ideal position to sanction this particular thing, so I am hoping that it can be done. It has been done successfully elsewhere, such as in Gibraltar. Some people might ask what happens if swifts do not come in. Other birds, including house sparrows, which are not as common as they used to be, can also utilise them, so it as a very good measure.

I say, finally, to the Government Benches that some of the measures in this Bill have not been quite to the flavour of environmental groups and members of the public who think that their language on bats and newts was a little bit extreme. So, in that same spirit of helping the Government regardless of the political party and in order to help them to get a win-win, this is the ideal time to allow this measure and put it into the Bill.

I support the other amendments in this group: Amendments 225—to which I have added my name—227GA and 338. I wanted to make sure that this is a swift debate. I beg to move.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I also support all the amendments in this group, which I think would support the Government’s stated aim to help nature in this Bill by making sure that the places that we build for humans at least minimise harm to wildlife and, in the case of swift bricks, actually help it.

I speak to Amendment 225 in my name and thank the noble Lords who have also put their names to it and support it. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on bird-safe design of buildings and to ensure that new buildings and significant changes to existing but not exempted heritage buildings incorporate this guidance as far as is practicable. Incorporating this amendment would not only bring the United Kingdom into alignment with what is seen in other jurisdictions around the world but would make the UK the first to introduce national bird safety legislation, which is something that could provide a welcome positive message for the Government to project.

I know that there are broader environmental concerns with the Bill, which we shall come on to later tonight, but the potential positive effects of this single amendment are enormous. Remember that the number of birds thought to be killed by flying into glass in buildings in the UK is over 30 million per year. The problems are simple. First, birds cannot see glass. Clear glass or glass that is reflecting nearby trees or sky is a hazard. Secondly, at night, artificial lighting, particularly in tall buildings, can disorientate migrating birds, making them end up circling the lights until they are exhausted and crash into a building.

The solutions are also simple, well researched and legislated for in many places. I have been able to base the wording of this amendment on that in many other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, which has mandated bird-safe standards since 2011, Washington DC, New York, Portland in Oregon, Toronto, Calgary, Hesse and Zurich. There are also bird-safe design guides based on 40 years’ worth of research that can provide an easy reference from the United States, Canada and Singapore. We have experts in the UK too. They all agree on some simple features of buildings to avoid—essentially, ones that make it look as though a bird can fly through safely to reach sky or a perch in a tree, but where there is actually a sheet of lethal glass. These can be removed through thoughtful architectural design, or you can use bird-safe glass. That is simply glass that is made visible to birds, either through patterns that we can also see or through patterns that reflect ultraviolet, which are invisible to us but visible to birds.

Research has shown that specific patterns, such as lines no thinner than two millimetres, spaced no wider than 50 millimetres apart, can effectively stop a bird flying into glass—a more than 90% reduction in collisions in tests. These test centres can therefore certify bird-safe glass, and there are many designs available from different manufacturers, including the UK’s Pilkington glass, which has a certified variety.

Then there is night-time lighting. Many cities around the world now have lights-out times. Even New York’s Twin Towers memorial beams get switched off for periods during bird migrations to help birds escape their fatal attraction. In the UK, awareness of this problem and its simple solutions is surprisingly low compared to North America. Experts I have spoken to around the world were delighted to hear from me, because they think of Britain as being so far behind in bird-safe buildings despite a world-leading status in so much animal welfare research and legislation. This amendment could put us back as global leaders in having the first national bird safety legislation, it would help put the Bill in line with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, as the Animal Sentience Committee has already pointed out, and it could save tens of millions of birds every year.

As for the cost, producing guidelines is easy, as I say, given the plethora of sources already available. Bird-safe architectural design is also easy once you know the guidelines. In a double win, many of the coatings and shades that help make glass less dangerous to birds also help with thermal issues and energy efficiency in glass buildings. The regulations on night-time lighting could help energy efficiency too. The cost of glass varies depending on specifications, but manufacturers that I have spoken to estimate that, at the moment, the cost of bird-safe glass in commercial buildings is about 5% more than normal glass and about 10% more for a domestic glazing unit, but all have said that those costs would come down quickly with scale. Not only that, but bird-safe glass apparently used to be made here in the UK, with 90% of it exported to projects in China, Europe and North America, driven by their legislation. With the market mainly being overseas, manufacturers have now mostly moved from the UK to Germany to follow demand, but could return if we caught up with global bird-safe legislation.

Amendment 225 seems to me an example of the much sought after win-win. Putting it into this Bill, alongside others in this group, would help demonstrate the Government’s stated commitment to helping nature and nature recovery, alongside helping British businesses and not slowing down any housebuilding. I very much hope that the Minister will agree.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Grender, I will speak to her Amendment 338. I am grateful, as I am sure she would be if she were here, for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. This is a debate where I think we are going to have unanimity around the House; we on these Benches agree with all the amendments in this group. I will make a few swift points about the specifics of the amendment from my noble friend, which is about homes for nature at the same time as homes for people; it would amend building regulations to protect biodiversity in all new developments.

If we are to have homes where nature can live, feed and breed, we will have to take specific measures. I absolutely support what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, articulated so well in moving the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I am not going to talk about swift bricks, which are included in the amendment from my noble friend Lady Grender, but I want to talk about some of the other very much endangered species which it also covers, including bird boxes, bat boxes and hedgehog highways.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Freeman of Steventon Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 152ZA and 261A tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson. These would require spatial development strategies and environmental delivery plans to take proper account of animal welfare as set out in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. This is not about adding extra bureaucracy; it is about recognising a truth that we often ignore. Planning is not just about where we place bricks and mortar; it is about the choices we make for the land, the habitats and the creatures that depend on them. At present, there is a yawning gap between what is promised and what is delivered.

The University of Sheffield has shown that in new developments, 83% of hedge-grown highways, three-quarters of bat and bird boxes and almost half the promised hedges never materialised. Trees specified on planning plans were found dead and not planted at all. There are fine words in planning documents, but in practice animals are left without space or shelter. This is why the warning of the Animal Sentience Committee must be heeded. In its formal response on 27 June this year, the committee rightly stressed that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill conceptualises biodiversity as an abstract environmental good but ignores the lived experience of sentient animals, which will be displaced, harmed and killed during construction. The image it gave was searing—a bulldozer driving through a badger sett, burying animals alive, justified by the promise of a new sett to be built a decade later, never to be seen. The committee made good and sensible recommendations on welfare impact assessments, construction and timetables that avoid breeding seasons, and practical measures such as swift bricks, wildlife tunnels and hedgerow highways.

The case of the brown hare teaches us what happens when welfare is absent from the statute book. Once abundant in England, hares are now in deep decline because we fail to legislate for a close season. Hundreds of thousands are killed in breeding months, leverets are left to die, and populations are down by 80% in certain areas. If that can happen to such a cherished and loved animal, we should not be surprised that less visible creatures fare even worse.

EDPs risk levies being paid at the expense of impacts on animal welfare. The Bill risks directly impacting protected species, with bats, birds, badgers and hares uprooted from their habitats, distressed, or destroyed altogether. Conservation is not only about biodiversity; it cannot exist without animal welfare.

We must do better. Yes, there is a need for new homes and better infrastructure, but we also want living hedgerows, thriving trees, wildlife corridors that actually function and a countryside that remains alive. These amendments do not hold back growth; they simply hold us to a higher standard of responsibility. By adopting them, we would show that planning for the future is about not only housing numbers but the kind of country we wish to be: one that values progress, but not at the expense of wildlife, and builds for people, while safeguarding the animals which share our land.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 152ZA and 261A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. She and the Animal Sentience Committee raise the important point that the lives of individual animals seem to have been overlooked in the Bill.

When we work in policy-making, we always have to weigh up whole-population decisions—potential benefits to one group against potential harms to another. Of course, we have to do that, but we never forget that those policy decisions involve individuals. We do not forget it when they are individual people, and anyone who has been close to an animal, such as a pet, knows that individual animals have their own emotions—they can experience fear, joy and pain. It is important that we bear this is mind. We discuss animal welfare matters when it comes to pets—we discussed the docking of tails in pet animals just last Friday. Whether it is a pet rabbit or a wild rabbit, they have the same experiences, so it is very important for us to consider whether there are ways in which we can acknowledge that in the Bill.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 147 on chalk streams. I was brought up in the Chilterns and I have been studying some of the streams there for a very long time. As other noble Lords have said, they are the most wonderful bits of the countryside, with clear water—which comes and goes, but it is usually there.

I became involved in this when I opposed some of the work that HS2 was doing in trying to drill a tunnel underneath the chalk stream near Amersham. The Chiltern Society, which led the opposition, was very keen that HS2 put some boreholes down to check what the ground was like and make sure that drilling a tunnel close to underneath a chalk stream would not have any adverse effect on it. Of course, HS2, being the rather arrogant organisation it often was, said, “It is not necessary. We know everything that is going to happen there and it is all planned for. We won’t have any special protection apart from the normal tunnel construction”.

Of course, HS2 was wrong and when the tunnel got to underneath the stream just west of Amersham, contamination started, water levels dropped and there was a lack of water supply in some places. It said, “Oh dear”, and did nothing about it. It is all right now—I think it has all been solved—but my point is that if this amendment had been on the statute book 10 years ago, the local people and the experts would have had much more credibility in attacking a government organisation trying to build a tunnel than has happened so far.

There are probably many other examples and noble Lords have mentioned some, but it is important that we map these chalk streams and make sure that they are looked after, because they are very special.