English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for moving the first amendment in this group so eloquently. I will speak in particular to Amendments 52, 61 and 326 in my name, but all the amendments in this group look to put rural areas front and centre.

For five years, I had the pleasure and privilege of chairing the Select Committee for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place, and I was delighted with the work we were able to do to put rural affairs front and centre. I was very proud of the fact that we had a rural-proofing unit within Defra at that time, so it was a source of great disappointment to me that it was disbanded.

The 2021 census defines the rural/urban classification in this way: urban areas are settlements with a population of 10,000 people or more, and rural areas are literally everywhere else and include rural towns, villages, hamlets, isolated dwellings and open countryside. Nearly one in five of us lives in a rural area. The challenges facing rural areas are very different from the challenges facing urban areas. The cost of living is often greater. We are also off the energy grid and dependent on oil for delivery in most cases. In normal times, it is bad enough, but with the Middle East hostilities at the moment, it is a completely different situation.

Houses are often isolated, and there is a lack of housing, particularly small units of one or two bedrooms. All the developers seem to want to build four- or five-bedroom homes, for which there is not the same need in rural areas. Public services are sparse and cost more to deliver, whether it is accessing GP surgeries, ambulances or hospitals. School buses are a particular contention at the moment after the rural deprivation grant was slashed and abolished by this Government.

I personally regret the move to combined authorities and metro mayors—they are not suited to rural areas. When we debated the orders on the combined authorities and the metro mayors for North Yorkshire, only the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I spoke against the move. I know there was a feeling of great loss in North Yorkshire when we moved away from the districts and the boroughs which had served North Yorkshire extremely well over generations.

The definition of rural-proofing, according to the Government’s own website, is

“assessing what might affect outcomes in rural areas and adjusting policies or policy delivery when appropriate and practicable”.

I will preface the amendments in my name with remarks from some of the briefings I have received in preparation for today. The Campaign to Protect Rural England states very clearly that at present, many combined authorities are focused on large urban areas, with focuses on economic growth, transport and infrastructure. The Government have said repeatedly that they see cities and towns as key to economic growth and investment. Therefore, the CPRE is concerned that rural communities will be left behind as strategic authorities draw up their own SDSs. In a similar vein, the Better Planning Coalition briefing I received states:

“The concept of strategic authorities draws on the previous development of metro mayors for large urban areas. Much of their focus will be on economic growth, transport and other infrastructure … the Government is clear that it sees cities and larger towns as the focus for economic growth and infrastructure investment. There is therefore a risk that rural communities will be sidelined as strategic authorities draw up their strategies and develop their workplans”.


The model is not one size fits all. I can quite understand the argument for mayors in urban areas such as Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield, where there is a big centre of population and a big mass, and where policies are more homogeneous and can be dealt with for a large centre of population. That is not the case with metro mayors for rural areas—it simply does not stack up. The needs of the residents of the city of York and of those of North Yorkshire are in direct competition with each other in terms of economic growth, culture, tourism and other areas.

My Amendments 52 and 61 seek to ensure that mayors in rural areas appoint an extra commissioner to have responsibility for rural areas. I am not wild about commissioners in any shape or form—it would be far better if the mayor set the priorities and that those elected to the office should have that focus—but my Amendment 61 looks at appointing

“a commissioner with competence for rural affairs if their authority is a majority or intermediate rural authority according to the Rural Urban Classification”,

to which I referred earlier.

For me, the most important of my amendments is Amendment 326, which goes to the heart of rural-proofing and making sure that not just one department—such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—should be responsible for rural-proofing. I would like to see a real pull from the Government to ensure that every policy that addresses rural issues is rural-proofed before it becomes policy. I will explain why it should not just be Defra. I am very exercised at the moment about the powers of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, because it is directly opposed to the residents of rural areas, particularly those who live in open countryside, who do not want to have all these clean energy projects that will destroy not just their view but, quite possibly, their way of life and the value of their properties.

Amendment 326 seeks to ensure that, before any regulations are made under the future Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the future Act’s impact on rural areas, including its costs and benefits. Without that amendment, I feel that the Government will be wading into areas where they will be so focused on the issues of those living in urban areas that they will leave behind the interests of those in rural areas—including market towns, villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings—who enjoy the open countryside they have at the moment.

I will end with a plea. Local elections are coming up in May, and I hope the Government will take this opportunity to be honest about what their plans are for future planning policy. If the Bill really has nothing to do with English devolution and community empowerment and will actually take away the rights of those who live in rural areas to object to some of the sites being proposed, particularly because of the clean energy schemes that I referred to earlier, then this is a wake-up call for those electors in rural areas and a one-off opportunity to reject what this Government are proposing.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 310, which seeks to insert a duty to consider the needs of rural communities into the Bill. The duty would require

“strategic authorities and their mayors, when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions, to have regard to the needs of rural communities”.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I lament the fact that the rural-proofing unit was taken away, and I hope it will be restored one day.

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting with me and for her letter of 17 March, which went to all noble Lords. The letter informed us that amendments would be tabled to increase the number of commissioners to up to 10 and would thus support the appointment of commissioners dedicated to cross-cutting issues such as rural matters.

Government Amendments 42, 51 and 60 will be debated in group 9 and naturally, I support them. However, there is still no mention of “rural” in the Bill, which runs the risk of not presenting a devolution-for-all approach. The distinct lack of reference to rural communities, along with many provisions drawing from the Greater London Authority Act, means that the Bill currently reads as urban-centric in its approach to devolution.

Rural areas have distinct needs, as has been so well pointed out this afternoon, and they present a unique opportunity as important economic drivers for this country, through farming, food production, local businesses and tourism. With the creation of new strategic authorities and the devolution of powers to strategic authority mayors, we need to consider carefully the application of “strategic” within a rural context.

Historically, strategic investment has typically focused on urban areas, ignoring the potential and opportunity for rural areas to contribute to the local and national economy, inspire forward investment from the private sector, and meet essential needs for food production, health and well-being, climate resilience and nature recovery. We have an opportunity here, as we move forward with this programme of devolution, with rural parts of the country now being covered at strategic level, to ensure that our rural areas are not forgotten and that our rural communities have fair representation and the strategic investment to support and drive rural growth.

Rural areas have very different characteristics across the country and benefit from tailored approaches to economic growth and development. This legislation provides the opportunity to empower areas to provide the bespoke solutions needed for their rural communities. That, in itself, is fundamental to the devolution agenda.

My amendment, which addresses the points raised by the Royal Town Planning Institute and a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network, entitled English Devolution and Rural Affordable Housing, would embed rural representation in the Bill and offer safeguarding provisions. That would lead to better consideration of rural communities and their context, specific needs and opportunities through the devolution process and the implementation of the new strategic layer of local power.

With 85% of the country’s land being classified as rural and 17% of the population living in rural areas, let us reaffirm our recognition of the value of our rural communities and ensure that they have every opportunity to thrive in this new era of regional empowerment, growth and identity. I urge my noble friend the Minister to include this duty and, at the very least, to ensure that there is specific reference to the needs of rural areas in the Bill. It must be clear that the Bill relates to rural as well as urban areas, so that the needs of rural areas are properly considered at every stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the many and varied amendments in this group. For Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125, 126 and 308 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, we owe especial thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his efforts since Committee stage.

I begin with Amendment 41, which links the local growth plan to an authority’s preparation of its spatial development strategy. This would require spatial development strategies to identify policies of strategic importance to the priorities set out in the local growth plan. It is common sense that these should not be developed in isolation from each other, and we see no reason why their link should not be set out in statute.

Amendments 122, 123 and 125 would require mayoral combined authorities to identify the infrastructure projects to be included in a spatial development strategy and local growth plans in order to support growth, especially in relation to employment, industrial, commercial and logistic growth opportunities. With the increased pressure on authorities to meet housing targets, it is more important than ever that these plans and strategies should be consistently co-ordinated. The Minister agreed with this in Committee and hinted that the revised NPPF may address this. Can the Minister confirm this and set out more details? Why should these amendments not form part of the Bill before us now?

Amendment 308 would simply require that neighbourhood priority statements be commenced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, while updating them to match the provisions of this Bill. For those unaware, I point out that neighbourhood priority statements summarise what are considered to be the principal needs and prevailing views of the neighbourhood community in respect of local matters. This amendment would allow for both town and parish councils to make those statements—and include single foundation strategic authorities as well as development corporations with planning powers—to the relevant authorities. That sounds like community empowerment to me.

In Committee, the Minister stated that now was not the right time to commence neighbourhood priority statements due to the changes in the plan-making system, but if not now, when? Indeed, is there no better time than amid the restructuring of local government for town and parish councils to make clear the needs of their communities?

In the interests of time, I will comment on only two of the other amendments. Amendment 307 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would require the appointment of a statutory chief planner. In Committee, we on these Benches said that the proposal had merit; our position has not changed.

We also support the agent of change principle outlined in Amendment 246 to ensure the integration of new developments with existing businesses and facilities. Centuries-old church bells should not be silenced by a new neighbouring housing estate.

These are all important issues; I look forward to hearing a detailed response from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to a number of amendments I have in this group. I will limit myself to those in my name and in the names of others who have been kind enough to support them.

The Minister will be quite familiar with Amendment 120 at this stage. I read very carefully her comments in reply in Committee; I have to say that I still take issue with what she said. I would just ask her to think again, and to bear in mind that the department is responsible for preventing flooding and for dealing with situations where, for example, surface water flooding combines with sewage in combined sewers and can cause a public health issue by coming into people’s homes, forcing them to be evacuated.

The Minister will be aware that Defra is extremely keen to implement the provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to ensure that there should be mandatory sustainable drainage in all major developments. I would ask her to think again. This is the one disagreement; I know that the Minister referred in Committee to the NPPF, but I believe it would be better to have this mandated to make sure that major developments have provision—there could be sustainable drains, ponds or culverts—to take the excess water to prevent these sewage spills which cause such grave issues when they happen, including mental health and public health issues.

The second part of the amendment deals with situations where there is no capacity to connect to major developments. The Minister may be aware that the Independent Water Commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe said that water companies should have the opportunity to say that they cannot connect and that there is no way for wastewater—that is, the sewage—to leave a major development. In light of the fact that the Government are going to bring forward major water legislation following on from the Cunliffe report, I hope that the Minister will look kindly at Amendment 120.

I turn to Amendments 124 and 127 and take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for co-signing them. They might appear to be of minor significance, but they are extremely important to enabling planning. The Local Government Association asked in its briefing that the Minister support these amendments. With culture having been given as a competence to mayors acting in their strategic role, it is extremely important that local growth plans should include provision about cultural venues. These two amendments together would seek to ensure that, so they follow on from the earlier amendment, now in the Government’s name, to add culture as a competence. I will not press the two amendments to a vote, but I hope that this is something that the Minister will acknowledge.

Amendment 246, I think, enjoys cross-party support. Let me take the opportunity once again to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, as well as my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for lending their much-valued support, especially given the experience and expertise each of them have in this field.

We have had numerous attempts as a Parliament to introduce the agent of change principle. I was fortunate enough to serve on and to chair the ad hoc committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Great concern is caused among the cultural community where existing successful and well-established businesses face a development—normally a block of flats or something—built right next to them at a later date. Of course, the residents of the new block will then ask that changes be made, normally at the expense of the existing business, to make sure that the two can live together.

Adopting the agent of change principle into a statutory framework would ensure that in every planning application involving music venues, they would have, if you like, a higher right than newer developments in every community. This matter goes to the heart of the Government’s growth agenda, so the Minister must see that there is a great merit in this principle.

We are asking that we should have the same situation as exists in Scotland, where the agent of change principle is enshrined in statute. This would significantly shorten the planning process and empower local authorities—this is the devolution and community empowerment Bill, so I believe it is where such a principle should be placed —to have something specific and enforceable to go back to developers with when their plans did not consider existing music or other live entertainment venues.

We believe that the agent of change principle remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK. It is not perhaps the strongest protection of the businesses, but I think it is something that they could live with. In her response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that

“we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 621.]

In my view, we have had so many consultations and very powerful evidence was given to the committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Looking to the growth agenda, I remind the Minister that 35% of grass-roots venues have closed in the last 20 years; they are coming under increasing threat. I will listen very carefully to what she says in summing up, in particular on Amendment 246, and will reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Before we test the opinion of the House, when the time comes, could I just ask: if it is working well in Scotland, where there is a statutory basis, why are the Government so opposed to this? Does the Minister not realise that the guidance is simply not being adhered to, and practitioners are at their wits’ end on that basis?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to take back the points about Scotland, but we have conducted an extensive call for evidence on licensing, and we are carrying out an extensive review of the National Planning Policy Framework, so there has been plenty of opportunity for people to contribute their views on that. In both cases, we will be analysing the responses and publishing our responses on the NPPF in the summer and on the licensing framework in due course.

Turning to Amendment 306, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I do not believe this amendment is justified or proportionate. We are concerned that adopting it now could have unintended consequences. The Government have recently consulted on reforms to the statutory consultee system and consultation feedback is now being reviewed. It is important that we allow this process to conclude before taking any decisions on consultation outcomes. Introducing fire and rescue services as statutory consultees in the planning process at this stage would therefore run ahead of the review’s conclusions and impose additional administrative responsibilities on these services.

Of course, I am aware—we have discussed it many times—that battery energy storage system developments are a particular area of interest. These installations are already governed by a robust regulatory framework overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, which places clear responsibilities on designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. In addition, planning practice guidance encourages developers of larger battery energy storage system schemes to work proactively with fire and rescue services. This guidance also encourages local planning authorities to consult with these services for these types of larger schemes and to take account of guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council when determining the planning application.

Alongside this, the Government are actively exploring whether further measures are needed to enhance the regulatory oversight of environmental and safety risks linked to battery energy storage systems. Defra’s recent consultation on modernising environmental permitting included proposals to bring battery energy storage system sites within the environmental permitting regulations. Defra is now considering the feedback received and will publish its response in due course.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 308. The Government’s position remains unchanged. Given the significant changes to local plan-making that we have recently set out, now is not the time to introduce neighbourhood priorities statements. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on when neighbourhood priorities statements will be introduced, we will consider the progress on them once the local plan reforms have taken effect.

The second aspect of this amendment would substitute arrangements made under Clause 60 for neighbourhood fora as the bodies permitted to prepare neighbourhood priorities statements. This is not the purpose of Clause 60. While neighbourhood planning groups, including neighbourhood fora, may be involved in arrangements made under Clause 60, their functions are separate, and should remain so.