Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 97A relates to the situation where local government reorganisation leads to changes in the authorities which constitute the strategic planning authority that is making spatial development strategies in the upcoming months or perhaps years. We did not discuss this in Committee, and in my view time does not permit us to have the substantial discussion that is necessary this evening, as we want to make progress towards other important issues. But I just want to say that there is an issue here that I hope the Government will consider, not least between now and Third Reading, although time is short.

We want spatial development strategies to be strategic. They cannot be strategic if they are made one day and replaced the next. We want the strategic planning authorities to be able to establish a spatial development strategy that subsists for a considerable period. Otherwise, people will have no confidence that they will be able to proceed in local plan making that is, necessarily, statutorily consistent with the spatial development strategy, if the spatial development strategy could be changed at a moment’s notice.

This problem emerges essentially from the prospect of the upper-tier authorities which may well be combined to make strategic authorities or, perhaps more often, divided into unitaries. When they become unitaries, the question of who the strategic planning authority is might be taken to a completely different level. For example, Norfolk and Suffolk, close to me, will be a combined authority next year, so they may be able to make a spatial development strategy. However, in Oxfordshire, which I know well, Oxford County Council may proceed with a spatial development strategy next year, but the county council might be divided into two or even three unitaries in the course of local government reorganisation. What the spatial development strategy is, what the strategic planning authority area is, we do not know.

I am presenting to the Government a problem which has emerged. I am grateful to the County Councils Network for highlighting the nature of the potential problem and the necessity of a solution. The solution is to make it very clear that spatial development strategies, having been adopted, should subsist for five years, as we would normally expect local plans to, unless the Secretary of State makes a direction. The Secretary of State could make a direction where there is an expectation of, for example, a change of political control or something of that kind that necessitates a review of the spatial development strategy.

Having presented the nature of the problem, I hope that the Minister will say that the Government recognise the problem and will find means by which the spatial development strategies, once adopted, can remain in place for a period of time, unless there is a compelling reason for them to be altered or replaced. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a very important issue that the Government need to think about, but, as the noble Lord explained, the issue relates not only to the new combined county authorities with a mayor that will be created following reorganisation; it will also affect the metropolitan mayoral authorities, where the mayors will be given the new power for a spatial development strategy but where the constituent local authorities will inevitably have their own local plan, which will not necessarily have any coterminosity in terms of their duration. There is a dual issue for the Government to consider, which is: which has primacy—a constituent authority’s local plan until its term ends, or the spatial development strategy, which might override the local plan, which would then require, presumably, an amended local plan and all the effort that would have to go into that? An important issue has been raised, and I suspect that the Government need to come up with a solution.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we are actually engaging with the industry about this to understand its concerns. I do not want to say anything further on it this evening, apart from expressing my full support for my noble friend Lord Lansley. We will return to this issue for a much fuller discussion in a later group of amendments that we have tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I hope we can be equally quick about Amendment 99. It is grouped with Amendment 127, on which I am looking forward to hearing, I hope, complementary thoughts about the importance of neighbourhood planning. I do not think we need to debate the importance of neighbourhood planning; we did that in Committee. What we need to do is to find out what the Government are going to do.

Since the Government in relation to their White Paper on English devolution made it clear that they want “effective neighbourhood governance” and since we are going to see unitaries creating what might otherwise be regarded as distance between local communities and the plan-making process, it seems to me that that heightens the importance of neighbourhood development planning and what are called neighbourhood priorities statements, which were included in Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act inserting new Section 15K into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

As things stand, the neighbourhood priorities statements have not been brought into force. My first request to the Minister is: will the Government do that? Secondly, can she confirm that the valuable Section 98 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which clarified what should form part of the contents of a neighbourhood development plan, should also be brought into force? I hope that that is not something that Ministers are neglecting to do but are simply trying to bring into force alongside other planning reform changes before we get to the next iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework.

There is a reference in Amendment 108 to Section 100 of the levelling-up Act, which is about the power to require assistance with plan-making, but it is quite clear from paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Bill that it is the Government’s intention to bring Section 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act into force, otherwise that part of this Bill would be redundant. So, I have two questions: will the neighbourhood priorities statement be brought into force and when will the neighbourhood development plan be brought into force from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act? I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 127 in this group of amendments about neighbourhood planning. It makes, in a much simpler way, the same detailed and principled point about neighbourhood plans as do the detailed amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. My amendment seeks that the Secretary of State

“may only … grant a development consent order where the Secretary of State believes that the application for consent gives due consideration to any relevant neighbourhood plan”.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just pointed to the importance given to neighbourhood governance in the English devolution Bill that has started at the other end of Parliament. He referred also to the debates we had in consideration of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill about the importance of listening to neighbourhood priorities and setting them out, as well as of accepting neighbourhood plans within local plans. I hope that will apply, in a wider way, with development consent orders and strategic plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to follow two of your Lordships’ House’s leaders in the culture and heritage space and I find myself in a position I am quite often—modestly backing up the excellent work of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has already set out Amendment 102 very clearly. In essence, it fills a gap in terribly important legislation, the Localism Act, in respect of assets of community value. I have gone up and down England and visited many communities where they have saved pubs, they have saved shops, and they have saved places that are terribly important to them, but there is not that explicit recognition of cultural assets, which clearly needs to be there.

Many of the places where this is going to be most important are rural areas, small towns, market towns and coastal towns—places that are really struggling. Those community cultural assets are, as the noble Earl said, of crucial economic value and crucial to quality of life, mental health and the sense of community.

There is a lot of crossover. This is a logical grouping, particularly alongside Amendment 110 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Often, heritage and cultural assets will be one and the same thing in these kinds of communities—the old theatre, the old cinema and places such as that which will now be used in all kinds of different ways. I want to put on the record a really interesting report from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, published on 25 September this year, on the impacts of changes to local authority funding on small to medium heritage organisations. As I said, heritage and culture very often will be the same place.

I should declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association at this point. Local authorities, still the main providers of heritage services, have seen a 49% cut in central government grants and we are seeing a massive overall cut in the form of closures, reduced opening hours and scaling down of public programmes. This is where the community can step in when all else fails—when the local authority simply no longer has any money, which is increasingly the case. The amendment would allow the community to step in very clearly in that cultural space. I know the hour is late, but if the noble Earl wishes to test the opinion of House, we will certainly be behind him.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches wholeheartedly support Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. It is quite sad, if we reflect, that local government formerly would be in a position to support those assets of community value, including those of cultural value, in the days before, say, 2010. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has reminded us, there were very large cuts in funding for local government, so it is no longer able to be what it used to be.

Local government used to be the governance of a community which enabled and encouraged all aspects of community life, as far as it could, to flourish—economically, socially and in community values. That helped communities to come together and stay together. We would not have some of the problems that are raising their ugly head currently if that had not happened. Therefore, we on these Benches support adding buildings of cultural value in the same section as those of community value.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is always the torch-bearer for heritage, and I am right behind him in what he proposes. As we have said on other occasions, heritage makes us as a nation and as a community. Currently, I am helping to fight a local battle about a 325 year-old monument to a woman that has been disregarded, taken down and stored in a highways depot—I might speak to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about it. It is important to me, and it matters to that community because it stands for their heritage and history. These things are very important and we support all of them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, again, we appear to have quite a lot of consensus across the House on these issues of culture and heritage. There is a theme running through these proposals: how our planning system recognises and safeguards that which makes our places special and gives them their identity—our cultural life, our heritage and our historic environment. These are not peripheral concerns; they are central to the quality and distinctiveness of the communities we build.

On Amendment 102 from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, we understand and share the impulse to protect cultural venues and creative spaces, which so often lie at the heart of local cultural economies. These places are cherished by local people, local families and local businesses. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered reviewing the existing scheme under the Localism Act to examine how cultural uses can be better supported within it?

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on the commencement of heritage provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and on the role of historic environment records, are sensible and timely. The heritage clauses of the Act were hard won, and it is only right that they should now be brought into effect without delay. Will the Minister assure the House that this will be the case?

We also agree that there must be proper parliamentary scrutiny of listed building consent orders. We again support the view that existing legislation should be progressed, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

Our planning system must enable growth, investment and the delivery of infrastructure, but it must also safeguard that which makes places worth living in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have now sat through four discussions about the Hillside judgment. I am not sure that I am any the wiser for having done so, except to acknowledge that there is an issue of significant proportions, that it needs to be resolved and that those who have put forward solutions, who know the planning law considerably better than I do, suggest that it needs to be resolved.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about a master plan for a big site—I thought that everybody did master plans for big sites, but maybe not—and that that would be part of a solution to this discussion. My plea to the Minister is that we have a final resolution for the Hillside issue, so that those of us who have sat through it four times already do not have to sit through it again.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

87FD: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning permission: Responsible Actors Scheme members(1) No member of the Responsible Actors Scheme may be granted planning permission or carry out major development of land in England through any agent or contractor or any other person acting for or on their behalf until the Secretary of State has revised the Scheme to ensure that—(a) all buildings developed by Responsible Actors Scheme members with relevant defects are remediated at no cost to leaseholders or commonhold unit owners, and(b) where a relevant defect arises from a failure to comply with building regulations or relevant approved documents in force at the time of the construction of a building by a Responsible Actors Scheme member, that defect must be corrected by remediating the building to current building regulations.(2) In this section—“building” means a self-contained building, or self-contained part of a building, in England that contains at least two dwellings;“major development” has the meaning given by article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595);“member of the Responsible Actors Scheme” means a member of the Scheme established under The Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023/753);“relevant defect” has the same means as in section 120 of the Building Safety Act 2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause prevents members of the Responsible Actors Scheme (the UK’s large developers) from applying for or undertaking major development until the Secretary of State has revised the Scheme to ensure that all unsafe blocks of flats are remediated.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the purpose of tabling this amendment is twofold. First, it is to shine a beacon of light on a building scandal that has recently fallen out of the national spotlight. Secondly, it is to urge the Government to use this Bill to exert further pressure on those who caused the Grenfell Tower tragedy, where, I remind the House, 72 people lost their lives.

This amendment is not about pointing the finger of blame at this or past Governments. It is about seeking to put more pressure on those who created the conditions in which people died and which many leaseholders now have to endure, consequent on building safety failure.

What are the facts? The MHCLG estimates—I note that there is no current definitive figure—that between 5,900 and 9,000 buildings over 11 metres have unsafe cladding. This means that over a quarter of a million individual flats and perhaps nearly half a million people are affected, and that is just for those blocks over 11 metres, which are the subject of the Building Safety Act.

According to government figures for August this year, 1,927 blocks have had their remediation completed and a further 750 have started, but that leaves many thousands of leaseholders in limbo. I accept that the Government have attempted to improve this position with the remediation acceleration plan, alongside a promise for a remediation Bill. Can the Minister tell the House when that Bill is likely to be introduced?

The action plan commits to completing all remediation of blocks over 11 metres by 2029. That is a full 12 years after the Grenfell Tower fire. Meanwhile, leaseholders are paying the price for a situation that in no part is of their making. They are paying for it in extortionate insurance bills, in ever-rising service charges, and in knowing that they have no way out as their flats do not sell. For some, this has had very tragic consequences. The mother of one of those who ended their life as a direct result of this enormously stressful situation is sitting in the Gallery today and listening to this debate.

This Bill is an opportunity further to address the building safety scandal by putting more pressure on those who created these dangerous living conditions. Amendment 87FD in my name and co-signed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seeks to require that construction companies that have signed up to the responsible actors scheme agree to the full remediation of all buildings—that includes those under 11 metres—before they are able to proceed with further major developments. This must be achieved at no cost to leaseholders. For those living in blocks of under 11 metres, currently the costs fall on them, despite their not having created the building scandal in any way. The major housebuilders are well able to afford to pay for the crisis they created, with annual operating profits being in the high hundreds of millions of pounds.

The noble Lord Young of Cookham wished to speak in support of this amendment, but, unfortunately, he is currently speaking in Grand Committee. He has asked me to say that he is in complete support of the amendment and will vote in the Lobby in support of it if a vote is called. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but if I am not satisfied that more can be extracted from those who created the crisis that is putting lives at risk, I will test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which I have added my name. We have both spent many years trying to persuade the Government that a clearer and more comprehensive solution is needed to protect everyone affected by the building safety crisis. Noble Lords will know of my professional insights into this matter as a chartered surveyor and of my previous attempts to get fair treatment for innocent homeowners. .

I continue to receive mail from home owners, small investors, property managers and conveyancers who are utterly dismayed at the complexity, uncertainty and capricious nature of the funding under government schemes, which involve matters of building height, cladding combustibility and unseen and previously unknowable compartmentation issues, with funding applying differentially to various classes of ownership or being dependent on the freeholder’s assets, plus identification of the person responsible and whether that person has effective agency in relation to remediation. In addition, there are two parallel standards of remediation at work.

Some noble Lords will recall that during the deliberations on the Building Safety Bill, I convened a briefing for Peers. We were addressed by the late Amanda Walker, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was, I think, making reference. She told us how her life and world had been turned upside down. Her experience fits entirely with what others have told me of a living hell of unsellable property, unaffordable interim safety costs, insurance hikes and unknowable liabilities going forward—in short, what they thought was a safe and secure home being turned into a financial prison—and of the stress, ruined lives and total inequality of the exclusions from protection.

I joined Amanda’s mother and brother earlier today in a meeting with Minister Samantha Dixon. She gave the impression of listening very carefully to what we said. Mrs Walker’s recent email, which I paraphrase, says this: “My precious daughter was a very ardent campaigner on behalf of thousands of leaseholders who suffered because of loopholes in the Building Safety Act. This amendment”—she is referring to the amendment before us now—“will not help her but may help many others. The anxiety levels in so many people were painful to watch, and in my view ruined many lives”.

As the Minister knows, around 1.7 million leaseholders do not have full or even, in some cases, partial protection from the costs of remediating unsafe buildings. Those living in buildings below 11 metres have no protection at all, as the noble Baroness pointed out. Enfranchised leaseholders and those owning more than three properties are liable for any non-cladding remediation costs. Other leaseholders may have to contribute up to £15,000 to cover non-cladding costs—depending on the wealth of their freeholder, if you please. All these people are completely innocent of the causes that led to defects in their building, not just cladding but basic disregard of the building regulations in force at the time of construction.

The assumption is that lower rise buildings are safe because it is easier to mitigate risks, to escape from them and for fire and rescue services to attend to emergencies, but we do not actually know that they are safe. The proportionate standard under PAS 9980, which is the remediation standard frequently used, admits that spread of fire may be more rapid given the greater prevalence of combustible materials in the construction, and the capacity of many construction products to generate impenetrable choking smoke when burning, impeding escape. And who pays for any mitigation? Ultimately, it is the leaseholders.

According to the National Fire Chiefs Council, the current Building Safety Act’s three-tier approach—fully protected, partial or capped protection, and totally unprotected— is delaying remediation and leaving leaseholders in limbo. That funding is fragmented, and occupiers are left in unsafe buildings or are among the growing number, currently totalling more than 14,000, of those mandatorily evacuated, sometimes having to leave very modern buildings. The National Audit Office has found that the PAS 9980 risk-based approach to remediation is a cause of delays as different stakeholders argue over what constitutes “proportionate” remediation and “tolerable” risk, both of which terms appear in that document. Some 52 flat developers have signed up to the responsible actors scheme. Their remediation responsibility is to this proportionate standard only—never mind failure to build to the relevant building standards applicable at the time of construction.

Markets need transparency, and the Government need to be upfront about the general quality of buildings and building regulation compliance over past 30 years. It has long been an offence not to comply with building regulations. Market sentiment depends on clarity, but beyond the scope of the Government’s remediation portfolio, it is unclear what the reality actually is. So long as this doubt sloshes around the market, the insurance and lending sectors and, indeed, purchaser keenness, will remain febrile. All these may predispose a wider malaise the longer this persists, particularly in the lending markets, where the impact of new solvency regulations means that such uncertainties will have to be factored into securitisation risks, loan book management and consumer costs.

For evidence of the effects today, I point to flagging new flat construction, rising costs, schemes being mothballed and softening sales markets. Wagging fingers at insurers will not get rid of risk awareness and sentiment. Once you understand that something is a risk, it is there for ever. While I understand why the Government might not want to garner a lot of non-compliance data, if, despite consumers’ and the markets’ need to know, they choose not to do so, what I set out is the inevitable outcome, with implications for urban redevelopment and densification, homebuilding targets and, ultimately, stable communities.

This amendment would sweep up all building types, all tenures, and both cladding and non-cladding defects. It would tighten standards and encompass product manufacturers. Any planning delays under the amendment would be no more than the minimum necessary to process regulations immediately on Royal Assent, and I believe very few projects would be held up in practice. If the Government agree the principle that innocent people should not foot the bill for bad building practices or even for preserving the Government’s own policy objectives, they need at least to indicate to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that they propose to take this forward with serious intent. This amendment would give the Secretary of State the tools to do this and to end the two-tier remediation standard, the basic inequity and uncertainty of the current protections, and the market disruption that has accompanied them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these important issues with their Amendment 87FD on the remediation of buildings by developers and I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their tireless support for residents since the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I understand that the amendment is intended to protect residents and leaseholders. Unfortunately, its effect would be to slow remediation and risk stopping essential housebuilding.

I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there has been no relaxing of the Government’s determination to deal with the significant remediation actions outstanding from Grenfell. I spoke to my honourable friend Minister Dixon just last week. She has now picked up the urgent action needed to accelerate remediation. She has already visited the Grenfell site, and I am pleased to hear that she has met Mrs Walker and other members of the Grenfell community. I know she takes her responsibility extremely seriously and she will continue the work of Minister Norris in dealing with this as quickly as possible. There will be a further opportunity in the very near future for this House to debate the issues of building safety and remediation, including their interaction with this Government’s bold ambitions on housing supply.

Amendment 87FD is intended to prevent members of the responsible actors scheme receiving new planning permissions or building new housing developments until the Government make fundamental changes to the scheme to require developers to remediate additional types of defect and apply a different approach to the remediation of external walls. In practice, this would mean that over 40 of the largest housebuilders in England would have to stop building new homes until the Government made changes to an essential remediation scheme that we assess would delay and undermine progress.

This landmark Bill is intended to get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve the ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament. It is simply not compatible with the aims of the Bill to include a measure which would stop the largest housebuilders in this country building new homes. It would lead to major market uncertainty and disruption. Nor would the proposed changes to the responsible actors scheme serve the interests of residents and leaseholders, as they would delay remediation of their buildings for years.

Over 50 major developers have signed developer remediation contracts with the Government and committed to fix life-critical fire safety defects in over 2,370 buildings, at a cost of approximately £4.7 billion. This is supported by the statutory responsible actors scheme, which enables the Secretary of State to impose severe commercial consequences on any eligible developer who fails to follow through on their remediation obligations. Since signing the contracts, developers have assessed over 90% of relevant buildings and have started or completed works on 44% of buildings known to require works. This amendment would require fundamental changes in the responsible actors scheme by requiring developers to identify a different set of defects and require remediation to a different standard. Attempting to make those changes to the statutory scheme would undermine the remediation contracts that developers have signed with government. The result would be disastrous for residents and leaseholders, leading to long delays, operational and legal confusion, and uncertainty. Essential works to protect people could be set back by years.

The current approach to remediation under the developer remediation contract is proportionate and appropriate and uses PAS 9980, the same standard for external wall remediation as the Government’s wider remediation programme. The PAS 9980 standard is used for external wall system remediation because we are focused on mitigating risks to life safety, taking an evidence-based and proportionate approach. External wall remediation is assessed based on a fire risk appraisal of external walls which suggests remedial work or mitigation to improve a building’s risk rating through a holistic and fact-based assessment of its construction. Removal of combustible materials is often recommended but is not always necessary, including when other mitigating measures are taken. This proportionate approach to cladding remediation aims to manage fire risks and make sure that residents are safe, while preventing the kind of unnecessary works that can also be incredibly disruptive for residents.

To pick up the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about insurance, we are clear that more needs to be done to protect leaseholders from very high insurance premiums. The fire safety reinsurance facility led by the Association of British Insurers and reinsurance broker McGill and Partners launched in April 2024. The facility aims to increase capacity in the market and may reduce high premiums for some of the most affected multi-occupancy buildings with fire safety issues. The facility has been renewed for a second year and is a viable option for building owners trying to find the best deal for their residents. In the first 12 months, over 760 buildings have been supported by the facility and now more buildings may benefit from the cover available, as the claims limit has increased to £75 million. In the remediation acceleration plan announced, we would work with the insurance industry to consider options for possible government support. We are currently engaging with industry and will provide an update on all this in due course.

This amendment has raised important technical issues about the remediation process. We cannot do full justice to them tonight, but there will be further opportunities for this House to debate the remediation of buildings at much greater length during the passage of the upcoming remediation Bill. I look forward to that opportunity. What is already clear, however, is that the amendment we are looking at tonight would undermine the core purpose of the Bill by greatly delaying work to remediate buildings, as well as putting at serious risk critical work to build new homes. Given these very serious concerns, I urge noble Lords to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the Conservative Front Bench for taking part in this debate, but I am thoroughly disappointed by the remarks of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. It is not an either/or. How can it be an either/or? According to the Minister’s response, either we enable housebuilders to build more homes or we accelerate even further the remediation of flats that are in a dangerous condition. It should not be either/or; it should be both/and. There is capacity within the housebuilding industry to do that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I made it clear that the danger in the amendment is in doing just what the noble Baroness has spoken against. We want to move the remediation acceleration forward as quickly as possible, at the same time as building new homes. The danger with this amendment is that it slows the whole thing down and means that neither the remediation nor the building of new homes gets done quickly.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Unfortunately, I do not accept the Minister’s argument because, under the Government’s own remediation acceleration scheme, it will take another six or seven years for people to have their homes made safe. How is that right? We heard the compelling arguments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the 1.7 million leaseholders who will be required to pay many thousands of pounds to make their own homes safe when it is not their fault. It is not acceptable that we are still here, all these years after that awful fire at Grenfell Tower, trying to debate yet again what is going on.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I am hugely in sympathy with the noble Baroness in her aim but, as the author when I was in ministerial office of the responsible actors scheme, which was stoutly resisted by housing developers, I had to strike a balance between putting the squeeze on them—by making it clear that unless they acted to remediate, they would receive no planning permission whatever—and making sure that they could continue to build the houses we need. Have the noble Baroness and the supporters of this amendment looked at what the impact on the balance sheets of individual housebuilders might be, and what impact that would have on our current rate of buildout? Also, is it not the case that many of those who do not qualify at the moment for support for remediation—the so-called non-qualifying leaseholders—are people with extensive property portfolios? A line has to be drawn somewhere to ensure that those with significant wealth do not benefit, while those who do need support receive it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gove, for his intervention. He is right that when the scheme was established, it was on the basis of squeezing the housebuilders as far as they could go. However, if I remember the figure correctly, one of the major housebuilders has made an operating profit in the last year of £870 million. Call me a curmudgeon if you like, but if some of that could be used to fund making the dangerous flats they built safe for people to live in, I think that is not a bad call.

We have had the argument but I am not content with the answers I have got, so I wish to test the opinion of the House. I hope that those on the Conservative Benches will support those who have spoken strong and hard in favour of remediation schemes, and in favour of leaseholders, through the Lobby.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and my noble friend Lord Clancarty. As has been said, this is a long-standing issue and it lies at the heart of how new development coexists with existing businesses and community facilities. It concerns fairness and foresight in the planning system, ensuring that when new homes are built near established venues and facilities, the newcomers, not those already there, bear the responsibility for mitigating any resulting conflicts.

The crisis facing grass-roots music venues is now acute. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, according to the Music Venue Trust, the UK lost one grass-roots music venue every fortnight in 2024 and almost half of them—43.8%—now operate at a loss, with a quarter facing imminent closure. This follows the loss of 16% of all such venues in 2023, with 125 spaces for live music gone in a single year. The pattern is sadly familiar. A venue thrives for decades, new flats are built nearby, residents complain, and the venue faces crippling restrictions or closure. The iconic Night & Day Cafe in Manchester and the Ministry of Sound in London have fought costly, protracted battles simply to continue existing.

The agent of change principle is meant to prevent exactly this. After years of campaigning led by the Music Venue Trust and supported, as my noble friend said, by Sir Paul McCartney, Brian Eno, and many others, it was finally incorporated into the national policy framework in 2018, yet seven years on, that policy has fallen short. Why is that? It is because guidance alone cannot override statutory duties under environmental health law. Local authorities must still investigate noise complaints and issue abatement notices, even when the source of that noise long predates the new development. The principle exists in spirit but lacks legal force.

This amendment would put that right. It establishes a statutory duty spanning both planning and licensing functions. It requires developers to submit proper noise impact assessments to mitigate the impact of the schemes on existing venues and, crucially, requires decision-makers to consider chronology. Who was there first must matter in law, not just in principle. This is not only about nightclubs or music venues; the same logic protects churches from complaints about bells, pubs from garden noise and sports clubs from cheering crowds. Indeed, it protects any established community use threatened by incompatible new development. This is a modest but essential reform that will help stem the loss of venues that make our towns and cities vibrant and give local authorities the clarity they need to balance growth with cultural sustainability. I urge the Government to support it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to be extraordinarily brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has explained explicitly what this is about and why it is desperately needed. I add my name to all those who have spoken so passionately in favour of it and look forward to the Minister, with equal passion, agreeing to it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am going to try to be brief, but I am afraid I am going to be beaten by the Liberal Democrats—just occasionally one has to accept this. I offer our support for Amendments 71 and 82, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, it is a principle of fairness. If you are the one bringing change, you should be responsible for managing its impact. Yet, time and again, we have seen valued businesses, particularly in the live music, hospitality and cultural sectors, threatened or closed down due to new developments that arrive without sufficient mitigation and proper regard to the context within which they are being introduced. If you build a house on the edge of a cricket pitch, do not be surprised to see the occasional cricket ball flying into your garden.

The reality is that guidance, however well intentioned, is inconsistently applied. Local authorities are left without a clear statutory duty to uphold the agent of change principle. Amendment 82 extends this principle to a licensing regime we would also support. We see this as a constructive and proportionate improvement to the Bill that balances the need for new development with the equally important need to protect existing cultural, social and economic structures. We on these Benches are pleased to support this principle and hope that the Government will recognise the value of giving it a clear statutory footing. I ask the Minister for an assurance that existing businesses and community facilities will not be put at risk from subsequent developments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise for gazumping the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. For the record, I am always happy to take my name off amendments in a case where we can demonstrate political breadth, but I was very happy to sign Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best.

I will give one example. In July this year, Rother District Council received an application from Brookworth Homes to amend its permission for a 20-residence project in Battle, East Sussex, to, of course, zero homes for social rent. That is just one example of a place that desperately needs social housing. I will stop there, because I want to get to a vote if the Government do not give way.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 85 in this group concerns an issue that I first raised in Committee. At the national level, there is much talk of the urgent need to build 1.5 million new homes. They are even promoted with rather empty, Trump-like slogans. Mere numbers of new units will not provide a solution to many families and individuals in our country. What is urgently required is a national debate about the type of housing unit that is most needed, and how these will be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has rightly focused on one area of desperate need: homes for social rent. Amendment 85 throws a beam of light —maybe even hope, if the Minister responds as I hope she will—on those families, and especially the children, living in temporary accommodation.

The numbers should shame us all. Over 170,000 children in our country—one of the wealthiest in the world—are living in temporary accommodation. Some 50% of all those experiencing homelessness are children. This could be a result of domestic violence, family breakdowns, debt or receiving a Section 25 eviction notice—at least, and at last, the Government have outlawed Section 21 evictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 73, 74, 75, 263 and 264, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 87E tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, are about fairness, transparency and democratic consent in how planning decisions are made, particularly when it comes to the provision of asylum accommodation.

Too often, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. Asylum hotels have dominated the news this summer, sparking protests and dividing communities—divisions that could have been avoided if people had just been given a voice.

The principle is straightforward: changing the use of a hotel or a house in multiple occupation—HMO—to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use under planning law. That would mean that planning permission is required, ensuring proper consultation and clarity for councils, residents and local businesses. At present, the law is uncertain and councils are left to fight retrospective battles in the courts. This is not about the approach of the current or the previous Government; it is about what is right for the British people.

Protecting local voices has been a priority and an issue we have fought for consistently throughout the Bill. It is a terrible shame that, when the same principle arises in relation to asylum, an issue that is dominating our local communities, people such as the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to support our plan to give local people a voice on this issue. We had hoped that all noble Lords would have been consistent with their commitment to protecting the voices of local people. These amendments are not a question of asylum policy; this is simply a question of giving communities a voice. The country is watching, and it is vital that we act. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, given that its focus is on the planning issues surrounding the use of hotels for asylum seekers, pending assessment of their applications. Amendment 87E in my name offers a different solution to those challenging issues. On these Benches, we recognise the importance of reducing the backlog of asylum applications and we are committed to constructively ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. I note that the Government have also committed to doing so by the end of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, going back to the debate, it is quite extraordinary that the Minister has chosen to use her reply once again to dwell on the Government’s record on asylum hotels. This debate is not about asylum policy; it is not even directly about those who arrive in this country. It is about the rights of local people: the rights of communities to have a say when there is a change of use in their area, just as they would for any other form of development or planning decision.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Will the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, explain to the House why it has taken five years for her party to come to the conclusion that planning permission for a change of use is needed?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

When we were in government, we had a plan—

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will confine my remarks to Amendment 63 in my name. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee we had quite a substantial discussion about the national scheme of delegation and the extent to which decisions should automatically be delegated to planning officers rather than going to a committee.

I do not really want to dwell on all that, other than to say that we are continuing to wait—in my case, with optimism—to hear about a national scheme of delegation and how it might assist in the delivery of our planning and housing targets. In my view—and I will just reiterate it because presumably Ministers are still considering how to proceed with the scheme—it was a mistake that the Government’s proposal for the scheme for consultation did not follow through on the original plan, which would have meant that where decisions could be made wholly in accordance with the existing local plan, they should be delegated to planning officers, since the democratic input of the planning committee, as my noble friend Lady Coffey just said, is and should be primarily in establishing the local plan and then we should be guided by that, rather than revisiting every decision under the local plan through the planning committee.

We also continue to wait on the Government consulting on national development management policies. I know it is their intention to do so. But, again, once we have national development management policies, by their nature, if they include policies which would determine how an application for permission should be treated—for example, in relation to planning applications in greenbelt and grey-belt land—those should necessarily go to planning officers because the planning committee would have no discretion not to make a decision in line with the national development management policies.

I say that to reiterate those points I feel strongly about, but also because it illustrates that when the scheme is first brought in, it will make substantial decisions about the framework within which the delegation of planning decisions is to be made. When we debated this in Committee, it was on my amendment which would have meant that such regulations were always to be by an affirmative resolution. I completely understand the Minister’s response that there may be quite detailed aspects of these regulations and that as a consequence there may be regular iterations—almost every time, probably, there is a change in the guidance, particularly the National Planning Policy Framework; we tend to have those as a little present just before Christmas every year—so we are probably going to get new regulations on a frequent basis and they may be quite detailed.

However, the first regulations set up the principles and the framework for how this scheme of delegation will work in the longer term. It is not acceptable for that to be subject to a negative resolution. This House should have the opportunity to see, approve and, as my noble friend says, debate the framework for the national scheme of delegation the first time those regulations are made. That is the purpose of Amendment 63: to provide that when the regulations are made for the first time, it is on an affirmative basis, and subsequently on a negative basis. When the time comes, I hope to have the opportunity to move the amendment and, if it secures support in this debate, I may well look to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are firm and constant supporters of the right of locally elected councillors to make decisions in their area based on clear national policies. The proposals in the Bill for a national diktat of delegation are the backdrop to this group of amendments. The Government are ostensibly in favour of devolution of decision-making. However, there is a tendency within the Bill to centralise decisions on planning by making it virtually impossible for local decisions to reflect local need and nuance.

Amendment 62A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is interesting but could be problematic—actually, I thought it less problematic when I heard the noble Baroness’s explanation of the first part of the amendment. Although there are occasions during the life of a plan when unforeseen events arise which mean the local plan is not sacrosanct, on the whole it ought to be, otherwise it will be nibbled away at during its lifetime through precedent.

I have some sympathy with the second part of the noble Baroness’s amendment. Too often, housing sites are assessed as being able to accommodate a large number of units, then along comes the developer—with his eyes on the profit line—who applies for a different balance of houses in which larger, more expensive and more profitable units are to be built. The consequence is that the balance that we need, which is somewhere in between, is not met. The result of allowing developers to determine the density of a site is that more land then has to be allocated for development. I will give one example from my own area. A housing site was allocated in the local plan, under the national rules, for 402 homes. Currently, just over 200 are being built, because of the need—apparently—for five-bed exec homes. The local assessment of housing need shows that what are required are start-up homes and smaller homes with two or three beds. I have a lot of sympathy with that part of the amendment.

Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right to seek to put safeguards in place in the rush to take the local out of local democracy. As the noble Lord explained, the amendment is to ensure that the affirmative resolution would be required for the initial changes to the national scheme of delegation. That has got to be right, because it will set the tone for the future of what is accepted as being part of a national scheme of delegation and what is okay for local decision-makers. That is fundamental, and the noble Lord is right to raise it in the amendment. If he wishes to take it to a vote, we on these Benches will support him.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has not yet had the opportunity to speak to her Amendment 76, so I hope she does not mind if I comment on it. We on these Benches will support the noble Baroness if she wishes to take it to a vote. This amendment would be another move towards empowering local decision-makers with the right to take planning applications to committee where there is a volume of valid objections to an application, and then to have the debate in a public setting.

Amendment 87F, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks a sensible change to help understand where the real problems lie in the failure to build the houses the country needs. As the noble Baroness hinted, it is not with local planning committees or authorities, otherwise there would not be 1.2 million units with full planning permission waiting for construction. Those figures are from the ONS, and I am not going to quarrel with the ONS. If the Government could get the housing developers to start building those 1.2 million units, we would be well on the way to the 1.5 million that the Government reckon they need during the lifetime of this Parliament.

This is an important group because it is about getting the balance between national need and local decision-making, and between a national view of what is acceptable and local elected councillors being able to reflect local need, nuance and requirements in their local setting. I hope that at least the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will put his amendment to the vote. It is fundamental to the democratic process to have local decisions on planning.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 76 in the name of my noble friends on the Front Bench. As I have reminded noble Lords before, I have sat on a planning committee many times, I have appointed such a committee as a leader of a council and chosen the chairman, and I know it is a very important quasi-judicial position. Planning exists to arbitrate between the public good and the private interest. I use the word arbitrate purposely because people who sit on the planning committee have a difficult job. They have to weigh up so much conflicting information. It is an adversarial system, because, ultimately, either the proposer wins or the objector wins. There is no grey purpose in the middle.

Much of the Bill is established under the false premise that local planning committees are the blockers of development and it is only with the ranks of officials that we can get things going. Of course, this is rubbish. Evidence for that assertion was given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which this morning ruled that it was wrong that Governments and quangos had asserted that Ramsar sites had an equivalence to European sites and thus had to have a full environmental assessment, and overturned it on that narrow point. Within an hour, we had officials and Treasury solicitors boasting how this Bill is going to turn that around and reinstall that unnecessary gold-plating—gold-plating that, after four years, the Court of Appeal ruled should not have happened.

The Government’s suggestion that Ministers should usurp planning committees and instead form a national planning committee among themselves in Marsham Street is as fanciful as it is risible. It is a recipe for hurry up and slow down, and it is not fooling anybody that that is going to speed up development.

The premise is that officialdom brings none of its own particular personal or institutional prejudices to bear, but each quango brings its own vetoes. We have Natural England, with a track record of leaving no stone unturned in blocking or delaying development. We have the railways, which ballast every proposal for a new footbridge with £5 million-worth of cost and preposterous delays. We have the highways authorities, which tie themselves in knots over overly precious technical guidance and misdirect themselves that the private motorcar is intrinsically bad, when it is not. And that is before we get to the other bad actors, which time does not permit me to list.

I do not deny the importance of these quango representations, but the problem is that they all claim a veto, and it is from this that we have the £100 million bat bridge or that mitigating trade in great crested newts, which are rare in Europe but commonplace in every pond in my electoral ward in Norfolk. It is the way that planning works: it takes only one of these proverbial blackballs or vetoes from one of the statutory consultees to stymie a proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

I particularly note that the clause extends the powers of the Secretary of State to issue directions to restrict the ability of local planning authorities to refuse planning permission, either for particular applications, which we have mostly talked about, or more worryingly, as I understand it—I stand to be corrected by the noble Baroness if this is not correct—for whole categories of development. For example, it could remove the ability to refuse, as a class, data centres, whose environmental impact your Lordships’ House has become very concerned about, or any C3 dwellings in an area of low housing delivery. Taken in combination with the proposed national scheme of delegation introduced by Clause 51, about which we have just had a letter, which seeks to ensure that certain development types are determined solely by officers rather than a planning committee, there is a massively significant undermining of local decision-making. The Green group will oppose government Amendment 64 in the strongest terms and will express that at every opportunity.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, once more, the Government have chosen to add a new clause, through Amendment 64, at this very late stage in the Bill’s progress, as other noble Lords have pointed out. It really is not acceptable practice, for the reason the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave, which is that we have not been able to give this new clause proper and appropriate depth of scrutiny. The new clause has only four lines, and that includes its title. The other two and a half lines, if enacted, will have, as other noble Lords have said, a significant and maybe serious impact on local planning decision-making.

When I first saw the amendment, I was concerned and thought that I had perhaps got it wrong. However, we have now heard from across the House, including from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Banner, our expert in this House on planning matters, questioning the Minister on the meaning of what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Young, have all raised considerable concerns about the extent of what this brief clause will actually achieve. In her own inimitable way, the Minister has been able to underplay the clause by saying, “It is just an anomaly. It’s not going to make any difference really”. If it is not going to make any difference really, do not bring it in at this late stage. If it were so important, I am sure the Government would have noticed it, either in the discussions at the other end of the Parliament or at least in Committee here, so I have a feeling that it may not be as unimportant a clause as the Minister has been making out.

Where does that leave us? All noble Lords who have had experience, as many of us have, of the process of planning applications will know that planning committees are rightly required to make their decisions in accordance with planning legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework, all relevant national policies and their local plan, which includes local planning policies.

If a planning committee wishes to refuse a planning application, it has to do so, as others have said, with valid planning reasons. Failure to do so means that the applicant, rightly, takes that to the Planning Inspectorate for an appeal against that decision. If the planning committee has made a foolish decision, not giving valid reasons for refusal, the Planning Inspectorate, rightly, awards costs against the council, which is why there are not many planning appeals where costs are awarded against councils because planning officers in a local planning authority will advise their members accordingly.

Then you ask yourself: if that is the case and a refusal could go to inquiry or a written resolution of it, why is it necessary to call it in before a refusal has been given? The only reason I can come up with is that the Government wish to push through applications that are not relevant or appropriate to a local plan. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, hit the nail on the head: it substantially changes the tone and direction of planning, so that it becomes more of a national rather than a local decision-making process.

For somebody who is a cheerleader for local decision-making, who wants proper devolution, who thinks that making decisions locally is the right thing to do —as do many other parts of western Europe, which have successful governance as a consequence—to bring things back to the centre all the time is simply not acceptable. We on these Benches will strongly oppose government Amendment 64. I have explained to the Minister, out of due courtesy, that we will be doing so. This is overreach and will not do.

I turn to Amendment 87D. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have referred to it. The noble Baroness and I had a brief discussion the other day. She knows that I support Amendment 87D. If she wishes to take it to a decision of the House, we will support her. But, fundamentally, the balance between local and national decision-making is being tipped too far in the direction of national decision-making on policies, and that is not acceptable. As I have said, we will oppose Amendment 64.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Government Amendment 64 in this group. As we have heard, this amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission in principle by a local planning authority in England. Under Section 77(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by calling in an application for their own determination. Therefore, I ask the Minister, what has changed? Will the existing guardrails and provisions governing the call-in process remain intact? Will the mechanisms by which call-in operates continue as they do now? How will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision-making?

The Government should explain precisely what this amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law. If it represents a fundamental change to the call-in power, the Government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, we will be inclined to test the opinion of the House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power, the Government’s real focus should have been elsewhere: on proportionality and addressing the implications of the Hillside judgment. Energy should be directed towards tackling the real blockages in the planning system.

I turn to Amendment 65—which I hope will not be required—tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. This amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt up-to-date local plans and, in doing so, regain control over the granting of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. This raises an important point: the absence of up-to-date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration with the planning system. The Government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due regard and set out in clear detail how they intend to address the concerns it raises.

Finally, I am not quite sure why my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87D is in this group, but we have heard the feeling of the House on this. I know it is an issue my noble friend is rightly passionate about, and it is important. On the one hand, the Government have given communities their assets or enabled them to take them over; on the other, they are not protected from being lost. This is an important issue for the Minister, and I look forward to a very positive response to this especially important amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, briefly, I have a simple question about government Amendment 67, which would allow an extension of time to implement a planning permission or a listed building consent where there has been a legal challenge. This returns to the ecological surveys which got such a discussion in the group before lunch. Ecological surveys are taken at a particular point in time, and, particularly in this era of the climate emergency, species are moving and appear and disappear. How are the Government planning to deal with the fact that the ecological survey may become profoundly out of date and so, if this goes on for a long period, the grounds on which the decision was made initially may need to be redone? Is there some plan to deal with that issue?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I point out that this is yet another late-in-the-day government amendment. However, the Minister will be pleased to know that this time I am in agreement with Amendment 67.

To extend the time limits from implementing a planning consent where there has been a legal challenge seems right and fair. I did not quite catch whether the Minister explained the full extent of it, but I assume that it means that for general applications that are subject to a judicial or statutory review it will be a one-year extension, a further year if it goes to the Court of Appeal, and then a further two years if it goes to the Supreme Court. The noble Baroness nods. So that is right and fair. That is a balanced approach, which is one of my ways of judging things: “Is it right, fair and balanced?” I think that is fair to the applicants. So, with the nod that I had from the Minister, I agree with Amendment 67 and with Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which is very similar.

The other amendments in this group, Amendments 77, 78 and 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, would make serious changes to the ability of citizens to go to law where they feel that due process has failed them. Restricting those rights does not feel to me acceptable without further and full consideration by those who are expert in these matters—which is not me. With those comments, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, and to government Amendment 261. We are grateful for the Government’s engagement with my noble friend on this issue.

These amendments would prevent planning permission from timing out as a result of protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews, as we have heard, often outlast the three-year planning deadline, leaving permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications and discouraging serious investment. Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste and deter vexatious claims. It carries no real downside for the Government.

The Government say that they agree with the policy intention. We welcome the Government’s move to address the concerns held on these Benches and their work with my noble friend Lord Banner on these issues. This is a question of proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted permissions should not be undone by process; it should be done by merit. Far from slowing down planning, this change would help to speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving confidence to investors and allowing us to get on with building in the right places.

Finally, I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts processed behind these amendments are good ones, built on a sound principle. However, we do not believe that these amendments are practical. The proposed process would involve going straight to a hearing. In our view, the court would simply not have the necessary bandwidth. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose of his amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from across the House for the Government’s amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has had to rush off to the Supreme Court, apparently, but I am grateful for his support for our amendment.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this amendment has been developed in response to a discussion that we had in Committee and with extensive engagement with fellow Peers to improve the process of judicial review, which has been an ongoing issue. I hope that this reassures her.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I withdraw my criticisms.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is not here, I shall put on the record that there is work ongoing on the Hillside issue, as he is very aware. We continue to engage with him on that issue.

I cannot answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, off the top of my head, but I will provide a written answer. I appreciate that two years is quite a long time. If surveys have been done, they may need to be done again. I will come back to her on that issue.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendments 77, 78 and 79, introduced by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. These seek to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed as totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effect of these amendments largely reflects the intention of Clause 12, which makes provisions specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008. The measures being taken forward in Clause 12 follow a robust independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a subsequent government call for evidence, which made clear the case for change in relation to major infrastructure projects. We do not currently have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. Therefore, we will need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of changes made in Clause 12 would be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.

Amendment 77 seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court. As mentioned in Committee, this is not necessary as it is already clearly set out in the existing relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. In light of these points, while I agree with the intent behind the amendments, I kindly ask that my noble friend does not move them.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

These issues are not trivial and deserve proper scrutiny if this new power is to be created. I move my amendment in the hope of clarifying some of these things but reserve the right to test the opinion of the House on whether the removal of “possession” from the clause would make a material difference. I look forward to the debate and to hearing what the Government have to say. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, that is a good start to today’s debate. It is a rather arcane topic with which to start the day. I wondered, when I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whether he had actually read the original section in the Highways Act 1980, which the Government intend to—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that I have done so.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Excellent. I am pleased that he has, though I wonder whether he has, therefore, understood it. It is surprising that he has chosen to create legal uncertainty, which is what would happen with his amendment. Its consequence appears to be that developers needing a temporary use of land have in the past had to use compulsory acquisition powers if the landowner was not prepared to provide a temporary use. The Bill provides more assurance for both landowners and those improving or constructing new roads. For us on these Benches, the amendment makes no sense except as a tool to frustrate road improvements, and we will not support it.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for the amendment, which seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to grant powers to an acquiring authority to compulsorily possess land necessary to facilitate delivery of highway schemes. The purpose of the measure is to allow acquiring authorities to temporarily possess land when needed for highway works to the exclusion of others without resorting to permanent acquisition.

Permanent acquisition of land or acquiring the freehold or long leasehold title of the land would mean that the acquiring authority would own the land outright and permanently. This is unnecessary and disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, this clause would enable an acquiring authority to compulsorily acquire the right to temporarily possess and occupy the land needed to facilitate the delivery of a highway scheme.

The rights of an applicant to temporarily possess or occupy land are routinely granted in development consent orders and Transport and Works Act orders. Furthermore, the power would use the same land compensation provisions as apply to compulsory purchase, adapting them as necessary to effect the temporary nature of the interest being acquired.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the National Farmers’ Union. It is not a new power; it is an implied right to take land temporarily that already exists and is already used, but the Government’s Bill makes it explicit.

Temporary possession is a well-established legal concept. It provides certainty and practical powers essential for the safe, efficient delivery of infrastructure works. Temporary possession would offer an acquiring authority—being a local highway authority or National Highways—a safe and proportionate route to exclude others from the land temporarily. This is critical when the land is needed for highways works. It could involve storing equipment and construction materials or manoeuvring large construction vehicles, as well as creating temporary routes to keep works traffic off the highway.

Temporary occupation, on the other hand, as the sole remaining power under the amended clause, would not confer the right to exclude others. This would pose serious safety risks and could undermine project delivery. Without clear powers, authorities would be unlikely to use the amended provision. It would risk introducing legal uncertainty, prolonging negotiations, leading to an increase in objections and public inquiries, all of which would increase costs and could delay delivery.

The Highways Act 1980 already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land. Clause 33, as I have said, would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession. Clause 33, as currently drafted, provides the legal certainty, operational clarity and safeguards necessary for the safe and timely delivery of infrastructure projects. It does not create a new power; it is about ensuring that highways infrastructure can be delivered safely and proportionately.

Having, I hope, clearly defined the difference between possession and occupation, I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that this is not an attempt to own the land. In fact, it is clearly designed not to own the land, so that the title to the land would not change; it would be a right to occupy the land.

Finally, the noble Lord raised the question of how long it would be after works finish that the land can be possessed and whether there would be a need for guidance. That clearly is a subsidiary matter; I will take that subject away and write to him on it afterwards. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

48: Clause 41, page 54, line 22, at end insert—
“(1A) Any disapplication of heritage protections under this section must be exercised in a manner that—(a) recognises the value of the United Kingdom’s archaeological and architectural heritage to the nation and to local communities;(b) respects the principle that structures and sites are designated for protection only where they are of special or particular historic or cultural significance; and(c) ensures that development under this Act gives due regard to the importance of conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infra- structure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment imposes considerations for any disapplication of heritage protections.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is one area in the Bill where the Government have listened and made significant concessions in the light of the debate in Committee. In Committee, the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, challenged the Government to think again about the removal of heritage protections currently provided in the Transport and Works Act. I have retabled the amendment debated in Committee to press the Minister to reconsider.

In Committee also, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, proposed that Clause 41 stand part as the only route to provide important protection for our nation’s heritage. Government Amendment 49 is the answer to those strong arguments: the original Clause 41 is deleted along with the schedule, and a replacement Clause 41 tabled by the Minister.

At the core of the new Clause 41 is the notion of deemed consent; the deemed consent route does not ensure that key heritage duties, such as the duty to have special regard to listed buildings and conservation areas, are included. The Secretary of State therefore makes decisions on whether work to a listed building, scheduled monument or in a conservation area can be given permission, with the provisos of having due regard to. That route enables decisions on those issues to be made more quickly, but it fails the public engagement test that we on these Benches believe is important. However, given the changes proposed by the Minister, we are satisfied that there are protections for heritage sites and trust that all Secretaries of State will use their power with a special and high regard for our heritage. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

As a result of these amendments, and following their indications that they would do so, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move amendments that seek to achieve the same outcome as the government amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the long discussion that we had on this issue during recess and her commitment then to introduce a new clause. In my view, she has responded appropriately and fully to the concerns expressed. With those safeguards for our heritage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 48 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I want to point out, since he addressed me directly, that mushrooms are a tiny fraction of the mycological ecosphere and that what we are talking about here are the fungi that are essential for plants to be able to attract nutrients. I would be very happy to discuss all this with him later.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I hope that in two minutes we will adjourn. Right from the outset of the debate on this Bill, the Liberal Democrats have supported the idea of mandatory training for councillors who serve on planning committees, and I am pleased that this amendment does not challenge that principle, which is a good one.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in my name seek to ensure that all regulations relating to the bill discount scheme set out in Clause 26 are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.

The Government welcome the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, through these amendments, we accept its suggestion. We understand and recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and agree that the regulations discussed in Clause 26 are matters of substance. These amendments will help ensure that the regulations implementing the bill discount scheme are appropriately reviewed by Parliament, aiding their workability and ensuring a smooth implementation of the scheme. I cannot guarantee to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there will be a Halifax clause, but I hope that the House will support the amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I cannot react to the Halifax clause, since I do not live in Halifax.

I welcome the move to the affirmative procedure but remind the Minister that there are already 22,000 high-voltage carrying pylons in this country, over 250 of which are in Doncaster and over 700 of which are in North Yorkshire, including in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

That leads me to the argument I made in Committee: if the Government are minded to provide compensation for those residents and customers who live adjacent to new plants, either transmitting or creating electrical energy, then, as the Minister confirmed in Committee and in a conversation we had during recess, that payment—that compensation—will be a burden added to every electricity customer. That does not seem right to me. If those folk who are going to have a new imposition of electrical infrastructure are to have compensation, surely it should be funded by that electricity region and not by those that have, for instance, had pylons for many decades because regions knew it was in the national interest to do so.

I am pleased that we are going to the affirmative measure in consideration of compensation, because it will enable me to make arguments in favour of not the Halifax amendment but the Huddersfield amendment—let us call it that, as it is a bit nearer home. It is important, because to me this is about fairness. Those of us in the north—the very far north—and the Midlands should have fair treatment compared to those who have the infrastructure now. I am sure that the Minister will enjoy having that debate with me when we get around to doing the SIs.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure,(b) improve the planning and consenting processes,(c) support nature recovery through more effective development and restoration, and(d) increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the purpose of the Act.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at the beginning of Report on this important Bill, I move my Amendment 1, which is to insert a new purpose clause at the beginning of the Bill to define what it is about. While this Bill aims to deliver significant change, without a clear guiding statement of intent we risk losing sight of the balanced objectives necessary to truly sustainable development. Amendment 1 sets out the core purposes of this Bill:

“to … accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure … improve the planning and consenting processes … support nature recovery through more effective development and restoration, and … increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development”.

This is not merely a statement of aspiration. It is an important mechanism for accountability and clarity that directs the interpretation and implementation of every subsequent clause.

In Committee, there was support from across the Committee for a similar amendment. The benefit of adding a purpose clause to the Bill is that it will enshrine in law the tension between the need for construction and the requirement for robust environmental and democratic safeguards. The necessity of explicitly stating the duty to support nature recovery, for instance, directly addresses those profound concerns debated in Committee on Part 3 of the Bill.

Equally, many have voiced concerns about the negative impact of these reforms on local democracy and community voices. The CPRE, for instance, has concerns regarding the “dangerous erosion of democracy” inherent in measures that increase ministerial powers, such as the ability to issue holding directions to stop councils refusing planning permission when they do not accede to the law. To prevent them by issuing holding directions is a huge step in denuding local voices and local democratic councils from making the decisions about issues that affect their areas and communities. The inclusion of, for instance, the need to

“increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development”

directly mandates that the Government and implementing authorities address these democratic deficits. It would transform community engagement from a burdensome hoop to jump through—a problem noted by the previous regime in the Planning Act 2008, which led to proposals removing pre-application consultation requirements—into a stated core objective of the entire legislative framework.

The Government’s stated objective for this Bill remains the right one: we must

“speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure”;

however, acceleration without clear direction risks unintended long-term consequences that undermine the very public good that the Government seek to achieve. By accepting Amendment 1, we would embed clarity, provide a crucial framework for legal interpretation and establish legislative accountability for all stakeholders, ensuring that this major infrastructure Bill delivers not just efficiency but genuine sustainable development and broad public confidence. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, so here we are again. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for focusing our minds at the outset on what this Bill is about. It is a welcome amendment because the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has at least attempted to bring some thematic coherence to a ragbag of proposals from a dozen departments, none of which appears to be talking to each other.

I have read the press notices and compared them to the Bill’s text—never has a Bill been more oversold by a Government. Belatedly, it now seems that the Government’s purpose for this Bill is to persuade the OBR that it will speed up the process of development so that its economic forecasts can help the Chancellor balance her books. But most of the proposals of this Bill will prove that Newtonian notion that, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It hands development veto powers to a self-serving quango and it talks about empowerment and streamlining processes, but it emasculates those with the local knowledge and mandate to unblock officialdom. Instead, it proposes a system whereby the Secretary of State is to become a one-person planning committee—good luck keeping to the 12-week determination deadlines on that one. It could have ironed out Hillside or introduced a proportionality test so that at least the little boys could get on, but there is boneheaded resistance there.

One talking head on the “Today” programme this morning bemoaned the lack of planning permissions, the number of which seems to be falling like autumn leaves, but failed to realise that it is the building safety regulator that has put the black spot on building in London, with a response rate of at least 44 weeks. On that, the Bill is silent. So, instead of unblocking the blockers, it creates an EDP process that is so ponderous that it is unlikely to unlock any stalled homes within this Parliament. It is three and a half years since we started the neutrality madness, and it will be at least another three and a half years before we can rip off that scab. So much for speeding up building; all it is doing is putting speed bumps in the way.

Of course, I welcome the important and critical proposals to free up the placement of roadside power poles to improve the electricity grid. But even this Government recognise that the potential of development corporations is something for the next Parliament—just at the moment that those structures and powers to unleash them are being thrown up in the air. For all the bluster and press notices, this Bill will slow development, not speed it up. By any measure, the Government’s purpose will be frustrated by their own legislation.

I come to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which would

“accelerate the delivery of new homes … improve the planning and consenting processes … support nature … and … increase community acceptability”.

This is what we will debate over four long days. But what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has done is laid out the functions of the Bill; they are not its purpose. The reason that this Bill is in such a muddle is that it has not been framed through the purpose lens that dates back to the Labour Government of the post-war period, when the planning system was established in the first place.

Quite simply, the purpose of planning is to arbitrate between private interests and the public good; everything flows from there, and that balance between private and public is what makes the system work. It makes the economy flourish and enhances the environment. This Bill gets that balance all wrong, with too much state interference and not enough private initiative, so I am sorry to say that it is bound to fail. That is a shame, because we need to get those homes built and those rivers cleaned up, that clean power flowing and those new towns going—but little will be achieved, because in this Bill all roads flow to Marsham Street, back home to the dead hand of the state.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

Well, well, my Lords, that was a wide-ranging debate for an opening debate on a purpose clause. Nevertheless, I thank those who contributed to the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank her for her extensive engagement between Committee and Report.

This is indeed an ambitious piece of legislation. It is our next step to fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. The Bill will support delivery of the Government’s hugely ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that his Government had 14 years to fix the sclerotic planning system that has hobbled growth in this country for over a decade, yet they failed to do so. Our Government are working across departments—yes, and I welcome that—to deliver what the last Government failed to do, which is to build the homes we need and the infrastructure that will support those homes, and to get our economy moving again.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I am afraid she cannot have it both ways on the amendments that the Government have tabled. She has accused me in this Chamber of not listening. Well, we did listen in Committee and some of the amendments are in response to issues that were raised then. A number of those amendments relate to the devolved Administrations and we rightfully had consultations with those Administrations between Committee and Report. There are some truly pro-growth measures that we feel are rightly pressing and need to be done to improve the delivery of infrastructure, and there are a number of technical, minor amendments.

The Bill is not the only step towards improving the economy and delivering against our plan for change. The noble Baroness will know that we have reissued the National Planning Policy Framework; we have provided funding and training for planners; and we have provided a huge packet of support for SMEs. I met the APPG for SME House Builders the other day and it was pleased with the package that is being delivered. There is more to be done in working with the APPG, and I will be happy to do that. We have also carried out a fundamental review of the building safety regulator. All these things will contribute to the growth we all want to see.

I outlined the core objectives of the Bill at Second Reading, and we also discussed these at length in Committee. I do not suggest that I do so a third time. I recognise that planning law can be a complex part of the statute book to negotiate and interpret, whether you are a developer, a local authority, the courts or even a member of the public. I also appreciate that where a Bill has one sole objective, a purpose clause could clearly articulate this, assist people with understanding the Bill and affect the interpretation of its provisions. This Bill has a number of different objectives, with much of it amending existing law. A purpose clause is not helpful in these circumstances and could create unintended consequences. It is simply not possible or prudent for all these objectives to apply equally to each provision.

I believe we are all united by a shared objective today. On whichever side of the House we sit, we all agree that this House plays an important role in scrutinising legislation to ensure it achieves the intended objectives and to maximise the Bill’s benefit. I firmly believe that the intention behind this amendment is noble. I understand that it is tabled to aid interpretation of the Bill. My issues with purpose clauses, and the reasons I cannot accept this amendment, boil down to two things: their necessity and the potential for unintended consequences. Well-written legislation provides a clear articulation of what changes are proposed by the Government to deliver their objectives. It is for the Government to set out in debate why they are bringing forward a Bill during parliamentary passage. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the intended changes to the law should speak for themselves.

The Government’s objectives are clear. They are also woven into this legislation through reference to a number of different targeted documents that set out the Government’s strategic intent in specific areas of policy. It is right that these objectives vary according to the topic—some of these objectives will be more important for one issue than another. If this was not the case, the Bill would lose its strategic vision.

The Government strongly support a strategic approach to planning. The word “strategic” is mentioned 196 times in the Bill, as amended in Committee. The Bill inserts a part specifically called “Strategic plan-making”, intended to ensure that planning decisions are undertaken at a more strategic level. Large parts of the Bill are drafted to take a more strategic, targeted approach to achieving the Government’s objectives. For example, this legislation gives regard to other strategic documents, such as the clean power action plan. This is all done with the intention of making clear how this legislation seeks to deliver the Government’s objectives.

Adding a purpose clause to the Bill is not the answer to addressing the complexity of the statute book, or even this legislation. In practice, it would do the opposite; it would add additional room for interpretation to a Bill intending to accelerate delivery and simplify a system. It risks creating additional complexity in interpretation, gumming up the planning system further. It risks reinserting the gold-plating behaviour we are seeking to remove. Developers and local authorities, for example, would feel obligated to show how they have considered priorities that are much more relevant to other parts of the Bill for fear of legal action. A purpose clause would provide a hook for those looking to judicially review or appeal decisions in order to slow them down.

The measures in the Bill should be allowed to speak for themselves. They have been carefully drafted to be interpreted without a purpose clause. The courts should be left to interpret the law without having to navigate their way through a maze of different purposes sitting on top of strategic objectives. A purpose clause would create ambiguity rather than clarity.

It does not appear to me, from the debate I have heard, that the House is confused by why the Government are seeking to bring this Bill forward. I think we all know that we seek to achieve the growth and the homes that this country deserves. We should therefore move forward to further debate how best to achieve them. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone involved in this short but important debate and those who have supported, in word at least, the objective of Amendment 1, which is to set out strategic purposes for the Bill. From time to time, parliamentary procedures have been considered and purpose clauses proposed, so I think the debate will continue on whether it is right and helpful to have purpose clauses at the outset of a Bill, as they do set out strategy. I understand what the Minister is saying about the strategy being throughout the Bill, but if you have it right at the outset it provides clarity on what the Bill is supposed to be trying to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, having attached my name to the amendment so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I will speak very briefly to explain why this is something the Government need to address and respond to.

We know that the Government tend to operate in silos and look at one project at a time, without taking a comprehensive view of the overall impact on the country. New paragraph (a) proposed in the amendment focuses on the environment. In the past 10 years or so, we have seen real progress in understanding that we need to think about the landscape on a landscape scale, rather than just going, “We’ve got a nice little protected bit here and a nice little area there”. This amendment starts to get to the issue of thinking on a landscape scale in terms of the environment.

It is not impossible to imagine. Recently, we have become very aware of the importance of corridors through which different populations of wildlife can be linked up. There could be projects where one on its own does not look like it will have a serious impact, but two together would effectively cut off and separate two populations of animals that might already be lacking in genetic diversity and not be able to afford that separation.

Then there are the humans: the “residents living in areas” where the “projects are being developed”, as the proposed new paragraph says. Over the recess, I was speaking to a couple of people very much affected by the Sevington customs facility and the impact of light pollution. This is the sort of thing that we do not think about nearly enough, but where we may see effects on people’s lives build up and up.

The other obvious area where the impacts may be cumulative is traffic. If there are projects for growing and linking together, the impacts of traffic could be absolutely disastrous on the lives of residents in those communities.

So I think this amendment is modest: it just asks the Government to think on a broader scale than I am afraid Governments—very typically—generally do.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I believe this amendment has merit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just said, it is important that there is a comprehensive overview of the cumulative impact of a national strategic infrastructure project on a wider area than just the single project that is being considered.

In response to the first group, the Minister was very clear in stating that the Government wanted a more strategic approach to planning. I have issues with a more strategic approach, because it is often the details that matter most. But, if there is to be a more strategic approach, surely that must imply that it is not just on a single project but on the whole range of infrastructure projects—150—that the Government have in mind for the remainder of this Parliament.

For instance, there will be a cumulative effect of road infrastructure, and of the move to net zero, which we on these Benches totally support, and therefore more green infrastructure for energy creation. All of that requires an oversight of the totality of those projects, because it is important to understand the overall impact on local communities, rather than considering the impact project by project, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, explained, in terms of wind farms or solar farms, for instance. I support all of these, but we need to understand their cumulative impact on communities, the landscape and the environment.

So these issues are important and I am glad they have been brought up. I hope the Minister in her response will be able to satisfy those of us who have these concerns that the Government are not going to run roughshod over the needs of communities and the environment while making their rush for growth.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

First, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling her amendment and raising the issue of cumulative impacts. Under the Planning Act 2008, which governs nationally significant infrastructure projects such as major energy, transport and water developments, environmental and social assessments are already in place at various stages. However, my noble friend raises a very important issue: we should not look at developments just in isolation, whether or not they are nationally significant infrastructure projects, but consider their cumulative impact in an area.

My noble friend also raised what I refer to as consequential developments. If one were to build an offshore wind farm, by implication one would also have the consequential development of an electrical connection. Should this not also be considered as part of the planning process?

While we do not believe that this is the most appropriate mechanism—the Minister raised the issue of strategic and spatial planning, which is probably a more appropriate way to address this—we believe that it is an important issue. Depending on the Minister’s response, we may return to this at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend. When I was chair of the Delegated Powers Committee under the last Government, we published a report regretting the trend that over the last 30 years, more and more regulations have bypassed Parliament—not just by using the negative procedure rather than the affirmative, but through departments issuing guidance after guidance, none of which came before Parliament.

The point I want to make is a simple one of principle. We see in legislation Parliament being bypassed, in that case and in far too many cases. Parliament should not be bypassed, and necessarily so. My noble friend’s amendment simply makes the point that the Government should consider Motions by Parliament and what Select Committees say. They do not have to accept it, but at least we should have a chance to give that input. Otherwise, as I also see in cases, we will depend on various stakeholders to comment.

On the number of consultations issued by departments, there is a huge list of stakeholders, some of them great and grand organisations, royal colleges and organisations such as the RSPB with goodness knows how many million members. However, often the local MP is not listed, parliamentarians are not considered—and possibly not even the Select Committee which might have relevant views on it.

I believe my noble friend is on the right lines here, and I hope the Government will accept her amendment or at least give us assurances that Parliament will not be bypassed in the way she has suggested.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we now have before us Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—which I thought was coming in the previous group—and there is much to agree with in what she said. The national policy statements set the tone and the content for the NPPF and then the further guidance on planning legislation, so they are the fundamental base of all further changes to planning law. They are very important.

For the Government to try to take out the opportunity for democratic oversight and scrutiny is not just regrettable but a centralising process which we should not support. Planning affects everybody’s life one way or another, be it major infrastructure projects or small housing developments. Planning affects people, and if it affects people, people’s voices should be heard, and so people’s democratically elected representatives ought to be heard. It is our role in this House to scrutinise legislation. That is what is happening now, and we are saying, “This will not do”. We cannot have more centralising of planning processes and removing democratic oversight in so doing. If the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, wishes to test the opinion of the House on this issue, as she has intimated, we on these Benches will support her.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

In Committee, I described this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, as vital because it preserves parliamentary accountability, ensuring that government must respond to resolutions and recommendations from Select Committees. The safeguard strengthens transparency, clarifies policy direction at an early stage, and reduces uncertainty for those affected by these statements. Robust scrutiny helps to catch potential issues before they escalate later. I appreciate that the Minister has sought to reassure us with a new, streamlined process for updating national policy statements, and of course efficiency is welcome, but scrutiny must not become the casualty of speed. This amendment strikes the right balance. It enables timely updates while ensuring that Parliament remains meaningfully engaged.

Clause 2 concerns the parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. While I accept that certain elements of the process could be accelerated, key aspects of the clause diminish accountability to Parliament in favour of the Executive. I struggle to understand why, given the enormous impact of national policy statements, the Government are proposing to remove such an important element of parliamentary oversight. We continue to support parliamentary scrutiny and as such, we will support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I speak on these amendments not with any great authority on them but because I had some experience of a heritage village being destroyed to create a reservoir when I was Member of Parliament for Penrith and The Border, a huge constituency in the north of Cumbria including the beautiful lake of Ullswater.

South of Ullswater, there is a reservoir called Haweswater, which was created in the Haweswater valley. In 1929, the Manchester Corporation took possession of the village. It moved out all the villagers, exhumed 97 graves and moved the bodies to Shap, and demolished the church and the pub. Then it flooded the village and created Haweswater Reservoir. That village in the Lake District National Park was called Mardale. We have no idea how beautiful it was—we have no photographs—but if it was in keeping with all the other villages nearby, we know that it was a superb heritage Lake District village bang-smack in the middle of a national park. We would hope that that would not happen these days, but that is why we need Amendment 7A to guarantee it. Wainwright said:

“Gone for ever are the quiet wooded bays and shingly shores that nature had fashioned so sweetly in the Haweswater of old; how aggressively ugly is the tidemark of the new Haweswater”.


I think the 1980s was the first time that, in a severe drought, the level of Haweswater dropped down to the bottom and we could see what remained. One reason that was interesting is that it destroyed the wonderful myth we had for about 100 years that on quiet, cold, still nights you could still hear the church bells clanging beneath the water level. When the village was revealed, the church tower was only about 10 feet high; it had all been removed and there was nothing left. How many houses were destroyed? We know how many bodies were exhumed, but we have no record of the number of people moved out. However, the ruins would suggest a village of more than 30 houses, including a wonderful church and pub.

Wainwright mentioned the ugly tide-mark. My constituency had Ullswater, the most beautiful lake of all in the Lake District, if I may say so. On occasions of drought in this country, the level of Ullswater is lowered by two enormous pipes, one 12 feet in diameter and the other eight feet, which pump all the water down to Manchester. I do not want Mancunians to die of thirst—the answer is to build more reservoirs there—but the damage it does to the landscape in the Lake District is extraordinary. We have these wonderful images of the Lake District and its lakes, but when you see the level in Ullswater 10 feet below normal, there is an appalling scar around the whole lake. The important point about the Lake District National Park is the landscape and the visual value of what you see. Lowering severely the level of Ullswater, with Haweswater pumping into it, causes enormous environmental damage, which is about not just oils, gases and pollutants but destroying the visual quality of some of our lakes.

On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Parkinson mentioned Kielder, which is superb. It is great for tourism and fish and really improves the quality of the landscape. I disagree with him on the tree planting. They planted millions of Sitka spruce around the lake but put them right down at the water’s edge, so you got acidic run-off. Now, as the forestry departments are cutting down those trees, they are replanting those nearer the lake with proper mixed English landscape trees which do not cause that damage. There is only one thing wrong with Kielder: it is in completely the wrong place in terms of where water is required.

Over my time as a Member for a constituency in Cumbria, every few years various schemes came up to build some huge pipes and pump Kielder down south. The cost was astronomical, not to mention the huge engines that would be required to do it. Then there were other wonderfully clever schemes to pump some of it into the Tyne, let it flow down, intercept it before it got to Newcastle, then pump it into the River Wear and intercept it before it got to Bishop Auckland—and goodness knows where it would go then. There were also ideas to pump it into canals and force them to be rivers. All these schemes have been reviewed and considered; they do not work and would not work even at enormous cost. The answer must be to build appropriate reservoirs where they are needed.

Reservoirs are needed in the south, and the problem with finding them “down south”—as we up in Cumbria would say— is that they will be in areas with wonderful villages and lots of people, and they are very difficult to construct because of the damage that may be done to those local environments. They may be in places with lovely villages and AONBs, or on the edge of a national nature reserve, or even taking in one of those nature reserves. I accept that destroying a village may be necessary, but in that case, the villagers must be consulted, and they must have a right to be properly compensated. It cannot be taken for granted that a national infrastructure project can overrule those requirements.

Turning to compensation, I will be very brief because it is not in the amendment. We can come up with compensation for people living in these places, but how do you compensate for the destruction of a wonderful 1,000-year-old Norman church or the local post office—buildings which, in some ways, are not owned by people, and involve no right to compensation?

In future, to create a reservoir it may be necessary to destroy villages, even heritage villages. In that case, we should have a protection, as my noble friends have suggested in Amendments 7A and 7B. I am happy to support them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that it was regrettable that these amendments were brought at this late stage. I have a feeling that it is unacceptable that the Government should, in the final throes of the Bill, introduce very significant amendments that will have a profound effect on our communities and the environment surrounding them. This is why we are having a long debate on this group of amendments.

The Government wish to find a different route for agreeing the construction of new reservoirs. While that is a laudable aim, the methods proposed in the Bill represent a huge backward step for environmental protection and democratic accountability, without considering perhaps more straightforward solutions such as water conservation. The Government’s proposals seek to shift the decision-making process from the local to the national. As a result, and in light of their amendments on removing pre-application—which we will come to in the next group—local residents, as the Minister has said, would have to register in order to speak against the decision or to make their comments heard. It is quite an ask for people to appear before the equivalent of a planning inspectorate examination, which can be quite daunting for residents to take part in. That is regrettable.

The other issue I have a problem with is that the Government intend that where a region has a water shortage and, as a consequence, housing is turned down because there is not enough water to feed the new estates, they will issue “holding directions” to stop councils refusing planning permissions and will consider call-ins to try to overturn those. How those people will get water is yet to be understood. We on these Benches believe that the Government, alongside pursuing some new reservoirs, ought to put greater emphasis on the solution to water scarcity, which should be about addressing demand inefficiency.

This includes getting water companies to reduce the scale of the leaks from their water pipes—which is approximately 20% of the totality—to 10%. That is achievable and, on its own, would solve the immediate issue of water scarcity. The use of grey water and black water—I hate those terms—within new developments also needs to be addressed by not requiring all water that is used in this country to be of drinking water quality, which is what happens now. When you get your car washed, the car wash uses water of drinking quality to clean your car, because all water produced is to that standard. There ought to be changes in that direction as well.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

9: Clause 4, page 8, line 22, leave out paragraph (a)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the provisions in the bill which remove the requirements for pre-application requirements for development consent.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the importance of pre-application as a formal part of the process in determining NSIP applications. They are all much of a muchness. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to retain the current statutory pre-application consultation; Amendments 11 and 12 are similar. Amendment 12, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, seeks to put an emphasis on the importance of pre-application to the NSIP and setting out the purpose of it. The emphasis we have had from our Benches and the Conservative Benches today is on the importance of hearing the voices of communities and protecting heritage and the environment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, in the last group of amendments, talked about the importance of engagement of communities in these very important national infrastructure projects. That is where pre-application is very important, because although we accept and support the Government’s aim to speed up decisions on national infrastructure projects, it is equally important that a consensus be built with the community from the outset, which you do not achieve if you eliminate upfront engagement. The key to building consensus is maintaining a statutory pre-application process. The cost of giving up short-term speedy decisions could be long-term stability and success. Amendment 12 seeks to have issues resolved early. Community influence is built into the process so that people have their say at the outset, before a planning application is submitted for examination, to ensure that the applications are technically sound and that mitigation is embedded at the beginning, rather than added in later.

All those issues are vital if communities are to feel that their voice has been heard, even if in the end a contrary decision is made through the NSIP process. Throughout my long experience as a councillor, it always struck me that if people have had their say, they are more likely to accept the consequences of a view to which they are opposed. In response to arguments in Committee on this issue, the Minister argued that it was a tick-box exercise and that others took a more constructive view in building consensus and did it well. The answer should be not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to ensure that all construction is done with a meaningful pre-app process.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, while we support the principle behind the amendment, we do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to include it in the Bill. I therefore respectfully ask my noble friend not to press Amendment 83.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the careful consideration that she gave to my amendments during the Conference Recess. I have again listened carefully to what she had to say today and it appears that there is agreement across the House that pre-application engagement with affected communities is vital, but we disagree on how it should be achieved. The proposal in the Bill is to remove the statutory requirement for pre-application engagement. That leaves us with the good constructions engaging effectively and the poor constructions avoiding doing it well. The contention on our Benches is that all projects and constructions should engage well. The only way to achieve that is by making it a statutory requirement.

The other point about removing a statutory requirement and having a set of principles by which it should be undertaken is that, if the amendment is not accepted, we will be left with engagement that is designed by the developers and often for the developers—not for the community, as it should be. As these issues are important for those of us who care deeply about hearing the voice of people and being able to engage early in a big application, while I shall not press my Amendments 9 to 11, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 12.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

12: Clause 5, page 10, line 24, at end insert—
“(7A) In issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure pre-application consultation is meaningful, including, but not limited to, adherence to the following principles—(a) pre-application consultation should be open and transparent with information and evidence provided in a timely and straightforward fashion to provide affected or interested parties with objective and relevant information to enable them to make an informed response;(b) applicants should demonstrate a responsive approach to queries and challenges raised;(c) applicants should ensure consultation and engagement activities are inclusive and enable affected or interested parties to have a reasonable opportunity to participate;(d) applicants’ interpretation and representation of results should be fair and objective;(e) all pre-application consultation should be undertaken through meaningful engagement with communities and stakeholders, offering genuine opportunities to influence proposals;(f) pre-application engagement should be proportionate, with applicants providing the right level of information to enable positive outcomes to be delivered.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides principles which the Secretary of State’s guidance required by new section 50(2) of the Planning Act 2008 must have regard to, to ensure that pre-application consultation is meaningful.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 13 to 16, 18 and 20, which revise Clause 6. They are essential to ensuring that the Bill delivers on its core objective: to speed up the delivery of infrastructure by removing unnecessary complexity and delay from the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.

As noble Lords will know, Clause 6 was originally introduced to provide flexibility at the acceptance stage by allowing the Planning Inspectorate—PINS—on behalf of the Secretary of State to request minor changes to applications. It also introduced a new form of words at the acceptance test, requiring PINS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to determine that an application was

“suitable to proceed to examination”

before it could be accepted. This would have replaced the existing test, which is for the application to be of a “satisfactory standard”.

Although a decision not to accept an application at the acceptance stage is rare, the uncertainty that this may occur has contributed towards the growing delays at the pre-application stage. Clause 6 intended to address this in two ways: first, by reducing the risk of a decision not to accept an application by PINS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, by inserting a discretionary power for PINS to delay a final decision while applicants remedied minor issues; and secondly, by making it clear that the acceptance test should focus on whether an application is suitable to be examined.

Since that time, the Government have proposed more radical steps to streamline the system. In future, guidance for applicants will support them in their approach to engagement and consultation on national infrastructure projects. The Government also published a consultation on changes to consultation guidance over the summer.

Although Clause 6 was intended to speed up the system and provide greater certainty, feedback from the sector throughout the Bill’s passage has made it clear that these changes risk doing the opposite. There are concerns that the change of language on the acceptance test is unclear and subjective. One concern is that it may require PINS to routinely interrogate whether there has been sufficient agreement on key issues. There are also concerns that the acceptance test will be too vague and open to interpretation. There are justified concerns that this could lead to inconsistent decisions or even higher barriers to entry of the system. Equally, there are concerns that the new process whereby PINS could request minor changes to applications before they were accepted may be routinely used by PINS to delay applications, rather than being used on rare occasions to assist applications that would otherwise fall.

That is why I am moving amendments that listen to and seek to address those concerns. They restore the original, clear test for acceptance, requiring applications to be of a “satisfactory standard”. They remove the power to delay acceptance decisions through requests for further information and they strip out the consequential provisions that would otherwise support or reference these now removed powers. These changes are simple, targeted and effective. They preserve clarity, reduce uncertainty and ensure that the acceptance stage remains focused on what it should be: assessing whether an application is complete, clear and ready to move forward in statutory timeframes, not interrogating whether every issue related to the project has been resolved.

Although we want applications to be well developed at the acceptance stage, it is not right or realistic to aim for consensus or agreement between all parties at this stage of the process. At the acceptance stage, we want application documents to meet the required standards and we want applicants to be well prepared for the upcoming examination. This means having an awareness of the issues likely to arise and using pre-application to develop a high-quality application, but it does not mean that PINS needs to see that all issues have been resolved.

I can be very clear and say that we remain absolutely committed to high-quality applications being accepted into the NSIP regime. However, in the light of feedback, we no longer think that these select provisions in Clause 6 support achieving that.

PINS will still have tools available to request that applicants address clear gaps, correct deficiencies or provide additional information early on in the process, through either Section 51 advice prior to submission or making procedural decisions during the pre-examination stage. These mechanisms allow for clarification and improvements to documentation, but without creating uncertainty or additional process for applications which meet the acceptance criteria.

These technical amendments are pro-growth, pro-delivery and pro-certainty. They reflect what we have heard from noble Lords and the sector, and they align with the broader reforms we have already made. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting them.

Government Amendments 17 and 19 introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to publish reasons for deciding not to accept a development consent order application at the acceptance stage and clarify the point in the process when a legal challenge against such a decision can be brought. These amendments respond directly to concerns raised in Committee by noble Lords from across the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, who rightly highlighted the importance of and need for transparency and accountability in the early stages of the nationally significant project regime. A transparent process holds everyone to account, and applicants should be reassured that this amendment removes the risk of arbitrary or opaque decision-making.

While I disagree with the position that our pre-application consultation changes will create greater uncertainty in the system or allow poorer-quality applications to progress further, I am in favour of shining a light on the decision-making process and ensuring that the system is as transparent as possible. In other words, we are putting our money where our mouths are. The Planning Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to notify the applicant of their reasons when they decide not to accept a DCO application. At present, and in line with its openness policy, PINS, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, already publishes reasons for its decisions not to accept a DCO application. However, as noble Lords noted, there is no statutory obligation to do so. These amendments aim to improve the legislation to address this gap.

The amendments align the acceptance stage with the principles already embedded in Section 116 of the Planning Act 2008, which requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons when refusing development consent. The amendments ensure that applicants, stakeholders and the wider public can understand why and on what basis a decision has been made not to accept an application, supporting the integrity of the NSIP system. This is a principled response to concerns raised in Committee, and I hope it shows that we are listening carefully to noble Lords’ concerns about how our changes impact the system as a whole. I therefore commend this amendment to the House and urge noble Lords to support its inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened in Committee to the concerns that were raised about the acceptance process. I am pleased that there has been a rethink. The changes proposed in the amendments are not opposed by these Benches.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have before us the Government’s latest set of amendments to Clause 6—or should I say what used to be Clause 6 before the Government took a pair of legislative shears to it? This clause as originally drafted, as we have heard from the Minister, would have changed the test for when an application for a development consent order is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. The Government now appear to have decided that their proposal was, in fact, unnecessary, perhaps even unworkable, so we are back to the status quo: the clear, objective test that ensures that applications are accepted only when they meet the proper standards of completeness and adequacy. Thank goodness for that. The test protects everyone: developers, communities and the integrity of the process. It ensures clarity at the gateway stage, not confusion. I thank the Minister for making these changes to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

As a consequence, I am conscious that we will get properly into EDPs in Part 3, and I do not anticipate that we will do that until sometime on Wednesday or next week. So the timing may not be right but, if I am not satisfied, although I might not press it today, I may consider other mechanisms for this to be considered before the Bill gets Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is right to raise this as an issue of importance. Equally, she pointed to the fact that the impact and effect of EDPs will be discussed at more length when we discuss Part 3. Although EDPs do have a significant part to play in any NSIP consenting regime, the essence of this is about EDPs. Therefore, I hope we can look to a further debate on the whole issue of EDPs when we come to Part 3 later on Report.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing forward Amendment 21. Ensuring that planning consent adequately considers environmental protections is vital and must not be overlooked. However, we are clear, and indeed passionate in our conviction, that the implementation of environmental delivery plans in their current form is deeply problematic. As drafted, the policy risks riding roughshod over our current environmental regime. We must also not forget the interests of farmers and land managers, who are, after all, the principal stewards of our natural environment. My noble friend Lord Roborough will speak in more detail on this topic and develop our position further from Committee in the coming days. My noble friend Lady Coffey is right to highlight how a local environmental delivery plan will interact with a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Government must be clear on how this will work in practice and what they intend to consider when reviewing the impact of these projects.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I forgot a sentence in my contribution. I should have said that what we were informed of the other day completely explains how the Bill has been drafted. If it had been the Secretary of State for Defra definitively doing this, a lot of the clauses would not be needed, with the exception of compulsory purchase powers. I tabled this amendment in anticipation of raising the issue at this point.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches totally agree with the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because the depth and range of the changes encompassed in this Bill are significant and substantial. Throughout the Bill are references to the regulatory changes that will be made in secondary legislation; therefore, it is vital to retain understanding by the communities that are going to be affected and to help them with transparency on what the Government are doing to keep them on side rather than in complete opposition, at every turn. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, proposed, there is super-affirmative secondary legislation, the details of those changes could be properly scrutinised in draft form and then through the affirmative process. That seems an important route to take.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this and hope that the Government Benches, for once in this Bill, as we approach the end, will give us the affirmative nod.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, we support these amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Coffey. I will start with Amendment 356 in the name of my noble friend.

I am sure it was not lost on the Minister that, when she informed your Lordships that the Secretary of State for MHCLG would be the directing and reporting SoS for Natural England on the nature restoration funds and EDPs, there was a huge collective intake of breath. What a sigh of relief it was this morning to hear that this had been reconsidered. I would be most grateful if the Minister could indicate the circumstances under which it may not be the SoS for Defra, as she mentioned earlier.

The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, Amendments 351A and 351B, seek to ensure that the super-affirmative procedure is adhered to for any regulations to amend existing acts or assimilated law under Section 89(2). A super-affirmative procedure would result in both Houses having the opportunity to comment on proposals put forward by the Minister and to recommend refinements before amendments are tabled in their final form. I am sure that all noble Lords are of the firm belief that scrutiny of legislation and delegated powers are important principles and a staple of any democratic system. I therefore very much welcome the spirit of the amendments and look forward to the Government’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

However, I fear that some elements of the Bill, such as the enhanced powers for Natural England, will slow planning down, and I remain very worried about the resourcing of planning departments faced by so many changes and rules. Can the Minister head off the blockage that this amendment puts on the commencement of the Bill by listing the provisions that will speed things up, alongside those provisions that will lead to further delay, and convince me and this Committee that the net effect of the Bill is very positive, as the Government have claimed? I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, SME builders play a very important role in the housebuilding sector of the country because they are able to build on small sites that often need to be redeveloped or are in villages or small townships. We need to encourage SME builders, because they add variety to the range of housebuilders that we rely on in this country. It does seem that, throughout this Bill, there has been too much emphasis on the major house developers—on the basis, I guess, that they are the only source of the very large numbers of housing units that the country requires.

I know that throughout the Bill the Government have attempted to support SMEs, although I am not sure that that has been sufficient. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has important points to make about SMEs. As always in planning, it is the balance—between encouraging SMEs, maybe at the expense of some of the regulations regarding environment, and relying too heavily on the major housebuilders, which will be able to cope with the growing need for consideration of environmental responsibilities. I look forward to what the Government are going to say about this; encouraging SME builders is really important.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are nearly there. I thank all noble Lords from across the House for their contributions to the Bill. Over long and often intricate debates, sometimes stretching well into the night, your Lordships have engaged with candour, with insight and with seriousness befitting the weight of these issues. The cross-party spirit of scrutiny and the diligence shown in Committee has, I believe, genuinely strengthened our deliberations.

Amendment 361, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is sound and reasonable. I shall not detain the Committee with another extended rehearsal of why Part 3 is, in our view, both damaging and unnecessary. But let me be clear: despite the Government’s determination to plough ahead with this part of the Bill, the opposition to it will only crystallise further on Report. Part 3 needs to go. At the very least, there must be an independent oversight of its administration. Without that, the concerns raised in Committee will only deepen.

The two thoughtful amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe are practical and considered proposals that go right to the heart of the issues we have debated throughout Committee. Amendment 363 would ensure that the Secretary of State updates all national policy statements before the Act can be commenced. This is vital; out-of-date national policy statements do not provide the clarity or certainty required for developers, planners or communities.

Meanwhile, Amendment 364 would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes an analysis of how each section of the Bill will affect the speed of the planning process and construction before any provisions are commenced. If the central purpose of the Bill is, as Ministers insist, to accelerate planning and speed up delivery, it is only fair to ask how it will achieve that objective in practice. Will it, for example, make any real progress towards the former Deputy Prime Minister’s target of 1.5 million new homes, a promise which, under this Government, looks ever more distant as housebuilding rates continue to decline?

I conclude by returning to the point that I made at the start of Committee. This Bill does not go far enough. It makes adjustments to processes, to roles, to fees and to training. But it leaves untouched the fundamental framework of planning—the very framework that needs serious, bold reform if we are to unlock the scale of housebuilding that this country so urgently requires. We now hear rumours of a second planning Bill to come. If that is true, what your Lordships’ House has been asked to consider is not reform but merely a prelude.

The Government have missed an opportunity with this Bill. They had the chance to set a clear vision for the planning system that delivers for communities, supports growth and tackles the housing crisis head on. Instead, they have brought forward a piecemeal piece of legislation more about tinkering at the edges than about grasping the real challenge. The Government have chosen to use up their remaining political capital on Part 3 rather than building more homes, and the Minister will soon realise that she and her department have wasted their energy on this Bill.

I repeat my thanks to all the staff in the House: the doorkeepers, the technical staff and Hansard have all had to work very hard on nights when we have sat late on this Bill, and I thank them very much for that.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not completely in tune with my noble friend Lady Coffey, for which I hope she will forgive me. While I agree that maintenance and repairs are essential and should not be held up in any way, I urge caution about some internal changes.

In recent years, a minimalistic approach has gained popularity. In the case of grade 2 listed buildings, this may mean ripping out features of historic importance and changing floor levels, ruining the proportions and character of beautiful, old buildings. While I acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck, as sometimes, with modern living, removing a wall or making small changes can be beneficial, I would urge that this is not done without oversight.

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that buildings of 1850 and before receive pretty much automatic listing. However, there are many lovely houses that are built after this, especially Victorian houses from 1850 to 1900, and they do not qualify because they are not considered special. They have no real protection. Even where those houses fall in a conservation area, it will mean that only the façade is preserved.

We are losing internal features of many historically interesting buildings. We need to put a brake on this, because once gone, we will never get them back.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the whole purpose of listed building legislation is to ensure the integrity of the listed structure. The requirement to apply for listed building consent is in order to protect the building from inappropriate changes which would compromise the listing. Many people in civic society care deeply about retaining and protecting listed buildings. As listed building applications are free, as we debated on an earlier day in Committee, that helps those who own listed buildings—there is no cost to it. Heritage planning officers know that some buildings need a fundamental change of use if they are not to lie empty and decay. That is okay, as long as it goes through a listed building consent application.

I know that these are large changes, but I will give one example. In my own town, there is a grade 2* listed building which is a former united reformed chapel—there are lots of great methodist, congregational or united reform chapels in the north. It was altered to become an Indian restaurant, allegedly the largest in the world, with room for 1,000 people. Subsequent alterations to the access, inevitably with lots of stairs to reach the front, were given permission, but the listed building consent application enabled local people to know that a treasured building was not being changed without the appropriate permissions. Even if such changes are relatively minor in comparison to the structure as a whole, constant minor changes could nevertheless add up to a big change that would not be appropriate and compromise the integrity of the listing.

As your Lordships can perhaps tell from the comments I have made, I am not a supporter of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Coffey raises an interesting issue on exemption for listed buildings for internal repairs and renovations. I understand the desire for a lightening of the regulatory burden and that this a probing amendment, but there is also a need for balance. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, together these amendments embrace both print and digital distribution, meaning that councils can maximise transparency, strengthen their relationships with local media and fulfil their statutory obligations more effectively. A modernised system would serve residents better, support journalism where it is most needed and ensure that public notices achieve their purpose in today’s media ecosystem. Noble Lords will notice that I have gone to some lengths to establish that these notices should be placed in quality outlets. I have done so by requiring regulation by IPSO and Impress and requiring that they have a substantial local presence. There may be other and better ways of doing this but, at the end of the day, we are asking councils to exercise their own judgment as to how best to get this information out to their local population. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am amazed that no other Members of your Lordships’ House want to speak about local news and newspapers. I broadly agree with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is absolutely right that the question we have to ask ourselves is: with the sad decline, as I see it, of printed local news, how best do we make sure that important public notices, as defined in legislation, that are currently placed only in printed news outlets, get a greater reading and more information about them spread by including them in reputable or quality online news outlets?

I agree with the noble Lord that it should be both, because a number of people still read a paper version of a local newspaper. I am amazed that there are people where I live—they contact me—who read these public notices and ask, “What on earth is going on here?”, even though they are printed in font size 6 or 7, so you need a magnifying glass to read them. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has considered that public notices in the print media are very tightly printed, and how they can be accessible online. Sometimes, you get a whole page of public notices. I generally agree that we have to do something to make sure that more people have access to important information.

My understanding is that currently there is a public notice portal—public notices are gathered from the print media and put on to this portal. It would be interesting to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is thinking about enabling councils, through legislation, to choose whether to publish directly on to that public portal.

Generally, I more or less support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have to have reform and your Lordships’ House and others have considered this in detail, so the question is how we set about it. With those remarks, I look forward to other comments on this group of amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas highlight and reaffirm the importance of local news publishers. Increasingly, these are online, but not always. Some areas still have quite successful newspapers that have print runs, sometimes daily but now often weekly, but this differs in local areas, so I think that local authorities are best placed to decide what medium they use for advertising all things planning.

On this side of the Committee, we support the existence of local news publishers across the United Kingdom. As we have heard, they serve as an important conduit between local people and their authorities and are crucial for upholding community engagement and local democracy, values which I hope all noble Lords will join me in supporting. Indeed, the importance of local news publishers is even more significant when we consider it in context of important planning and development decisions. Local people are those most affected by such decisions and it is important that their voices are heard and meaningfully listened to. Local news publishers play a vital role in making sure both that local people are represented and that the relevant information is disseminated to them. I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and I look forward to hearing how they will be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

209B: Clause 105, page 147, line 8, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment relates to removing—or “disregarding”, to use the legislative term—hope value from recreational land that is to be purchased for public use.

The principle of hope value was debated at length and in detail during consideration of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in your Lordships’ House. It was agreed by the Government of the time that hope value could be disregarded by acquiring authorities for a number of purposes—including for schools, for example. However, hope value for public recreational uses was not included in the list of categories where hope value could be disregarded.

So Amendments 209B and 209C in my name seek to add the disregarding of hope value by acquiring authorities into the legislation. The reason for that is fairly straightforward and obvious. On a previous day in Committee, we had a debate on the importance of recreational land. My noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a strong case for better planning and more openness to planning applications for sporting use. These two amendments seek to add to that.

The importance of the availability of public recreational land cannot be overstated. In days gone by, children could go out of their front door and play in the street without risk. Now that is not possible because of the obvious influx in terms of every household having a car. So, in order for them to play outside, children have to be taken somewhere. If there are not enough “somewheres” to go to—somewhere to kick a ball in a local recreation area; a park, somewhere to go and walk round a lake; or somewhere to play on playing equipment that is provided—it is a huge loss to the development of young people.

Sport, such as the World Athletics Championships—I am an athletics fan, although I could not get to Tokyo—is really important to this country, so it is important that all children have opportunities for play. If local authorities wish to extend the use of recreational areas, it is best if the cost of that land is not added to by hope value.

Those two simple amendments have the same purpose: to enable local authorities to buy land for recreational use without hope value attached to it. I look forward to hearing about the other amendments in this group, and will respond to them when I reply to the Minister. With those short but, I hope, strong messages showing that this is an important issue, I beg to move.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 210 and 211 in my name and Amendment 227G in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I refer the Committee to my register of interests, as I have previously disclosed on this Bill.

When we say that the Conservative Party is under new management, we mean it. We are rightly proud of much of the work that went into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, but we are also clear about areas where improvement is needed. I have tabled Amendment 210 to address one such issue, an issue that sits uncomfortably with our core principles of property rights and fair compensation. We believe deeply in the right of individuals to own property, and that such ownership should not be disturbed lightly. When it is, compensation must be fair and transparent and reflect the true value of what is being lost. That includes hope value.

Hope value is not a vague or abstract notion; it is a well-established component in the valuation of land and property, used not only in sales but in inheritance tax assessments and a wide range of commercial transactions. It reflects the possibility that land might in future obtain planning permission for a more valuable use. It is the very element that allows developers and others to bring forward land for development, persuading reluctant landowners to sell by recognising the future potential of their land.

To disregard hope value is to ignore how the market works. It risks undermining confidence in the land market and creating new barriers to development rather than removing them. The valuation methodologies underpinning hope value are well understood, professionally governed and economically rational. They are consistent with option valuations in financial markets, although I am not sure they go so far as to use the Black-Scholes option pricing model.

If a site has no realistic prospect of future development, its hope value will naturally be nil or negligible. However, where a site has a reasonable expectation of future change in use, reflected in prices agreed between buyers and sellers, we must ask why the Government or local authorities should be entitled to disregard that. In doing so, they risk ignoring market signals and distorting resource allocation. If the market values a piece of land as having the future potential for residential development but the authority wants to use it for a different, potentially less efficient use, that should prompt reflection, not concealment.

In a helpful Written Answer following Second Reading, the Minister set out the intended application of these provisions. That response included reference to land for educational and health purposes but also to housing, and not necessarily affordable housing. That gives little comfort. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has moved her Amendment 209B, which seeks to expand this to recreational facilities. Needless to say, we do not support that.

We are told that the powers will be used to support affordable housing schemes, but in practice the drafting is broad, the safeguards are weak, and I see no mechanism that protects landowners should the purpose of the CPO change after acquisition. Could the Minister clarify? Would these provisions still apply if the land were no longer used for the original purpose stated in the CPO? Clear guidance—or, better still, an amendment to the Bill—could help to avoid costly litigation in the years to come.

The Minister’s letter also cited examples where removing hope value might help to bring forward certain sites, such as brownfield land where viability is an issue, infill plots, and allocated sites that have not yet come forward, but that analysis does not hold. If viability truly is an issue, the hope value will already be low or nil, and on infill or allocated sites it is not the price that delays development but the length and complexity of the planning process and the delays caused by responses from statutory consultees and agencies.

I hope I have persuaded the Committee that removing hope value does not unlock land or accelerate housing delivery. On the contrary, it undermines property rights, weakens trust in the planning system and may ultimately deter landowners from bringing land forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Lord that reassurance this afternoon. I am sure that he will understand that that is not included in the Bill at the moment—he may want to consider something on that later—but I understand the reason that he is saying it. We have, however, said very clearly that there will be the possibility for the private sector to contribute to EDPs. We are encouraging our colleagues in Natural England to develop that further.

Amendment 325, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Hodgson, would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is in use for the grazing of animals or is high-quality agricultural land. As I have just set out, there is an extremely high bar for the compulsory purchase powers under the NRF, with the Secretary of State having to approve any use of these powers. As I said in my response to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, there is a clear need to ensure that CPO is available, albeit with this very high bar. The use or future use of land will of course be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State, and I set out earlier this afternoon the consideration in both the land-use framework and the NPPF that land in other use must be considered before resorting to agricultural land. The Secretary of State will take that into consideration when considering whether to allow the CPO, and will ensure that sensible choices are made that align with the Government’s wider objectives, not least in respect of food security, which is a discussion we have had many times in your Lordships’ House. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Amendment 227G, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, relates to the use of compulsory purchase powers and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. It seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a report assessing whether the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights are adequately protected in the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities.

The power to compulsorily acquire a person’s land is a draconian power which engages the ECHR and raises questions of common-law fairness; I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred to that himself. A fundamental principle of the compulsory purchase process is that the confirming authority should be sure that the purposes for which a compulsory purchase power is proposed justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. Acquiring authorities must demonstrate to the confirming authority that such an interference is so justified. When making their decision on whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for each individual CPO, the confirming authority must always give consideration to the provisions of Article 1 and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the ECHR and the impact of the proposed CPO on the individuals affected.

The compulsory purchase process also enables the exchange of written representations and the holding of inquiries and hearings into objections conducted by an independent inspector, reporting to the Secretary of State, whose decision is subject to legal challenge to uphold the rights enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR. When justifying their CPOs, the Government guidance on compulsory purchase is clear that acquiring authorities should address the potential harm to private rights and how the impacts on human rights from the respective order have been considered. The compulsory purchase process already provides protections to the rights of individuals affected by compulsory purchase and, for these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very detailed response to this group of amendments, but I am rather disappointed that the Government did not feel able to add a public recreational use to land that is to be disregarded for hope value by acquiring authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I briefly remind the Committee, and also the Minister, that much of this could be avoided by implementing the land use framework approach to land use, which is a method and tool intended entirely at various scales—national, local, regional and on individual land holdings—to balance all these competing demands for land. I am very much looking forward to it coming out, hopefully before this Christmas, but noble Lords have heard my Christmas speech before.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has made the point that we on these Benches would wish to make.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 214 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and thank him for bringing forward what is, I believe, a thoughtful and timely intervention. The amendment seeks to ensure that the Government provide annual updates on agricultural land lost as a result of the Bill, along with any consequent risks to the UK’s food and water security.

We have heard, both in and beyond this Chamber, growing concern about the pressures being placed on agricultural land—particularly the cumulative effect of development, including infrastructure and renewable energy projects, on land that has long supported our domestic food production. This is not an abstract concern. Recent debates around the siting of solar farms on high-grade best and most versatile agricultural land have brought this issue into sharp relief. Although renewable energy is vital for our long-term sustainability, it must not come at the cost of food security.

Food security is a strategic national interest. The experience of recent global shocks, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, has reminded us just how important it is to maintain a strong, resilient domestic food supply. Once high-quality agricultural land is lost to development, it is not recovered. We must therefore be careful stewards of this finite resource, particularly the best and most versatile land, as my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out.

My noble friend’s amendment rightly presses the Government to monitor and report on these risks with due seriousness. The principle of ensuring that we do not undermine our food and water security through planning reforms is one that I believe all sides of this House can support. If I may provide some reassurances to my noble friends, global food production has grown at 0.7% on average per annum for decades, in line with global population growth. That is on stable acres, with lost acres in some regions of the world balanced by other regions, such as Brazil. Acres of land that are lost in this country to development are most likely being replaced by the Cerrado, and possibly even rainforest, being cleared in Brazil. There is a serious leakage issue when we lose our agricultural land. On that, I highlight my register of interests, including as a shareholder of SLC Agrícola in Brazil.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment and to hearing how the Government intend to safeguard these critical national interests as the Bill progresses. I also support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the land use framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have added their names to my amendment; they both apologise for being unable to be present in the Committee today.

This amendment would introduce a code of practice for compulsory purchase. It is widely accepted that, provided it is carried out appropriately, the state should have the right to acquire people’s homes and businesses in the interests of the nation. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that this amendment will not reopen the whole debate around that issue—I hope that buys me a few extra minutes.

Compulsory purchase was established on three assumptions: that it would be a quicker way to acquire land in the public interest; that it would make it possible to do that at a cost below market rates; and, importantly, that it would be a last resort if a voluntary sale could not be agreed—or so the theory went. However, anyone who is familiar with the process and practical realities of compulsory purchase will know that it is not at all quick or cost effective, with timelines running into years and with the costs of public inquiries, surveyors, lawyers and other actors on both sides.

It is widely acknowledged by professional agents—regardless of which side they work for—that, contrary to the original theory of compulsory purchase, the costs are always considerably higher if the party is being forced to sell rather than doing so on a voluntary basis. A consensus is often achievable, but only if the acquirer’s agent works with the seller rather than acting, frankly, as a bully boy for the Government.

The related issue of hope value was addressed in an earlier group. I will not cover it again beyond saying that the ability to compel property to be given up—I will not use the word “sold”—at well below its market value is, of course, attractive to those with the compulsory power but brutally costly and disruptive to those on the receiving end.

So how does this work in practice? The actual exercise of compulsory purchase powers has been devolved by the Government to a growing number of agents. These powers enable the agents to force people to leave their homes, to give up their businesses and their land, and to do so below market prices. Agents receiving these aggressive powers are commercial entities governed by financial and time-related performance targets.

Perhaps inevitably, these incentives and the imbalance of power between government-backed agents and ordinary citizens have created a real, growing problem around the behaviour of agents acting for the acquiring government authorities. Agents’ ability to compel a sale means all too often that they ignore normal conveyancing practices and refuse to recognise the justifiable concerns and interests of those whom they are forcing to sell, who are all but powerless and cannot realistically afford to challenge them. Noble Lords should be under no illusion: the lack of proper constraints means that a culture has widely grown up of the strong-arming and intimidation of those who are forced to sell by government-appointed agents.

There is also the profiteering practice that agents and authorities are sometimes shy of talking about, some of which has been referred to by others, of the acquiring authority then selling on the land for commercial purposes as a whole or in parts at full market value and pocketing the profits—with the agents, of course, paid to arrange the disposals.

To make the situation more real to anyone struggling to believe what I am saying or who is not involved in compulsory purchase, here are three quick live cases that I am aware of and, for clarity, in which I have no interests to declare. In the first case, both sides of a transaction had already agreed voluntarily to sell one field and give a right of access over an adjacent one. But at exchange the agent for the acquirer presented out of the blue a plan that included further land that was not part of the agreement. When this was pointed out, the acquirer’s agent immediately cut off communication and went to use compulsory purchase on all the land.

In the second case, a farmer was approached by an infrastructure provider for initial surveys. As the land was designated ecologically sensitive, he instructed an agent to prepare a bespoke licence agreement to give access to the provider. The infrastructure provider abruptly cut communications partway through the drafting process with no reason given and served a compulsory notice for access. The notice, and the developer’s subsequent trespass, then went on the wrong property and was not subject to discussion. Legal proceedings followed, which were inevitably costly for both sides and created substantial delays.

Case 3 is a simple quote from one forced seller:

“The bypass went straight through the middle of our farm taking 36 acres and all the buildings. Eight years after the bulldozers went in, we are still owed £136,000. When that is eventually paid, we will have to pay capital gains tax (at the new increased rate) on that compensation. How can it be fair that the government can destroy our farm and pay us in return a fraction of what it’s worth? … capital projects need to be built for the benefit of the nation, but surely in a decent, fair country, those concerned should be compensated with 100% of the value of the asset taken and paid before the land is occupied”.


I remind noble Lords that they were still waiting eight years later. I underline that there are many similar stories across this country.

Finally, I cannot resist mentioning HS2. Even on the northern section, which was cancelled two years ago, farmers still have barren strips of land through the middle of their farms, commandeered by HS2 but still not yet handed back. Matters are made worse with HS2 by the splitting of responsibilities between the Treasury and Department for Transport, with neither taking responsibility for the poor behaviour of agents. There are cases where farmers are not being paid for years and householders, having been given three months’ notice to get out, then not being paid for up to nine months. As one affected party put it—this is a different case—

“7 years after they unilaterally took our land we are still waiting for payment at just 70% of the value of the land and the matter is now being dragged through the courts”.


So what rules are there? The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has published baseline standards that it considers should apply to people acting for the acquiring authorities and the claimants. While I urge the Minister to look at and publicly endorse these standards, RICS has jurisdiction over its members only—not, for instance, over a non-member profession or a project management team.

Furthermore, crucially, these and other existing guidance rules do not cover two things that loom large in practical compulsory purchase experience: defining and preventing bullying tactics, and failure by agents or the acquiring bodies themselves to make prompt payment when due. We cannot go on in denial of this problem. That is why this amendment proposes the introduction of a proper code of practice for compulsory purchase: to negotiate and agree values et cetera in good faith, with the possibility of compulsion genuinely as the last resort rather than the starting point, and to pay full value in advance of taking possession, as is systematically the case in the commercial world.

I pose two questions to the Minister. First, does she share my belief that no one should be expected to give up their house, land or business only to find themself with no money to buy another house due to non-payment by the acquirer, or to have part or all of their business forcibly removed from them before payment? Secondly, does she agree with me that the Government’s announcement that they will issue financial penalties to persistently late-paying businesses should include penalties on late-paying agents and other authorities when exercising the powers of compulsory purchase on behalf of the Government?

This amendment, by making the conduct of compulsory sequestration of land subject to an agreed code of practice, would provide a check on the current abuses and the practical problems that I have outlined. As noble Lords will know, I am always concerned not just about our making laws that make us feel happy but with enforcement, and it will therefore come as no surprise that part two of the amendment addresses this squarely.

I look forward to the Minister’s reply to my two questions, and I ask the Government to accept this simple but urgently needed and positive amendment, particularly before handing out additional compulsory purchase powers to Natural England. Finally, I should mention that this is very likely to come back on Report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, before I introduce my amendment in this group, I say that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has raised some very challenging aspects of compulsory purchase, particularly that of late payment. I will wait for the Minister to respond to that. There is no purpose in having this balancing act, which the noble Lord explained, between individuals and the state if the state does not play fairly by the rules.

Amendment 219 in my name and cosigned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is on the face of it quite radical. In fact, however, all it would do is put pressure on housebuilders to fulfil the planning permissions they have obtained. Planning consents already have a standard three-year period in which to begin construction. Where development is seen to be more challenging, a longer period of five years is sometimes available. Those time periods are not unreasonable. If a housebuilder is seeking to develop a plot of land, they have three years in which to implement or at least to start construction.

Members on all sides know that there is a desperate need for more housing. All political parties have made the case for more housing, in different numbers per annum, but this is not about the numbers game; it is the building of them that is important. The ONS has estimated that there are already 1.2 million outstanding permissions for housing units, as yet unbuilt. I will not use the term “land banking” because there are plenty of arguments out there, and investigations have been made by public lobby groups to point out that land banking is too broad a term for what is going on. Obviously, the reasons are quite varied. Some depend on national and local economic outlooks; nevertheless, 1.2 million units have not been built when we need new homes.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 167, which stands in my name. It would require future neighbourhood plans to be consistent with national planning policy, in particular the National Planning Policy Framework. Neighbourhood plans, once made, form part of the statutory development plan in accordance with which planning decisions must be made, unless there are other material considerations indicating to the contrary.

Typically, for their first five years, neighbourhood plans attract the protection of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Even if the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d)(ii) applies, the proposed development is consistent with the NPPF and there is a lack of a five-year housing land supply, a development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan will fail to get permission, so they carry real force in the plan-making and development control system. The problem with this is that, under the so-called basic conditions against which new neighbourhood plans are examined, a neighbourhood plan has only to have regard to national policy, not be consistent with it. There is a world of difference between the two. I am sure that the Minister will have regard to everything that we say in this debate, but I dare say that not everything in her response will be consistent with it. There is a world of difference.

Neighbourhood plans of course have a role to play in what my noble friend Lord Jamieson called the “pyramid” of planning policy, in giving effect to national and district policy, but they should not be able to undermine it—yet that can happen currently. From my experience at the coalface of planning decision-making, as an advocate in planning proceedings, I know that happens with real regularity. For example, a neighbourhood plan can have regard to NPPF policies on greenfield development but then impose more restrictive criteria, making it harder than national policy envisages for developers to get permission on greenfield sites. Neighbourhood plans can self-impose a housing requirement for their area that is not consistent with the NPPF’s standard method for assessing local housing need, thereby downplaying local needs within their area and stifling necessary growth.

With the greater direction on planning policy from central government under this Government—something with which I have more sympathy than perhaps some other colleagues on this side of the House—the risk of neighbourhood plans undermining national policy is even greater. This tends, in my experience, to be particularly prevalent in those areas where parish councils or other neighbourhood planning authorities are well resourced: areas which are wealthy, where the affordability gap is perhaps greatest and where the need for new affordable homes is particularly severe. It is in those kinds of areas where neighbourhood plans tend to have the most deleterious effect on delivering necessary growth.

My Amendment 167 would eliminate this issue by putting neighbourhood plans in their proper place in the hierarchy of planning policy—not letting the tail wag the dog, as so often happens. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley that bringing Section 98(3) of LURA into effect would also help in relation to national development management policies, but that would still leave a lacuna in relation to the NPPF. I urge the Government to consider this proposal very carefully. I also endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Jamieson on his Amendments 150ZA and 150ZB.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 185M, which proposes a vital duty to ensure due consideration of neighbourhood plans. I am delighted that, in discussions on the Bill, we are spending time considering the importance of neighbourhood plans, because they represent the heart and soul of local communities’ aspirations for their areas. They are often painstakingly developed by local people, often without much in the way of expert advice, and the plans reflect the needs, the character and the priorities they want for their areas. However, without adequate statutory backing, these plans risk being marginalised by larger-scale development decisions.

If adopted, Amendment 185M would achieve two important outcomes. The first would be that a planning authority, including the Secretary of State, would have to give due consideration to any neighbourhood plan or, indeed, any draft neighbourhood plan when making a decision on an application for planning consent. If that happens, the voices of local residents, as expressed through their neighbourhood plans, will not just be there but be factored into major development decisions. Maybe that is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and others in this group of amendments.

The other outcome of the amendment would be that the Secretary of State would permit a variation to a neighbourhood plan only if the variation were clearly justifiable and unlikely to compromise the overall intention of the neighbourhood plan that has been proposed in a clear manner. The amendment would safeguard the integrity of neighbourhood plans, preventing arbitrary or poorly considered alterations that could undermine their community-driven objectives.

I suppose that, in the end, it depends how we look at planning. We have had two analogies today: a planning hierarchy from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a pyramid from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and I wonder whether using those images makes us think that the important bit is the apex. I would use a different analogy: our road system. The big NPPF, strategic plans and local plans are like major roads and motorways, but what gets us from one place to another are local lanes and byways—and that is the neighbourhood plans. Those are the ones that matter to people. Once we start thinking of pyramids and hierarchies, I think we tend to think that the top of the pyramid is the important bit, but actually it is the foundations. I have probably said what I need to say about that.

I am in broad agreement with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We went through all of them during the passage of the Levelling-up and Whatever Bill, now an Act. It is important that public bodies are made to assist with plan-making. If you do not, where does that end? The issue that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is trying to get us to think about is that frequently, in my experience, local people engage in planning only when it comes to a practical application on the table for a planning decision on a housing site, a commercial development or whatever it is.

Unfortunately, my starting point is that as a local councillor I often have to say to people that a housing site is already in the local plan and therefore the principle of development has been determined. Often, they will say, “Well, where was our say in this?” I will go through what I and others tried to engage with them and let them know what the proposals were. The difficulty that people often find is that this is a theoretical plan at a strategic level with great big sort of proposals for transport infrastructure, commercial development or housing. It is theoretical, as is local planning, even when it is allocation of sites. People often struggle to engage at that level. In this era of thinking about the creation of strategic planning and local authority local plans, we need to think very carefully about how that information is transmitted to the public.

Amendments in an earlier group on this Bill, probably two or three days ago, were about digital modelling. I think that would bring to life for people land-use planning and the allocation of sites. So that is my only difficulty with the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

The collective impact of all these amendments would create a more integrated and responsive planning system. If we want to put local communities at the heart of engaging with and taking part in responsible decision-making about what happens where they live, neighbourhood planning must be at the heart of that, because it enables proper democratic participation in making decisions about their area for their future. I hope that the Minister will give that a positive nod.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group concern the interaction between spatial development strategies, local plans and the neighbourhood planning system. I absolutely take the point that this must be a coherent system. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the scars on our backs from local plan delivery, we in Stevenage found ourselves in the crazy situation of having had three years of consultation on our local plan and a three-week public inquiry, which is quite unusual, and then having the plan held up for 452 days on a holding direction. That is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about; we have to get over these delays and glitches in the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by this exchange, because the thought had occurred to me that, by introducing a principle of proportionality into the legislation, we would then open the floodgates to contention about what is proportional. The question of JR seems to be immediately rearing its head. Therefore, I cannot see how, rather than simplifying the system, it would not add a layer of complication.

The argument about the CIL in relation to small developments is a different one. There is some merit in that because of the flexibility one needs for small builders. However, that is only part of an ancillary argument to the broader and slightly dangerous argument brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in favour of over-complicating the planning system in the way he suggests.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, proportionality is in the eye of the beholder; it depends on your perspective. These ideas—proportionality, reducing bureaucracy, speeding up small developments and reducing costs—are seen from the perspective of the developer. Those are fair arguments to make, but, equally, if we are to be proportionate, we need to see the other side of the balancing scales: the perspective of those on the receiving end of the development. For example, taking away the importance of bats, badgers or whatever might reduce costs and bureaucracy and speed up development, but it would anger local people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Banner (Con)]

There is a definition in proposed new subsection (4) of the amendment:

“The principle of proportionality in planning means that the nature and extent of information and evidence required to inform the determination of any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts shall be proportionate to the issues requiring determination, having regard to decisions already made … and the extent to which those issues will or can be made subject to future regulation”.


Proposed new subsection (5) then says:

“The Secretary of State may publish guidance”.


It is spelled out and would be eminently capable of being applied.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is about “having regard to”. We have had that debate on other groups.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that everybody would be in favour of this. I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling Amendment 166 and bringing this important issue before the House. The principle of proportionality deserves to stand alone in this debate, for it goes directly to the heart of the speed, efficiency and accuracy of our planning system.

As ever, my noble friend has presented the case with his customary clarity and intellectual weight; I thank him for that. He has shown that this principle is not only desirable, but essential. His amendment would embed proportionality firmly within the planning process, giving decision-makers, applicants, consultees and indeed the courts confidence that less can sometimes be more. It would allow for decision-making that is sharper in focus and public participation that is clearer and more effective.

I accept that this is a technically complicated clause, but it is also a vital one. At its core, it states that the information and evidence required to determine any planning application should be proportionate to the real issues at stake, taking into account decisions already made at the plan-making stage and recognising where issues could be dealt with later, whether through planning conditions, obligations or other forms of regulation. It is important to be clear about what this amendment would not do. It would not dilute or weaken the responsibility of local planning authorities to justify their decisions, particularly when refusing or withholding planning permission. Rather, it would ensure that planning does not become mired in an endless accumulation of unnecessary reports, assessments and duplications that add little value but cause delay and frustration.

That is why this apparently technical definition is in fact deeply needed reform. It would be a practical safeguard against a system that too often risks becoming paralysed by its own complexity. If we are serious about unblocking progress and enabling the timely delivery of new homes—1.5 million in the next three and a half or four years—and, with them, the wider infrastructure and investment our communities require, principles such as this must be at the heart of a modern planning system. The Government would do well to accept this amendment. In doing so, they would signal that they are not just merely managing a process but are serious about reforming it, serious about tackling the barriers that hold us back and serious about delivering the homes and the growth that this country so urgently needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Banner is doing reverse declarations, I should probably just check; I think I have made them at this stage, but just in case, I declare that I am a director of Peers for the Planet, although I speak entirely independently of them on this and on all the amendments I have tabled to the Bill.

It is a pleasure to kick-start this group and speak to Amendment 170. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Parkinson, who, sadly, is unable to speak to this amendment today but has assured me of his continued support despite his absence. I am grateful to all the other noble Lords who have spoken to me of late to support me on this and to the external organisations that have been in touch too.

The amendment has a series of parts to it. First, I will set out the context of why I feel something is necessary before talking through what the amendment seeks to do. The amendment relates to two aspects of planning law where a local authority receives funds through development. These are Section 106, which is part of the planning law that allows councils to negotiate money from developers in exchange for granting planning permission to offset the impact of new development and fund specific improvements in the area, while CIL, the community infrastructure levy, is a charge for infrastructure in the broader area.

For background, I first became interested in support of these forms of investment many moons ago when I worked in London City Hall alongside another noble friend who is sadly not with us, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. It was amazing to see, alongside many other developments across the capital, things that were being delivered through this funding. In particular, I was always struck by the work that was taking place in Vauxhall Nine Elms and the extension to the Northern line, and how that unlocked the wider development in that area.

I was blown away only recently when the Bill started when someone mentioned in passing that, last year, the Home Builders Federation did an analysis in which it calculated that around £8 billion-worth of unspent money is sitting in local authorities across England and Wales. I say that again: £8 billion. I know in today’s age of Monopoly money that may not mean much to some, but it certainly means a hell of a lot to me. Within that, there is money for affordable housing, which could unlock around 11,000 affordable homes, and an estimated £1 billion for highways and roads—I know we have elections next year; let us just dream of all those leaflets where we could have candidates pointing at the potholes being filled. There is £2 billion-worth to go towards schools and education and an estimated £850 million that could go towards recreation and play areas. In the same report, the HBF estimates that

“the total amount of unspent Section 106 contributions has more than doubled”

since the year before, suggesting a growing backlog of undelivered infrastructure. I think everyone would accept that obviously it takes time to deliver and build, but it is worth noting that

“around a quarter of the unspent contributions have been held for more than five years”,

and some councils

“admit to holding on to funds for more than 20 years”.

How did HBF get that information and is it easy for any of us to gather? It is not, and that is another part of the problem. There are, as I am sure the Minister will say, the infrastructure funding statements that each receiving authority has to publish annually. Much of the information is mandatory and some information is advisory, but it could be clearer and more transparent. The statistics that I have used earlier, where there is a breakdown, do not have to be sought through the FoI process, which is what the HBF had go through. The same goes for how long the funds have been held and why there has been a delay. In today’s data age, there is no reason why this information could not be readily accessible and available. 

Turning specifically to the proposed new clause in the amendment, noble Lords will see that it contains a number of parts tackling the challenges I have laid out. The first relates to transparency, and seeks to ensure that the data which is published through the infrastructure funding statement has even more information—information which the local authority will already have—setting out the purpose of the original funding, the amount which has been unspent and the reason for it not being spent. If there is readily accessible information, the public can see what is expected and not have to put in FoIs to understand why it is not happening.

This in itself can help the local authority deliver, but I want to explore what more can be done. The second part relates to delivery. If the government department deems that the local authority has not done enough to attempt to deliver this improvement, the Secretary of State would be able to require an authority to get on with the job, or at least make steps to deliver what has been agreed. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, nodding—I will come to her in a moment, but it is good that I have her support already. This in itself is not radical. It says only that the local authority should be doing what it said it would do. For the public, it would mean additional accountability.

Finally, the third part would require that, if the developer’s funds have not been spent during a previously agreed timeline, the local authority must contact the developer to ensure that it is possible to work together to deliver this service. I did contemplate, when I was drafting this, including another line in the amendment which would effectively mean that, if a local authority had failed to deliver the agreed improvement during the agreed timeline, the funds would be handed back to the developer, as I know has happened in some circumstances. I took it out in the end because, ultimately, I thought that it would be the local communities who would be losing out on the benefit and it would let the local authority off the hook. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would agree with that, given her Amendment 220.

I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my good and noble friend Lord Lansley sat here. This was, I think, touched on two days ago, when we last convened on this Bill. As ever, my noble friend made the customarily brainy observation that, ultimately, this is a contract with the developer. Further, it is something that the National Audit Office looked at in only the last couple of months.

I want to be clear that I am moving this amendment not because I want us to debate the virtue or otherwise of such measures on development. I am not suggesting that we change how these charges are levied, or indeed whether they should be reduced or made higher. Most people would say that we need to be acutely aware of not making development so burdensome and costly that it happens even less than it already is. I am merely trying to find a better way to deliver what is in the existing law.

From every aspect, this seems to me to be an absolute no-brainer. For example, many developers say that they want something like this—they want people to know not just about the development that they have built but that they are contributing something to the community. Local people too want it; rather than the money sitting in a council—perhaps they do not even know about it—and gathering dust in someone else’s account, local people would actually benefit from it.

Some may think that this would put additional pressures on the local authority to deliver when it is, as we all know, facing many pressures. Obviously, we respect everyone who works in a local authority, from the leader down. I just need to look around the Chamber to know that we recognise on all our Front Benches the importance of local authorities. But these funds should be spent as they were intended. It cannot be right, to my mind, that up and down the land £8 billion pounds is sat there when it is meant to be for the people.

Without adequate information, it is not possible to ascertain why this money has not been spent in every location. In some cases, it has been made clear that it is for a multitude of reasons, but there should be an element of pressure on an authority to deliver. If it does not, it should be compelled to go back to the developer to explore what else is possible to make it happen. I am not suggesting that the developer should therefore contribute even more again. The authority should have secured enough to deliver in the first place. It may be that the agreement needs to be revised, or it could be that the development can deliver something in collaboration with the authority, or that the intended amenity is no longer required as previously intended. While that money is in limbo and not being spent, it is not delivering for the people who felt the impact of the original development in the first place.

I start from the position that growth and development are good. We need good-quality homes, more business and the economy to grow. I know some do, but I do not see growth as a bad thing. At the same time that we say that growth is good and we need it, we must say that need people to see the benefit. Yes, there will be more people buying things in shops and milling around, with more money going into the general pot.

Equally, people in those communities will have had some upheaval with the development that was there first. As a result, people may be concerned about the extra demands on local services and that their trains and roads may be busier. At Second Reading, everyone said that they broadly support growth and development. If the Government are serious about changing the public’s views on growth and development then giving communities better visibility of the benefits of that development is essential. Recent polling from Public First, published in the last few days, found that 55% of people generally support development in their area. Some of the reasons for that are that they want to see regeneration, jobs, investment, and more shops and amenities. But by far the biggest reason for people opposing development is concern about pressures on local infrastructure. That is what I am trying to fix.

This amendment is not political—it is certainly not party political. It would help the Government, as they would be able to demonstrate that growth is good and that they are on the side of the people. It would not be onerous because it would not put anything additional on to a developer. It would not stop development; in fact, I genuinely think that it would be good for development and would improve accountability and transparency. Because of that, I want it to be there for people, to deliver what they expect and deserve. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 185K, 185L, 218 and 220 in my name follow on well from the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which these Benches fully support. The noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight the importance of community benefits coming from development and ensuring that they are delivered. The amendments in my name would add to those that the noble Lord has just introduced.

Amendments 185K and 185L would insert new clauses after Clause 52 providing a duty to compel a complete local infrastructure. Amendment 185K seeks to make legally binding agreements associated with development consent orders or SDSs. Community benefits are the elements of a consent order that will be the last stage, almost inevitably, of implementation of a scheme. Without legal enforcement, it is possible for developers to significantly delay that implementation. Amendment 185K would empower local planning authorities to resist such moves and ensure that community benefits are fulfilled.

Amendment 185L would provide a further safeguard for local communities where a developer has signed a Section 106 agreement for the provision of a local amenity. If the amenity has not been built, the relevant local authority will have the power under this amendment to take over that responsibility but, crucially, will not be able to use that land for any other purpose, and neither will the developer. Those amendments relate to development consent orders and SDSs.

Amendments 218 and 220, although they have identical wording, relate to later parts of the Bill concerning compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 218 seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 106, relating to compulsory development orders. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of land value capture. This is a policy concept and a way of raising funds, where public authorities recover the unearned increase in land value, often created by public investment in infrastructure or planning permissions, then reinvest it in public services and projects. This ensures that the benefits of public development—I emphasise that it is public development—are shared with the community, rather than solely accruing to the private landowners. That seems fair to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have already debated some complex topics in Committee and the issue of land value capture certainly continues in that vein.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Yes, it does.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Yes—maybe we need a review of the Committee stage of this Bill.

I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his amendment and agree with the spirit of his proposals. Greater transparency is positive, and most good authorities would have that information readily available. I can say that, for my own council, I could phone up and get a spreadsheet of exactly how much each development has contributed in my ward.

As an ex-chairman of the LGA, I just want to say something in defence of councils and the fact that there is a considerable sum, so to speak, sitting on the balance books. As an ex-leader, I know how difficult it is to get these big projects over the line. Even a good secondary school can cost £25 million or £30 million; you will be reliant on four or five different Section 106 payments for that, you will be waiting for grants, and you will have to get the land. These things can take three, four, five or six years. To go on to the topic of bypasses, that is an entirely different timescale. We should look not just at the quantum of money but at how difficult it is to pull these sums together and get things going.

I come to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, where I think that review might even address some of these timescale issues. The noble Baroness has raised a number of important issues, particularly around the delivery of infrastructure promised through development agreements, the use and protection of land set aside for community purposes and the broader question of how the public might benefit when land values increase sharply. I hope that the Government will reflect seriously on the principles raised and, in that spirit, I want to put a few questions to the Minister, which I hope she might be able to respond to today; if not, perhaps she could come back at a later time.

First, what assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of existing mechanisms, principally Section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, in ensuring that local communities receive the schools, highways, GP surgeries and other facilities promised? Too often, we hear of permissions granted on the basis that there will be improved infrastructure and then, over time, it is slowly whittled away and we find new housing without that infrastructure and communities having to cope with more traffic on the roads, more crowded GP surgeries, schools with portakabins and so forth. If residents see new developments going up without the infrastructure that they were promised, they will lose confidence in the planning system and will therefore fight every single development, which some of us do find. We need reforms that get trust back in the system.

Secondly, does the Minister agree that there is a risk that infrastructure commitments can in practice be watered down or renegotiated, leaving communities without these services?

Thirdly, on land value capture more broadly, does the Minister believe that the current system allows sufficient benefit from rising land values to be shared with the wider public, or does she see scope for reform, as envisaged in Amendment 218?

Fourthly, will the Government commit to reviewing international examples of land value capture—for instance, models used in parts of Europe or Asia—to see whether there are lessons that might be drawn for a UK context?

Finally, how do the Government intend to balance the need to secure fair contributions for infrastructure and community benefit while ensuring that development remains viable and attractive to investors? I appreciate that these are difficult issues, but it is important that we resolve them.

Moving on, Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raises a really important issue. We have a housing crisis and we need to look at all solutions that may resolve it. I commend her for once again placing the needs of young people at the centre of our deliberations. The question before us is a delicate but important one. It concerns whether planning authorities should be permitted to approve high-quality transitional accommodation for young people leaving supported housing or at the risk of homelessness in circumstances where our national space standards would otherwise disallow such provision. The case for doing so is strong. The housing crisis is not abstract; it is a real matter facing the young of today. Too many of them find themselves renting late into life, sofa surfing or returning to the parental home, not through choice but because there are no realistic alternatives. At precisely the stage in life when young people should be gaining independence, putting down roots, building families and contributing to the wider economy, instead they face barriers at every turn.

We are all familiar with the macroeconomic challenges of house prices that have outpaced wages, a lack of genuinely affordable starter homes and, in certain parts of the country, rents which are, frankly, extortionate. That is why the noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of stepping-stone accommodation, a flexible transitional model that can bridge the gap between institutional supported housing and permanent independence.

But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of the amendment, but I sound a note of caution. Our space standards were developed for a good reason. They exist to prevent the return of poor-quality housing, of rabbit-hutch flats, of homes that compromise health, dignity and long-term liveability. If we are to disapply such standards in certain cases, we must do so with clear safeguards in place. So, I urge that, if this amendment is taken forward, it is accompanied by precise definitions, strict planning guidance and a rigorous framework, to ensure that genuine transitional high-quality schemes can benefit from the flexibilities proposed.