Baroness Taylor of Stevenage vs Lord Banner

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Banner

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025

(1 week ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (11 Sep 2025)

Lord Banner (Con)

- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I invite the Minister and her government colleagues to consider, if in my Amendment 167 a requirement for consistency with the NPPF is considered to be too onerous in relation to neighbourhood plans, a middle ground of general conformity. That language was used back in the days of regional spatial strategies; local development plans had to be in “general conformity” with RSSs. It is an established formula that has been considered by the courts already, and it is a stronger direction than “have regard to” but with at least a degree of more minor flex.

I fear that the Minister and her government colleagues overestimate the rigour of the neighbourhood plan examination process. This is not done by independent planning inspectors; it tends to be done by consultants who are in the business of examining neighbourhood plans, so they have a degree of incentive to sign them off. It tends not to involve an oral hearing, being done on paper, and tends to give neighbourhood planning authorities a very wide margin of appreciation in practice. It is a lot easier for neighbourhood plans to depart from national policy in practice than it may appear to be on paper. That is my experience, and I encourage the Government to consider that midway ground between now and Report.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)

- Hansard - -

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. I will take it back and reply to him in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)

- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, I turn to Amendment 166, regarding proportionality in the planning system, ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I thank him for bringing it forward. It seeks

“to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that”

in the planning system

“less can be more”.

We agree with this sentiment. If we are to meet the 1.5 million homes target, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has just outlined, the planning system needs to operate more effectively and with greater certainty. Of course, the problem here is that although the noble Lord described it as reality and pragmatism, unfortunately one man or woman’s reality and pragmatism will be somebody else’s dystopian nightmare, so we have to be a bit careful about how we move forward.

We all know that planning has got much more complex and litigious, which has led many local planning authorities to take a precautionary approach when preparing local plans and dealing with planning applications. This is why we too want to see a more proportionate approach to planning. However—and this is where, unfortunately, we disagree with the noble Lord—we feel that introducing a new statutory principle of proportionality across all of planning is not the way to achieve this. This itself would introduce a new legal test, which risks more opportunities for legal challenge and grounds for disagreements—points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. Instead, we believe it is better to promote proportionality through national planning policy and by looking at specific opportunities to streamline procedures through regulatory reform.

The Bill already includes important reforms to achieve this, including the nationally significant infrastructure projects reforms and the creation of the nature restoration fund. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, issues concerning SME builders and how to support them are under very serious consideration, including the large package of financial support that the Government have already announced, and we will continue to consider what more might be done in that regard. We are also doing much more alongside the Bill—for example, scaling back the role of statutory consultees through our review of those bodies, and examining whether there should be a new medium development category where policy and regulatory requirements would be more proportionate, as we recently set out in our site thresholds working paper. For all the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Banner (Con)

- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the Minister for her comments. It is encouraging that we share the overall objective of proportionate, streamlined decision-making, even if we part company, for now, on how to achieve it.

I would like to come back on a couple of points. On legal risk, the first point made by the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Pinnock, was about the definition—would there be ambiguity regarding what the principle means? I suggest not. It is set out in terms in subparagraph (5), with the ability of the Secretary of State to promote statutory guidance. It may be that the language can be improved, but I encourage the Government to continue the helpful discussions we have had outside this Chamber on whether that risk might be reduced.

In any case, given that the interpretive duty in the principle of proportionality is to interpret all planning laws in a proportionate, pragmatic way, the overall net effect of this amendment would in fact be to reduce legal risk. Because in any judicial review context, if somebody came along arguing for a particularly restrictive, over-precautionary interpretation, the court would have, in neon lights, messaging from Parliament that the court should take a less onerous, less prescriptive approach, which is bound to reduce the overall success rate of judicial reviews in the planning context. So, I suggest that, overall, this would reduce rather than increase legal risk. The stress test of that is the LPDF, which represents SMEs—those developers who would be particularly affected by increased legal costs were they to arise. Its emphatic view—in fact, this is the amendment, of all those before the Committee, it is most emphatic on—is that the amendment would be helpful. So, I will pursue it on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)

- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, one of the great benefits of being in your Lordships’ House is that every day is a school day and you learn something new. I had no idea there was anything like a reverse declaration of interests, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, just made, in saying that he is going to lose out if this amendment is taken into account.

This is a highly technical amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, for his explanations of the background to the case and for setting it in a context which made it a little easier to understand. I am grateful for the amendments around the Hillside Supreme Court judgment.

Amendments 169 and 185SB are technical but important amendments about overlapping consents. Amendment 169 seeks to address the implications of the Hillside judgment in relation to overlapping planning permissions. It seeks in particular to enable the carrying out of a development under an initial permission when an overlapping permission has been implemented, making it physically impossible for the first permission to be carried out.

Amendment 185SB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, focuses on overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders. The Government recognise that the Hillside judgment and subsequent court decisions have caused concerns across the development sector, and the noble Lord was kind enough to send me some of the articles that have been written since, setting out which problems they are causing. It has made it more challenging to use the practice of drop-in permissions to deal with changes in development proposals for plots on large-scale residential and commercial development in response to changing circumstances. There have been concerns about the implications for the implementation of development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects when planning permissions have been used to deal with minor variations.

We want to ensure that large-scale developments, where they need to change, can secure the necessary consents to deal with these changes effectively and proportionately. Unfortunately, we are not persuaded that Amendment 169 is the solution to Hillside for overlapping planning permissions. It is too broad in scope, and we must be absolutely sure that it would not undermine the integrity of the planning system. The long-standing principle that Hillside endorsed—that it is unlawful to carry out a development when another permission makes it physically impossible to carry it out—is a sound one. Decisions are made on the merits of the entire development proposal, and this amendment would allow developers to pick and choose what parts of an approved development they wanted to implement when they had a choice.

Similarly, we need to consider carefully the implications of legislating to deal with overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders in general terms. While I understand the desire for certainty, there is more flexibility through a development consent order to deal with the overlap with planning permissions.

That said, I emphasise again that, as a Government committed to ensuring that the planning system supports growth, we are keen to ensure that the right development can be consented and implemented quickly. We want to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to deal with change to large-scale developments. Clause 11 already provides a framework for a more streamlined and proportionate process to change development consent orders, but we also want to look at how the framework can be improved for planning permissions. We would welcome further discussions with your Lordships and the wider sector on this matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for pointing out issues around Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. I need to revisit our correspondence to refresh my mind on what we said about that, but his point about restoring the law to the Pilkington principle is noted and I am sure we will come back to this.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendment 227F and for his continued commitment to energy security and net-zero objectives. This amendment seeks to create a statutory timeframe of 10 weeks for decisions to be made on compulsory purchase orders made under the Electricity Act 1989. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030 and it is clear that rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. We recognise the importance of providing all parties with a clear understanding of likely timelines to support project planning and investment decisions but do not consider the imposition of statutory deadlines for processing applications to be the best way to achieve this.

The process required for a CPO varies depending on the features of each case, which means that different types of case require different timescales. Guidance from MHCLG already includes indicative timings for the determination of CPOs in England. These range from four to 24 weeks, depending on the case and the process required. Using shorter deadlines to speed up a process is like passing a law that outlaws any delay in your journey up the motorway. That might sound appealing—especially if, like me, you have to travel on the M25 quite regularly—but, if something needs to be done more quickly, one must first find out what things are causing it to take the time that it takes and then address those issues. Otherwise, one is simply legislating in a way that says: “Do it faster”.

I know that, as a former Minister in DESNZ responsible for planning decisions, my noble friend will recognise that what is really needed are system reforms and simplifications, a more efficient digital case handling system and more capacity. I am delighted to confirm that the Government are already delivering on all three of these things. We are treating the disease, not just the symptom.

I have listened carefully to all the arguments put forward today and can assure noble Lords that we share the aim of ensuring that all processes for CPOs proceed as expeditiously as possible. I hope, for these reasons, that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Lord Banner (Con)

- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. I am relieved to know that, if I get hit by a bus on the way home today—which is very unlikely, given the strikes—my legacy to this House will be the concept of a reverse declaration of interest.

It seems that there is unanimity across the Committee that the Hillside judgment generates a cause for a legislative solution. It also appears to be common ground that new Section 73B, if and when it is enacted pursuant to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, would not be a panacea. It may help in some cases—probably about one-third, but no more than that, so there is a need to go further.

Where we part is on the drafting and what the right-worded solution is. I am very much not wedded to the wording of my amendment; it is really there as a challenge in the hope that, collectively, we can come up with something that carries the overall consent of this House. I look forward to working with the Minister and my noble friend Lady Scott to find a form of words that will achieve the solution that we need. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.