Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Fuller

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s deliberations. I say at the outset that Amendment 184 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lord Banner is eminently sensible, and there appears to be a strong consensus in its favour. I therefore that my Front Bench but also the Minister will give it a fair hearing and possibly support it, because it seems to be a great compromise.

I was fortunate when serving in the other place to support a very good charity called Hope into Action, with local churches banding together to buy residential properties for those in the most acute need, sometimes ex-offenders or people who were just generally down on their luck economically. However, I understand that that is very much a niche activity and it is not possible to buy freeholds outright, so you need this intermediate accommodation in order to give people a chance to get back on the employment or education ladder. So I strongly commend that amendment.

Principally, I want to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. I am old enough to remember when the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 got Royal Assent. I declare from the outset—practically everyone declares this in this Committee—that I am another former vice-president of the Local Government Association, although quite some time ago. I was also a London borough councillor, and I had the good fortune to serve on the planning committee.

It should be remembered that the purpose of Section 106 was very much benign and supported by the community. It was essentially about whether expenditure was necessary, directly relevant to the planning application, and proportionate. It was absolutely the right thing to seek to ameliorate some of the impacts of residential development by providing community facilities such as schools, GP surgeries, community centres and transport infrastructure. Obviously, there was a distinction between the community infrastructure levy and Section 106. Of course, when I was a Member of Parliament and member of the borough council, those financial contributions made in support of affordable housing were very important. They obviously made a big contribution to the provision of decent housing in our borough and in my constituency.

The reason why I think this is an excellent amendment is that not all local authorities are the same. One of the frustrations is that, unless you are focused every day on trying to find the audit trail of funding from Section 106, when you have multiple stakeholders, landowners, local councillors and council officers—who often change over time—it is very difficult to follow the money in terms of what was actually delivered.

You often found in my experience that residential developments ended up with groups of homeowners or local residents who were very unhappy at, for instance, being members of a limited company and responsible for the management of their community areas. They did not want to do that; they just wanted a children’s playground, a bus shelter or a bus route, or a post office, for instance. Therefore, the openness and transparency that this very laudable amendment would give rise to would allow the distinction between good authorities which are putting much-needed money into local communities in a timely way, and those local authorities which are dragging their feet.

I accept that there is a distinction between preparing a local development plan and a county structure plan, et cetera. That is much more of a legalistic exercise, which has to be undertaken under various pieces of legislation. This is about keeping the faith and the trust of the local people you are interested in providing with very good local services, using what is effectively a tax—public money. Having the imperative of publishing that information on a regular basis would allow you in real time to account for why you have not spent that money, what priorities have changed and what the needs of the community as they evolve might be.

I cannot really see why there would be a reason not to do this. Irrespective of party in local government, whether it is independent, Liberal Democrat, Reform, Conservative or Labour—I think that is everyone; unless you are in Epsom and Ewell, and then it is ratepayers, bizarrely—everyone has an opportunity to make sure that that money is spent effectively and in a timely way.

For that reason, I support the amendment. I hope that, if the Minister rejects the amendment, she explains clearly why it is not possible to support it and incorporate it into the Bill. It is long overdue; it is what transparency campaigners in local government want, what local councillors want and probably even what planning officers want, providing clarity on expenditure. It would be a very good development, and I hope the Minister will support it.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 170 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. As I indicated in the previous group, I sat on the CIL review 10 years ago with Liz Peace, whom some noble Lords may know from the restoration and renewal programme, as well as Andrew Whitaker from the Home Builders Federation, which is probably where my noble friend gets his figure of £8 billion from.

When I was a council leader, we had three councils that came together in the Greater Norwich area, and we were early adopters on CIL. We were only the 12th area to do it, and we pooled our CIL, blind to the administrative boundaries between us, to try to make a step change in the amount of infrastructure delivered. Sadly, following the CIL review in 2017, few other areas joined the bandwagon, and now many areas are not in scope—they have Section 106. But in principle the community infrastructure levy has much to commend it, as it is quick, simple, clear and a lot more straightforward than Section 106. However, there are some problems, one of them being sufficiency.

What we discovered on the CIL review was that the amount of money generated by the CIL was probably some 15% of the total infrastructure requirement, aggravated in many cases by a large number of exemptions—self-built homes, offices converted under permitted development to residence, and so forth. There was a further aggravating factor, in that local authorities are not permitted to borrow against future CIL receipts as they are against Section 106. That made it significantly harder to get the big, chunky infrastructure done.

As a group of local authorities, we created the Section 123 list, where we listed all the things we expected CIL to fund—and there were sections on green infrastructure, social infrastructure, education, highways and community facilities, including libraries. More than 400 lines populated that Section 123 list, which was published annually as a big report, so that everybody could see what we planned to spend the money on. Of course, I support completely the principle of Amendment 170, but it does not go far enough. It is not enough just to say, “Well, this much money is being raised on this job, and that is it”. You have to balance it—not just with the money coming in but with what you plan to spend out on, and the cash flow. It is a simple truth that after you raise the money, and it is only 15%, the next work and the hardest work is leveraging that 15% in with other sources of money, possibly joint ventures and so forth.

CIL is about financing infrastructure, not just funding it. Financing is putting that deal together, whereas funding is just writing the cheque. It is really important that we help the public to understand and see that essential difficulty. Time does not permit describing all the ways in which we have tried to do that, but this amendment does not go far enough. We need to ensure the money coming in and the Section 123 list of the infrastructure going out, as well as the financing. The most important thing that this amendment falls short on is that it does not set the cash flowing—where do you see the money going in 2026, 2027, 2028 and so forth, in a 10-year rolling period? Unless you do that, just by publishing the amount of money that you have raised, there is pressure to get the money out of the door on less important projects with lower impact, which is where we found a difficulty.

By having a more thoughtful, five or 10-year rolling programme, which contains the income, expenditure and cashflow, you would also give clarity to the development community. If you wish, and if it is sensible to do so, you could make a substitution—take an investment in kind, if you will—instead of making an upfront cash payment. That can be very useful. If a new school, for example, is on the Section 123 list, and the developer is interested in it, the new school can help him sell his houses in a large development, but if the money is not quite there yet, being open, honest and transparent, in this more complete way, makes it clear how schools can be financed in kind by the developer, and sometimes you can leverage more in that case.

I support the principle, although I do not believe it goes far enough; we need a five or 10-year programme. In my area, we publish a comprehensive annual report, which includes all the lines—the income and the outcome. However, while posting the balance is useful, it does not tell the whole story. That is what we need to do to get the infrastructure built but also the public onside.