Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a very interesting debate on this topic. Next July, I will have the benefit of five days of Oasis concerts in the fantastic venue of Knebworth House, which is just about a mile away from my house, and this summer we enjoyed Old Town Live, a day-long festival for local bands including, I hope, some of the successors to Oasis—we never know. I can hear and enjoy both of these from my house, and they represent the important cultural role of music venues and their place in the ladder of musical talent that not only contributes so much to our culture in this country but makes an enormous contribution to our economy as well. I say that to show that I understand the issue here and the Government share the desire to ensure that new homes do not undermine the operation of long-established businesses in their local area, be they music or other cultural venues.

The agent of change principle is embedded into the planning system. Where the operation of an existing premises could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity, the responsibility lies with the applicant or agent of change to put suitable mitigation in place, whether that is engineering solutions, layout, planning conditions or mitigating the impact through noise insulation. This policy forms part of the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning authorities must already have regard to it where it is relevant to a planning decision.

We are exploring how we can make the agent of change policy in planning as clear as possible through our new national policies for decision-making, which we will consult on this year. We have recently launched a call for evidence, which seeks views on how we can better apply the principle in licensing. This will reduce inconsistent decisions, while ensuring that we have the flexibility for local authorities to balance the needs of businesses with housing growth. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I urgently request that, within the 1.5 million homes to be built, the Government set a fixed target for providing housing for children and their adult carers that is safe, suitable and enables children to develop both socially and through attending school. Amendment 85 deliberately does not provide solutions, because I recognise that this will require a multifaceted approach, but I ask that the Government commit to including the desperate needs of these children within the housebuilding programme.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we support the intentions behind Amendments 72 and 85 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pinnock, and others for bringing them forward.

There is no doubt that we need more affordable housing and more social rent homes. We also recognise that planning permissions must be followed through and that, too often, affordable housing secured at the outset does not fully materialise. Amendment 72 puts forward a clear principle that, if affordable housing is agreed to as part of a planning consent, it must be delivered, and that social rent should form a meaningful part of that. This is right and we are entirely supportive of that aim. There are, of course, practical and legal complications around how these obligations are enforced, and we would want to ensure that any new duty works effectively within existing planning and viability frameworks.

However, councils also need to have a degree of flexibility to meet local needs, which is why I have a concern about putting a specific figure in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, is well aware, I am particularly interested in housing for older people and specialist accommodation for those with disabilities. This is often more costly to build than standard housing. By taking a flexible approach at the local level on affordable percentages or mix, specialist but more expensive housing that meets local needs can be delivered. Imposing a national requirement may undermine that flexibility to deliver for local needs. That is how I, as leader of Central Bedfordshire, was able to deliver specialist accommodation for older people—freeing up family homes as a consequence—and for those with significant disabilities, as well as short-term accommodation. I would not want the opportunity for this lost because of an imposed national target in legislation. That said, let us make this absolutely clear: we are very strongly in support of the need for clarity and accountability for developers. They should and must deliver what they agree to when they get a planning permission.

Amendment 85 rightly highlights the needs of children and families facing homelessness or in temporary accommodation, a group whose experiences are often invisible in planning policy. Ensuring that local planning authorities take account of these needs is a modest but important step and we support it, but I refer to my earlier comments on the need for flexibility. Again, I am going to refer to my own experience, and to one of the proudest things I did when I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council. We had about 125 households in bread and breakfast; 10 years later, that was effectively zero. That was 125 households who had the opportunity to live in a proper home. There were two key reasons for it. One was that we built specialist temporary accommodation and converted some buildings for that; but the second is that we built homes they could move into. So, we also need to consider that we must build the quantum of homes that is needed if we are truly to address the issue of homelessness.

Both amendments speak to the same wider truth: housing policy must be about delivery, not just ambition. We hope the Government will take these proposals seriously and come back with measures that match the urgency of the housing crisis we face.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 72. I have to say that the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, when we are trying to sort out a housing crisis that his party created, are a bit rich. But I will park that for the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am pleased that the last Government delivered 1 million homes over the last five years. I will be delighted if this Government deliver 1.5 million, but at the moment, they are on track to deliver considerably fewer, increasing that crisis.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s Government left 130,000 children in temporary accommodation.

As noble Lords will know, the Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent, but we take a different view from the noble Lord on how to achieve this. The revised NPPF provides local authorities greater flexibility to deliver the right tenure mix to suit local housing needs, and planning practice guidance that supports the NPPF sets out that plan-makers should collaborate with the local community, developers and other stakeholders to create realistic, deliverable policies.

I understand the frustrations around the issue of viability, so the Government are also reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure that the system works to optimise developer contributions, and that negotiation or renegotiation of Section 106 agreements takes place only when genuinely necessary. Once planning obligations are entered into under Section 106, they run with the land and are legally binding on all parties to the agreement, so they can be enforced by the local planning authority. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing.

Turning to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, while we agree that we need to tackle homelessness, especially where children and families are involved, I will explain why we cannot support this approach. The planning system is already complex, and adding duties to have regard to particular matters, no matter how laudable, are not required in statute, given that national planning policy is a strong material consideration in planning decisions. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. Councils must, by law, make sure that any temporary accommodation placements are suitable to the needs of the people placed there. On World Homelessness Day this month, we announced £10.9 million to increase access to support and services for families in temporary accommodation. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to noble Lords for their support for Amendment 72. I thank my noble friend Lord Carlile for his eloquent words, and I offer the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, sincere thanks for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is unfortunately unable to support this amendment, which, without his help and that of his colleagues, I fear would not achieve the majority it needs.

I do not accept the noble Lord’s point that having a 20% baseline below which we would not go in terms of affordable housing, and social rented housing in particular, is necessarily a blockage to flexibility. The baseline of 20% at social rents—the typical housing association and council rents—would not put a great burden on the housebuilders negotiating with the planning authority that also wanted to produce housing for older people. I do not think it would entail an additional burden.

Sometimes the older people’s housing of the kind that the noble Lord has produced in his own borough—and I strongly congratulate him, as council leader, on achieving a disproportionate amount of housing for older people; he has done a great job—will be social housing and would count towards the affordable housing quota that I am talking about; sometimes it will be housing for outright sale, which would not be part of this equation so we would not worry about it. Having a baseline of 20% social housing as an absolute minimum is not going to impede—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

If I may just be clear, I apologise but I meant affordable housing that was for older people; I did not mean housing for private sale, when I talked about flexibility. I apologise if that was not clear.

[Lord Best (CB)]

Yes, well, I am sorry that we differ on this because it means that it would be pointless me taking this to a vote.

What I will say is that I am deeply grateful to the Minister for explaining that the issue of viability advice is now under consideration and that we will be getting new advice, which I hope will be much stronger and more positive than in the past. So I am grateful to her, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as I did recently in the Moses Room on the same issue of whistleblowing. The noble Baroness is our pioneer, expert and leader on whistleblowing. I signed this amendment because it is important to demonstrate that this is an issue of broad concern.

The noble Baroness made clearly the case that we have huge problems with effectively and cost-effectively delivering major projects so that they do what they say they will do on the tin. The people who are most likely to know that something is going wrong are people within the organisation. It is terribly important to ensure that whistleblowers feel safe and will not tear their life apart if they come forward to report the issue.

The noble Baroness, helped by other Peers, has come up with a creative solution for NISTA to pick up this role in this context. I therefore hope that we will hear some movement from the Government on the issue.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as we said in Committee, Amendment 22, from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is a clear and well-intentioned proposal that raises important questions about how individuals can share their concerns relating to NSIPs. However, as we noted previously, establishing independent bodies through amendments is not straightforward. The former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, addressed that point, and the Government have set out their enthusiasm to work with organisations that support whistleblowers. We will hold the Government to account on that assurance and continue to work with your Lordships’ House to ensure that whistleblowers are protected.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposes that the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—be given a new responsibility to receive, assess, investigate where appropriate and oversee whistleblowing disclosures related to nationally significant infrastructure projects. The amendment seeks to ensure appropriate protection for whistleblowers and co-ordination with relevant regulators and planning authorities.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue and have listened carefully to her remarks. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, I must say again that I do not share the view that there is evidence of whistleblowing being a current, widespread concern within the NSIP regime. As she will know, there is already a well-established framework of prescribed persons and bodies to whom whistleblowers may turn, independent of their employer, as provided for under the Employment Rights Act 1996. They include organisations covering areas such as environmental protection, health and safety, transport, utilities and local government, which are of direct relevance to NSIPs.

Adding NISTA to this list would duplicate existing functions already carried out by regulators, such as the Environment Agency, which have the appropriate expertise and statutory powers. Given this existing framework, we believe that adding another body to the list would create a duplication of roles and, in any event, would not require primary legislation to achieve, as new persons or bodies can already be prescribed through Section 43F of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In the light of this, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The parliamentary process proposed by the amendment includes a petitioning mechanism and Joint Committee scrutiny, ensuring that public concerns can be raised and considered, if not already considered during the DCO process. It includes safeguards that would enable meaningful public involvement in relation to points not raised during the DCO process. All these provisions are included in the lengthy schedule. This might still require some fine-tuning, which could incorporate the advice of various parties, parliamentary draftsmen, and so on. I urge Ministers and their officials to consider this amendment in the light of the very real challenges that large infrastructure projects face and that they will continue to face, even with the measures already in Part 1. I therefore commend my amendment to the House.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this is a significant proposed new clause, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke to in Committee, where he made broader remarks on the functionality of our planning system, which he has repeated today. I recall the comments about the length of time it was taking to get a bypass round Stonehenge, and my comment that it will take longer to build that bypass than Stone Age man took to build Stonehenge.

We agree with the issue that the noble Viscount is seeking to address: that the planning system does not work all the time for these large national infrastructure projects. They take too long, the costs go up and deliverability goes down. So I have immense respect for those who have taken the time to draft this new clause reflecting some of the comments made in Committee—I really appreciate the time that that has taken. The noble Viscount proposes that each order determining an application to be a critical national priority must be presented to Parliament as a full public Bill. Paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule then sets out a petitioning process, a counter-petitioning process and a reporting process. The remaining parts of this lengthy amendment provide a highly detailed description of how such a Bill would progress through a Joint Committee and then complete its passage.

However, we do not consider that presenting a Bill to Parliament with all the associated procedures would be a proportionate proposal. We are somewhat sympathetic to confirmatory Acts in areas such as nuclear, but this is a prescriptive amendment and therefore one that we cannot support, even if we understand the issue.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount for Amendment 23, which builds on a previous amendment tabled in Committee. It proposes a process for projects designated by the Secretary of State as “critical national priority”, where development consent orders would come into force only once approved through an Act of Parliament. This amendment seeks to bypass judicial review and insulate these projects from challenge and thereby speed up the building of infrastructure.

Although the provision does not directly alter the judicial review process itself, it uses parliamentary process to significantly reduce the public’s ability to challenge government decisions on these types of critical projects. This amendment proposes a mechanism for the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as “critical national priority”, based on identification in a relevant national policy statement.

It is important to remind the House that this status already exists and is actively applied—for example, to renewable and low-carbon energy projects through the energy NPS, to strengthen the need case for such infrastructure. However, this amendment seeks to go much further. I cannot support it for a number of key reasons. First, the proposed ouster in new Section 118(1A) would shield decisions from judicial review even where they were unlawful. For this reason, it is an approach which the courts have historically resisted. Given that this would be applied to some of the biggest and most controversial schemes, it is likely that challenges would be lodged in respect of the confirmed DCO, thereby undermining the time savings sought in the first place.

Secondly, the amendment would result in a constitutional confrontation between Parliament and the courts. This may result in questioning of well understood constitutional conventions, inviting further legal uncertainty.

Finally, there are serious practical impediments to the amendment. It would introduce a new, truncated parliamentary procedure for applicants to undertake after having completed the DCO process. It risks creating confusion and slowing the delivery of our most important projects by layering parliamentary procedures on top of an already rigorous regime. That adds more work and uncertainty for applicants—particularly detrimental for our largest projects—at a time when clarity and efficiency are essential. We recognise that the amendment is driven by valid concerns that lengthy legal challenges delay projects and add costs. However, the right approach to tackling this problem is by still enabling legal challenges but supporting the courts to handle them efficiently.

Further to our commitment to implement the Banner review and limit the ability for meritless cases to return to the courts, the Government recently decided to go further. On 15 October, they announced their intention to work with the judiciary to implement further procedural changes to ensure that NSIP cases are dealt with more quickly and consistently. The changes include introducing clear target timescales for NSIP cases in the High Court, aiming for a substantive hearing within four months of the application. We are also making it clear that NSIP cases in the Court of Appeal should be handled by judges with appropriate planning experience.

Together with the recent reforms, these further procedural changes will help make the judicial review process for major projects quicker, clearer and more predictable. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment and for the thoughtful debate that it has prompted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendment, which raises the important question of fire safety and long-duration energy storage. It is right that there should be a role for local fire authorities in looking at planning applications involving potentially highly combustible materials. It is clear that energy storage based on lithium batteries or other highly reactive materials, if not suitably engineered, could pose a fire risk.

This is still a relatively new large-storage technology, where councils and fire authorities are building their levels of expertise. In this context, having clear national guidance on safe installation and construction akin to building control, taking account of HSE, fire, industry and other experts would facilitate the assessment of these schemes. Do the Government plan to provide such clear guidance that councils, industry and others can rely on in assessing applications for LDES that would also streamline consultation and hence facilitate local engagement with fire authorities?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his amendment. I start by apologising to him for the meeting date, which I understand is 30 October. He will know from comments made earlier that I have had a great number of meetings before Report, so I can only assume that it was a misunderstanding and apologise to him that it was not held before we got to Report.

The noble Lord said that over on this side we would not be shedding any tears about the price of Lamborghinis going up, but he obviously does not understand my guilty pleasure of fast cars—but then I come from the same town as Lewis Hamilton, so I have an excuse.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to require long-duration electricity storage—LDES—operators to consult the local fire authorities to assess the project’s fire risk before installation. In Committee, the noble Lord commented on the frequency and danger of lithium battery fires. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the distinction that he made between individual battery fires and these large-scale ones. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take issues relating to fire safety extremely seriously—I know that my noble friend Lord Khan gave the same reassurance—but we still do not feel that this amendment is proportionate or necessary, and indeed it could create unintended risks for fire services.

I understand that these concerns are largely in relation to lithium-ion batteries. Analysis from DESNZ suggests that fires at battery energy storage sites are rare. The latest available five-year annual average fire incidence rate for GB batteries is 0.7%, which is lower than that for wider non-domestic building fires in England, which is around 0.8%. We expect all LDES developers to ensure that their sites are safe, regardless of the technology employed. It is still, of course, vital that any risks are appropriately and proportionately managed to ensure that we maintain public safety and trust. We have spoken previously of the role that the Health and Safety Executive plays in regulating storage assets. Developers and operators of these sites have a legal duty to manage risks, and government expects them to engage with local fire services when drawing up emergency response plans.

Defra will conclude its industry consultation shortly on the modernisation of environmental permitting for industry, which includes proposals to bring BESS within scope of the 2016 permitting regulations. If introduced, EPR would require developers and operators to demonstrate to the Environment Agency how specific risks are being managed, while providing for the ongoing regulation of battery storage sites. While it is already the Government’s expectation that developers engage with fire services during the planning process, this amendment risks imposing additional administrative burdens on fire services which are not proportionate to the risks associated with this technology.

DESNZ is actively engaging fire authorities and the battery storage industry on the whole issue of battery fire safety. In fact, Minister Shanks hosted a round table today on battery safety, which included representatives from the National Fire Chiefs Council and battery developers, so I can reassure the House that Minister Shanks is taking this issue extremely seriously. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is satisfied with the reassurances and will agree to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 42 (to Amendment 41) not moved.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I speak slightly in awe. I am not the world expert on seismic arrays, so I will keep my comments brief. This is the practical bit. We recognise that the Government are trying to create a balancing act between the safe and critical operation of seismic arrays and the opportunity of wind farms. From this side of the House, without the technical knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, can we receive an assurance from the Government that they have that balance right and that we will not compromise those seismic arrays and the potential national security and treaty obligations?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with our colleagues in the MoD on this issue and will endeavour to make sure that the balance is right in both cases.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment.

Clause 2 introduces a new, additional streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements. National policy statements are the cornerstone of the planning system for our most significant national infrastructure. In the past, national policy statements have been too slow to reflect government priorities, planning policy or legislative changes, with some NPSs not updated for over a decade. As the National Infrastructure Commission has recognised, a lack of updates has created uncertainty for applicants, statutory consultees and the examining authority. It has also increased the risk of legal challenge and driven the gold-plating in the system that we are all trying to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know whether this is premature, but I wish to speak to Amendment 83.

The modern methodology of infrastructure planning is heavily dependent on the computer. Computer-aided design software has replaced the draughtsman’s drawing board. This has greatly expedited the design process. Moreover, CAD technology enables the design of houses and other structures to be made public at an early stage of development. The building information modelling standards are intended to facilitate the sharing of information, which can be consigned to the cloud to become accessible to all concerned, including the public at large. The transparent information is liable to be shared via a so-called digital twin model. Level 2 of the BIM standards was made mandatory for public projects in 2022. Level 3 was due to be made mandatory this year, but there has been a delay—indeed, more than a delay; there has been some backtracking.

The Minister’s response to the original version of the amendment was to declare that the requirement for a digital twin at an earlier stage of the development would impose extra costs and delays. This evinces a fundamental misunderstanding. It is precisely at the earliest stages of a project that modern technology is most efficacious. The question arises of what could have caused this misunderstanding. I am liable to attribute it to the civil servants as much as to the Minister. I imagine that one of the causes could be the experience of inappropriate applications of the BIM standards. There has been a minor change to the text of the original amendment. It now declares that the standards should not be imposed on projects concerned with limited extensions of existing buildings, or on those concerned with the restoration of existing buildings.

I have been told by an architect involved in the restoration of historic buildings of a demand to provide a fully dimensioned plan of a listed building, plus an inventory of all the materials involved in its original construction. The BIM standards were never intended to be imposed in this way. With this proviso, I propose the amendment as a serious attempt to promote a methodology of infrastructure planning, of which Britain is a leading exponent.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, were first brought forward in Committee, and I made the point then, which I repeat now, that Clause 4 systematically removes several of the existing pre-application requirements.

This amendment seeks specifically to retain Section 47 of the Planning Act, the statutory duty to consult the local community. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised, we have said throughout that it is only right and appropriate that local communities should be consulted and involved. Removing this requirement for pre-application consultation risks cutting communities out of the conversation altogether. It means local people may neither understand nor even be aware of the broad outlines or detailed implications of developments which, for better or worse, will have a direct impact on their lives and the local environment.

As I understood the Minister in Committee, the Government’s concern was not with the principle or value of consultation in itself, but rather with the potential delay cost that the current process might entail. However, delay and cost can be addressed through sensible reform of the system. That does not justify what feels like a nuclear option: the wholesale removal of the duty to consult. We remain unconvinced that the House has yet been given a satisfactory explanation as to why such sweeping change is necessary.

The Government have said:

“I am sure we all have experiences of the best in consultation—with a developer that not only consults but truly engages with communities over a period of time to get”


a better project

“and those at the opposite end that carry out a half-hearted tick-box exercise and then”

carry on regardless

“without changing anything, keeping a laser focus on”

minimising their costs, and that

“We want to encourage the former, not the latter”.—[Official Report, 17/7/25; cols. 2073-74.]

That is an admirable sentiment, but how is that objective served by the removal of the very mechanism that requires such consultation in the first place? These questions matter not merely as points of process but because they go to the heart of public confidence in the planning system.

The Government should provide clear and succinct guidance on pre-application consultation: that there should be genuine engagement with communities; that the relevant information should be provided transparently and in easily digestible form; that the issues and ideas from the consultations are reflected in the final application or a rationale for not doing so.

However, these amendments propose a much more prescriptive and, I might say, confusing and even contradictory pre-application process. While we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment in full, we equally cannot support the Government’s decision to sweep away the entire framework. A more balanced approach could have addressed legitimate concerns about delay, while enhancing the opportunities for local people to have their say on developments that shape their communities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing back these amendments, which we debated extensively in Committee. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to reinstate the statutory duty for applicants to consult during the pre-application stage of a development consent order application. While we absolutely recognise the value of early and meaningful engagement, we have been clear that the existing statutory requirements have become overly rigid and are now contributing to delays and risk-averse behaviours.

Removing the statutory duty instead allows developers to tailor their engagement to the scale and nature of their projects, supported by guidance. I repeat: the Government still expect high-quality consultation to take place. We have listened carefully to the industry and the message has been consistent. The current statutory framework is slowing things down, encouraging excessive documentation and making developers reluctant to adapt proposals for fear of triggering further rounds of required statutory consultation. We are confident that developers will continue to consult meaningfully and that communities will still have further opportunities to engage through the examination process. We are so confident, in fact, that this will not undermine the quality of applications brought forward that we are amending the Bill to make reasons for rejection more transparent, a point which I will come to later.

Guidance will be published to ensure that applications remain robust and responsive to local issues. The Government are currently consulting on proposals associated with this guidance and will take into account responses when it is developed. If these amendments were accepted, we risk reverting to the status quo and failing to address the very issues we are trying to fix: delays, complexity and confusion. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.

Amendments 11 and 12 seek to impose statutory obligations around guidance for pre-application consultation, despite the statutory requirement to consult being removed from the Planning Act 2008 through this Bill. The decision to remove the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation was not made lightly. It was introduced to tackle the growing delays and procedural burdens that have crept into the NSIP regime over time. We are trying to fix a system that has become too slow, too risk averse and too complex.

As we have discussed and recognised throughout the passage of the Bill, the current Planning Act requirements have led to rigid approaches, which are designed with the need to meet legislative prescription in mind, rather than the need to develop high-quality infrastructure schemes which are capable of improving the lives of local communities and delivering positive environmental impacts. I suppose my frustration here is that we all agree that we need to speed the system up but whatever we propose to do that, Members object to.

Over the last few months we have had the opportunity to meet a wide range of stakeholders and discuss the removal of pre-application requirements, including a number of bodies and individuals with valuable insight and experience of the NSIP regime since its inception back in 2008. We have seen a positive reaction to our proposals from those stakeholders. Speaking to local authorities and statutory consultees, it is clear that the existing requirements are not successfully driving constructive engagement and consultation.

Our discussions have reaffirmed our conviction that the existing approach is not working; changes are needed for the Government to meet the UK’s national infrastructure needs. These reforms will save time and money, benefiting everyone. This does not mean worse outcomes or poorer quality applications. Instead, it means resources can be focused on the main issues at the heart of the planning decision. It means there will be greater flexibility for applicants to innovate in how engagement is done when working through the iterative stages of an application during pre-application. It opens the door to more bespoke, targeted and effective engagement and consultation practices.

Requiring applicants to have regard to guidance about consultation and engagement, where the underlying legal duty to consult has been removed, would, we feel, be confusing. Moreover, the noble Baroness’s proposed amendment goes further by attempting to bind the content for future guidance to a fixed set of principles. While I understand these principles are well-intentioned, we do not believe it is right to legislate for them. The Government have already launched a public consultation on what the content of the guidance should be, and we want it to be shaped by the views of those who use guidance, not constrained by prescriptive legislative language developed before that process has even concluded.

All sides of the House agree on the importance of meaningful engagement and consultation; it is essential if we want to deliver infrastructure which is well designed and delivers positive outcomes for neighbouring communities and the environment. We expect developers to engage and consult proportionately and constructively, but we also believe that flexibility, not statutory rigidity, is the best way to achieve that. While I appreciate the spirit behind the amendments, they would undermine the very reforms we are trying to deliver, so I hope the noble Baroness will not press them.

Amendment 80 was a proposal previously raised in Committee. As the House will recall, the clause seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider how community consultation has been carried out when deciding whether a nationally significant infrastructure project application should be accepted for examination. It sets out a number of criteria, including whether the applicant has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during early phases, obtained relevant local information and enabled appropriate mitigation through consultation with the affected communities. As we discussed at length in Committee, the Government recognise the value of community engagement. Since 2013, the pre-application stage has nearly doubled in length. Our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament by reducing delays across projects.

I say this to remind noble Lords of the reasoning behind these changes, including the “adequacy of consultation” test in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. We had a system where applicants focus on defensibility rather than dialogue, and where consultation is treated as a hurdle to clear and not a tool to improve proposals. The reformed acceptance test allows the Secretary of State to make a balanced judgment about the quality of the application, recognising that the NSIP process is a continuum from pre-application through to decision. It incentivises applicants to engage with the objective of producing good-quality applications, as opposed to meeting prescriptive statutory requirements.

Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I was interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I note his concerns and hope the Minister will respond to them, but this is such a fundamental issue that it is important that I state that we support the substance of the levy as set out. Indeed, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said that there is a general acceptance by the industry, despite some of the problems that the Minister will need to address.

I support entirely every point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the conclusions that he has reached. I share his concerns about the speed of action—it has been too slow—and the fact that for many leaseholders, nothing in practice has changed. As we have heard, there are deadlines, of 2029 and 2031, which are not far off. However, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that the Treasury might be willing to increase the level of loans to the department. I very much hope that that will prove to be the case.

I have two specific questions for the Minister before I say a few further words. First, I have not understood from the Explanatory Memorandum why there is a three-year review period, as opposed to a shorter one. In the context of what the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, said about speed, reviewing after three years seems to be too long a period. Secondly, why does the purpose-built student accommodation have a threshold of 30 bed spaces for exemptions, as opposed to some other number? Why was the figure of 30 decided on?

These are vital regulations, as they implement one of the cornerstones of the Building Safety Act that was the response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. As we know, the purpose of the levy is to provide funding for remediation that is essential in many residential properties in order to assure the safety of residents. This statutory instrument provides the considerable detail needed, including, for example, exemptions for small developments and social housing, which seem to us to be reasonable.

It also seems right that the levy is based on square metres of floor space, that brownfield sites will have a levy at a lower rate, and that the levy varies according to general property values in a local authority area. The Government broadly have the approach right. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, so rightly identified, the problem is that many leaseholders are still being penalised by freeholders and managing agents where properties have not yet been remediated. The penalties imposed are via the substantial increases in service charges and, on top of this, innocent leaseholders are paying huge household insurance costs. Will the Government review their approach to defining those buildings at risk? These are not the same as the assessment made by the insurance market, and it is leaseholders who then pay the price, as well as finding that the value of their property has plummeted.

In conclusion, will the Government commit to a review of at-risk properties and the external wall system assessment to provide some hope for leaseholders caught up in a nightmare that is not of their making?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. Fortunately, we do not have many high-rise buildings in rural areas.

In response to the Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025, the principle is absolutely right that those who have profited from residential development should contribute to the cost of making homes safe. It is both fair and necessary. This levy was set up by the Building Safety Act 2022 under the previous Conservative Administration, and it is an important part of wider efforts. I make very clear that we support this, but some issues need addressing.

The Government anticipate that the levy will raise approximately £3.4 billion over the next decade to help fund remediation of historic safety defects, including dangerous cladding. For too long, thousands of residents have lived in buildings that they know are unsafe. They suffer the stress and emotional toil of being in an unsafe building and, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham pointed out, they are unable to sell and to move on with their lives. The situation is not of their making. My noble friend made a number of points, and it is crucial that this is done faster and better. I would very much like to know whether the Minister believes that the two deadlines of 2029 and 2031 will be achieved given that, as my noble friend pointed out, around half have not even started. I cannot remember the exact phrase—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

In programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

In programme was the phrase; well, we need “in action” rather than “in programme”. We welcome the levy. It has been designed with care and certain exemptions are in place, particularly for smaller developers, social housing providers and community- focused schemes. Those exemptions are vital and they ensure that the supply of affordable and socially beneficial housing is not inadvertently undermined.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s findings are that the overall impact on house prices and supply is expected to be modest and that the administrative costs are proportionate to the revenues raised, but I want to come on to some of the issues that were raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller. There are two aspects to this: the first is the safety of the people who are in unsafe buildings, which is crucial; the second is that we need to ensure that we are still building buildings for people who do not have a place to live.

Concerns raised by the National Federation of Builders and others about the cumulative impact of regulatory pressure on housebuilding should not be dismissed out of hand. This has its greatest impact on London. My noble friend gave a number of statistics, but Molior’s current analysis suggests that only 15,000 to 20,000 homes will be under construction in London in January 2027. That compares to a target of 82,000 and that was a reduced target. There are 185,000 people living in temporary accommodation in London and over 350,000 in the UK. We need homes, and we need to ensure that whatever we do helps to deliver new homes in a safe and meaningful way, and that there is no cumulative impact from this.

The second part of this—the resourcing and performance of the building safety regulator—is really important. Since July 2024, over 2,000 applications have been submitted for building control at gateways 2 and 3. Of these, 283 have been approved, 670 have been either declared invalid or rejected and 997 are still awaiting approval. Those are delays to buildings. In fact, Building Magazine estimated that one in four that hit stage 4, which is the final approval, are not yet approved: that is hundreds of empty apartments that could be occupied. Therefore, I am again seeking assurance from the Minister on what will be done to speed up the building safety regulator. As my noble friend Lord Fuller also said, the process is somewhat complex; how can we make it more transparent and accessible, so that we can get stuff done more quickly?

Delays or bottlenecks at this stage are slowing down vital safety work and much- needed development alike. As my noble friend Lord Fuller raised, the cash flow impact means that schemes become increasingly unviable, and I have heard a developer say, “We are not starting with this”; not because they are not willing to build safe buildings, but because of the financial risks of unforeseen and unnecessary delays in trying to get through the building safety regulation scheme, and because banks are charging increased interest rates because of that risk to developers. Getting this right is a win-win: we will have more safe buildings and more homes for people. We need to take that into account.

I would like to take a moment to reflect on the wider context. The Grenfell Tower fire was more than eight years ago, and it continues to cast a long shadow in the profound systemic failings in regulation, in oversight and in the way residents’ voices were ignored. Progress has been made since that tragedy, but we must continue to push forward with urgency and determination. The promises made to affected communities must be honoured in full, and the culture that allowed such failures to occur must be permanently changed. In that spirit, we support the introduction of this levy. We believe it is a proportionate and necessary measure, and we will continue to hold the Government to account for how it is implemented. I thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations and commend the work of all those across both Houses and across all parties who have contributed to this important legislation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for those very helpful contributions to this debate and for the broad support that these regulations have received from all noble Lords who have spoken. I completely understand the stress and emotional upset that these issues have caused to all those affected by them, not least because I have a building in Stevenage called Vista Tower, which was profoundly affected by the issues. It was not a cladding issue, it was a different issue, but I have dealt with that over the years since those issues were discovered.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that for those affected by the Grenfell Tower disaster it has been a very long time indeed. We need to move things on as quickly as we can, not just for all those who are still suffering from the impact of the building safety issues, but for those people at Grenfell who have very bravely and courageously, in my view, used the awful experience that they went through to champion the cause of others who have been affected. I hope we can accelerate this plan so that we can get through these issues as quickly as possible. Indeed, as all noble Lords have recognised, this building safety levy is part of the mechanism to help us do that.

I will pick up some of the individual points that noble Peers have made. If I miss any, I am sure they will stand up and ask me again or I will reply in writing.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to Treasury support and the ongoing funding for this. Remediation funding is already being provided, and the levy launch date does not affect the pace of remediation, so we are not going to slow it down and wait for the levy to kick in. The Government are committed to remediating buildings as quickly as possible, so levy receipts will cover the remaining remediation costs once taxpayer contributions, industry pledges and contractual obligations have been taken into account. It is our intention to keep going within an accelerating plan, not wait until the levy comes in to carry on with this work.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the scope of the levy. The scope of the levy does not imply responsibility on behalf of levy payers for historic building safety defects. I think the noble Lord was broadly supportive of putting this levy across the board. Developers have to make a full contribution to the overall cost of making buildings safe, reflecting the wider benefit that they derive from a well-functioning market and the substantial funding support the Government continue to provide to the housing market. So, it is being applied across the board.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, and other Peers mentioned the remediation acceleration plan. Clearly, eight years on from Grenfell there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Our goal is clear: to remove the barriers to remediation, to get buildings fixed faster and to allow residents to, at last, feel safe in their own homes.

An update on the remediation acceleration plan was published in July and outlined our plan to bring forward a remediation Bill in order to create a hard endpoint for remediation. A proposed legal duty to remediate will compel landlords to remediate buildings within fixed timescales or face criminal prosecution.

The RAP set timescales to provide greater clarity to residents on when they might expect their buildings to be remediated. As noble Lords have recognised, we expect that, by the end of 2029, every building over 18 metres in a government funding scheme will be remediated and every building over 11 metres with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated or have a date for completion, or else its landlords will be liable for penalties.

I am afraid that I am not able to comment on the exact date of the remediation Bill, although I would love to do so. It will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. I very much understand the frustration of those people in unsafe buildings who are still waiting for work to be done, but we are moving at pace on this now. The noble Lord, Lord Young, held his own Government’s feet to the fire on this matter, as well as pressing me on it; he is right to do that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

In the comment she just made, the Minister said that all buildings over 18 metres will be done by 2029 and that all buildings in the second category will, by 2031, either be done or have a completion date. The completion date could be one or two years away.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is expected to be a reasonable date. We are not going to let people push it forward another 10 years, for example; that would be unreasonable.

I note noble Lords’ comments about the insurance industry. We continue to work with the insurance industry on this matter. I understand that this is a difficult issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about non-qualifying leaseholders; I know that this matter has been a very sore point with such leaseholders. The leaseholder protections were designed to protect people living in their own homes. That is why the threshold was set at ownership of three properties in total: to distinguish between owner-occupiers and those who have made investment decisions. However, there is still substantial support. All leaseholders benefit where a responsible developer has been identified or where the freeholder is or was associated with the developer, and all leaseholders benefit from protections in relevant buildings if it is their principal home.

Where no responsible developer can be identified or made to pay, the cladding safety scheme funds eligible cladding remediation for buildings over 11 metres, ensuring that leaseholders do not face cladding bills. The law also allows for the recovery of costs for interim measures and expert reports via remediation contribution orders, placing costs with those responsible rather than residents. Even if some leases are non-qualifying—those for investment properties, for example —a leaseholder’s principal home on 14 February 2022 in a relevant building can still be a qualifying lease and benefit from protections if it meets the statutory criteria.

On the issues around construction product manufacturers, the power to charge the levy in the Building Act 1984 do not allow for it to be charged on construction product manufacturers. In February 2025, the Government published the construction products Green Paper, setting out comprehensive proposals for system-wide reform of that construction products regime. We are reviewing consultation responses, including on measures to introduce sufficiently robust sanctions, penalties and liabilities in order to hold economic operators, including construction product manufacturers, to account. The Government are committed to ensuring effective redress for manufacturer failings, whether they are historical or arise in future.

The cost of remediation must be shared equitably among those who have profited from or have an interest in the development and construction of unsafe buildings. It is unacceptable that some construction product manufacturers have not yet made a fair contribution to resolving this building safety crisis; I want to be very categorical about that. The Building Safety Act introduced new provisions in Sections 147 and 151 to enable developers, building owners and leaseholders to bring a claim against construction product manufacturers and suppliers where a product has been mis-sold or is inherently defective; Section 149 allows claims for historical defects where cladding products have rendered a building unfit for habitation. These provisions create redress routes where no direct contractual relationship exists.

Developers sit at the apex of the industry and are therefore well positioned to take the lead in funding and co-ordinating remediation works. Once they are complete, developers can seek to recover costs from the other parties involved in the supply chain. We are currently reviewing those sections of the Building Safety Act to make sure that the redress routes are robust, support effective cost recovery and promote accountability. We will provide an update on that later this year.

On the protection for buildings over 11 metres or five storeys—we have had this discussion before—evidence shows that problems with historical fire safety defects are concentrated in medium and high-rise buildings, where the risk to life tends to increase with height. By contrast, buildings under 11 metres typically present lower risks and can often be managed with other proportionate mitigations rather than remediation schemes. I know that there is a dispute with the insurance industry over that and, as I said, we continue our dialogue with it.

Leaseholders in collectively owned buildings are excluded from the leaseholder protections because the freehold is owned by some or all of the leaseholders, and the protections would therefore not have their intended effect. Collectively owned buildings are still eligible for the Government’s cladding safety scheme and the responsible actors scheme, and they can also bring remediation contribution orders against former owners, developers or associated persons. We are committed to reviewing how better to protect leaseholders from costs.

The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, raised the pace of housebuilding and its impact. The levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply impacts while balancing the need to raise the revenue required to make homes safe. All the issues raised with me at the SME round table I attended earlier this afternoon are already being explored and looked at, and I will continue that dialogue with those people. I have undertaken to give them some feedback.

Developers have had plenty of notice that the levy is coming and to include it in their viability plans. It was announced in 2021, and developers have had 15 months from being provided with the detailed design until the launch in 2026. Levy measures to minimise the housing supply impact—I mentioned these in my introduction—include variable levy rates at local authority level, the discount on developments on previously developed land, exemptions for affordable housing and developments of fewer than 10 dwellings. We expect that the cost of the levy will, in time, be reflected in the price that developers pay for land. Affordable housing is exempt from the building safety levy, and the Government are unlocking housebuilding at an unprecedented level. We have already taken urgent action through the planning reforms, which we will discuss next week, and through the £39 billion of investment for social and affordable housing.

I will make some comments on the building safety regulator because it is really important and noble Lords have mentioned it. Local authorities will administer the levy even when the building safety regulator is the Building Control Authority. The levy has been designed to minimise additional responsibilities imposed on the BSR. On 30 June, we announced a new phase for the BSR, including strengthening the leadership of that organisation, tackling operational challenges and moving it from the HSE to a stand-alone body. The building safety regulator has been open and transparent about the challenges of implementing a significant shift in the way building safety is now regulated in high-risk buildings.

The BSR has implemented a range of operational improvements, and it will recruit over 100 new staff to strengthen capacity by the end of the year. Over the past three months, the BSR has made major changes to improve the processing of gateway 2 applications, including a new fast-track innovation unit. Early indications suggest that the new model is working effectively. We expect the model to start to deliver improvements in processing times in the coming months, and we continue to commit to the highest standards of safety. The fast-track process is about refining a new system, not stepping back on commitments. I take the noble Lord’s point about the quality of responses; it is clearly not acceptable to send a response back with just “roof” written on it. I will take that back. His points about digital compatibility are well made. I will take those back and reply to him in writing.

On the payment point, I understand that the levy is paid at building control application, and in a major development that would probably be phased, so the building levy would be applied in that phased way. The noble Lord asked for a delay to the introduction, but developers have already had 15 months after being provided with the detail, so I do not think that that would be justified.

On the SME point, we are still consulting on the issue around medium-sized developments. I will respond in due course, once we have analysed those responses.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about reviews. They can be more frequent—the minimum is three years—and there will be a continual review process. We need a balance, providing certainty with an ability to amend in the light of changing circumstances. We will continually keep this under review. In response to his question about PBSA, 30 bed spaces in PBSA are roughly equivalent to 10 dwelling-house thresholds, so that is why it has been set at that rate.

In conclusion, we think that the building safety levy is essential to fund the remediation of these historic building safety issues without further burdening residents and leaseholders, who have already suffered quite considerably through all this. The Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and to unlock growth. That must work in parallel with our commitment to remedying the building safety failures of the past. The industry that contributed to such problems must pay to remedy them. The draft regulations set out a fair approach to collect the required funds, while ensuring minimal impact on housing supply and industry.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister very kindly commented on the improvements in the speed and transparency of the building safety regulator—that is very good. Is there a timetable of targets for how quickly it will turn around gateway 2, gateway 3 and gateway 4? I do not expect an answer now, but, if so, would the Minister be kind enough to write to us on that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. A new person—Andy Roe—is in charge of the building safety regulator. It would be helpful for me to ask Andy to draft a letter for noble Lords to set out our progress on making the BSR more effective.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord Best, in praising the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his tenacity and commitment to shared ownership owners, who really are the raw end of the market and get a raw deal in many ways. He has really shown his mettle in his commitment to this. It is also fair to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for listening and doing something about it. I hope that her commitment to shared owners continues in other areas that we will look at.

Turning to Motion C1, from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which it appears we will vote on, it is very difficult to follow the eloquence of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Cromwell, but I will try. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has already highlighted what we call “revenge evictions”, and we are approaching that issue from the position of working—for many years, in the case of my noble friend Lady Grender—with renter groups and renter charities. From that, we get a real idea of what is happening at the sharp end, which is not quite as narrow as we might like to think it is. There are probably more unscrupulous landlords out there than the number of homes that take over one year to sell.

On revenge evictions, there is the risk that a tenant will be kicked out because they ask for improvements—the noble Lord gave a very good example of that, but there are many others. In certain parts of the country where rents are not as expensive, six months’ rent would make it worth while for the landlord to kick somebody out on that ground if they ask for even some modest accessibility improvements and so on. We are arguing over six, nine or 12 months, and the truth is that only time will tell. What I seek from the Government is some reassurance that this will be looked at, because that could very well be the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned Scotland. It is interesting that the properties in one in five evictions that were made on this repossession ground then turned up on their database as still being for sale. That gives weight to the fact that people are prepared to do it, because in Scotland they have no period for not re-letting.

In several debates, I mentioned that I chatted to my women friends who are landlords; I referred to them as my “landladies”. I put this to them, and they looked at me as if it were a weird question. They said, “If I were concerned about my property sitting empty, I am actually able to sell my property with the tenants still in the property while the ‘For Sale’ board is up on the door, so I would talk to them and say that the ‘For Sale’ board is going up, but I certainly wouldn’t be serving notice until I was certain that I had a buyer”. That is due to—this is a statistic that has not been bandied about—the length of time it sometimes takes to sell a house. Interestingly, they did not see it as the kind of emotive, big, terrible, unfair problem that noble Lords have made it out to be. By keeping your tenants in the property, you are not only getting the rent but—much more importantly, in our view—you are giving your tenants more time to find a home.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I will speak briefly to support two important Motions before us, one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on no re-let provisions, and the other by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham on shared ownership.

On Motion C1, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, clearly explained, under the Bill, where a landlord seeks possession to sell a property and that sale then falls through—as it does in about one-third of cases—the landlord is prohibited from re-letting the property for 12 months. In practice, that means perfectly good homes must stand empty for a whole year. The amendment does not undermine the Bill’s purpose; it retains the requirement for a genuine sales process and safeguards against abuse. It introduces the vital element of proportionality. A six-month restriction would still deter bad actors while avoiding unnecessary loss of rental supply at a time when demand and rents are rising sharply. We have a housing crisis, and we must take every opportunity to improve the supply of housing and homes. Leaving homes empty for 12 months does not help those desperately looking for a home to rent.

Turning to shared owners, I would also like to extend my appreciation of the dedicated work of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and we support the Motion in his name. He has made a compelling and deeply fair case on behalf of shared owners who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves trapped by the complexities of the shared ownership system. I want to thank Ministers for listening to the concerns raised across the House and for working constructively with my noble friend on this issue. We would support my noble friend if he took this to a vote, but from what the Minister has said, my understanding is that the Government are supportive of it. Therefore, we hope that a vote is not necessary.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

That has enabled me to strike out much of my planned contribution—noble Lords may wish to cheer at this point—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Thank you. See you for breakfast!

On a more serious note, I ask the Minister perhaps to write to me to set out what these opportunities are, how they will be made available, and how the appropriate payment rates will be determined. I am not suggesting that she can quantify them now, but what is the process? I do not think the Bill makes that clear, unless I have missed it.

I will take the three amendments in my name as a group, as they are linked. They address the actual delivery of the conservation measures set out in environmental delivery plans, once those have been established. Clause 76(3) recognises that and says:

“Natural England may pay another person to take conservation measures”.


But the Bill lacks a clear, simple and manageable series of steps for Natural England to follow to achieve that. My Amendment 318B would turn the “may” into a “must”, meaning that third parties should be engaged. Incidentally, I do not think that those would be entirely commercial; they could be non-governmental organisations that are able to deliver.

My Amendments 320B and 325ZA set out a series of rational steps for delivering conservation works, which are: first, hold a competitive tender process; secondly, if there are no willing bidders, seek to buy the land at market value; thirdly, if that really proves impossible, proceed to compulsory purchase as a last resort. These amendments would strengthen the Bill by setting out a clear set of sequential and proportionate process stages for the all-important implementation of conservation works. This would be helpful both to Natural England and to those wishing to engage with delivering the EDP process. I hope the Government will recognise this as a helpful clarification that will support the effective implementation of the plans under Natural England supervision.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He referred to two different utilities. Energy should, in effect, be unlimited in the resource available, but it is concerning to a number of communities that, suddenly, energy projects, substations and so on are popping up around the country and lots of planning applications are going in alongside them from solar farms and for other significant uses of data, including data centres and other AI infrastructure. As a consequence, what proportion of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3a land is now being taken up with planning applications, due to not only solar farms but all the AI-related infrastructure to which the amendments refer? I do not know whether the Minister has that information; if not, I would be grateful if she could write to us.

On Amendment 185P, unlike electricity and energy, water is very much a constrained utility in this country. The amount of water available to keep powering homes, businesses and other activities, including energy stations, is significantly under threat. That is one reason why there will be one of the most significant contractions in the amount of water available to the farming sector in just two years’ time. There is something to be said about the amount of water that we think will be used by AI data centres and the like. At the moment, there seems to be no thinking about how we prioritise the different industrial sectors across our country. Nor am I aware—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that we are necessarily considering this in planning guidance, although there will be something more widely about whether water is available. This is a really important activity and the Government should absolutely be looking at it, regardless of whether this goes into the Bill.

When I did the plan for water, on making sure there was a clean supply of water—that was part of the intention—and thinking ahead, I do not think that we had really given much thought to this sort of consumption that we are now due to have. To give an example, one reason for the major delays to Sizewell C was that, all of a sudden, the water company responsible said that it could not necessarily guarantee the amount of water to be used in the construction and operation of the nuclear energy plant. That has led to Sizewell C having to think about desalination plants and reservoirs but, at the moment, there are constraints on how some of these things can be spread across sectors in the generation of a nuclear energy station. It is imperative that we think about where else this could happen; to be serious, in terms of the building planned and business growth in the east of England, after Sizewell C was given its consent, no other business has been eligible to get or ask for any more water.

This is a genuinely critical area that the Government need to look at, which is why I welcome the amendment put forward by the noble Earl today. I hope that they will give it serious consideration and I encourage the noble Earl to bring it back on Report.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I suspect that many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House are not yet fully aware of the growth, scale and significance of what we call AI-related infrastructure—the hardware and software required to create, train and deploy AI-powered applications and solutions. If we are to fully harness the benefits of AI, unlocking these new efficiencies, fuelling economic growth and creating opportunities for infrastructure investment, we must be mindful of the practical impacts that come with it, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Coffey have pointed out, with the two key areas being energy use and water.

As the noble Earl has highlighted, the sheer computational power required for advanced AI models is immense, leading to rising energy demand. Equally, the cooling systems necessary for AI data centres can involve significant water usage. These are important considerations and it makes sense that our planning system and national guidance should take them into account to ensure that infrastructure growth is both sustainable and resilient. I do not believe it is the noble Earl’s intention that these amendments hold back innovation; rather, they call for statutory recognition of these impacts within the planning system, supported by a clear national strategy, guidance and reporting requirements. That seems to me both proportionate and sensible.

The noble Earl’s Amendments 185R and 185S rightly highlight the urgent challenge of climate change and the central role that planning and development must play in addressing it. Their emphasis on ensuring a resilient and sustainable built environment is both timely and welcome, and I place on record our appreciation of the sentiment behind them. At the same time, however, it is important to strike a balance, supporting sustainability while avoiding overly burdensome requirements or excessive regulation that could impede housing delivery or economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to respond to these concerns.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his amendments on AI infrastructure and community energy projects. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue of the water and power required by data centres. Before I respond, I should say that we need to be very proud of our AI in this country. We have the third largest AI market in the world. The AI sector was valued at £72 billion in 2024 and is projected to be worth over £800 billion by 2035. Over £44 billion of investment has been announced for data centres in the UK since July 2024, which is a very good record, but of course the noble Earl raises some very important issues that run alongside this.

Turning first to Amendment 185N, noble Lords will be aware that we had an in-depth discussion in Committee last week on overheating and climate change, and I appreciate the intent behind this amendment of considering this matter in the context of emerging AI technologies. During my time as a Minister—and until last week I had responsibility for AI in my department; it has moved on now—I had the chance to see some of the real opportunities that AI presents. It has the potential to transform our public services, secure growth and raise living standards, and not least to support our colleagues in planning in order to help them move things on much more quickly. It is this Government’s ambition to harness it for the good of our country, which is why we are actively monitoring the data centre sector and published the first government Estimate of Data Centre Capacity in May 2025, which includes measures indicating energy use.

Some data centre applications will have the option of being consented through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. Officials from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are in the process of developing a national policy statement to guide this process, which will also be treated, importantly, as a materially significant consideration in the local authority-led planning process. This statement will include an assessment of the sustainability of the sector, and we are aiming for publication in 2026. The Government have also, as the noble Earl mentioned, established the AI Energy Council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DESNZ, to provide expert insight into the energy needs of AI and the role of AI in an efficient and sustainable energy system. To do this, the council has established a sustainability working group which will explore options to accelerate the development of low-carbon energy solutions to power AI, tools to reduce carbon emissions from AI, and metrics to support energy efficiency.

Amendment 185P is focused on the water use of AI infrastructure. The Government are committed to reducing the use of public water supply by 20% by 2037-38, with a 9% interim target for non-household reduction by 31 March 2038. As part of this commitment, Defra is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Business and Trade and the Environment Agency to determine how water efficiency and demand in data centres can be improved. Data centres use a variety of cooling systems, with only a small proportion using entirely water-based ones. Water-cooled data centres can use water very intensively, as has already been highlighted, particularly at times of peak demand, such as hotter periods. In summer 2025, the Environment Agency conducted a survey with the data centre sector, through techUK, the trade association for data centres, to gain a better understanding of current water needs. As set out, the Government are developing a national policy statement to guide data centre planning applications, and the water efficiency of data centres will form part of this assessment, including options for water reuse and non-potable water systems.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked me about the use of agricultural land for data centres. The MPPF is, and the future land use framework will be, very clear that grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land should be protected and used only where there is no alternative. That is already set out in planning policy.

Amendment 185R, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require planning authorities to consider and support the inclusion of community energy projects in new developments. I agree with the noble Earl that renewable energy generation in households—we have already had a discussion on this—is a vital approach to help cut bills for families, boost our national energy security and deliver the clean energy mission. On the practicalities of increasing renewable energy generation in new developments, I am pleased to say that my department is working very closely with DESNZ on the future homes standard. The future homes standard will include renewable electricity generation on the majority of new homes through routes like rooftop solar. I therefore consider this amendment to be unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

It is important to remember in these situations that the property being compulsorily acquired is a home and that the displaced home owner will almost certainly need the home loss payment to find a replacement home. Some modification of the blanket application of exclusions from such payments would make the proposed new clause fairer and more reasonable. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the principle behind this amendment is an important one and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, deserve careful consideration. It is a sensitive matter, particularly where an individual’s poor health or other infirmities are concerned, and we will want to look at this area closely. More broadly, we are concerned about the extensive nature of this section of the Bill, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for bringing us this amendment on compulsory purchase compensation rules. The amendment would ensure that home owners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO.

Under the current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with an improvement notice, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments is excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. This Bill amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. However, where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be entitled to compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation or other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. The provision introduced by this Bill will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring sub-standard properties back into use as housing and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.

The amendment would ensure that, where an owner can show that they did not deliberately allow their property—subject to an improvement notice or order—to fall into disrepair or to remain derelict and that it was the result of ill health, other infirmity or a lack of financial resources, they can still make a claim for a home loss payment. We believe that it is for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the Land Compensation Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the property owner. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 221 and 223, which are in my name. Before I do so, I should perhaps remind the Committee of the interest I declared at Second Reading: I have been the recipient of three party wall notices in the past three years. That has brought to my attention the whole issue of the practicality of the party wall Act.

Both amendments deal with the issue of party walls, which is particularly pertinent in London and other cities where residential buildings either adjoin or are close to other housing. Amendment 221 calls for a review of the party wall Act. However, I will deal with Amendment 223 first. This amendment is applicable mainly to residential buildings and stops any developer interfering with the structural integrity of somebody else’s house without their permission. That simply means that no one should have their foundations affected by the work next door.

The oft-used quote, “An Englishman’s home is his castle”, comes to mind. We all presume that we have property rights and, if we own a home, that we should be able to live in it without interference. I am not a human rights expert, and I know that there are many noble and learned Lords in the House of Lords who are, so I tiptoe into this issue with nervousness. However, it is my understanding that human rights law protects against interference with property. That is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 1 protects the right to

“the peaceful enjoyment of … possessions”

and Article 8

“protects your right to respect for your … home”.

Someone else interfering with the foundations of a house causes stress and anxiety to the owner, because it has the ability to undermine and/or badly damage the property. In fact, there have been cases of houses becoming unstable and, in some rare cases, actually collapsing. I understand that at least one fatality has been caused.

This is not the first time this issue has been raised in the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, put forward a Private Member’s Bill—the Planning (Subterranean Development) Bill—in 2015 to address this very issue. Most of the interference with other people’s foundations comes about because of basements being dug or floors lowered. Having personally been on the receiving end of this, I can attest to the huge distress, noise and interference that this causes, to which I and many others have been subjected. It is therefore time to stop others in the future being affected in this way. The development should not interfere physically with anyone else’s property without their permission.

This brings me to Amendment 221, which calls for a review of the Party Wall etc. Act. This Act was bought in as a Private Member’s Bill in 1996 by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I understand that it was meant to address circumstances where damage had occurred and to deal with this meant that the neighbouring house would also be affected. I understand that this was bought in with good intentions. However, it was in the days before the fashion for digging basements. The provisions in the Act are very one-sided and basically take away the rights from the adjoining owner so that damage—sometimes criminal damage—trespass and nuisance may occur.

Moreover, the party wall Act appears to take this work out of planning, so there is no mechanism to allow an adjoining owner to object. It robs the adjoining owner of any rights to stop the work, even where it may adversely affect their property. This unfairness is exacerbated by the way that surveyors have interpreted this Act. Although the adjoining owner is allowed to appoint a surveyor, unlike most professionals representing a client the surveyors choose to act neutrally, often refusing the adjoining owner any input or say about what happens to their property—while the surveyor to those doing the development is briefed by their client on what to do.

It is almost 30 years since the Act was passed. There has not been any post-legislative scrutiny and there has been no review. I tabled a number of Questions on this issue in October last year, asking whether the Government would conduct a review. In July 2021, Newcastle University’s School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape produced Bunkering Down, a report which cited that 7,328 basements had been improved in 32 London boroughs between 2008 and 2019, saying that these have now become

“as normal as loft conversions”.

The department has, by its own admission, received correspondence from parliamentarians and members of the public alike concerning the efficacy and application of the Act over the years. Any review or consultation must include this correspondence in its evidence.

I thank the Minister, who found time to see me about this. One of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have property rights. People need to be reassured that their home is safe and that all things are in line with the ECHR. I hope that, if the Minister does not feel that she can accept this amendment, she will commit to a consultation and a review forthwith. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling Amendments 221 and 223 regarding the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which is an important piece of legislation providing a legal framework to resolve disputes between property owners concerning shared walls.

Amendment 221 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the party wall Act and clarify whether it is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether it needs amending to update its position in planning and development processes. We should all recognise the importance in amending previous legislation so that it is consistent with current law and practice. I therefore hope that the Government take this amendment seriously.

Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that the structural integrity of homes is protected by requiring the permission of neighbouring property owners who may be affected by the development rights conferred by this Act. This amendment clearly aims to uphold people’s existing property rights and their structural integrity. This is an important principle which I look forward to the Government addressing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for her amendments relating to party walls and for meeting with me to help me understand the issues that she has faced relating to this.

Amendment 221 seeks to create a legal duty to review the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. The party wall Act provides a framework for preventing or resolving disputes between neighbours relating to party walls, party structures, boundary walls and excavations near buildings. While I have no objection in principle to reviewing legislation, it has been the view of successive Governments since the late 1990s that the party wall Act does, indeed, deliver what it was intended to do. It creates a framework for communication and agreement between adjoining property owners when work needs to be carried out to a shared structure, while the Building Regulations establish the minimum legal standards and functional requirements in new building work.

The party wall Act already requires that the owner of a building carrying out work under the Act must serve any adjoining property owner a party structure notice stating: the name and address of the building owner proposing the work; the nature and particulars of the proposed work, including, in cases where the building owner proposes to construct special foundations, plans, sections and details of construction of the special foundations together with reasonable particulars of the loads to be carried thereby; and the date on which the proposed work will begin.

Amendment 223 seeks to create a legal duty for building owners to gain permission from the adjoining property to carry out any works under the party wall Act. As I mentioned, the party wall Act provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, to protect neighbouring buildings from the impact of building works and hold those completing works accountable for any negative impact. Ensuring structural compliance when undertaking work is already regulated under Structure: Approved Document A of the Building Regulations. Any development work must comply with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. Amending the party wall Act will therefore have no regulatory effect on the structural safety of buildings beyond what is already regulated for. The party wall Act should therefore continue to provide a robust framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, party structures and excavations near neighbouring buildings.

I accept that there are occasions when things go wrong and I am very happy to continue the dialogue with the noble Baroness, but for all the reasons I have set out, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards: Cost Caps for Landlords

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

This is a very important question for those tenants who find themselves on heat networks. The noble Baroness is right to point to the fact that, while some of them have been maintained well and looked after, for others that is not so much so. We have allocated £1.29 billion of funding from the warm homes plan specifically to support energy efficiency improvements in social homes as part of wave 3 of the warm homes social housing fund. We are generally very much in favour of heat networks, and I hope that those organisations that operate heat networks will approach the department for that funding. The funding will deliver support to 144 projects across England. I hope that will provide some financial support for those organisations facing that dilemma.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we agree that it is desirable to have energy-efficient homes but for many older and, in particular, listed homes this can be difficult. The Government are lifting the cap for private rental landlords to meet the EPC C rating by 2030 from £3,500 to £15,000. Already, this is a potentially significant burden on landlords. Many might consider it no longer worthwhile and seek to sell, meaning fewer desperately needed rental homes. Given this change, what assurance can the Minister give to landlords that the cap will not be increased further and that the requirement will not go beyond the EPC C rating?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope I made it clear in my earlier answer that no decisions have been taken yet. We will report on the outcome of the consultation. We consulted on a number of proposals to manage the cost burden, including a cap on the maximum investment required per property, which I think is what the noble Lord was getting at, and the other exemptions that may not be feasible or appropriate, including heritage buildings, for which I understand it might be difficult in those circumstances. We have a number of avenues of support for landlords to improve their properties. The boiler upgrade scheme offers £7,500 off the cost of a heat pump. There is the warm homes local grant, which will fund measures such as insulation and solar panels for eligible low-income households. We are doing what we can to support private landlords with a package of measures that will help them to introduce safe and warm homes.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

150ZA: Clause 52, page 74, line 14, at end insert—
“(12A) Any local plan prepared after the spatial development strategy is in place must not be inconsistent with, or (in substance) repeat, any policies in the strategy.(12B) Where any local plan is subject to representations under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/767) (preparation of a local plan), or a subsequent stage of preparation process, it may continue on the basis existing at the time of that stage of the preparation process.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the principle of finality. This amendment seeks to ensure that local plans are aligned with spatial development strategies, while allowing transitional arrangements for local plans already at an advanced stage of preparation.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in my name, Amendments 150ZA and 150ZB, concern coherence in the planning pyramid. Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner covers similar ground.

The Bill rightly proposes that spatial development strategies should be aligned with national policies. That is entirely proper, but it is equally important that the whole planning framework—the pyramid, you might say—of national policy guidance, spatial development strategies, local plans and neighbourhood plans is coherent. We must not have a situation where they contradict one another: where an application complies with one part of the system but is rejected for failing to comply with another. That is an issue that—I declare my interest as a member—the previous Government’s London Plan review identified. The conflicts between the London Plan and local borough plans caused issues.

Amendment 150ZA makes it clear that a local plan must not be inconsistent with the relevant spatial development strategy. This does not mean a top-down approach. It does not mean that local plans have to be identical—quite the opposite. They will be tailored to local areas, they may go further in key respects, and they will provide much of the detail that a high-level spatial strategy cannot and should not cover. Equally, those developing a spatial development strategy should be building on existing local plans, not cutting across them.

I also know from my experience as a councillor, having borne the scars of a local plan that took eight years to deliver, that one of the greatest challenges in plan-making is the constant shifting of the planning landscape: new regulations and guidance arriving part-way through the process, forcing local authorities to retrace their steps and start again, causing serious delays. My amendment therefore proposes a point of stability: that once a local authority has reached Regulation 18 stage—that is where you go out and consult on the broad strategy with residents and others on the plan, and that is typically about halfway through to submission—any subsequent changes resulting from a new spatial development strategy should not require the authority to start again; in other words, the clock stops. Obviously, when the local plan is reviewed again in five years, it would take into account the new spatial development strategy. That gives certainty to the council to complete its work.

Amendment 150ZB follows the same principle for neighbourhood plans. Again, it would require that neighbourhood plans not be inconsistent with the local plan, but again, this is not a top-down instruction. Neighbourhood plans will, rightly, reflect local priorities. They may also choose to go further—for instance, by allocating more housing where there is a specific local need, or by setting local priorities that speak to the character of the area. Local plans, in turn, should build on the work already undertaken by neighbourhood forums and parish councils. Here too, there needs to be a fair transition. Where a new local plan is adopted part-way through the preparation of a neighbourhood plan, my amendment provides that there should be a 12-month window in which that neighbourhood plan can be completed on the basis of the previous local plan. That strikes the right balance. It gives communities certainty, avoids wasted effort and ensures that local plans and neighbourhood plans can evolve in step.

Let us be clear, these amendments are not about diluting localism. On the contrary, they are about safeguarding it, ensuring a coherent planning pyramid that does not weaken distinctiveness but strengthens trust in the system and ensures that local voices are heard within a coherent framework where national, strategic, local and neighbourhood priorities reinforce rather than contradict each other. That, I submit, is the only way that we can achieve genuine consistency in housing delivery, infrastructure planning and sustainable development while preserving the vital principle of local voice and local choice. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 150ZB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, which he has very helpfully introduced, takes us into the question of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development plans. My amendments in this group—Amendments 154, 161 and 163—all relate to neighbourhood plans, plus one additional issue, which I will raise in a moment.

We are in the territory of revisiting questions which we debated during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Amendment 154 relates to what is presently in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act at Section 97 and Schedule 7. It is a part of Schedule 7. Noble Lords will recall that Schedule 7 has a wide range of planning and plan-making provisions. I think none of them has been brought into force.

With Amendment 154, I have extracted the provision within Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 that allowed for the production of neighbourhood priorities statements. Neighbourhood priorities statements would enable neighbourhood bodies—parishes, town councils, neighbourhood forums—to provide views on local matters such as development and nature. For the purposes of this Bill it would include, for example, environmental delivery plans as they emerge, the distribution and location of housing, facilities and infrastructure, all of which will be relevant to local plan making.

This is intended not to be a neighbourhood development plan as such but to enable neighbourhoods to comment on what are wider plan-making issues and to be a more accessible format for neighbourhood views on development and not require neighbourhoods necessarily to have incorporated their comments on issues in their neighbourhood development plan. It is to allow neighbourhoods to have their priorities stated in relation to the wider development issues. Neighbourhood priorities statements would not, for example, be subject to independent examination or require a local referendum. They would be a means for neighbourhoods to engage with the spatial development strategy and local plan making and the processes involved. They would potentially ensure an overall increase in the engagement of neighbourhoods with plan making.

I keep coming back to the central importance of the plan-making process. We are all, in our various guises, as councillors, council leaders and Members of Parliament, disappointed—and often find it incredibly frustrating—that so many individuals, and sometimes even parishes and communities, have not engaged thoroughly with the plan-making process but subsequently wish to object to what development proposals are brought forward consistent and in accordance with the development plan.

This is an important opportunity to have neighbourhood priorities statements. It is also thoroughly consistent with emerging government policy. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill presently in the other place, in Clause 58, provides:

“Local authorities in England must make appropriate arrangements to secure the effective governance”


of a neighbourhood area. That Bill provides for a structure of governance for neighbourhoods It gives us no detail on what functions may be conferred on such neighbourhood government structures. This amendment would positively equip the forthcoming English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill with a very clear function for such neighbourhood governance to provide such a key function. I commend it to Ministers as consistent with their emerging policies in support of neighbourhood governance. They can start to fill in the detail of what neighbourhood governance can achieve.

Amendments 161 and 163 relate to the provisions in Sections 98 and 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Those sections have also not been brought into force. Section 98 had the effect of providing detail about the content of a neighbourhood development plan. Some noble Lords who follow these matters about development plans will be aware that the legislation as it stands at the moment, which is essentially Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, includes processes around the development of a neighbourhood development plan but no information about the content of a neighbourhood development plan.

My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on the Front Bench will recall taking these measures through the House. The purpose was a very clear one, which was largely endorsed—that it would be extremely helpful to parishes, town councils and the like, when they are preparing a development plan, to know what content it should provide for. I will not go through it in detail, but it principally includes the amount, type and location of development, related land use, infrastructure requirements, the need for affordable housing and the importance of reflecting on design. These are all considerations which in our debates on this Bill we have determined are very important. This provision would allow the neighbourhood development plan to contribute to exactly these issues.

Amendment 163 is about bringing Sections 98 and 100 of the levelling-up Act into force. My Amendment 161 would amend Section 100 to make it consistent with this Bill by including powers to require assistance with spatial development strategies and neighbourhood development plans when plan-making.

--- Later in debate ---

Thirdly, having different plans potentially in conflict can serve only to reduce clarity for those proposing development and preparing, commenting on or determining planning applications, especially if those plans have all been produced in the recent past, as these amendments would allow. Fourthly, there is established planning practice guidance that provides useful guidance for the preparation of neighbourhood plans where a local plan is emerging at the same time. This advises that plan-making bodies should take a proactive and positive approach, sharing evidence and working collaboratively to minimise any policy conflicts and produce complementary plans. We expect the same approach to be taken where SDSs are being prepared at similar times.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am just seeking clarity. As the Minister knows, many of us in local government bear the scars from changes. The implication of her response is that, in practical terms, someone would not be going to regulation 18 stage in a local plan until they were very clear about what the spatial development strategy was going to be. That potentially means that you end up having a cascade of plans that are entirely dependent on the spatial development strategy, and that will delay local plans and, potentially, neighbourhood plans.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope I made it clear that, as an SDS is in preparation, the evidence base and policies being used will become apparent. It is the collaboration between the different elements of the plan-making process that is critical here. Suggesting that we might hold up the provision of a plan is not correct. Regulation 18 stage is a quite an early stage and we do not want to weaken the production of the SDS, given the time it would take to produce the next local plan to be consistent with the SDS. So the evidence for the SDS will be very clear and, if there is good collaboration between all parts of the system, they should not need to wait for the SDS to be finalised even before or after they get to regulation 18 stage. I hope that is clear. If the noble Lord wants to talk about that some more, I am happy to do so.

Amendment 154, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would create a power for neighbourhood planning groups to produce neighbourhood priority statements. As the noble Lord knows, provision for these was one of many measures first included in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. We are mindful of the scale of reform to the planning system with which we are asking local authorities to engage. Later in the year, we intend to set out the detail of our reforms to the system of local plans, and we are wary of introducing further complexity into the new system before it has been allowed to become established. If we were to do so, we would risk undermining both the local plan reforms and the neighbourhood priorities statements, with overstretched planning authorities potentially failing to give statements the consideration they would deserve. For this reason, the Government’s current priority for the neighbourhood planning system is maintaining the existing rights for communities in the new context of strategic and reformed local plans—that is what I was talking about just now. We will consider whether there is a need for reform to neighbourhood planning, including whether to commence the relevant provisions in Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, once our wider reforms have taken effect.

Amendments 161 and 163 propose to amend the power to require assistance with certain plan-making in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and to commence the power in Section 98 which makes provision regarding the contents of neighbourhood plans. The noble Lord will, I hope, be pleased to hear that, so far as spatial development strategies are concerned, we are entirely in agreement. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Bill gives effect to his proposal to add spatial development strategies to the list of plans where assistance can be required.

When it comes to neighbourhood plans, I am afraid I must disappoint the noble Lord. This power was not designed for neighbourhood plans. It is intended to cover plan-making at far greater geographic scale and to obtain assistance on issues with which no voluntary neighbourhood planning group could be expected to grapple, no matter the extent of the assistance. His point about provisions for support to neighbourhood governance in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is noted, but I believe they are intended for a much wider remit than planning—no doubt we will debate what that might be during the course of that Bill. Neighbourhood plans are not supposed to be local plans in miniature, and they should not be treated as such.

As far as commencement of Sections 98 and 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act are concerned, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that these provisions will be commenced alongside our wider reforms, which we think will allow all the legislative changes to be viewed in the round, rather than having to be pieced together over time.

I turn next to Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am grateful to him, as always, for his constructive engagement and for all his amendments, including this one. He raised important concerns at Second Reading around the potential for neighbourhood plans to conflict with national policy, especially in relation to development on grey-belt land. I assure the Committee that neighbourhood plans cannot be used to prevent housing development and they cannot designate grey-belt land, nor can they unilaterally ignore national policy.

The test of “have regard to” is a well-established one—I hesitate to discuss this with a lawyer of such eminence as the noble Lord—across planning and beyond. It requires serious consideration of the policy and its objectives, and a rational basis for any departure. The starting point for any such test, including in neighbourhood planning, is that the regard should normally see the policy being followed. This point, among others, should be rigorously tested by the examiner during the public examination of a neighbourhood plan. We think this is the right balance. National policy is designed to be flexible. It must be, because local circumstances and needs vary widely, and so it is important that flexibility is maintained.

Amendment 185M, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to insert a requirement into the development consent order process for a Secretary of State to consider neighbourhood plans when making a decision on a nationally significant project, and to allow her to limit variations to neighbourhood plans—that should be “him”, sorry; this was obviously a note written before the change of the Secretary of State. While I agree it is essential that neighbourhood plans inform the Government’s decision-making on these projects, this amendment is not necessary to deliver that outcome.

As the Housing Minister said in the other place, the DCO process has been designed to enable timely decisions to be taken on nationally significant infrastructure projects, taking account of national need and priority, as well as local impacts. Neighbourhood plans give communities the ability to shape and direct development and the use of land at a local level, and play an important role in the planning system. For NSIP applications, national policy statements are the primary policy framework; they set out the need for NSIPs, guidance for promoters and assessment criteria, and guidance for decision-making.

The Planning Act 2008 process provides ample opportunities for input from local communities and local authorities, which I know is the noble Baroness’s key concern. As part of the decision-making process, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters considered both important and relevant; this can include matters of local significance. Local communities can make representations as part of the examination process, which can address whether proposals comply with or otherwise impact on issues of concern set out in relevant neighbourhood plans. Local authorities are fully engaged in the DCO process and are invited to submit local impact reports setting out the potential impacts of the project on the local area. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the local impact report in deciding an application.

As a matter of law, the Secretary of State must decide any application for a development consent order in accordance with any relevant national policy statement, except to the extent that any limited statutory exemption applies. Where there is no relevant national policy statement in effect, the Secretary of State must have regard to specified matters, including the local impact report and any other matters which the Secretary of State considers both important and relevant to the decision. These safeguards, which are already embedded in the statutory process, are sufficient to ensure that Secretaries of State take account of existing development plans, including neighbourhood plans, as appropriate. Where there is a relevant national policy statement in effect, this amendment could serve to frustrate the clear legal requirement on the Secretary of State to determine an application in accordance with the NPS.

This amendment would add another unnecessary requirement to the DCO process, which is contradictory to the Government’s ambitions of streamlining the planning system and the DCO decision-making process. Furthermore, the Secretary of State currently has no role in approving neighbourhood plans. It would therefore not be appropriate to enable him to make variations to them, as this is, rightly, a decision for communities. For these reasons, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I start by thanking the Minister for her reply. I reiterate what my noble friend said earlier: it appears that she has had regard to our comments but her response is not consistent with our proposals, and hence I am disappointed with that response. We will take some time carefully to consider these areas of disagreement. Our focus will be on how the planning system can deliver the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised, and how these can be quality homes that people need and that are part of communities and serve them.

Amendments 154, 161 and 163, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, concern the benefits of a neighbourhood priority statement. I completely agree with his comments: producing a neighbourhood plan can be quite onerous, but coming up with a statement of priorities can be done much more readily and be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I wrote to the noble Lord during the course of a previous Bill to set out which provisions would be implemented, with rough dates for when they would come forward. I hope he has received that letter.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I will review my correspondence; I may have missed it, but I will double-check. I apologise if that is the case.

As I acknowledged earlier, Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner covers similar ground to my own amendments. We are grateful for my noble friend’s contribution and for his determination to drive forward housebuilding and ensure consistency across the planning system. We will continue to lean on his wisdom on these issues.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Through the mechanism of interrupting my noble friend, I say to the Minister that it would be jolly helpful to have sight of those details about when some of the commencement orders might be made. As my noble friend said, we could save ourselves an awful lot of trouble on Report if we knew that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before I comment on Amendment 185, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I will describe my view of a pyramid. A pyramid needs foundations and is built from the ground up; I tend to take that view rather than the helicopter view. The amendment requires that neighbourhood plans be given consideration in the local plan. That is a similar point to my own—that local plans should build on neighbourhood plans. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Amendment 150ZA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I will make a few quick points in the absence of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made his own points very well, so I will not repeat them.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I imagine most MPs recognise that their local councils put all their planning applications online now, and a quick look online on a Friday afternoon by a researcher might find exactly what has gone up that week without the need for any change to legislation. But I understand how it feels when someone gets in touch with you and you do not know; I recognise her dilemma.

We wholeheartedly agree with the impassioned plea from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about consultation and communities. However, when things get as bad as the estate that he described, it has gone way beyond the need for planning to put it right. It sounded more as if it was heading towards the Bronx or similar, and in that sort of instance other processes have to kick in. I was tempted to add the rider, “Other consultants are also available for this work”—I thought he did a good advertising job there.

The amendment that I really want to turn to is Amendment 158, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I understand where he is coming from, but, when I read the amendment, I felt that the planning authorities actually do all those things and try to act appropriately. The whole list that he put in his amendment—I will not read it out again—is, in my experience, what they plan to do. I guess what he is getting at is that he has experience, as have I, of officers being leaned on—those are the words he used, but I would go so far as to say that sometimes they are bullied—by politicians into making decisions.

Thanks to the last Government’s work, carried on by this Government, we now have a lot more information about what is going on in planning committees—we have statistics and things that actually tell us what is going on. If you read the planning press, you see that it is clear which authorities, be it members or officers, are not functioning properly. There is help out there for dysfunctional councils in that regard. A council that will remain nameless was in that position and got a very poor peer review, but then at a council meeting all said, “We don’t agree with this poor peer review”. I guess the question then is what happens next when councils really are failing.

Officers are really good. The amendment makes it seem as if it is black and white, but planning officers understand the role of politicians in the planning procedure—they understand political will—and recognise that they have a legitimate role in what is happening in planning. I have had many a discussion—when I was a councillor, not a mayor—where I have said what residents feel, and the officers have said, “Well, you could say that, but…”. They are good at understanding that you have a role and want to help. They are professional. However, when discussing specific cases, officers make you realise that there is nuance. Interpreting a planning rule is not black and white but very grey. People might say, “It says the gardens have to be this big”, but the officer’s response might be, “The gardens are a bit smaller but do other things that are better and more than we expect, so we’re going to give it planning permission”. It is not simple; it is all a question of nuance and interpretation.

I am quite confident that the system should work if things are done as they already happen. My concern sometimes, when things are demonstrably going wrong or exposed to be so, is what happens next.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 158, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, sets out the principle that local planning authorities should operate under a duty of candour. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that many, if not most, local authorities operate very good planning services and do what I believe my noble friend is setting out.

However, I agree with my noble friend that there would be a benefit to this. I think it would support planning officers in their job, because they would not be so arm-twisted by others outside—and not just by councillors; I can think of some developers and others who do some arm-twisting at times. This matter is important. Communities need confidence that decisions that shape the character and future of their towns, villages and cities are taken in good faith and that the process is accessible, transparent and fair. The amendment makes a constructive contribution to this discussion.

On Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, as a councillor I agree—I think all of us ex-councillors here will agree—that we have frustrations as we know how it ought to be, but it is not. I remember having a very long conversation with people at my local hospital about some things we were seeking to do, asking why they could not move this, or do this or that. They basically said, “We would love to work with you and do it, but every Monday morning we get a call from the chief executive of the NHS and all he wants to know is about delayed transfers out of hospital”. Doing something that would fix a problem in six or 12 months’ time was not on the priority agenda.

This is a big issue with all public bodies: they all have their own priorities and all operate in silos, as has been so eloquently made clear. Placing a duty on public bodies and authorities, not only to follow best practice but to co-operate, could be very beneficial in coming up with better communities and better plans for our areas. This is a vital point. We need joined-up thinking, collaboration and co-ordination. They are not optional extras; they are fundamental. There needs to be some mechanism or tool that makes it very clear for those public bodies that they need to co-operate. I emphasise that sometimes it is the local authority that gets criticised when, in many instances—I would say the vast majority of them—it is about the inability to convene the whole public sector and quasi-public bodies together. Therefore, I am very supportive of the sentiments of this amendment.

Amendment 185J in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raises another practical and sensible point. I appreciate it is a probing amendment, but the issue of GDPR is a crucial one within local government. Again, I can say from personal experience—my noble friend Lord Banner made a comment earlier about the precautionary principle—I find that officers generally have a precautionary principle and will move to the safest option. That is not necessarily the most transparent option. If there is clear guidance that gives them clarity about where that line is, that could be very helpful in enabling officers to do their job better and more transparently, while securing, quite rightly, the privacy of residents and the public.

I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling Amendment 185. There have been a number of comments on this. As set out in Section 102B of the Planning Act 2008, a person within category 1, if they are the owner, lessee, tenant—whatever the tenancy period—or occupier of the land concerned, whose property may be subject to compulsory purchase acquisition under a development consent order, is automatically deemed an interested party. They have notification rights and a statutory place in the examination of an application. The amendment would extend this category to include any Members of Parliament in whose constituency a proposed development is to take place.

I completely agree it is appropriate that MPs know what is going on within their constituencies. However, such a change would give them a formal role in the process rather than relying on access through public channels or discretion. It might alter how MPs engage with nationally significant infrastructure projects, including those that are more contentious. I can see the case and recognise the change in balance between local involvement and the national framework of planning. Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position. Do they see merit in giving MPs a statutory role in this way? How does that sit with the strengthening of local voices within planning law?

In closing, I thank all noble Lords for raising important questions of candour, co-operation and transparency. These are not just procedural matters but go to the heart of how we deliver in this country—how we build trust with communities and ensure that our planning system is fit for purpose.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments, and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Candour, co-operation and transparency are key issues in planning.

Amendment 158, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to impose a duty of candour on local planning authorities and their officers when carrying out planning functions. This Government completely support the principle of this amendment. It is important that local authorities and their officers act with candour when carrying out their duties. I hope that I can provide the noble Lord with assurance that this amendment is not needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, this is a crucial amendment, not least for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Young, put forward. We are going to go on about this until we have an overall demand that this is how we think about matters. We have to recognise that unless we make all our decisions in the context of recovering our biodiversity and protecting our nation and the world against climate change, we are going to make a mess of the decisions we make. That is absolutely central.

I know the Government will be inclined to say it is already there—it is in the guidance, and it is all very proper—but I am afraid that there are many in local authorities who do not see this as the priority it ought to be. I really must ask the Minister to think seriously about the fact that every local authority at least must know that it has to think about things through this lens, because it is the most important lens for all of us.

I live in, and used to represent, a very agricultural constituency, and anyone who has seen the effect of the drought on all our farms at the moment will realise just how desperate the effect of climate change is, particularly for farmers who, only 18 months ago, could not get their crops out because of the water and could not plant because it was still too wet to do so.

People do not understand the impact of climate change today—it is amazing. I am upset and concerned that the good common view of all major political parties is beginning to be eroded. Only by working together are we going to solve these problems. It is no good just saying, “Oh well, we can put it off. We can’t do it by this or that time”. I congratulate the Government on sticking to the fact that we have to do this very quickly indeed. The trouble is that the timetable is not in our hands. We have allowed the timetable to be led by the fact that nature is now reacting to what we have done, and doing so in an increasingly extreme way.

I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and consider an overall view of this in a whole lot of other areas, so that we do not have to have this discussion on a permanent basis. Frankly, it ought to be the given for everything we do that we look at in the light of the fact of climate change. If there are Members of the Committee who have still not seen this, I remind them that it is necessary for growth. If we do not do this, we will not be a country in which people will invest, and we will not have new jobs or the kind of society, nature and climate that will be suitable not only for our children and grandchildren but for us. At my age, I can still say that we have to do this, otherwise the climate in which I will go on living will be increasingly unhappy for me, and for my children and grandchildren. Please accept this amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Amendment 187A, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to probe the practical meaning of the new definitions, particularly the “achievement of sustainable development” and “mitigation” of climate change. Repetition signals importance; the fact that the same definition appears three times in such a short clause suggests it would carry significant legal and practical weight. That makes it vital that Parliament understands precisely what is meant. These terms, though laudable, are broad and open to interpretation. Without clear parameters, they risk being applied inconsistently by different authorities. If undefined, in unmeasurable or unenforceable terms, they could slip into the realm of aspiration rather than action, undermining their purpose as guiding principles for planning and infrastructure decisions. Ambiguity would not only weaken decision-making but could result in delays, disputes and costly appeals.

I appreciate that the Government’s Amendment 187 is not grouped here, but it is relevant. That amendment creates a new clause clarifying the relationship between different types of development corporation, ensuring that any overlap is resolved in favour of the higher tier authority. Will the Government consider committing to something similar in relation to these definitions, so that we secure the same kind of clarity and consistency?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for that short but important debate. Climate change affects everybody. Like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I live in a rural area and when taking the dog out for a walk during the summer I could see that the crops were not what they should be. We know this affects everybody in their everyday lives. It is something that this Government, with our net zero policies, et cetera, take very seriously.

Amendment 164, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would place a statutory duty on local authorities to contribute to targets set out under the Environment Act and Climate Change Act and to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act, and achieve targets set out under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.

We already have existing tools and duties that support efforts to contribute towards targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, strengthened under the Environment Act, so there is already a legal requirement. The latter Act requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy, as well as to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England. Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, drive clean growth, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, and it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a statutory duty would bring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I very much appreciate what the noble Lord said, As I said, these requirements are a duty on all public authorities, and I am sure we will keep revising this. We know how important it is that we get this right. We will continue to press it with local authorities and all public organisations to achieve that end.

Amendment 187A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to probe the need to make additional climate change provision in respect of the new towns development corporation. This model is currently the only one that has any climate change objectives built into its legislation. Through the Bill, we are going further by including climate change mitigation and adaptation in the already existing aim to contribute to sustainable development and have regard to the desirability of good design. The same objectives will be replicated for all the other development corporation models which currently have no specific objectives in relation to climate change written into their legislative framework. Where development corporations are conferred the role of local planning authority for local plans, they will automatically fall under the planning legislation duties which place specific obligations in relation to sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, not all development corporations will take on the local planning role.

With this in mind, regardless of whether the development corporation takes on planning functions, they will all be required to meet this objective. The UK’s climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme weather events. The effects of extreme weather and nature loss are already here and have impacted all our lives. But there are small wins which can have a big impact. By updating the current framework and making it consistent across the development corporation models and the National Planning Policy Framework, our message is clear that we will place sustainable development and climate change at the heart of all development corporations and guide the use of their powers.

I hope my explanation has reassured the noble Baronesses sufficiently, and I kindly ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

To be clear, my point was about the clarity of those definitions and whether they could be somewhat better defined, referring in particular to “achievement of sustainable development” and “mitigation of climate change”. It was not about climate change in general, but rather our need for clarity on the definitions in those clauses, because they are fairly broad-brush.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We believe that what is already there is specific and offers clarity. It is fundamental to the planning regime that we want to bring in. If the noble Lord wants, I can write to him in greater detail about what is on offer here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington: he and I have shared a number of sporting events together. I had the privilege of playing rugby, cricket, squash, golf, tennis—I am not quite as fit as I was, I am afraid, coming up to 89.

On the preservation of playing fields, pitches and courts, I remember when, in 1968, amazingly, there was a change in the government of the London Borough of Islington, and I had the privilege of being the leader of the incoming party. The first challenge that was put on my desk was Highbury Corner: the change to the roundabout there would take away four tennis courts. I said, “Have we not talked to the GLC about this problem?” I was told that we had but had had no positive response. This seemed to me absolutely wrong for a section of London that, on the whole, is not at all well off, and Highbury Fields was fundamental to the people of Islington. I had to go to see the then leader of the Greater London Council and, after some fairly hectic and heated discussion—in which it was pointed out to me how many millions, allegedly, it was going to take to alter the planning of the roundabout—they agreed to look at it again. I am pleased to say that those tennis courts were never removed and are still there today.

We also have to realise that the numbers taking part in sport today have grown hugely. You only have to look at sport on TNT, on television. How many of our wives were as active in sport as our daughters and granddaughters are? A very small percentage. All women’s sport has grown exponentially. It does not matter what it is—rugby, football, cricket or tennis. All have grown hugely. Against that background, the fundamental point about this amendment is so important.

I now have to declare a specific interest: I am a member of Wimbledon. This is the most successful tennis tournament in the world. It has grown exponentially over the last century. It set up a foundation—and I was one of those involved in the very early stages of that—to help those who, for financial reasons, were less well off and needed help. It attracts visitors from all over the world, and it is the biggest sporting event in the UK economy—and I did not personally understand that until I double-checked it.

There is a tangential amendment to this, which is Amendment 227E. I see my noble friend Lord Banner is sitting in his place. Sadly, I had heart failure in late December; I cannot take part as much as I would wish in your Lordships’ House, and I could not be here for that amendment because of the problems and restrictions I have, which have to be looked after. I would otherwise have spoken to that as well.

I merely re-emphasise to the Minister—I probably do not need to, really—that sport in general, and tennis in particular, is growing all the time. How wonderful it is to see our young people, and young people from all over the world, taking part. I hope that, when the Government reflect on this, they will recognise the absolute importance of this amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments has given me something of a sense of déjà vu. This is not to diminish their importance—far from it. These are serious and considered proposals. They strike at an issue that has surfaced time and again in our debates: the protection and promotion of those spaces which enable sport, recreation and play. Only last week, in moving his Amendment 138A, my noble friend Lord Moynihan reminded us, as he so frequently does, of the profound benefits that flow from creating space for sport and physical activity.

It is not merely about fitness, although that alone would be reason enough; it is about community cohesion, opportunities for young people, the long-term health of the nation, team-building, learning to get on with colleagues and working together. Well-being should be among the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies.

I regret that the Government were not able to give more ground on that occasion, but there is a replay. We have VAR, and there is an opportunity for them to reconsider and give a clearer signal recognising the urgency of embedding health and well-being into the very fabric of planning. Perhaps today, in responding to this group, the Minister might move a little further.

Amendment 165, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is on the preservation of playing fields and pitches. They are not luxuries; they are the bedrock of grass-roots sport. They are where future Olympians take their first steps, but more importantly, they are where countless young people gain the habits of teamwork, discipline and healthy living. Once lost to development, they are rarely, if ever, replaced. It is therefore entirely right that a planning authority should be required to treat their preservation as a priority, not an afterthought.

In a similar vein, Amendment 179 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, reminds us of the importance of children’s play. A child who has a safe, stimulating play space nearby is a child who will grow in confidence, develop social bonds and establish the foundations of a healthy life. Deny them that, and we entrench disadvantage from the very start. I therefore commend both noble Lords for their contributions. I hope the Government will today recognise that without firm protection we risk losing something that cannot be rebuilt: our green lungs, our playing fields and the spaces where our children first learn to run, play and thrive.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for this debate on an issue that the Government take seriously. Amendments 165 and 179 are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am very grateful to them for raising these issues. There is nothing in the Bill that removes the strong protection for playing fields, especially the commitments in the NPPF. Play spaces are vital for supporting the health and well-being of local communities and as such are already considered through existing planning policy and guidance which collectively protect their provision. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that development plans should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. This includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal, including playing fields. Development plans then use those assessments to determine what provision of recreational space is required for local communities.

In December last year, the Government updated planning policy to make specific reference to safeguarding formal play spaces in the National Planning Policy Framework, enhancing the protection of those spaces where they may be threatened by other development types. The framework is clear that play spaces can be lost only if the facility is no longer of community need or there is a justified alternative somewhere else. Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework when preparing a local or strategic plan or making a planning decision is a legal requirement.  

 In recognition of the importance of play space provision for communities, we are also considering what more we can say about this important area as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision-making, on which we intend to consult this year. Further considerations on play spaces are set out in national design guidance that encourages the provision of such spaces and sets out how they can be integrated into new development.  As an aside, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are aware that there is now an APPG on play, which was established by Tom Hayes MP.

The Government are in the process of updating that guidance. A new version is expected to be published later this year and play spaces have been reviewed as part of the update. Play spaces can be funded by developer contribution, secured through Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy, the CIL, which play an important role in helping to deliver the infrastructure required to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening this system.

The Government have established the parks working group, with local authorities and industry specialists, to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces, including improving the number of playgrounds. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will help deliver funding to enable new neighbourhood boards across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. Upgrading play areas is a possible scheme that such funding will be used for, enabling the enhanced provision of public areas of play for many communities.

The Government also believe that the amendments may limit a local authority’s ability to respond to its community’s needs around play spaces by setting an overly rigid framework of assessments and legislative requirements.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, once more, and reiterate my acknowledgment of how important play spaces are for local communities and the role that our planning system plays in enabling and protecting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Okay—I am not going to get that far into the history.

I declare an interest in that land value tax is a long-term Green Party policy and one that I am very happy to talk about at length, but I am not going to do that because it is not what this amendment would do. However, it is worth thinking about the fact that the problem with how we tax land goes back a very long way. There was a royal commission on the housing of the working classes set up in 1885; it was the first time that an inquiry had referred to land value taxation—it was called site value rating then—and it said that this would be a better way to solve a housing crisis. These are issues that we have been wrestling with and failing to solve for a very long time.

My final point is that this amendment by itself would not deal with the crunching, terrible elephant-in-the-room issue of council tax, but it would start to provide the Government with a way to open up these issues. This is all regarded as too politically difficult, too challenging and too complicated to explain—I know what it is like to try to explain land value tax in 15 seconds, because it is a challenge. We are now 35 years on from when council tax was created. It was an emergency crunch measure created by the Treasury after the political disaster of the poll tax. It is a deeply regressive tax. Someone living in a home worth £100,000 pays an effective tax rate five times as high as someone in a £1 million property. The average net council tax is only 2.7 times higher for the top 10% of properties than for the bottom 10%. This is something that we have to address. This amendment would not address all, or even the bulk, of it, but it would start to inch us into a space where we could tackle some issues that desperately need to be tackled.

[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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this group relating to community infrastructure, land value capture and space standards for stepping-stone accommodation.

I turn first to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which would impose new reporting requirements on local planning authorities and introduce new mechanisms to ensure that works funded through developer contributions are delivered. The stories about the delivery of Section 106 and CIL are legendary. My two favourite examples were a bus stop delivered in an area that did not have a bus route, which was wonderful, and a playground that had not been built to safety standards that would ever allow it to be opened, so it never opened—it got closed again before it even opened. We get some nonsense stories like this, and I accept that that is not acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough would shift the process for habitats regulations assessment from the level of individual planning applications to the local plan stage or, in the case of Amendment 185G, the spatial development strategy. I appreciate this amendment. It is in line with comments I made earlier about EDPs, which should be part of the spatial development strategy, rather than separate. The whole point is moving things upstream and doing them once for the whole area rather than having to have multiple assessments with each planning application. We had comments earlier about the sheer bureaucracy and the difficulty of some of these planning applications. My noble friend Lord Fuller is not in his place, but he made a point about smaller applications being burdened with large amounts of paperwork that could be done as part of the local plan.

The intention is clear: it is to guide developers more effectively towards sites most appropriate for development and to speed up and simplify the subsequent application process. That is a constructive alternative approach to how we currently handle habitats assessments, and it merits serious consideration.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, have the Government assessed the benefits of carrying out work earlier in the process? If not, will they commit to doing so? Secondly, how can the Government ensure that local authorities have the capacity to do that and that duplication is avoided?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Young for her amendments on habitats regulations assessments. Amendment 185F seeks to ensure that local plans are in compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and that the local authority preparing the plan carries out full environmental impact assessments when proposing sites for development. It is important that the environmental impacts of a local plan are properly assessed as part of their preparation, arrangements for which are set out in existing legislation.

All local plans are already required to undertake a habitats regulations assessment where they have the potential for impacts on a site or species protected under the regulations. In addition, all local plans are required to carry out an assessment incorporating the requirements of a strategic environmental assessment where a local plan will result in likely significant effects on the environment. This obligation is for a strategic environmental assessment rather than an environmental impact assessment, as the latter requires in-depth information about a specific development proposal—information that will not generally be available at the plan-making stage. However, any development that comes forward subsequent to the plan’s adoption that, due to its size, nature or location, is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will require an environmental impact assessment. With this reassurance about the way that environmental impacts are considered during plan preparation and in support of its implementation, I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

In Amendment 185G, my noble friend raises an important issue about how habitats regulations requirements will apply to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Bill already applies the assessment requirements under the habitats regulations to spatial development strategies. This means that strategic planning authorities will be required to carry out habitats regulations assessments where necessary, bringing new spatial development strategies in line with the spatial development strategy for London. The proposed amendment would require full assessment of specific sites allocated within spatial development strategies, yet the Bill expressly does not allow them to allocate specific sites. It will therefore not be possible for strategic planning authorities to undertake habitats regulations assessments for specific sites as part of SDS preparation. This would need to happen, where needed, later in the planning process.

Amendment 242A would limit the scope of environmental delivery plans to a narrow list of environmental impacts on protected sites: namely, nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I share my noble friend’s desire to ensure that EDPs are used only where they can be shown to deliver for the environment. This is why the Government sought to clarify their position in the recent government amendments, which highlight that the Secretary of State could make an EDP only where the conservation measures materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature. That ensures that EDPs could be brought forward only to address issues that would benefit from a strategic approach and would deliver an environmental uplift that goes beyond the status quo position required under the current system.

With the assurance that an EDP would be made only where it would deliver that environmental uplift, we feel it is right to allow EDPs to be brought forward to address the range of environmental impacts set out in the Bill. Limiting types of environmental impacts that EDPs can address would remove the ability for EDPs to respond to other environmental impacts that may result from development, where a strategic approach could deliver in line with the overall improvement test, especially to protected species. With that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this important group of amendments relates to the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods, the role of planning in promoting well-being, and the standards and accuracy of housing development. I thank the noble Lords who tabled these amendments; their recognition of the need to place health and well-being at the heart of housing policy and planning is both welcome and timely. In doing so, I wish to express our appreciation of the sentiment behind the amendments, and the desire to ensure that development is not just about numbers and units delivered, but about the quality of life of those who will live in them.

I note the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Taken together, these seek to integrate health and well-being considerations into housing and planning through duties on authorities’ reporting requirements and potential enforcement provisions. The link between housing and public health is well recognised but, as with many such proposals, the issue is one of balancing aspirations with the demands of regulation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has also brought forward a thoughtful proposal: Amendment 124 on advertising. This raises an important issue of public health and the role of advertising. The noble Baroness mentioned gambling advertising, but I would also add that for junk food, particularly in areas close to schools, for instance.

Amendment 132 on the disclosure of environmental performance in marketing materials and Amendment 227, clarifying local authority enforcement powers, raise important questions about consumer protection and transparency. We look forward to the Government’s reply.

I wish to recognise the valuable contribution of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and speak to his Amendment 138A. As he often emphasises, creating space for sport and physical activity can deliver wide-ranging benefits, not only for an individual’s fitness, but for community cohesion and long-term public health. His amendment would add the promotion of health and well-being to the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies. This raises an important and thought-provoking point, and we look forward with interest to the Government’s response.

Lastly, I return to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. We have already underlined the importance of respecting local vernacular and design in planning and development. The spirit of her Amendment 185SA is, I believe, a constructive one: namely, that there should be a preferred approach to the consideration of architectural style grounding in sound plan-making principles, and framed by an appropriate, locally distinctive context for building design. Where that is fitting, such an approach ensures that development is not only functional but reflective of the character and heritage of the community it serves.

That is why the previous Conservative Government set up the Office for Place: to ensure that good design was part of building. Unfortunately, this current Labour Government have closed the office. We should not just be building units; we must build homes that are well designed and form part of successful communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how this Government will ensure good design.

Across this group of amendments, there is a unifying theme: that housing should not merely be about shelter, but about creating places that sustain life, health and community—whether through high standards, clearer duties, better design or fairer advertising. These amendments challenge us to raise our ambition, but ambition must be tempered with practicality. The central question is how we embed these principles in a way that is workable, proportionate and does not risk unintended consequences for housing delivery, affordability or local discretion. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government intend to respond to these important proposals, and how they will ensure that the planning system and housing policy place health and the well-being of people and communities at their heart.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments tabled in this grouping. We have had a very useful and interesting debate on this topic this evening. I am very grateful to the noble Lords who put forward amendments, who have deep expertise and are great advocates on the issue of health, housing and communities. That is greatly appreciated.

The Government agree that the quality of our homes, and the wider environment around them, are intrinsically linked to the creation of healthy communities. Taken together, planning policy, guidance and building regulations tackle these important matters and collectively promote the creation of healthy communities and homes for the people who reside there. It may be helpful if I quickly outline some of these provisions at the outset to show the interaction between the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, the National Model Design Code, building regulations and the Future Homes Standard—that sounds more like a PhD essay than a quick intervention, but I will do my best—in collectively promoting healthy homes and communities.

First, the NPPF has the goal of achieving sustainable development at its heart, which includes supporting a strong, vibrant and healthy community, and ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations. I am not sure about the 70 years that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about, but we will do our best. The framework sets out that development plans should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which promote social interaction, and enable healthy lives, through both promoting good health and preventing ill-health, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs and reduce health inequalities. That is all set out in the National Planning Policy Framework; it is very clear what is expected.

The framework also recognises the importance of open space, sports and recreation facilities in supporting the health and well-being of communities. It is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need for these spaces and facilities, and seek opportunities for new provision. Further considerations on healthy and safe communities are also set out in Planning Practice Guidance, which supports the implementation of the NPPF in practice.

Secondly, the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code are part of the suite of Planning Practice Guidance. They illustrate how well-designed, healthy, inclusive, social and green places can be achieved. They provide detailed advice on creating safe, inclusive and accessible homes, buildings and public spaces, prioritising walking and cycling, and green space and biodiversity in new development that promotes activity and social interaction.

All new homes delivered under permitted development rights are required to meet the nationally described space standards and provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. While under the permitted development right that allows for commercial buildings, such as shops and offices, to change use to homes, local authorities can consider the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers during the decision-making process. All new homes, whether delivered through a permitted development right or following a planning application, are required to meet building regulations and fire safety requirements.

Lastly, building regulations set out the minimum legal performance standards that all new homes must meet to ensure that they protect people’s safety, health and welfare. We continue to review and strengthen these standards. For example, this autumn the Government will publish the Future Homes Standard, which will increase the energy efficiency requirements in building regulations. New homes will be equipped with low-carbon heating and, in most cases, solar panels, making them fit for the future, comfortable for occupants, and affordable to heat. At the same time, we will publish our response to the call for evidence on the new overheating requirement, which has been in effect since June 2022. This requires that new homes are designed to minimise overheating and thus remain resilient as our climate changes.

Amendment 123 is on health and well-being in development plans. Amendments 138A, 185SC, 185SD and 185SF are on ensuring adequate provision for spaces and facilities for sport and physical activity and making sure they are appropriately considered in the planning system and in new spatial development strategies. The provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework I have outlined mean that these matters will already be taken into account. Within Clause 52, new Section 12D(1) enables spatial development strategies to include policies relating to access to green space, active travel, and sports and physical activity facilities, providing that they are of strategic importance to the area.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is in the other place at the moment. Clause 43 of that Bill is a general duty which applies to all the duties that combined authorities have to have regard to—the need to improve health inequalities between people living in their area. It is not a specific planning duty, and we believe that in the case of planning we should deal with those matters through the National Planning Policy Framework.

Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to include environmental impact and public health as additional considerations to take into account in regulating advertisements. The advertisement consent regime is designed to ensure that outdoor advertisements are in the right locations. It is a light-touch system concerned with only two issues: the impact of the advertisement on amenity and public safety. Amenity includes oral and visual amenity and relevant factors such as the general characteristics of the locality. Public safety is largely concerned with the transport network: for example, distractions to road users or safety on railway lines. The content of advertisements is subject to a separate regulatory system—I know the noble Baroness is aware of this—which is overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority. To widen the scope of matters which can be considered through the advertisement consent regime, particularly in relation to public health, is likely to bring the focus more on to the content of the advertisement. If that were the case it would create an overlap between the two regulatory regimes where at present there is a clear distinction, which would risk causing uncertainty and confusion. Therefore, while I understand what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, we think the current scope of the advertisement consent regime remains appropriate.

Amendments 132 and 185D would introduce a purpose of planning and provide that anyone exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with that purpose. I must reiterate that the pursuit of sustainable development is at the heart of what the planning system seeks to achieve. Reflecting this, it is a principle which is woven through our National Planning Policy Framework, from the overarching objectives which it sets, through to the specific policies for achieving them. For example, the national planning policy sets out how to plan for good design, sustainable modes of transport, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses, essential community services and facilities, and the vital role of open space, green infrastructure and play in supporting health and well-being and recreation. It is clear that local plans should meet identified needs and seek opportunities for new provision. It also supports a transition to a low-carbon future and promotes renewable and low-carbon energy, and requires plans to take a proactive approach to climate change. These are all important principles, and we should not underestimate the role of the National Planning Policy Framework in translating these into practice. But I wish to resist these amendments, not just because they would impose significant burdens on any individual or body exercising a planning function in order to gauge compliance, but as inevitably these provisions will become a focus for challenges to plans and decisions.

Amendment 185SA seeks to introduce a code of practice for design. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Levitt on her well-deserved promotion to the Front Bench and thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for speaking to her amendment—I suspect he may have a few more occasions when he has to say, “Yes, Minister”, but I do not want to interfere with that part of his life. I agree with my noble friend that we have a role to play in setting clear expectations for design and placemaking to support local authorities to demand better through the planning system, and a responsibility to ensure that they have the tools necessary to do this. I thank her very much for meeting with me to discuss this. As I have mentioned, the National Planning Policy Framework already emphasises that the creation of high-quality and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what planning and development should achieve. The framework is supplemented by national design guidance. I gather from this amendment that my noble friend believes we could go further, and that is exactly what we intend to do. We are consulting on national policies for decision-making, including on design, later in 2025, and we are also in the process of updating national design guidance and will publish this later this year.