English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Jamieson and Lord Lucas

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 248D is an amendment to my noble friend Lord Banner’s Amendment 248. My amendment would prevent my noble friend’s amendment coming into effect until the Government’s promised review of open spaces had been completed.

If the Government choose to proceed on the issue of statutory trusts for recreation, it is essential that due process is followed. We know that many people across the country feel strongly about high-profile cases involving statutory trusts, and many of them are concerned about the loss of important green spaces in their local area. There is a reason for the existence of statutory trusts for recreation, and we will stand up for open spaces. We have long campaigned for a brownfield-first approach to housing delivery, and it is greater housing density, not urban sprawl, that is needed. However, we are not blockers. This is about building the right homes in the right places. The Conservative Party is the party of housebuilding. In 2019, we committed to delivering 1 million new homes by the end of that Parliament, and I am proud to say we kept that promise.

My noble friend has already outlined the issues of the Day case so I will not repeat them, but I will refer to paragraph 116 of the Supreme Court’s judgment, in which Lady Rose said:

“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation in which CSE”—


the new owner of the land—

“no doubt bought the land in the expectation of being able to develop it”.

In the wake of this judgment, a rather messy situation needs resolving. I think noble Lords on all sides of this debate recognise that a solution is urgently needed, not least because the situation we face today is holding back much-needed housing delivery. We recognise the problem, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Banner for his hard work in bringing forward a solution today. He is a very accomplished lawyer in this field and we rely on his expertise in this House so often.

I know that the Minister recognises the problem raised by my noble friend, and we welcome the Government’s engagement with the underlying issues created by the Day case. However, as a responsible Opposition, we need to ensure due process has been undertaken. Ministers have committed to a wide review of open spaces and the sufficiency of those spaces. Surely it is right that they should not proceed with a change in the law on this contentious issue without waiting for that review. That is why I and my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook have tabled Amendment 248D, which would prevent regulation in respect of statutory trust orders being made until the Government’s review of open spaces has taken place and would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the outcomes of the review. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I had a large number of amendments to my noble friend’s amendment, but I have reduced them in the interests of simplicity and time.

As my noble friend Lord Jamieson has pointed out, at an earlier stage we were promised a government review of this area. To me, that seems entirely appropriate. This is a complicated area and one of huge importance to communities and to the country as a whole. My noble friend Lord Banner has, of course, devised an extremely attractive and competent amendment, but amendments introduced late in a Bill’s progress in the Lords have a long history of having unexamined and unexpected consequences. They really do not give time, particularly in a difficult area, for government and civil society as a whole to get into the interstices of what needs to be done. Yes, we need to do something, but we should do things in the proper order. The amendments I have left in illustrate some of the areas in which I think my noble friend’s amendment needs examination.

I am unconvinced by the arrangements, or lack of arrangements, for compensation for loss, which leave in the ability for a developer to harass a community by putting in a new application immediately after a previous one has failed. The arrangements for bringing an application to the attention of civil society are very weak in the context of how information flows today. The process can be initiated by a tenant without the freeholder’s involvement. That seems extremely odd. It does not deal with situations where land is being transferred between local authorities, as will happen a good deal in the context of local government reorganisation. There is no real assessment of the need for open space locally. The consideration of environmental loss is very weak. For all those reasons, I think we should go back to the promise made by the Government and, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s amendment suggests, not put the Banner amendment into effect until we have done the review.

As my noble friend Lord Banner has pointed out, Wimbledon has won its case so there is no longer urgency with that big beast—the All England Lawn Tennis Club—lobbying hard for this amendment. We can afford to take time to get this right. Noble Lords know that I dislike the actions of the tennis club very much. Well, there we are; I shall survive the fact that it won and my friends lost. I think only highly of my noble friend Lord Banner who has, by bringing his amendment forward, made it impossible for him to accept even a cup of strawberries from Wimbledon for the next few years. He also finds himself putting forward arguments which he will attempt to demolish when he opposes the development of the new Chinese embassy. I think very highly of him and there are a lot of things in his amendment that I like, but I would really like us to take time to consider it properly.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Jamieson and Lord Lucas

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I accept that it has been agreed by the usual channels, but this is a revising Chamber and we are supposed to be looking at a serious Bill and taking its provisions seriously. If the Government want to get through 20 groups today then it will take the time it takes. None the less, when it comes to Amendment 135G, I shall be brief.

The main reason I hear for planning processes taking longer than they should is that planning authorities take longer than they should. The Government should have the power to do something about that, and that is what my amendment seeks to achieve.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing their amendments to the attention of the Committee. They have raised a number of important points, and I look forward to hearing the Minister addressing both noble Lords’ concerns.

I turn to the amendments in my name. The purpose of Amendment 135HZG is to reduce costs and delays in the planning system by putting beyond doubt in legislation the principles that currently rely on case law. Where planning permission has already been granted and remains extant, decisions on subsequent planning applications relating to detailed matters, whether determined by an officer or a committee, should not reopen issues that were settled in the original planning permission. This matters because uncertainty in the system not only increases costs for applicants but creates unnecessary duplication of effort for planning authorities and applicants. Greater clarity will enable both sides to proceed with confidence, efficiency and speed.

Amendment 135HZH, in my name and that of noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, is a probing amendment intended to test whether the planning system provides sufficient certainty once a permission has been granted and to explore how necessary changes prompted by new national legislation might be handled without reopening matters that have already been settled. The principle of finality is essential, particularly where significant work has already been undertaken and applications are well advanced. This amendment invites the Government to consider whether clearer statutory guidance on finality could help improve efficiency and reduce delay.

Finally, Amendment 185SE, tabled in my name, aims to provide clarity to the planning system, so that project delays are minimised where legislative changes necessitate modifications to an already approved permission—for instance, as we discussed earlier today, legislation that might require solar cells on all new homes.

In such circumstances, such modifications should be deemed to have planning permission in principle. It is vital, because projects can be significantly delayed and costs increased, and developers are required to seek fresh planning permissions simply to comply with new legislation that has come about after they receive their original planning permission. By ensuring that those modifications are covered in principle, we can safeguard progress while maintaining the integrity of the planning system.

If we are to achieve the Government’s objective of 1.5 million new homes, the planning system needs to deliver. These three amendments are guided by the same underlying principle. Clarity and certainty in planning law reduce unnecessary delay, avoid wasteful duplication and allow both applicants and authorities to focus their energies on what should be their priority, which is delivering high-quality developments of high-quality homes that support our residents and our communities.