Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

232: After Schedule 6, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleMayoral Development Corporations for planning and development purposes: amendment of the Localism Act 2011Introduction
1 The Localism Act 2011 is amended in accordance with this Schedule.Part 8
2 In the heading of Part 8, after “London” insert “and areas of other mayoral strategic authorities”.Interpretation
3 In section 196—(a) before the definition of “the Mayor” insert—““CCA” means a combined county authority established under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“combined authority” means a combined authority established under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;“constituent council” means—(a) in relation to a combined authority—(i) a county council the whole or any part of whose area is within the area of the authority, or(ii) a district council whose area is within the area of the authority;(b) in relation to a CCA—(i) a county council for an area within the area of the authority, or(ii) a unitary district council for an area within the area of the authority;and here “unitary district council” means the council for a district for which there is no county council;”;(b) for the definition of “the Mayor” substitute—““the Mayor” means—(a) the Mayor of London,(b) the mayor for the area of a combined authority, or(c) the mayor for the area of a CCA;”;(c) after the definition of “MDC” insert—““strategic authority area” means—(a) in relation to the Mayor of London or a mayoral development area designated by that Mayor, Greater London;(b) in relation to the mayor for the area of a combined authority or a mayoral development area designated by the mayor for such an area, the area of the combined authority, or(c) in relation to the mayor for the area of a CCA or a mayoral development area designated by the mayor for such an area, the area of the CCA;”.Designation of Mayoral development areas
4 (1) Section 197 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for “Greater London” substitute “a strategic authority area”.(3) In subsection (3), in the words before paragraph (a), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA may designate a Mayoral development area only if—(a) the Mayor considers that designation of the area is expedient for furthering economic development and regeneration in the strategic authority area,(b) the Mayor has consulted the persons specified by subsection (5B) and, if applicable, subsection (5C),(c) the Mayor has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees,(d) in the event that those comments include comments made by a constituent council or a district council consulted under subsection (5C) that are comments that the Mayor does not accept, the Mayor has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance,(e) the Mayor has laid before the combined authority or CCA, in accordance with its standing orders, a document stating that the Mayor is proposing to designate the area, and(f) the combined authority or CCA approves the proposal.(5B) The persons who have to be consulted before an area may be designated are—(a) the constituent councils,(b) each Member of Parliament whose parliamentary constituency contains any part of the area, and(c) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.(5C) In the case of a combined county authority, any district council whose local authority area contains any part of the area also has to be consulted before the area may be designated.(5D) For the purposes of subsection (5A)(f) the combined authority or CCA approves a proposal if it resolves to do so on a motion considered at a meeting of the combined authority or CCA throughout which members of the public are entitled to be present.”.Exclusion of land from Mayoral development areas
5 (1) Section 199 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (2), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(3) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Before making an alteration, the mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA must consult—(a) the constituent councils, and(b) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.”.Transfers of property etc to a Mayoral development corporation
6 (1) Section 200 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for “a person within subsection (3)” substitute “an eligible transferor”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In the case of an MDC for an area in Greater London, “eligible transferor” means—(a) a London borough council,(b) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority,(c) any company whose members—(i) include the Mayor of London and a Minister of the Crown, and(ii) do not include anyone who is neither the Mayor or London nor a Minister of the Crown, or(d) a person within subsection (3).(1B) In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority, “eligible transferor” means a person within subsection (3).(1C) In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a CCA, “eligible transferor” means—(a) any district council whose local authority area is within the area of the CCA, or(b) a person within subsection (3).”.(4) In subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraphs (a) and (b);(b) in paragraphs (d) and (e), for “Greater London” substitute “the strategic authority area”;(c) omit paragraph (k).(5) In subsection (4), for “liabilities of—” substitute “liabilities of an eligible transferee.(4A) In the case of an MDC for an area in Greater London, “eligible transferee” means—”.(6) Before subsection (5) insert—“(4A) 20 In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority or CCA, “eligible transferee” means—(a) the combined authority or CCA, o(b) a company that is a subsidiary of the combined authority or CCA.”.(7) In subsection (9), after “(4)(c)” insert “or (4A)(b)”.Functions in relation to Town and Country Planning
7 (1) Section 202 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (7), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(3) After subsection (7) insert—“(7A) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA may make a decision under any of subsections (2) to (6) only if—(a) the Mayor has consulted the persons specified by section 197(5B) and, if applicable, section 197(5C), in relation to the area,(b) the Mayor has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees, and(c) in the event that those comments include comments made by the constituent council or a district council specified by section 197(5C) that are comments that the Mayor does not accept, the Mayor has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance.”.Arrangements for discharge of, or assistance with, planning functions
8 In section 203, in subsections (1) and (4), after “City of London” insert “, or a county council or district council”.Acquisition of land
9 (1) Section 207 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (2), for “Greater London” substitute “the strategic authority area”.(3) For subsection (3) substitute—“(3) Before submitting a compulsory purchase order authorising an acquisition under subsection (2) to the Secretary of State for confirmation—(a) 15 an MDC for an area in Greater London must obtain the consent of the Mayor of London;(b) an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority or CCA must obtain the consent of the mayor for that area.”.”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 232 relates to mayoral development corporations. Noble Lords will recall a debate in Committee about this precise point. To remind noble Lords, in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, presently in the other place, the Government have proposed that the powers available to the Mayor of London in relation to the establishment of a mayoral development corporation should be provided to all mayors of established strategic authorities—I think that is correct. Noble Lords will also recall that I previously tabled an amendment to this effect back in July, so I was pleased to see that the Government were proceeding in exactly the same direction, but disappointed that this has been included in the English devolution Bill rather than here in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where Part 4, which we have now reached, is devoted to development corporations. It was certainly my understanding and intention that we would debate and, I hope, adopt the measure of giving all the mayors access to the same powers.

As a simple way of bringing that forward, I took Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and transposed it into what would become a new schedule to this Bill. I anticipate that it is not the Government’s intention to disagree with the content of Amendment 232, since they wrote it; however, they appear to be set on resisting the idea that it should be included in this Bill and, on the basis of our anticipation of Royal Assent being reached only in a matter of weeks rather than months, be brought into force rapidly.

As it happens, since Committee, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee has had the opportunity to consider Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill and has not amended it, so there is no requirement for us to think of it having changed. I suspect, based on the discussion in that Bill Committee, it will not be returned to in substance on Report. I do not anticipate that the English devolution Bill, when we see it, will have any different text from what we see here now.

I put it once more to Ministers, but will not press it because what would be the point? It is their Bill, their language, their schedule that they can have now, in my view—and why would they not? It seems to me that most mayors, certainly the ones I have spoken to or their representatives, would like the powers sooner rather than later.

Quite early in the new year, probably before the English devolution Bill has received Royal Assent, we will be discussing the question of which new towns will be mayoral development corporations as opposed to government development corporations or locally led ones. These are precisely the issues which are the subject of this part of this Bill. I put it to noble Lords that it would be better to take this provision, include it now, and bring it into force at an earlier stage. I beg to move

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we have much sympathy with the core principle behind this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, regarding mayoral development corporations. The purpose of Part 4 of this Bill is to create a more flexible, and perhaps more robust, framework for development corporations. The existing way that development corporations work has limitations with regard to some of the development that all of us seek—transport infrastructure, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has helpfully reminded us that this selfsame wording is in the devolution and empowerment Bill, currently going through its stages at the other end of the building, so those of us who will have the joy of debating that Bill, when it comes here, will be coming back to this issue.

The main concern we have, though, is about the decision being vested in the hands of the mayor and the rather narrow representations of the leaders of the constituent authorities—this will not come as a surprise to the Minister. This is an erosion of meaningful local planning influence, reducing local authorities to mere consultees whose considered objections can be dismissed. This amendment could grant substantial planning control over designated areas by placing the decision-making at the mayoral level, with its minimal approach to democratic engagement and consultation. While mechanisms exist for arrangements concerning the discharge of planning functions, this shift inherently concentrates strategic planning functions away from the local level.

Amendment 232 is a way forward in potentially accelerating growth plans, but it is achieved at the expense of local democratic involvement and, crucially, would lose having a strong voice from those residents directly affected. In a nutshell, this is an interesting and important proposal, but it bypasses local democracy.

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

My Lords, Amendment 232, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I understand why the noble Lord has brought his amendment forward. The Government are bringing forward equivalent provisions via Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and I understand his view that inclusion of this amendment would expedite the legislative change. I welcome that enthusiasm: it is essential that all mayors have powers to establish and oversee mayoral development corporations, which are a key tool to drive large-scale development and regeneration in their regions.

None the less, the amendment would not save significant time. The Government are committed to ensuring that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill reaches Royal Assent in spring 2026, at which point there will be no delay. The relevant provisions will commence on the day that the Act is passed, providing relevant mayors with the powers to establish development corporations. The amendment would also have minimal impact because, except for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority—I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, might be particularly interested in that one—all mayoral strategic authorities currently have powers to establish and oversee MDCs. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, as well as any new mayoral strategic authorities, will automatically receive mayoral development corporation powers following Royal Assent of the English devolution Bill.

Finally, and I think this reflects the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, it is appropriate that Parliament scrutinises provisions providing mayors with mayoral development corporation powers, as part of the wider package of powers being granted to mayors through the devolution framework in the English devolution Bill. Therefore, while I understand the reason that the noble Lord has brought Amendment 232 forward, I hope that he will consider withdrawing it.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to this short debate, and particularly grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. I heartily endorse what he said about the importance of trying to resolve the relationship between the processes of local government reorganisation and the rapid progress we want to achieve in implementing planning reform in order to get on with building the houses and developments we are looking for.

I should have previously referenced my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The Minister is absolutely right: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayor should have access to development corporation powers—even though the Government’s apparent intention, as I think was stated last week, was that the Cambridge Growth Company will be turned into a development corporation in the Cambridge area. We have yet to know in what designated area and with what powers, but that is for another day.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s assertion that the delay will be so limited. Let us hope that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill does not get at all bogged down in the new year, because we want to be sure that those powers are available to mayors where they come forward to take up the potential new town designation. I was wrong when I said “mayors of all established strategic authorities”; I know it is my amendment, but I have just checked, and it does not say that. It refers to all mayors of strategic authorities. Whether they should be established strategic authorities is a question we might have a look at when we get to the English devolution Bill. But for the present, while looking forward to returning to these interesting issues in the new year, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 232.

Amendment 232 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

235: Clause 94, page 124, line 33, leave out “and” and insert “to”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to another amendment in Lord Lansley’s name to clause 94.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, this group containing, happily, not only my amendments but Amendment 238 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, is about the designation of new towns. The purpose of Amendment 236, which is the substantive one in my name, is to provide for additional parliamentary scrutiny of the designation of new town development corporations—those controlled by the Government. It is particularly about those under Section 1(1) of the New Towns Act, whereas elsewhere in that Act, locally led new towns, for example, were subsequently inserted. This provision would not apply to them; it would apply only to those controlled by the Government.

The point is that there are substantial implications in having a new town controlled by the Government. Designating the area and, for that matter, the powers that are to be given to that development corporation, and therefore by extension taken away from a local planning authority and vested in a development corporation, is a highly significant issue.

The super-affirmative procedure which the proposed new clause would introduce is, as the parliamentary guide would tell us, intended to be reserved for highly significant statutory instruments. I think this fits that bill. We are talking about the potential transfer of powers, potentially for relatively large areas, away from democratic control for decades.

For example, in the recent report by the New Towns Taskforce we saw a proposal for a dozen new town sites, some of which are pretty substantial. If we look at the area described as Brabazon and West Innovation Arc, it comprises three substantial areas to the north of Bristol. If all the planning control in that area were to be taken out of the hands of local authorities for what might be decades, it would make a very big impact in that area. The scrutiny of that by Parliament at the outset is important.

--- Later in debate ---

On the issue of borrowing and raising private finance directly, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned the Local Government Pension Scheme, and we had a question on that this morning in Question Time. I agree that it is worth exploring how the Local Government Pension Scheme can help with these types of investment. That will all come as part of a wider funding toolkit. It requires careful consideration to make sure that we properly balance the benefits and risks, including the possibility that mayoral development corporations could accrue significant debt and liabilities—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. We must also consider how the proposed borrowing powers would interact with mayoral strategic authority borrowing. We will need more time than is available on this Bill, but I can commit that the department will consider these changes in the future. For the reasons I have given, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short, as the Minister said, but I thought very interesting debate—a preliminary to the further debate that I hope we will have, not least if we can contrive to have an early debate on the Built Environment Committee’s report in the new year at a time when we can incorporate the Government’s full response to the task force report and the Government’s actual proposals for new towns. We learned from my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow that if there is that range of issues to be considered in relation to one of the new town proposals, we can expect a lot of contributions when we get to a dozen such proposals, not even including Cambridge, from my own point of view, which is beyond the task force’s report.

What the Minister had to say was encouraging from the point of view of getting parliamentary debate to take place without impeding or delaying the programme in any way. I hope that, when we have that debate, we will come back to some of the important issues raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller. He made some important points, in my view, about the capacity for financing this. Tax increment financing and the ability to borrow against the future development value will be a key part of that.

From my part, in relation to parliamentary debate on the new towns programme, I was grateful for the Minister’s response, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 235.

Amendment 235 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 250. I know that many noble Lords are much better versed in the law around this than I am. However, I want to touch on the point about land held in trust for enjoyment by the public. In situations where such a purchase will mean that the public’s rights of enjoyment will not be maintained, surely there should at least be extensive consultation with local communities, with their views taken into account, and where there is strong objection, surely at the very least some alternative provision should be made.

Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, I am concerned that this amendment will erode the rights of the general public and that they will not have a suitable, easily accessible mechanism to defend their rights or negotiate a solution to satisfy both parties. The law is beyond the reach of most normal people as it is so expensive. Judicial review would probably be off-putting to local communities not familiar with law.

If I have read this amendment correctly, it would appear to backdate this right. Surely that is very unusual and we ought to be looking to the future. I hope that when this issue is given further consideration by the Government, they will consider the rights of local people and ensure that their voices are heard and they are given primary consideration.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee. I want to follow up briefly, because in this debate we are getting a more comprehensive view of the problem and, potentially, of the solution. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referred to the fact that the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 brought in the provisions now in the Local Government Act 1972. Last time we were told about these ancient pieces of legislation: the Public Health Act 1875 and the Open Spaces Act 1906. The fact that they are ancient pieces of legislation is neither here nor there. The thing we are dealing with was inserted in 1980, which is why the amendment refers to 1980.

What should happen in the future? In future, if land to which the public have some rights of enjoyment and access is to be disposed of by a local authority, the local authority should consult. And what the legislation requires is not too onerous: it is to advertise for two weeks and consider any objections raised. This is hardly too much. That is for the future. Clearly, the public benefit should be incorporated into whatever decisions are made as a consequence of that.

For about 45 years local authorities thought, because of what is in Sections 122(2B) and 123(2B) of the Local Government Act 1972, that if they did not do that, not only was the sale still valid but the trusts relating to that legislation were extinguished. They were wrong about that, so we have to put them back in that situation. Essentially, we have to look back and say, in all these decisions made over that period, where local authorities operated on what turned out to be a false basis, they must take into account the public benefit that might have been derived from the trust and find some other way of doing it. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, explained to us how, in one instance, it is the intention of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to ensure that significant public benefit continues to be provided by way of access to open space and public enjoyment. That is exactly where we need to go. But the legislation needs to reflect both the requirement for consultation and that there may be some continuing necessity for the public benefit either to be enjoyed in that open space or by some alternative means.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just said. Philanthropists in the past gave areas of green space and there have been scandals where councils have sold them off for money, and we all complain that there are no more playing fields, for example. This smells a bit like that. It is almost land that has been protected by accident by a legal quirk that has prevented it being developed subsequently or sold on for development unwisely.

To my mind, this is surely a case-by-case matter. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, made a very powerful case for Wimbledon. Maybe he is right, but I am sure that plenty of sites around the country are not quite so green and lovely in their eventual outcome. I find it difficult to support an amendment that alters everything across the board. Going back, almost in a time machine, doing a proper consultation and the substitution of what is being lost has to be the approach, rather than what is proposed in this amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, we return to the substantive consideration of Part 3 of the Bill and the nature restoration fund, with this first grouping considering amendments that relate to the underlying requirements of an environmental delivery plan.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the purpose of Part 3, we know that the status quo is not working. Environmental assessments and case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the condition of our most important habitats and species has declined over a sustained period. By taking a more strategic approach to the restoration of protected sites and species, we can deliver improved environmental outcomes while reducing planning delays for the housing and infrastructure that our communities need.

The noble Lord asked me a question about the number of houses subject to nutrient neutrality that will be unlocked at Royal Assent. We are very clear that such environmental obligations can be discharged only where a robust and scrutinised EDP is in place. This is the right approach to ensure there is a credible plan that will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we need.

Amendment 130, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has captured the sympathy of some in this House who support the strategic approach of the NRF but are concerned about this approach being used where it is not appropriate. However, we have always been clear—and the legislation is explicit—that the Secretary of State can approve an EDP only where it is shown to materially outweigh the negative effect of development. This is not a throwaway judgment of a Secretary of State but must be a judgment based on an ecologically sound and robustly scrutinised EDP, with Natural England providing a statement as to whether they believe the EDP can meet this high bar. As the noble Baroness will know, the scientific basis of the evidence provided to the Secretary of State was clarified in a government amendment. A Secretary of State simply could not sign off an EDP that did not stack up—and if they ever did, then the Bill provides that such a decision could be challenged via a judicial review.

In capturing a range of environmental features that could be addressed through an EDP, the Government are not seeking to suggest that EDPs will come forward covering each of these features but simply that we should be able to bring forward EDPs where science supports the case and the evidence would allow the Secretary of State to approve the EDP in line with the overall improvement test. Where the science does not support it, an EDP could not be made, but to limit EDPs in the way the amendment suggests would be to close off the potential that EDPs offer to deliver more than the current system and help support the recovery of protected sites and species, rather than merely offsetting the impact of development.

I want also to respond to some of the noble Baroness’ questions. First, on the mitigation hierarchy, Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops EDPs. It is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. However, it is not always the case. The flexibility provided by the Bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England’s expert judgment, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to suboptimal outcomes, and only then, and where money could be spent far more effectively to achieve better outcomes for nature.

Secondly, the noble Baroness asked me about process. EDPs will not require additional assessment. Natural England will carry out assessments and surveys, and developers will no longer have to do that for the features in the EDP.

My noble friend Lady Young asked about the European conventions. The Bill does not repeal any existing legislation and will not weaken the UK’s continued support for and implementation of any of our international commitments. We are committed to the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and its provisions which ensure that mutual high standards are protected. EDPs will ensure better environmental outcomes that go further than current legislation, which simply offsets harm. Money from the NRF is ring-fenced for nature under clauses in the Bill.

I am conscious that the NRF has not had the easiest genesis, but the Government have shown that they are listening, and the legislation demonstrates a real commitment to breaking from a status quo that has, at best, overseen the managed decline of our most valued protected sites and species. With this explanation, I hope the noble Baroness feels able not to move her amendment.

Amendment 201, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with broad powers to manage the effects of nutrients in water. This draws on the amendments tabled by the previous Government during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which were rightly defeated by this House.

While we share the noble Lord’s desire to address nutrient neutrality, we cannot simply rely on broad powers and the promise of action. The nature restoration fund creates a clear path to addressing this issue based on credible evidence, a robust and tested EDP and the legal guarantee that funding will be secured to ensure that conservation measures deliver environmental improvement. Granting the Secretary of State such a broad Henry VIII power would raise not only questions but serious risks as to how such a power could be used.

Amendment 122, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP and require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with such guidance. I recognise the importance of the matters the noble Lord raises, including in respect of agricultural businesses, food security and land that communities really value. The Secretary of State is already able to make guidance on any matter relevant to the making of an EDP, which would naturally include the important matters raised in the amendment.

On the issue of compulsory purchase raised by the amendment, as it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to make an EDP and to authorise Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way the EDP has been drafted, they may simply choose not to make the EDP. Similarly, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way Natural England is proposing to exercise its compulsory purchase powers, they may simply choose not to authorise the exercise of the powers.

Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require EDPs to identify all environmental impacts from the development to which the EDP relates, on the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. As we have said throughout these sessions, EDPs are targeted plans to address specific impacts from development on identified environmental features. These are not a replacement for wider assessment or intervention but a way to allow specific impacts to be addressed through a more strategic approach. While Natural England will of course be alive to other impacts, the focus of the EDP must be on the specific impact, as it is only that impact and the associated environmental obligation that are being discharged through the EDP. We have been clear throughout that anything not covered by an EDP will be considered and addressed through the existing system. For that reason, it would simply add burden to an EDP to require Natural England to identify all impacts where the EDP itself is tasked with addressing only specific impacts.

Amendment 128, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require an EDP to identify all environmental impacts that may be expected as a result of the development to which an EDP relates. As I mentioned in Committee and have just repeated, EDPs are targeted plans, and the Government are clear that an EDP will modify existing obligations only for identified impacts and where the EDP itself can demonstrate how the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the specific environmental feature. Any impacts not addressed—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am afraid that the Minister has failed to understand that the amendments I have proposed, following the debate in Committee, are directed towards only the environmental feature, and the negative effects associated with that environmental feature, which is the subject of the EDP. She is suggesting that I am widening it out to other features. I am not; the amendments address only that feature.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry if I misunderstood, but that may be due to confusion around the wording. It seemed that the amendment was trying to widen that out. As I said, any impact not addressed through the EDP is subject to a separate assessment. Therefore, it would not need to form part of the EDP itself.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I have left Clause 55(1)(a) where the Government left it, which means that we are concerned only with the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. Her entire argument against my amendments is around the proposition that I am trying to widen it out to other things; I am not. I am simply saying that, if there is a negative effect associated with the environmental feature derived from that development, it should be identified in the EDP.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The very nature of the EDP would do that anyway, because the action taken by the EDP must materially outweigh the impact of the development. If that is what the noble Lord is trying to say, I can confirm that that is the purpose of the EDP in the first place. I will continue now.

As set out in the Member’s explanatory statement, Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham,

“seeks to encourage debate on the proportionality of conservation measures included in an EDP”.

In doing so, the amendment proposes that EDPs should consider the monetary value of the plants or animals the conservation measures would support, to ensure that conservation measures are proportionate. As the noble Lord will be aware from the debates to date, EDPs will be required to materially outweigh the negative effects that development would have on a relevant environmental feature, be it a feature of a protected site or a protected species. That may include multiple plant species of varying abundance. Similarly for protected species, an EDP would address these impacts at an appropriate population scale.

The scale of conservation measures required will be determined by the scale of impact from the development, with the levy rate being set to ensure that sufficient measures are delivered to meet the overall improvement test. In setting the regulations that will govern the nature restoration levy, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the levy does not render development economically unviable, but the levy must be sufficient to deliver the necessary conservation measures in line with the overall improvement test. That will ensure that the levy is set at a rate that delivers for both nature and development, with developers in all but exceptional circumstances being able to choose whether to use an EDP or whether to address these impacts and secure the necessary measures themselves under the existing system. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Finally, Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require the preparation of a report by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the consolidation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as they relate to planning. I appreciate that the dual systems of the habitats regulations, which cover habitat sites and include the HRA process, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which covers SSSIs, can appear complex. However, in practice, there are integrated processes which address and manage this complexity. These processes are well understood by practitioners, and while the Government will always look for opportunities to improve processes, the amendment risks creating uncertainty that may delay development and presupposes that consolidation is necessary and desirable. At this time, we do not consider that such a report is necessary, but even if it were, it would be a legal rather than ecological exercise, which would fall outside the JNCC’s area of expertise. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, that was great fun. I hope the noble Baroness feels better for her confession of how many Conservative amendments she signed. It is a surprise to us all, I am sure.

I take a slightly different view. I do not know why we did not vote on Amendment 123; I wish we had, because I certainly would have supported it. I support all these attempts to improve the Bill. Why? Because the Government say that we should follow the science. They make great play of the evidence that should be underpinning all these EDPs. The amendments in this group, essentially, are about providing proper evidence, and surely that is not controversial. The best evidence is frequently referred to and proper reporting is required. I cannot understand why anybody would be against any of that.

I agree that Part 3 is a disaster, but we are trying to improve it. I do not know about lipstick on a lamp-post: I think we are just trying to improve it a bit, given what we have been given. I support these amendments, for what they are worth, and I think that castigating the Opposition does not really help greatly. They are trying as hard as they can to improve this.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

May I just say—not least to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that, as it happens, I support the view that it would be wrong to take out Part 3 at this stage? I say that for procedural reasons. If we took out Part 3, in effect, we would send it back to the other place without Part 3 in it and it would reinstate it. I fail to see at what point we would be able to do all the things that we have just been talking about and will go on to talk about, which is to revise Part 3 so that we can do our job, which is to take all the most harmful aspects of Part 3 out and put improvements in.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am so sorry—I do not know whether I am allowed to shout at the noble Lord again. What are they revising? Tell me what they are revising. They are not revising anything: they are intransigent. They refuse to listen, so why are we even trying?

--- Later in debate ---

We raised this in detail in Committee and there was an opportunity to bring it forward at this stage, but it has not been. What assurances can the Minister give us, even at this stage, that those provisions will be introduced by Third Reading so that at least the expectations of the developers, the home owners and the public can be met and acted on, within the context of valuations that work and will stay the course? I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

If I may, I anticipate my noble friend Lord Roborough speaking to his Amendments 166 and 167. Before he does so, however, without reiterating the exchange that the Minister and I had about the way in which Clause 55(1)(a) and (b) should be used, by putting into Schedule 4 that the environmental impacts must be those identified in an environmental delivery plan, my noble friend deals with what would otherwise be a potentially serious problem. The Bill continues in Clause 55 to allow for the possibility of environmental impacts resulting from a development having a “negative effect” on a protected feature, but which are not to be included and identified in the EDP. My noble friend, in his Amendments 166 and 167, would rectify exactly that problem.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for moving his amendment in this group.

These amendments would make technical changes to how EDPs work practically. My Amendments 166 and 167 would ensure that only impacts addressed by the EDP may be disregarded for the purposes of the habitats regulations. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Lansley and am very grateful for his comments. We think that this is in line with the Government’s plans and seek to be constructive with these amendments. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not willing to accept these constructive and specific amendments?

Amendment 134 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller also seeks to strengthen the Government’s measures. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply.

Finally, my Amendment 135 is another that seeks clarity in the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government have not seen the merit of our case and would have preferred to see this clearly set out in law. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller on his questions and comments about the timing of EDPs and how they can be effective within the specified 10-year period. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 134 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which would require conservation measures delivered by a landholding to be secured solely through Section 106 agreements.

The noble Lord’s stated intention is to ensure that conservation measures are secured through a sufficiently enforceable mechanism. While we fully agree with the noble Lord that we need sufficient certainty to ensure that conservation measures are delivered, I hope to reassure him that his amendment is not necessary.

The NRF represents a shift towards a more strategic approach to dealing with the environmental impacts of development. Once an EDP is made, it will be for Natural England to secure the necessary conservation measures and ensure that they are in place, monitored and effective.

Some conservation measures may require Natural England to acquire land, but, where it does so, requiring it unilaterally to enter a Section 106 planning obligation would be inappropriate. Foremost, this would be an odd use of Section 106. Many conservation measures, such as in relation to wetlands, will not require planning permission. It is therefore unlikely that a Section 106 agreement between Natural England and the local planning authority would be needed.

What this amendment suggests is required is more likely to be a species of unilateral undertaking by Natural England—one that would unnecessarily restrict its latitude to deliver conservation measures flexibly. It would reduce the scope for Natural England to modify its approach where doing so would be within what the EDP approved and deliver more effectively for the environmental feature. Similarly, it could stop land being used for overlapping purposes.

Ultimately, it will be important that Natural England can implement whichever conservation measures it considers most effective while still being bound by the need for the measures to be sufficient to meet the overall improvement test—which this approach puts the focus on. In recognising the shift in approach under this model, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 135, which was previously tabled in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, relates to the use of planning conditions as conservation measures. In previous debates, I have been clear on the importance of planning conditions to ensure that developers take appropriate action to avoid impact in advance of other conservation measures being delivered. These conditions will form part of the draft EDP and be consulted on, which will ensure that developers are fully aware of any conditions that may be imposed if they choose to utilise an EDP.

I also re-emphasise that the Bill will allow Natural England to request that a condition be imposed only on a development coming under an EDP. The Bill simply will not allow Natural England to request planning conditions to be imposed on any development other than where that development wishes to rely on an EDP.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 166 and 167, also tabled by the Lord, Lord Roborough. These amendments were also considered in Committee, but I am very happy to further clarify our position. The amendments would amend Schedule 4, which sets out the effects that an EDP has on underlying environmental obligations, establishing that, where a developer has committed to pay the levy, the relevant obligation is suitably discharged.

“Environmental impact” is defined within the Bill as

“one or more ways in which

the negative effect

“is likely to be caused by the development”.

Therefore, the effect of Schedule 4 is already limited to those impacts. If a development has multiple environmental impacts but only one is covered by the EDP, those other impacts are not affected by Schedule 4 and must still be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and features sufficiently protected, while allowing a more strategic approach where it is appropriate. I trust that this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance, and that they will not press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

If “environmental impact” in Clause 55 embraces all the ways in which a development might impact negatively on an environmental feature, why does the clause go on to say:

“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”?


By definition, that means that there may be environmental impacts that are not identified in the EDP but which, under Schedule 4, may come to be disregarded for habitats purposes.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry, I thought that I had clarified that matter. If only one impact is covered by an EDP, the others are not affected by Schedule 4 and have to be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and that features are sufficiently protected while allowing the EDP to cover a more strategic approach.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise; I shall not intervene again. Schedule 4 says that the environmental impacts can be disregarded, but the Minister is telling us that the environmental impacts identified in the EDP can be disregarded. We agree, and that is what my noble friend is seeking to introduce into the Bill.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall not press this amendment to a vote—we have a lot of business to do—but I am not convinced that the noble Baroness and, inter alia, Natural England as the advisers, have really understood the importance of getting this contractualised, of the enforceability and of considering what might happen not just this year or next but in 80 years and in the intervening period, given the changes of ownership, succession, bankruptcy, sale—who knows? Section 106 may not be perfect, and I accept the noble Baroness’s point about the unilateral undertaking —we are on Report and not at Third Reading. However, I think we should come back to this at Third Reading rather than just leaving it to Natural England.

I have been involved in this space for three and a half years as a person with significant interest in Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, the company established by all the planning authorities in Norfolk. We have had to dig deep, take the best advice and try to game all the scenarios to ensure that, ultimately, the promises made by those delivering these conservation measures can and will be delivered for the entirety of the period. The Bill is deficient because it does not seek and frame that enforceability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 141, but will speak only to my Amendment 170A, which is the important amendment of mine in this group. It seeks to ensure that developers are able to use the existing mitigation hierarchy in dealing with the impacts of their developments to the level that is practical, and only deal with the residual liability under the mitigation hierarchy through contributions to the nature restoration fund. This is important for developers and for protecting the nascent biodiversity net-gain market. It gives flexibility and continues to ensure that the private sector plays a role. We will return to that issue in future groups.

The Minister was reassuring at Second Reading, in Committee and in private meetings that this was the intention of the Bill. I wonder whether she can provide that reassurance today and indicate how this might work in practice. I look forward to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lansley introducing their own amendments—both of which are excellent—and I hope the Minister will listen carefully to both. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69 in my name. We discussed the viability assessment processes in Committee, and Amendment 69 is essentially about encouraging early consultation with the development community. I should at this point, since it is relevant, say that I have a registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, but I emphasise again that the comments I make on the Bill are entirely my own views, rather than any developer’s.

Amendment 69 is really about the sequencing. In making an environmental delivery plan, there is a process of establishing not only the impacts to be mitigated, but the charging schedule. It is really important that, at that stage in making an EDP, the development community is included. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to ensure that it takes up the levy, which we will want it to do wherever possible, or indeed that the charging schedules are correctly structured in order to encourage that to happen, and to deliver effectively the objectives of the EDP.

As far as I can see, there are regulations in Clause 67; there is guidance in Clause 75, and the regulations in Clause 67 must be adhered to in the setting of a charging schedule under Clause 53. However, Clause 58 sets out a long list of those who should be consulted on a draft environmental development plan. It consists of a minimum of eight different kinds of public authorities, and then refers to many other public authorities. However, the only consultation that is required on a draft EDP is with public authorities. This is not good enough. The development community is going to undertake the development. The development community is going to pay the levy. The development community should be included in the consultation on a draft EDP.

Since our objective is that it is mostly a voluntary choice whether to go down the route of levy payments and an EDP, I am afraid that we run the risk of invalidating many of the objectives we are trying to achieve through the establishment of an EDP. I certainly do not plan to press Amendment 69, but I hope the Minister can reassure me on the use of the consultation on a draft EDP, and on the charging schedules in particular, by way of consultation with the development community.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 171A to Clause 69 seeks to create an additional methodology open to Natural England when deciding how best to determine charging schedules for contributions to the nature restoration fund—the NRF. Clause 69(5) sets out the methodologies that Natural England can use to determine what a developer would have to pay under a charging schedule towards the nature restoration fund. It has clearly been written by a planner, not by anyone interested in the environment. It provides that charges should be made with reference to the number of units constructed or the floor-space of the development, with reference to the expected values of the development, the planned uses of the building and even the rate of inflation, yet nowhere does it provide for a methodology to be based on the amount of damage being caused to the protected species covered by the EDP to which the charging schedule should actually relate. This makes no sense.

The purpose of Part 3 is essentially to create a mechanism whereby developers can pay financial compensation to the NRF in lieu of the damage their development might be causing to a protected feature or species, yet those features are not even afforded a mention in the long list of possible methods to calculate payments due. A charging schedule that has no correlation to the actual harm caused to a protected species is unlikely to be able to deliver an improved conservation status for that species. Nor is it fair on developers, since those who avoid protected species and cause no harm would still be obliged to make a payment under a charging schedule. My amendment creates the option—and it is no more than that; it adds to the numerous options already available—for the Government to address this weakness and align the payments due under a charging schedule with the protected species and features they are intended to restore. I look forward to the Government’s response.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will also introduce Amendments 201 and 203. Most of the amendments in this group propose alternative solutions to environmental blockages to planning and development, either as replacements for Part 3 of this Bill or as substantial improvements to it. To my mind, the most important amendment in this group—and the most important to Part 3—is Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I added my name in Committee and on Report. For transparency, I again refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as a farmer, a forester, a landowner, a residential, commercial and renewable energy developer and a shareholder in various natural capital-related businesses and partnerships.

I am very grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—who, sadly, is unwell today; we send her our best wishes—for their time during the passage of this Bill and for listening to our concerns. We have fundamental objections to Part 3. First, it undermines the existing mitigation hierarchy and is a retrograde step in nature protection. Secondly, it attacks the rural economy by giving Natural England enhanced CPO powers without explicitly saying that the private sector should be engaged in delivery, as well as undermining nascent biodiversity net gain markets. It gives little or no accountability by handing all that responsibility to the arm’s-length body of Natural England, which appears highly unlikely to have the capacity to deliver the environmental delivery programmes, as is envisaged.

Not only is there no evidence that this will have any immediate benefit to the housebuilding sector, but, after the CG Fry decision by the Supreme Court last week, this part of the Bill will reimpose habitats regulations on decisions related to Ramsar sites and immediately reblock tens of thousands of houses. We also hear concerns from industries that should stand to benefit from Part 3 that there is no visibility of the level of the nature restoration levy or control over outcomes of environmental delivery programmes, and therefore reputational issues if they were to go wrong.

The amendments in this and further groups will address these and other issues, but there is a bigger question that I challenge the Minister to answer. What exactly is Part 3 designed to solve that cannot already be solved through existing structures and more targeted tweaks to that system, as we and others propose? We asked this repeatedly in Committee and I do not yet feel that I have had a satisfactory answer. It would also be helpful to the House to have some comfort that the Government are listening to our concerns, which echo every interested wildlife and rural organisation outside this Chamber. I am grateful to all that have provided briefings—there are simply too many to list.

Amendment 122 is designed to force the Secretary of State to take final responsibility for the actions of Natural England and place parameters around that responsibility, to provide greater protection to the rural economy, our food security and rural community and traditions. We on these Benches distrust these supposedly independent arm’s-length bodies and, for that reason, would like the Secretary of State to take this responsibility and be answerable to Parliament and the wider community for the performance of these EDPs. Why do the Government not want the Secretary of State to take this responsibility?

Amendment 201 is a simple amendment that would allow the Secretary of State to deal specifically with the nutrient neutrality issues that are said to have been blocking 160,000 new houses. This is a repeat of our amendment that was defeated by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I have two questions that I have previously put to the Government that have not yet been answered. Without this amendment, how many of those 160,000 blocked houses can be released immediately on Royal Assent? How many houses will be reblocked by Clause 90 reimposing habitats regulations restrictions on Ramsar sites, beyond the 18,000 already identified in the Somerset Levels?

Amendment 203 would require the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to publish a report on how to consolidate the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, to allow us to have a framework dealing specifically with nature protection in the UK. There have been news stories that the Government are considering a nature Bill. That would appear to be in line with what we suggest. Would that not be the appropriate place to undertake such a far-reaching re-evaluation of the protections that our natural environment deserves, rather than a planning Bill?

I will leave the introduction of Amendment 130 to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, but I want just to highlight the benefits of the approach that we see in this amendment and to underline our support. We hope that this approach will find favour with all Benches, given that it addresses so many of the concerns from different viewpoints. Nature and species would not be put at risk should this amendment pass. CPO powers would be much less likely to be required for Natural England. The private sector would be the natural counterparty to achieve these aims. Finally, nutrient neutrality appears to be the key challenge from environmental considerations in planning, as emphasised by the Home Builders Federation in its briefing; Natural England could focus on this particular issue and increase the chances of success.

We hope to hear a constructive response from the Minister to Amendment 130. We would like to hear that the Government might at least accept the principle of limiting EDPs to these impacts until they are proven to work. We on these Benches are a responsible Opposition and would like to work in the manner in which this House works best in order to improve the Bill and to make it both workable and successful in the real world. The Government’s approach to data in Part 3 does not give us full confidence that they are approaching this in the same manner. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 128 and 129 in this group, which are in my name. I suggest to noble Lords that, if they want to follow the purposes of these two amendments, it is best to have a look at Clause 55(1), since they are, in essence, about understanding how the drafting is intended to work and what that means in relation to the practices of an environmental delivery plan in due course.

In Committee, we had a useful probing debate in relation to these issues to try to understand whether all of the environmental impacts of a development should be identified in an environmental delivery plan. The debate showed that it was not the Government’s intention that an environmental delivery plan—EDP for short—should identify all of the environmental impacts resulting from a development to which that EDP relates. Relevant in this group is that, for example, the EDP could focus on a specific subset of environmental impacts, or one or more environmental impacts, such as river quality or nutrient neutrality. Given that that is the intention—I am arguing not with the intention of the Bill in that respect but, simply, with the drafting of this provision to give effect to that—how should that potential focus be reflected in the structure of the power for making an environmental delivery plan?

Clause 55(1)(a) provides that the EDP will identify

“one or more environmental features”.

An environmental feature is either a protected feature of a protected site—Clause 93 can be seen for interpretation —or a protected species. An example that I think is relevant and useful, not least to the debate that we are shortly to have on Amendment 130, is the effect of a development on a protected site, such as through nutrient pollution arising from a development in, say, south Norfolk, which might have an impact on the nutrient level in the Broads. The Broads, as the protected site, and the nutrient level, as the feature concerned, could be the environmental feature to which the EDP relates. That being the case, if that feature is the subject of the EDP, should each of the ways in which a negative effect on that feature arises be identified in the EDP? I think that it should.

Amendment 128 would change “one or more”. I direct noble Lords to Clause 55(1)(b), where it refers to

“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”.

That defines the environmental impact. I propose in Amendment 128 that we take out “one or more”, so that the sentence would read

“the ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”—

that being the environmental impact.

That would preclude the possibility that there may be ways in which the development causes the negative effect on that feature but they are omitted. I do not understand why it would be at all reasonable for them to be omitted. That being the case, I hope that the environmental impact is always defined by reference to the ways in which a development impacts on a protected feature of a protected site or species. The focus can be narrow—which precise feature?—or it can be wide.

However, the next line after Clause 55(1)(b) says:

“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”.


It feels a bit as though Ministers have decided not only to not necessarily to deal with all the effects of a development—they can focus down; we have accepted that—but that they definitely do not even need to explain to us in the EDP how the negative effects on a protected site, or a protected feature of a site, are to be understood and incorporated into the work of the EDP.

Instead of taking that out, I have chosen, in Amendment 129, to define it a little more precisely. Why are the Government doing this? I think they are trying to say that we might be looking at an environmental feature, such as algal bloom in the water in the Broads resulting from a change in the nutrient level, but we do not want to focus on the question of allowing things to be left out of a count in the EDP because they simply relate to that effect; we want to focus on where the development gives rise to the effect.

Amendment 129 proposes adding to Clause 55(1) so that after

“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”,

it states,

“unless they are environmental impacts expected to result directly from the development to which the EDP relates”.

I hope that clarifies the purpose of the Bill, which is to focus, in an EDP, on the feature that is concerned and the specific ways in which a development might create a negative effect in relation to the feature that gives rise to the EDP.

I hope that makes clear what the amendments are intended to achieve. I hope that what this does is in line with the Government’s intentions in relation to an environmental delivery plan and that, from the Government’s point of view, Amendments 128 and 129 would therefore do no harm to the purposes. Even if Ministers are not immediately able to accept them, I hope that they might reproduce something of this kind at Third Reading.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 130 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their support. When preparing this speech, I went back to remind myself of the core objectives of the Bill: to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure and, as part of this, to simplify the process by which we address impacts on the natural environment.

I would argue, however, that what we have before us is a further layer of potential bureaucracy. I say that because, if the Bill passes as it is—this has been confirmed in the other place but also in this House—developers will have to take on an additional layer of assessment. They will now need to do an environmental impact assessment, a habitats regulations assessment and a biodiversity net gain assessment, and then apply for an EDP for specific features, before they even pay into this nature restoration fund. I struggle to see how that streamlines the process for developers, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us how this will speed up the process.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

158A: Clause 62, page 97, line 36, at end insert “, subject to subsection (2A).
(2A) An EDP can be amended if the following conditions are met—(a) the EDP applies to a development with multiple developers,(b) a commitment to pay the levy by one or more of those developers would render it no longer reasonably practicable for other developers to opt not to pay the levy and otherwise to meet their environmental obligations, and(c) the EDP is to be amended to make the payment of the levy mandatory for the other developers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows EDPs to be amended after a developer has committed to pay the levy, if it is to make the levy mandatory where (1) there are multiple developers and (2) some but not all have committed to pay the levy. This would avoid conflict in the delivery of the EDP between (a) developers relying on the levy, and (b) developers abiding by existing environmental obligations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, this group consists of amendments relating to the circumstances under which the levy for the nature restoration fund should be made mandatory. The Minister may recall that, in Committee, this was not the subject of an amendment or substantive debate but of an exchange to try to better define the circumstances. At that time, the view was that this would be under exceptional circumstances. The question is: under what exceptional circumstances?

I am very grateful to officials who gave me the benefit of time and advice yesterday. I have tabled Amendment 158A because it was not apparent to me that an amendment to an environmental delivery plan could be made simply to make the levy mandatory after the EDP has been made. I am assured that the powers are available in Clause 62 for the purpose of amending it, and that that can be done to make the levy mandatory in circumstances where the EDP has already been made. I hope the Minister is in the happy position of being able to assure me that Clause 62 can do that.

Amendment 164A, in my name, is the substantive amendment in this group, in my view. I tried to establish in discussions with the department the circumstances in which the levy should be mandatory. To paraphrase, these came down to two things. The first was that there would be occasions when Natural England, in order to fulfil the objectives of its environmental delivery plan, would need full coverage of the levy to deliver the plan. If there was not full coverage—namely, if some developers chose to go down the route of not offering to pay the levy—then the EDP would not be able to be delivered, and those who had made such a commitment to pay the levy would not be able to fulfil their environmental obligations through that route. Secondly, in a large project, such as a nationally significant infrastructure project with, essentially, one developer, if Natural England were to make an environmental delivery plan and that developer or project controller chose not to go down the route of paying the levy, then all the work done on the EDP would be pointless and it would make no progress. I have tabled Amendment 164A to try to arrive at a point where we can specify much more clearly in the Bill the circumstances in which the levy can be made mandatory. This is not unimportant; it is a very important issue.

I remind noble Lords of my registered interest, but I rely not on that but on the submissions and representations made publicly to the Government about this from the Home Builders Federation, among others. It is very concerned. From the point of view of the development community, the whole purpose is to give developers the choice between meeting their environmental obligations through the habitats and other regulations or going down the route of an EDP, with the opportunity to meet their obligations through the payment of the levy. If it is made mandatory, the choice simply does not exist anymore. For that reason, I want to define the circumstances in a clear way in the Bill.

The latter circumstance, with a single developer, is not a substantive problem. If Natural England goes down the route of consulting on a potential EDP, it would be a matter of necessity that the developer concerned was part of that consultation. Natural England would arrive at a considered view as to whether the developer in that instance was going to pay the levy and go down that route. That would determine whether the levy can be made, and the Secretary of State could rest upon the results of that consultation.

However, I believe that there is a case where, if there are multiple developers associated with a particular area—the EDP might cover a number of development sites and range across a wider area—one or more of those developers may commit to pay the levy. It may be that it is literally not possible to meet the objectives of the EDP without the others paying the levy. If they choose to go down an alternative route, they may not be able to meet their habitats regulations requirements, because they would be mitigated through the mechanism of the EDP. Alternatively, they may be trying to freeload off those who are paying the levy by saying that they will meet their habitats regulations requirements, but in practice they would be met through the EDP managed by Natural England and paid for by other developers. There is therefore a case for a mandatory levy, but I do not believe that the Bill says what those circumstances are.

I am afraid that it is not at all satisfactory to leave the power unspecified, because it will increasingly be a temptation for Natural England to initiate an environmental delivery plan, do the work, set up the potential draft, consult on it and then reach the conclusion that only by making it mandatory will it secure the necessary coverage to fund an EDP. Far from it being an exception, we will find that Natural England is increasingly defaulting towards mandatory levy payments as the basis on which it can proceed with its ambitious environmental delivery plans. That is not where we were told this would be going.

I will not press Amendments 164A or 158A, as I do not believe that what we require in the Bill is as yet specified in those amendments. I can well see that my noble friend, with his Amendment 164, could do us a great service, because if we were to take out these provisions it would press the Government to reinsert them with the necessary detail on how and when the mandatory levy should be imposed by way of substituting for what is currently in Clause 66(4) and (5).

However, if my noble friend were to take the view that it would be better for the Minister to give an assurance that she will consider whether there is scope for specifying the conditions under which the levy is mandatory—and narrowing that down to the kind of examples that I have referred to in my introductory remarks—I would be happy with that. I do not want us to take out the mandatory levy entirely; I want us to be able to specify it in more detail. I beg to move Amendment 158A.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I have been sitting for the last eight minutes next to my noble friend Lord Lansley, and I am slightly concerned by what he said. He accurately painted a picture that shows that there will be a drift, an expectation and a move by Natural England towards mandation for an EDP. I have been concerned for a while that the process by which an EDP might be consulted on and have consensus built could take a long time; I believe that it is very unlikely that we will get any EDPs operational in this Parliament, such is the process that is outlined, with multiple grounds of consultation and so forth.

I will paint an alternative picture to that of my noble friend Lord Lansley that involves a developer who just has to get on. The site that he is trying to develop is eating its head off in interest and there might even be demand for the homes—who knows? The developer has to get on and cannot afford to wait for that third year, so they cut and run. They go with a private operator under the habitats regulations; it is a proper scheme—I am not talking about shortcuts—but it means that they can get on with it.

The problem with mandation is they could end up paying twice, and that is no good. The Bill is meant to be speeding up development. So if they could have a route to develop more quickly while delivering the environmental benefits, without going down the EDP route, it should be open to them. I am concerned that mandation—and the slippery slope towards mandation being the default position, which my noble friend laid out—would see development being slowed down when it could be speeded up. Who wants to pay twice? Rather than get on with it, they hold back on the supposition that, in due course, the EDP will somehow come to the rescue. This is working against the role of the private sector in innovating and bringing in new techniques, and it is reinforcing the notion that only Natural England—that dead hand of the state—has a monopoly on how these things should be delivered. That is dangerous.

I am not going to speak against my noble friend, but I do not feel that he entirely covered the double jeopardy point, which is the logical conclusion of the amendments he has laid. In accepting that my noble friend Lord Roborough may press his amendment, I note that it will come back at Third Reading. If it does, we will need to consider the double jeopardy point about paying twice.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to examine the circumstances in which an environmental delivery plan, and the associated levy payment, could be mandatory. Amendment 164, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would wholly remove the option for an EDP to be mandatory. Amendment 164A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Langsley, would significantly restrict the circumstances in which an EDP could be made mandatory. I assure noble Lords, as I previously stressed in Committee debates, that the scenario of mandatory EDPs and levy payments will arise only in limited, exceptional circumstances. I will explain that in a bit more detail—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested that I would say that again—to try to reassure noble Lords.

A key purpose of the NRF is to offer developers an alternative way to meet their environmental obligations, so it is not our intention to make EDPs the only route available. As I have set out, Natural England is able to recommend that an EDP be mandatory only where it believes this is necessary, and it would be required to set out its reasoning within that EDP. That would form part of the consultation on that EDP—allowing developers and others to support or oppose this approach —and the responses to that consultation would of course form part of the Secretary of State’s consideration before making that EDP.

We consider that these steps represent a significant consultative and democratic safeguard. However, we also recognise that there is interest in what circumstances the Government consider may be necessary for an EDP to be mandatory rather than optional. We consider that there are two broad possibilities, the first of which is in instances where the ability to make an EDP mandatory provides a crucial assurance to Natural England and the taxpayer. For example, were Natural England to work with the developer and invest significant resource into preparing a bespoke EDP to address the impacts of a single large development such as a piece of energy infrastructure, that EDP is not likely to be usable by anyone else. If the developer or promoter subsequently chose to discharge their environmental obligations via a different route, that cost of developing the EDP would be wasted. It is important, therefore, to have a mechanism to provide certainty that an EDP will be used in such a scenario.

Secondly, if an EDP could only secure the right conservation measures to pass the overall improvement test and if all developers in scope paid in, but consultation showed that a small minority of developers did not wish to do so, it may be reasonable for Natural England to recommend and for the Secretary of State to agree that the EDP should be mandatory. A consideration of the overall benefits to growth and development would be properly in the gift of the Secretary of State in this scenario.

It is also important to note that the Bill contains a duty on the Secretary of State in drafting the levy regulations to ensure that even where payment of the levy is mandatory, it does not make development economically unviable, as this would not deliver the win-win the NRF is seeking to achieve.

Noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. They are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, which will enable stakeholders to have the opportunity to comment on regulations before they are made. In developing the regulations, we will, of course, work closely with stakeholders to ensure the effective operation of the levy system. Given this reassurance as to the limited circumstances where the levy could be mandatory, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Amendment 158A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to limit circumstances where an EDP could be amended so as to make payment of the levy mandatory. I assure the noble Lord that while we do not envisage Natural England amending an EDP to make payment of the levy mandatory, the Bill already provides that an EDP could be amended in this way. Such a scenario would be very unlikely to materialise, because the Secretary of State would need to consider whether making an EDP mandatory meets the high legal bar of this being necessary. However, if it did, the Bill as drafted already allows for this to happen, crucially, following further public consultation and, of course, the consent of the Secretary of State. With this reassurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords for their contributions to this debate; it is a really important one. What the Minister said certainly added something new in terms of the operation of the viability test as a way of mitigating the risk that the mandatory levy would put developers in a disadvantageous position. Otherwise, what she said was what I had previously understood.

Personally, I do not think that Amendment 164A significantly narrowed the scope; it simply expressed what I hoped was the intention. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister continued to consider—if not in the Bill itself, then certainly in the regulations and guidance—whether Natural England is deterred from constantly pressing the Secretary of State to think of making the levy mandatory, simply in order to justify the fact that it put all its effort and money into preparing EDPs in the first place, which is, I am afraid, part of the argument it will inevitably present. But, subject to that request, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 158A.

Amendment 158A withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

90: Clause 52, page 73, line 12, at end insert—
“(za) an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistic or commercial purposes, the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would secure that a spatial development strategy must include a description of the amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistics or commercial purposes, which are instrumental in determining the land use and requirements for housing in the strategy area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 90 relates to the content of the spatial development strategy and seeks to insert into the Bill the requirement that the strategy should include

“an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistic or commercial purposes, the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.

This is alongside the amount or distribution of housing and the amount or distribution of affordable housing. We had this debate in Committee, so I will not dwell at length on the reasons why I think it is necessary. The Committee debate demonstrated that there was widespread support among Members of the Committee for the inclusion of this in a spatial development strategy.

I want to just focus on one issue and one question to the Minister. We have agreed substantially on these issues, not least on the question of joint spatial development strategies back in the debate on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The issue, which I do not think was really raised properly in Committee, is that the spatial development strategy must be, by definition, about a broader area than local plans, and it gives us an opportunity to look in a strategic way at the relationship of travel to work areas, the sites for employment, the transport infrastructure that supports travel to work and the consequences from that of where people will be living, as well as working, which will lead into exactly the questions of the housing need and housing requirements that local plans must allow for in the future.

The Government have completely recognised the case for travel to work areas and the economic geography to be a basis for strategic planning. The English Devolution White Paper talks about strategic authorities being based on that kind of reasonable and functional economic geography, so I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is exactly how strategic development strategies should be compiled.

Anybody who has put together this kind of document in the past—I had something to do with these things when we were working on the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities 20 years ago—knows that that is exactly how one goes about thinking. Even at local plan level, understanding the broader questions of what the prospects look like for employment, industry and logistics is a sound basis for determining the amount and distribution of housing.

The consequential from that is a question to the Minister. Can she tell the House that we do not need to add this to the Bill because the guidance on the spatial development strategy will be explicit and make it very clear that that is the process and that is the way in which spatial development strategies must be constructed? I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as we did in Committee, and in particular to talk about this broader area. My Amendment 92 is similar to that from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, but takes it up to a greater level.

Having grappled with an attempt to do the whole of Hertfordshire, which the Minister will remember—where each district was asking, “What are we for, and what do you want us to do and to be?”—I remember that Stevenage was very much the place for incubator businesses, and an exemplar of that, and we were very much grade-A office. We recognised the need to have that across an area or we would be competing with one another, which was ridiculous.

The key point of my amendment mirrors that and complements it, because we are trying to create sustainable communities, and we all know that that means jobs. There is no point in building shedloads of houses stretching for miles when people have to get in their car even to buy a newspaper and certainly go miles in their car to commute to a job. So, we are on board with that.

I too brought my amendment before this House previously and it is supported by the Royal Institute of British Architects. The basic principle that the amendment embodies is to require development strategies to include a design vision for the whole area and, as such, it would have to include the things that were mentioned in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. A design vision, as laid out in the amendment, is a clear articulation of what a place should be like in the future, developed with and to meet the needs of the local community. I will not repeat the reasons why this is vital, because I am sure that we all know.

The Minister knows that I have been very clear and vocal in my support for the Government’s move towards strategic planning. It has been missing from planning in any meaningful way for many years. However, I want to address their response when I first brought the amendment before the House—namely, and this will sound like a broken record, that there was no need for the amendment because the guidance already exists through the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, and the National Model Design Code. The reason I want to press my case again is that guidance is incredibly valuable, but it is just that—guidance. I am sure that many noble Lords here today can give countless examples of where poor-quality development has come forward contrary to a development plan. To be absolutely blunt, the pressure on planning officers to grant housing schemes is great. We should not underestimate that. I am sure that we will have all seen, despite officers’ best efforts, some pretty mediocre schemes getting approval or, worse still, agreed on appeal.

The Government have quite rightly been very vocal in their support for good design. The amendment would mean that a vision for good design must be considered throughout the development process. Setting such a precedent can only be a good thing if we want to actively create and shape the places that work for people and contribute positively to their quality of life. For me and these Benches, this is non-negotiable.

Meeting housing need is an urgent task and one that we completely agree with, but doing so in a way that serves people both now and in the future—with design quality at the heart and the forefront of placemaking—is no less than we all deserve. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, because we cannot see good design as a “nice to have”; it has to be something that we accept. It is a “must have”.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, before I address the amendments, I should say that I circulated a diagram of the respective responsibilities of, and links between, spatial development strategies, local plans and neighbourhood plans that I hope was helpful to noble Lords in our consideration of the Bill.

Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, proposes to expressly allow a spatial development strategy to set out an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistics or commercial purposes. I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment, but it is not necessary. That is because new Section 12D(1) already requires spatial development strategies to include a statement of the strategic planning authority’s policies, however expressed, on land use and development that are of strategic importance to the strategy area. In fulfilling this requirement, I would expect strategic planning authorities to address employment, industrial, logistics and commercial development needs. That has been demonstrated in, for example, the London Plan, which operates under comparable legislative provisions.

To respond to the noble Lord, I add that our intention is for the National Planning Policy Framework, which we will consult on this year, to set out explicit policies for how employment, industrial, logistics, commercial and other issues are intended to be addressed, including through spatial development strategies. I hope that is helpful.

Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes that spatial development strategies include a design vision for the strategy area developed in collaboration with both the local community and other stakeholders. I have outlined previously in our debates the importance that the Government place on good design of new homes. We would expect any detailed design requirements to be set by local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning groups through their local and neighbourhood plans, as these will allocate specific sites. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise: I should when I first rose, as it was the first time I spoke on Report today, have drawn attention to my registered interests relating to the chairmanship of development forums in both Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank noble Lords for their support for the amendment. I am very grateful for the additional points that were made.

I am grateful for what the Minister said. I do not doubt that it is possible to put the necessary guidance into the National Planning Policy Framework. Indeed, I hope that when we see the revision of the NPPF before the end of the year we will see something akin to the guidance relating to plan-making but related to the making of spatial development strategies. I humbly say to the Minister what I said previously, along with my noble friend Lord Jamieson, about the importance of relating the question of the amount and distribution of housing to the spatial strategy in relation to employment, industry, logistics and the opportunities for inward investment, frankly. I cannot see any reason why that should not be quite explicit in the NPPF and therefore carried forward into requirements on SDS authorities. It is absolutely in the Government’s interest to do that. If growth is their number one priority, and planning reform is essential to that, then getting spatial development strategies up and running in ways that focus on this would be absolutely at the heart of it.

With those further requests to the Minister for future action, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

97A: Clause 52, page 82, line 22, at end insert—
“12OA Effect of local government organisational changes affecting principal authorities(1) This section applies in the event of any changes to the local government organisational structure made under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 that amend— (a) the composition of a strategic planning authority under 12A(2) by means of changes in the structure of a principal authority (as defined in 12A (7)), or(b) the constituent authorities (as defined in 12B (2)) to a strategic planning board.(2) Any spatial development strategy that had been prepared by a strategic planning authority" (under 12A(1)), remains in operation for the strategy area as defined in 12A (4) before the organisational change took effect under subsection (1).(3) Any spatial development strategy that remains in operation under subsection (2) may not be replaced or substantially altered before the expiry of five years after the date of its adoption, subject to subsection (4).(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State issues a direction authorising the alteration or replacement of the existing spatial development strategy.”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 97A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to ensure that any spatial development strategy that had been prepared by an authority remains in place for the strategy area following the restructure of the strategic planning authority; the strategy could not be replaced or substantially altered within five years of its adoption unless the Secretary of State authorised a strategic planning authority to do so. Given that the Government are currently undertaking an ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in England, I understand why the noble Lord seeks to make provision to account for this and ensure a degree of continuity for an operative spatial development strategy.

However, new Section 12T empowers the Secretary of State to include transitional provisions in strategic planning board regulations. This power complements existing powers to make transitional provision in regulations to reflect changes to local government organisation. If a local government reorganisation leads to uncertainty over the boundaries of a spatial development strategy or its applicability to an area, it is more suitable to address this through tailored transitional provision in regulations rather than through primary legislation. This means that the effects of local government reorganisation can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Preventing a strategic planning authority from replacing or significantly revising its spatial development strategy until five years after its adoption following local government reorganisation would restrict its ability to respond to major national policy changes or new major investment in its area. Strategic planning authorities are well placed to determine when updates to their strategies are necessary and should retain the discretion to do so. Given this, I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—for their support, and to the Minister for her response. I completely understand that the Minister does not want to close down the possibility of alterations to spatial development strategies, which this might do. I hope that we might look at the transitional provisions, and I hold in my head the thought that if we can see those—in relation to the making of spatial development strategies and the impact of local government reorganisation—and if we have a problem, even if we do not deal with it in this Bill, it would be within the scope of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to be able to deal with it at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 97A.

Amendment 97A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

99: Clause 52, page 89, line 13, at end insert—
“Neighbourhood priorities statements
12Y Neighbourhood priorities statements(1) Any qualifying body may make a statement, to be known as a “neighbourhood priorities statement”, which summarises what the body considers to be the principal needs and prevailing views, of the community in the neighbourhood area in relation to which the body is authorised, in respect of local development and infrastructure.(2) “Local matters” are such matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe, relating to—(a) development, or the management or use of land, in or affecting the neighbourhood area,(b) the development of housing in the neighbourhood area,(c) the natural environment in the neighbourhood area,(d) development of public spaces in the neighbourhood area, or(e) the infrastructure or facilities available in the neighbourhood area.(3) A qualifying body may modify or revoke a neighbourhood priorities statement that has effect, for the time being, for the neighbourhood area in relation to which the body is authorised.(4) A neighbourhood priorities statement has effect from the time it is published by a relevant local planning authority and ceases to have effect upon such an authority publishing a notice stating that it has been revoked by a qualifying body. (5) A modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement has effect from the time the modification, or modified statement, is published by a relevant local planning authority.(6) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may impose requirements which must be met for a neighbourhood priorities statement, or any modification or revocation of such a statement, to be made or published.(7) Regulations under subsection (6) or section 15LE(2)(k) may provide that a requirement may be met, or (as the case may be) procedure may be complied with, by virtue of things done by a parish council, or other organisation or body, before it becomes a qualifying body.(8) Regulations under subsection (6) and section 15LE must (between them)—(a) require a qualifying body to publish any proposed neighbourhood priorities statement, so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates can comment on the proposed statement before the body makes the statement,(b) require a qualifying body to publish any proposed material modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement, so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates can comment on the proposed modification before the body makes the modification,(c) require a relevant local planning authority to publish a neighbourhood priorities statement, if the statement is made in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part,(d) require a relevant local planning authority to publish a notice of the revocation of a neighbourhood priorities statement, if the statement has been revoked in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part, and(e) require a relevant local planning authority, if a modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement is made in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part, to publish the modification or a modified statement.(9) Subsection (10) applies if, as a result of a modification of a neighbourhood area under section 61G(6) of the principal Act, a neighbourhood priorities statement relates to more than one neighbourhood area.(10) Any modification, or revocation, of the neighbourhood priorities statement as it has effect for one of those areas does not affect the statement as it has effect in relation to the other area or areas.(11) Regulations under section 61G(11) of the principal Act (designation of areas as neighbourhood areas) may include provision about the consequences of the modification of designations—(a) on proposals for neighbourhood priorities statements, or on neighbourhood priorities statements, that have already been made, or(b) on proposals for the modification of neighbourhood priorities statements, or on modifications of neighbourhood priorities statements, that have already been made.(12) A authority mentioned in subsection (13) is a “relevant local planning authority”, in relation to a neighbourhood priorities statement, if some or all of the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates falls within the area of the authority.(13) The authorities are—(a) a district council,(b) a London borough council, (c) a metropolitan district council,(d) a county council in relation to an area in England for which there is no district council, or(e) the Broads Authority.(14) In this section—“material modification” , in relation to a neighbourhood priorities statement, means a modification which a relevant local planning authority considers—(a) materially affects a summary, in the statement, of any needs or views, of the community in the neighbourhood area, in relation to a local matter, and(b) does not only correct an obvious error or omission;“neighbourhood area” has the meaning given by sections 61G and 61I(1) of the principal Act;“qualifying body” means a parish council or an organisation or body designated as a neighbourhood forum, which is authorised to act in relation to a neighbourhood area as a result of section 61F of the principal Act (whether or not as applied by section 38C of this Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reproduces some of the provision in Schedule 7 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 , not currently in force, creating a power for local councils to produce a neighbourhood priorities statement to inform plan-making and infrastructure provision affecting their neighbourhood.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 99 and 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, return to measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. As your Lordships will recall, in Committee, I advised the House that the Government consider that the best time to commence the provisions of Sections 98 and 100 of that Act is alongside our wider reforms to the local plan-making system, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned.

Amendment 108 would advance the date of commencement ahead of those connected reforms, bringing them into force on the day on which the Bill is finally enacted. However, we continue to believe that a co-ordinated approach to commencement will be most helpful to planning authorities and we do not consider there is a case for advancing these provisions ahead of our wider timetable.

Amendment 99 deals with neighbourhood priorities statements. This is another measure provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, so this amendment is not required if we want to bring them into force. However, at this stage, we want to ensure our new local plan-making system is working as it should before considering adding the introduction of neighbourhood priorities statements.

Neighbourhood planning groups are welcome and are encouraged to contribute their views during the preparation of local plans. The expertise developed through the preparation of neighbourhood plans already allows them to make thoughtful and constructive contributions that local authorities should consider carefully. In common with the noble Lord, the Government continue to believe that neighbourhood planning groups can make a valuable contribution across the planning system. However, we are not yet convinced that a statutory approach is required to enable that contribution. As such, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 127, which seeks to introduce a requirement into the development consent order process for the Secretary of State to consider neighbourhood plans when determining nationally significant infrastructure projects, and to empower her to limit variations to those plans. Neighbourhood plans are indeed a vital part of the planning system, giving communities a voice in shaping development in their areas. I fully recognise that the spirit of this amendment is rooted in a desire to strengthen that voice, particularly in the context of large-scale infrastructure projects that, as we all know, can have significant local consequences. It reflects a genuine concern that local priorities should not be overlooked in the pursuit of national objectives. However, as I sought to set out during earlier debates, the Government maintain their position that this amendment is unnecessary. The DCO process has been carefully designed to ensure that decisions on NSIPs can balance national priorities with local impacts and be made in a timely manner.

Neighbourhood plans form part of the development plan, which is the starting point in making decisions on planning applications in the Town and Country Planning Act regime. This is well established and, although there are occasions where departures from neighbourhood plans are warranted, it is part of the planning balance with which local planning authorities and planning inspectors are familiar. We recognise that, where a departure from a neighbourhood plan occurs, it can be frustrating for the community. I understand that, but this is part of the planning system working as it should.

For NSIPs, the primary policy framework remains the national policy statements, which set out the need for such projects and provide guidance for both promoters and decision-makers. As noble Lords know, national policy statements are subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. I am very confident that the Planning Act 2008 already embeds a sufficient number of safeguards to ensure that local views are considered.

Local communities and authorities can participate in the examination process, submit representations as part of this and provide local impact reports. These processes ensure that information about local concerns, including impacts of the proposed NSIP, is available to the examining authority and the Secretary of State. Local impact reports, along with any other matters deemed important and relevant, including neighbourhood plans, must be taken into account by the Secretary of State as part of decision-making.

Where a relevant NPS is in effect, the Secretary of State is legally required to determine applications in accordance with it, unless specific statutory exceptions apply. Introducing an additional requirement, as proposed in this amendment, risks undermining the clear operation of the decision-making obligation on the Secretary of State and could prevent the Government’s objective of building more infrastructure that the country desperately needs.

This amendment also proposes that the Secretary of State be able to make variations to neighbourhood plans. Under the existing process, the Secretary of State does not play any role in approving neighbourhood plans; they are a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of local authorities. This fundamentally underpins local democracy in the planning system. It would therefore not be appropriate to confer powers on the Secretary of State to vary them, as this rightly remains a matter for local communities.

The Government’s position on this matter remains unchanged from Committee. The existing statutory framework already provides the necessary mechanisms to ensure that neighbourhood plans are considered where appropriate. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this short debate. The effect of Amendment 108 on neighbourhood development plans would be to commence them when this Act is passed. I suspect that means it would be commenced in November. I hope the Minister is saying that the Government intend that these provisions commence alongside the new revision of the National Planning Policy Framework that we normally receive as a Christmas present, just before Christmas. There might only be a matter of weeks between those two dates, so I will not stress about that at this stage.

As far as Amendment 99 is concerned, there is still a role for neighbourhood priority statements, but this is absolutely something we can come back to under the English devolution Bill. When we see what effective neighbourhood governance is, that will include an ability to make these statements in relation to development and planning in the area of a given neighbourhood. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 99 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have signed my noble friend’s Amendments 105 and 113, and he very kindly referred to the previous debates, before he joined your Lordships’ House, on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill when we looked at the issue and the consequences of Hillside and did so, I think, on the basis of amendments that I tabled at that time. The Government responded to my amendments then by bringing forward their own amendment, which is now Section 73B—Section 73 was inserted by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—as inserted by Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which is about material variations in planning permission.

My original amendment that I tabled—back in 2022, I think—tried to resolve Hillside and say, effectively, that subsequent applications for planning permission would not invalidate an existing planning permission, even though they related to the same area of land, so long as the subsequent planning permission, if permitted, would not make the original permission physically incapable. This is done by reference to what is known as the Pilkington judgment.

My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook may well recall these debates, and the advice that she received was to try to tackle what I would describe as the least of the problems emerging from Hillside, which is that you arrive at a position where you have got an existing planning permission for a site of the kind my noble friend was describing and you want to vary it but not in a way which is significantly different from the existing permission. That is what Section 73B in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act says: the local planning authority can do this so long as it is not significantly different.

As it happens, that has not been brought into force. On the basis of the helpful discussions I have had with the Minister, it is my expectation that the Government will bring Section 73B into force. If I am incorrect in that, I am sure the Minister would tell me, but I am hoping I am not incorrect about that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, Amendment 105 sets out to deal with all the problems that emerged and, if I may say so, it is ambitious; I have signed it and agree with it, but it is ambitious. It is ambitious to be able to say that, if a local planning authority accepts this new permission in relation to the same area of land as an existing permission, subject to Section 106 obligations et cetera, that is all well and good; they can make that decision, and it does not invalidate the existing permission. If there are difficulties with the wording of Amendment 105, Amendment 113 is a basis for the Government to make further regulations to deal with any of the remaining issues that might emerge from it.

I have to say it is ambitious because it goes beyond Pilkington. Technically, there is an issue, in my view, about a new permission which would make the existing permission no longer physically able to be implemented. However, Amendment 105 seems to me none the less to be right, and we should proceed with it because it deals with a later problem than the Hillside judgment, which is about whether existing planning permissions are severable in relation to a new application for planning permission.

Amendment 105 would put beyond doubt that planning permissions would be severable for this purpose, because the existing planning permission would not be invalidated by the new planning permission, which, clearly, even if it made the original one physically impossible, would do so in relation only to part of the existing permission.

When I first discussed this with Ministers some weeks back, I was told, “It’s not so urgent because they are many workarounds”. I am afraid that the workarounds are deeply costly and difficult. They are such things as breaking down a master plan into a whole series of phases, each phase having to secure planning permission in its own right, without any certainty as to later planning permissions. One needs a master plan with outline planning permission that gives one assurance and certainty about the nature of the overall development. Even if one has to make what are, in effect, material changes to that, at least one has the existing permission. My noble friend’s Amendment 105 would enable developers under those circumstances to have that degree of assurance about the sustainability of the planning permission that they have received, so I strongly support it.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will respond to this interesting amendment by saying that there are some technical issues that the Government need to reflect upon, and that there will be a future vehicle. I just ask her to be sympathetic to having a look at this, perhaps between now and Third Reading. I do not think there is any doubt that the Hillside judgment will inevitably have an impact on the objectives of the Bill, which, despite the many amendments we have been debating, is about planning and infrastructure and getting the process through much more quickly than we have in the past.

Clearly, there has been a lot of discussion about a second planning Bill, and no doubt the Hillside judgment could be dealt with in it. I would have thought that, if the Government could deal with it now and in the next few weeks, and between Report and Third Reading, it would benefit the ultimate objectives of what we are seeking to do here.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

106: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Chief planner(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) After section 1, insert—“1A Local planning authorities: chief planner(1) Each local planning authority must appoint an officer, to be known as chief planner, for the purposes of their functions as a local planning authority.(2) Two or more local planning authorities may, if they consider that the same person can efficiently discharge, for both or all of the planning authorities, the functions of chief planner, concur in the same appointment of a person as chief planner for both or all of these authorities. (3) A local planning authority may not appoint a person as chief planner unless satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for local planning authorities to appoint a Chief Planner, who could be appointed jointly by one or more authorities, to secure that decisions, including those delegated to officers, are made with professional leadership.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 106 relates to the role of the chief planner. Noble Lords may recall the debate in Committee when we looked at whether there should be a chief planner, statutorily appointed to local planning authorities. The structure of the amendment is that every

“local planning authority must appoint an officer”

as a chief planner, and that:

“Two or more local planning authorities”


can choose to appoint the same person as the chief planner, so it is not necessarily one chief planner per local authority. The only requirement in the legislation would be that it be a person who

“has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role”.

We are not specifying any qualifications for this purpose, given that we know from experience that there can be chief planners who derive their qualifications from work on economic development and planning experience over a number of years.

The reason why we keep bringing this back is that we are committed, I think on all sides of the House, to trying to enhance the planning profession. The Government said in their manifesto that they wanted to recruit an additional 300 planners; we want to go further. The resources for planning have been deficient and, in due course, we need them to be increased. But in addition to resources for planning, we want to ensure that the planning activity itself, and the importance of planning, is thoroughly supported by the statutory role of the chief planner.

Noble Lords will recall that this has been made especially important by the Government’s publication of a plan for a national scheme of delegation. Their own document—I think this was back in July—said that decisions about the allocation of decisions to planning officers or to the planning committee should be made by the chief planner, with a capital C and capital P, together with the chair of the planning committee. The Government effectively said that there will be a chief planner in every local planning authority for this purpose. That makes a great deal of sense because these decisions mean that the chief planner, together with the chair of the planning committee, needs to understand planning law and practice, and the interpretation of the guidance. This will be further reinforced by the publication of national development management policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks—as we have heard—to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities, either separately or jointly, to appoint a suitably qualified chief planning officer. I have also discussed this issue further with the noble Lord, and while I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, and I agree it is important for planners to be represented in the leadership of local authorities, I do not consider it to be a matter which we should legislate for at this time.

There are currently more than 300 local planning authorities in England, which vary considerably in the scale and scope of their planning functions. We think it is important for local authorities to be able to determine how best to organise their planning functions, and in practice the role of a chief planner or equivalent already exists. The role of a chief planner is very different within a large unitary authority, such as Cornwall —a county authority which focuses principally on mineral and waste planning matters—and a small district authority.

However, as I said in Committee, I will keep this issue under review as we progress with further reforms to the planning system, and it is something I can discuss with local authorities. With this reassurance, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister, not least for her time in discussing these matters. I do not think we have moved forward, but we continue to be in a position where she has very kindly offered to continue to reflect on this and, indeed, to consult. Maybe, the route forward is for there to be, if not formal, certainly some informal discussion with local authorities about this.

It seems to me—it is getting to be a bit of a theme of mine this evening—that as we enter into the planning reforms, and indeed the local government reorganisation, it will change the nature of the responsibilities of local planning authorities. Increasingly, given the position where the planning function occupies a leading role in relation to a range of issues, including infrastructure strategies and economic development activities, it would continue to be a desirable step forward for there to be, as part of the suite of chief officers of any local planning authority, a planner at the heart of their functions.

That said, if the Minister is willing to continue to reflect, and we have the standby option that we can revisit this in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it seems to me that we can, because it will be within the scope of the reorganisation of local government to think about who the statutory officers of those authorities should be—I will take the opportunity this evening, it being a late hour, not to press this at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 106.

Amendment 106 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I find that there is much to commend in her amendment, which I hope gains the favour of the House and, indeed, the Government. I am also very taken by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, who will explain it momentarily. I have tabled Amendment 60 on Report to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government that fees will include the cost of enforcement measures.

In Clause 48, the Government recognise that the local planning authority in England may set the level of a fee or a charge. Indeed, Clause 49 goes on to consider the raising of a surcharge on planning fees, which I think is going much further than my modest little Amendment 60. I am deeply concerned about the issues raised by insurance companies such as, in this case, Aviva: that the Government seem to be in denial as to the implications for potential future floods of their commitment to build 1.5 million homes in the course of this Parliament.

We will come on to discuss greater flood resilience measures and, indeed, possibly not building on the most functional flood plains, but at the moment the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has no measures to improve the flood resilience of new homes. We have to accept that these measures are expensive. They include such measures as increased insurance costs and measures to make homes more resilient. Many of them are geared to reducing the impact of climate change, and I think it is generally felt that it would be a small price to pay if these measures were included and recovered in a modest increase to planning fees. I do not think it would be disproportionately high, as the Minister responded when summing up on the amendment in Committee; that is why I have sought to raise this.

I am sure that the Minister, the department and the Government would like to see these resilience measures included. Many of them are now hopefully becoming more affordable than has been the case in the past. Life is about choices. If the Government are going to build on functional flood plains, we have to accept that those future homes have to be flood-proofed and resilient. These measures cost money.

The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the increased cost of ensuring that those measures are adequately and properly installed will be covered in the cost of a fee. I do not believe that the fee will be disproportionate. Therefore, I have returned with this amendment today to make a plea to the Minister that she will see that this is only a potentially modest increase. It is something that she, her department and her Government are asking householders to do, and I believe that the enforcement cost should be covered in the fee. That is the proposal that I put to the House this afternoon.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 61 in this group is in my name. I will talk to that in a moment, but first I want to say one or two things about the helpful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I think it points in the right direction, but we need to understand where we would end up if we were to go in that direction.

Some noble Lords will have participated in the debate that we had toward the latter stages of the last Parliament about the new regulations relating to planning fees. One thing that came through quite forcibly from that was that householders—for example, making applications in relation to their own houses—were paying significantly less than the cost of dealing with their application. I completely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that there is, and has been subsequently in the Government’s changes to the planning charges, some balancing of that, and that householders are paying more.

If I understand correctly, it is the noble Baroness’s intention that the fees charged should be proportionate to the number of households or the scale of a development—although that is not actually what her amendment says. The amendment simply says that it should be proportionate; it does not say proportionate to what. Basing it on the size of a development could mean basing it in a positive correlation or a negative correlation. I am afraid that when you write legislation, you have to write specifically what you want. Otherwise, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and his colleagues will take it apart. We do not want that; we want to be very clear about what we are setting out to achieve.

I am sure it is not the noble Baroness’s intention to press the amendment, but it raises an important issue. When Ministers bring forward regulations to set out how the planning fees should be set and the criteria by which they should be set, it is at that point that I hope they will take full account of what the noble Baroness said and the purposes she was describing.

My amendment is derived from our debate in Committee. I did not have an amendment then, but we had an exchange about Clause 49, which relates to the surcharge that can be charged for the purpose of meeting the costs of statutory consultees and other bodies that support the planning process. When we reach Clause 49, we see that new Section 303ZZB(6) states that the level of the surcharge must be set so as to

“secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons”.

I noticed, in listening to the debate, that new Section 303ZZB(8) says that:

“Regulations …may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons”.


We therefore have the curious situation where, in the same section, it says that it should not exceed the costs and also that regulations have the specific power to exceed the costs. I have not had a conversation with the Minister, but I have been thinking about this quite carefully. The purpose of tabling this amendment is to ask whether my understanding is correct. If it is, I think it would be very helpful for that to be said explicitly.

New subsection (8), which says that the surcharge could exceed the costs of the listed persons, relates to a specific application, so the charge does not have to be set so as not to exceed the costs of the work done in relation to any individual application. New subsection (6) tells us that, in effect, it is not just taking one year with another or looking at the costs, but looking at costs across all of these activities and applications, and that, overall, the listed persons should not receive more by way of income from the surcharge than meets their costs. I hope that the explanation of the Bill is precisely that: subsection (8) should only be referenced in relation to an individual application and could not be used to set surcharges so as to provide greater income to statutory consultees or others than the costs they incur dealing with planning applications.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations be proportionate to the nature and size of the development to which it applies. Proportionate fees are of course vital to ensure fairness between applicants and avoid placing undue burdens on smaller developments. However, we cannot support this amendment as further prescription in the legislation risks reducing flexibility for local authorities and the Secretary of State to respond to changing circumstances. We agree with the principle of proportionality, but we do not think this is the right way. I hope that the Minister will look at our Amendment 103 later today.

Amendment 60 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh would allow the cost of enforcement measures, such as checking whether specified flood mitigation or resilience measures have been properly installed, to be included in the fees. While I entirely agree with the intention to ensure that local planning authorities can recover their costs, we cannot support this amendment. We are concerned that this might blur the line between the cost of enforcement and the wider issues of fees, which are separate statutory functions, although this is an issue we should continue to look at into the future.

Finally, Amendment 61 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley seeks to reduce what may be included in fees for planning provisions made under subsections (5A) and (5B). I recognise my noble friend’s concerns about the overreach in fee structures and I hope the Government can take the time today to set out the reasons and intentions behind these subsections.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

63: Clause 51, page 69, line 22, at end insert—
“(3) In section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (regulations and orders), after subsection (3ZAA), insert—“(3ZAB) The first regulations under sections 319ZZC or 319ZZD may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3ZAC) Regulations made under sections 319ZZC or 319ZZD are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (except for the first such regulations).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that when regulations for a national scheme of delegation of planning decisions are made for the first time, these should be made by an affirmative resolution procedure.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

65: At end insert—
“(2) After section 74(1)(a) of that Act insert—“(aa) for authorising the local planning authority, in relation to a direction restricting the grant or refusal of planning permission or permission in principle under paragraph (a), to grant planning permission or permission in principle insofar as the planning application is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan if the latter is up-to-date;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This addition to the amendment tabled would provide an incentive to a local planning authority to adopt an up-to-date Local Plan and, in consequence, to regain control over the grant of planning permission in accordance with the Plan.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 64 relates to a subject that we did not discuss in Committee. It was tabled only at the beginning of last week. Although the Minister said there was just an anomaly, as though it was some sort of gap, I have to confess that, when I looked at it, I found it quite difficult to work out what this gap was. Under the existing powers, if the Secretary of State sees that a local authority is not intending to grant planning permission but wishes that planning permission to be granted, they can issue a direction for that purpose. If the Secretary of State sees that a local planning authority is likely to refuse a planning application, leaving aside the fact that the applicant might choose to appeal such a refusal, the Secretary of State could, if they sought to move quickly, make a direction for the purpose of granting planning permission, or simply call it in, which I would have thought would be the obvious thing to do.

The purpose of my amendment is to test the use case a bit. What worries me is that, on the face of it, the ostensible purpose here might be to give the Secretary of State much clearer power to issue a direction to stop a local authority refusing planning permission for an application that is not in accordance with the development plan. Clearly, the Secretary of State already has the power to grant planning permission not in accordance with the development plan. That is in Section 74, in a later subsection. The Secretary of State can still do that, but it looks to me as if what this actually adds is the ability to stop local authorities refusing permission in circumstances where an application is not in accordance with the development plan. We have spent a lot of time, especially those of us who remember the debates on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, emphasising the importance of local authorities having up-to-date local plans and that decisions should be made in accordance with those plans.

My Amendment 65, as an amendment to Amendment 64, would add into Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act a specific provision that the Secretary of State may issue directions in effect to grant planning permission or to refuse planning permission in accordance with the development plan. That seems to me to be the best way of guaranteeing democratic input into planning and, indeed, that the delivery of planning happens in ways that are relatively predictable and successful from the point of view of local communities. I commend Amendment 65 as an alternative approach, but, in the absence of Amendment 65, it seems to me that Amendment 64 adds risk to the system rather than substantial benefit. I beg to move Amendment 65.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 87A and 87D in this group. Amendment 87D is a bit of an outlier, so I will come to that later in my contribution. In essence, Amendment 87A is supposed to be a bit of a helping hand to the Government in achieving the outcome that they are intending, whereas the Government’s Amendment 64 really is a huge overreach. I should start by thanking Alexa Culver for helping draft Amendment 87A.

Government Amendment 64 would allow the Secretary of State, in effect, to force through planning permissions, even when material considerations such as failing EDPs, water shortages and insufficient infrastructure would normally warrant planning refusal. In the press release that was put out, although it did not directly mention the amendment, the closest explanation that could be found was:

“Ministers will be able to issue ‘holding directions’ to stop councils refusing planning permission whilst they consider using their ‘call-in’ powers. Under existing rules, they can only issue these holds when councils are set to approve applications”.


The suggestion is that this amendment would allow the Government properly to use their call-in powers.

It is possible that this explanation is a red herring and does not match the much broader powers contained in Amendment 64. At the moment, Written Ministerial Statements can govern the procedure for call-in; there is no need for legislation to improve or refine the process. I have suggested an alternative to the Government through Amendment 87A. Planning authorities are allowed to refuse planning permission only when there are justified grounds to do so. If that refusal is appealed, of course, the Secretary of State can call in that appeal, known as recovering the appeal. Therefore, the Government’s stated concern around obstructive or hair-trigger refusal is a fairly minor one to legislate for.

The challenge here is that we need to try to make sure that we improve other parts of the Bill. To give a bit more detail, the clause would permit the Secretary of State to pass a new type of development order that prevents local planning authorities refusing to grant planning permission, for example where there is insufficient water supply or the like. Up until now, development orders have been used only to govern or constrain how planning authorities positively grant consent. This amendment turns that around for the first time and allows the Secretary of State to prevent refusals of planning permission.

Development orders have to be made by statutory instrument—although I believe it is through the negative procedure—but there are no obvious constraints on how the power can be used. The bars to refusal can be used to override local, real-world, on-the-ground constraints to development, and planning authorities may be forced to consent, for example, where EDPs are failing or unimplemented.

On the speed of impact, there are widely publicised water shortage issues in many parts of the country and I am very concerned that, given that this clause is expected to come into force on the day, we could see a flurry of directions being issued. Amendment 87A—by the good help of Alexa Culver, as I say—would not have entire overreach but would potentially help the Minister achieve their aim.

Amendment 87D is on something very close to my heart: considering local communities. They go to a lot of effort to register assets of community value, but at the moment the regulations are such that there are very few examples of buildings being protected from demolition under existing permitted development rights. Those are a pub and, I think, two other examples of some social issues. I think a theatre is a good example. I have seen this at first hand when a community came together. Registering an asset of community value is not the most straightforward of processes, but they did. When the owner of said community assets was starting to get fed up, they literally just pulled the buildings down, not even allowing the local community the chance to buy those assets from the developer.

I am conscious that the Government will have legislation later this year about local communities. I really do not want to have to return at that stage to press the case; I want to get these changes made now. When we bring in legislation to empower communities, which happened in the Localism Act and which I know the Government say they support, let us not continue to have legislation where the rug can be pulled away from those local communities. In the particular case it was a sports centre and a theatre, both much cherished and both used in marketing for housebuilding in that area and as reasons for people to move there. We are talking about all these new communities. Unfortunately, those things could be built and within a day they could be pulled down to make space for more houses—exactly what happened in that community in Suffolk. It may be the only example. I have not investigated right around the country, but I feel so strongly about it and this Bill has been my first opportunity to try to rectify what I genuinely believe is a wrong. I hope that the House will support that later tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hear the strength of feeling in the House on this amendment. It might be helpful if I set out in a bit more detail the way the Section 31 direction works. It is important to note that a Section 31 direction allows time for the Secretary of State to consider whether to exercise call-in powers. It is exactly what it says on the tin: a holding direction to enable that process to go through.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the use of holding directions helps to prevent exactly the circumstances he described by restricting the issuing of a decision on a planning application—whether it be to grant or to refuse—to allow time for full consideration of whether it raises issues of more than local importance, such that it merits calling in, and to help prevent the rushed consideration of such matters. I have dealt with a number of these call-ins of applications since becoming a Minister. Every time we look at a called-in application, we have to consider the criteria against which the Secretary of State will consider the call-in of a local application. I hope it will be helpful if I very quickly go through those.

Compliance with the local development plan is not the question here; it is whether the Secretary of State will use the call-in powers, and they will use them only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, may conflict with national policies.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am confused. The Minister referred to Section 31 directions, but surely, we are talking about Section 74 directions. Section 31 is to do with grants for local authorities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My apologies: I got my numbers mixed up there. I am talking about the call-in power.

Such cases could include, for example, those which may conflict with national policies on important matters, may have a significant long-term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a single local authority, could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, could give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy, raise significant architectural and urban design issues, or may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments. However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Of course we keep the procedures under review in order to ensure they are fit for purpose. It is very important that we would inform the House in the proper way if we were to make any procedural changes in regard to the issues he raises.

Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as an amendment to government Amendment 64, seeks to incentivise local planning authorities getting up-to-date local plans in place and to allow them to determine applications subject to a holding direction where an up-to-date plan is in place and the proposal accords with this plan. I assure the noble Lord that we appreciate the sentiment behind his amendment. As I have often said, we too want to ensure that local planning authorities make positive decisions and grant planning permission for development which is in accordance with up-to-date local plans. However, we are not convinced that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary. Under our amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to restrict refusal of planning permission or permission in principle. Where the Secretary of State has not also restricted the local planning authority from approving the application, they will be free to reconsider the application and grant it if they wish. We believe that this addresses the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment 87A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would amend secondary legislation to enact government Amendment 64. I assure the noble Baroness that this amendment is not needed, as we will bring forward the necessary changes to secondary legislation shortly following Royal Assent of the Bill.

Amendment 87D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to remove assets of community value from the permitted development right which grants planning permission for the demolition of certain buildings. I am not responsible for the grouping of amendments, so I understand her issue about where this has been grouped, but we will debate it as it is in the group before us. I very much appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, and I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that local communities do not lose the community assets which are so important to them. We do not have many old houses in our town, because it is a new town, by its very nature. However, I have relayed before my story of a beautiful old farmhouse in my own ward of Symonds Green. An application came in for that property, and we tried very hard to get it listed before the application was considered. Unfortunately, the inside of the property had been amended; so much work had been done to it internally that we could not get a listing for it and, unfortunately, it was, sadly, demolished. The reason I am saying that is because there are a number of routes that local communities can take to protect properties, which I will come on to in a minute.

It is already the case that the demolition permitted development right excludes many types of buildings which are particularly valued by local communities. We know how important these buildings are, and Members across the House have stated this both this afternoon and in previous debates. These include pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and many other buildings of local value.

Local planning authorities, as I have stated before and as I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, can use Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights in their area, where it is appropriate to do so. While I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about Article 4 and the possible complexities of dealing with that, it is possible for local authorities to apply for these in advance.

There is also another route that local authorities can go down, which is to set up a register of buildings of local community interest, which, while it does not carry the weight of statutory protection that Article 4 does, provides a checklist for communities and planners for buildings that cannot be listed, against which they can be checked, should proposed development come forward.

We believe that the current approach is the right one. However, I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep permitted development under review, and this and other matters related to that are always under review. With these assurances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I think we are debating Amendment 65, which I moved.

The debate has illustrated that, in effect, this is the debate we ought to have had in Committee. There is one set of people—I count myself among them—who cannot understand what the Government are trying to achieve, and why the amendment is necessary, and another set who are saying that it gives the Government powers to do things that might be objectionable.

Actually, of course, the Government have all those powers. If they wanted, for example, to grant planning permission to all data centres, they could issue guidance for that purpose. They could issue national development management policies, for which they have powers. The question I keep coming back to, which is where I started, is: what is this trying to achieve? Calling it an “anomaly” seems to be completely misleading. If you put it alongside a holding direction to stop the granting of planning permission, that stops a local authority giving planning permission because, once it is given, you cannot take it away. Having a holding direction to stop the refusal of planning permission simply stops the local authority saying no, and then the applicant has the opportunity for appeal or a further application, and many other routes—and the Secretary of State has many routes to deal with it. I am afraid that I cannot see the benefit.

The Minister was kind enough to say that my amendment was not necessary, as she wants to do the things that my amendment calls for, so that is fine. So I do not need to proceed with my amendment and will beg leave to withdraw it, in expectation that we will focus on Amendment 64 itself.

Amendment 65, as an amendment to Amendment 64, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group. Government Amendment 68 would permit Natural England to not respond to requests for advice under Section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, so that it can prioritise more important cases. That reflects pretty well what is happening at the moment, if the truth were known, because the reality is that Natural England’s resources are very thinly stretched and, in many cases, it provides advice simply on the basis of standing guidance and sometimes on the basis of empty silence. I want to probe the Minister a bit further on this and I apologise for giving her grief when she is clearly beset with some affliction.

I have three questions. The first is, it is my understanding that Natural England would have to consult only the Secretary of State on the development of this statement about how it intends to deal with requests for advice. Should there not be a wider consultation on such a statement, which is important for how local planning authorities are assisted to make more informed planning decisions?

The second question is: has the Minister any concerns about Natural England reducing further its support to local planning authorities when we know that only one in three local planning authorities now has in-house ecological advice? We are facing a reduction in the advice coming from Natural England and a reduction in the available advice to local authorities. I know that they can buy that in, but it is less flexible and less readily available.

My third question is: should we perhaps wait for this change to happen once the Government’s forthcoming consultation on statutory consultees has taken place? This is a consultation about consultation—this is the sort of world we live in these days.

Noble Lords are being asked to approve this change, which it is intended will come in immediately on the passing of the Bill, and there is a specific clause that effects that, without seeing the wider picture of reform for statutory consultees within which the statement of prioritisation would sit. If a requirement to consult more widely on the statement that Natural England is supposed to produce were placed in the Bill, that would enable proper consideration once the picture on statutory consultees had been settled. So I think that hastening rather more slowly on this would make for a much better decision.

I support Amendment 194 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government would expect any delegation by the Secretary of State of Natural England’s role in developing or implementing an EDP to be generally to a public body. In talking to the Minister—I was pleased to be able to talk directly to both Ministers about this issue—the only examples that so far have been put forward for this power of delegation have been either to National Parks England or the Marine Management Organisation, in circumstances where the expertise might be more relevant to a particular EDP. That is entirely appropriate. If a reliable public body is publicly accountable and has the right sort of expertise to draw up and implement an EDP, it is appropriate that that happens. But, if it is normally going to be a public body, why do we not just say “a public body” in the Bill rather than “another person”?

There needs to be a lot of clarity here about the difference between delegating to “another person” to develop and implement an EDP and the sorts of partnerships that I am sure most EDPs will involve, where Natural England can partner with or delegate the delivery but not the preparation of part of an EDP to a whole range of partners, including businesses, including some of the natural resources businesses that are growing up, NGOs, landowners and farmers. I am sure that there will be a huge range of people joined with Natural England in delivering EDPs and that that will happen widely. But that will happen with Natural England as the co-ordinating body, co-ordinating the delivery by partners in line with the EDP.

That partnership working is absolutely admirable and can happen without this delegation provision. Clause 86 is, in reality, about taking the development and/or the delivery of these potentially highly controversial EDPs away from the body that is the Government’s statutory adviser and agency on nature conservation and potentially giving extensive responsibilities and powers to a person or persons as yet unidentified. If they are to be public bodies, why not state that in the Bill? If they are not, can the Minister help us understand a bit more who these non-public bodies might be? Can she give us some examples? I would find it very difficult to believe that a private individual or organisation would have the range of expertise and experience that statutory bodies accrue from doing these things successively over time, and which they will develop even more as they take forward successive EDPs and learn increasingly how to do it.

If I were a landowner, I would be very anxious about not knowing who might, in the future, have all these Natural England powers to develop and implement EDPs; not knowing their background and expertise; not knowing the extent of the powers they are to be given, and their stance on and approach towards compulsory purchase. Public bodies are, to a large extent, known quantities; another person or persons unknown are not. If public bodies screw up, the Government can sack the chairman. I know all about that. The Government have no sanctions of that sort for private bodies. Can the Minister tell us how they will hold them accountable? Can she reassure landowners about their concerns? If Ministers are pretty clear that, in reality, they would delegate these important duties and powers only to a public body, I would suggest that the safest way forward is simply to reassure everybody by saying in the Bill that it will be a public body.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to speak to all the amendments in this group. I want to speak to Amendment 200 and make just one remark about Amendment 194.

I am not persuaded by Amendment 194. Our day- by-day experience of working with organisations which provide environmental impact assessments and environmental outcome reports, and that have all the expertise we might need in this context, is not to be found exclusively in public bodies, so I would not support this amendment.

Turning to Amendment 200, in Committee we had a short debate about the relationship between Natural England and the making of development plans. Clearly, as we noted then, Natural England has to have regard to these. The sooner Natural England can be aware of the potential requirement for environmental delivery plans, the better. They do not necessarily start at that stage, but they can certainly engage in programming for their activity. The pressure on them is clearly going to be considerable. My Amendment 200 is about local authorities having a duty to tell Natural England when they have potential sites for development. I interpret this as being at Regulation 19 stage. If they are coming forward with the development sites they are proposing for consultation, they should tell Natural England. Natural England can then factor into the thinking about environmental development plans what might emerge, typically a year or more after that point, as the adoption of a development plan. It gives them access and time.

I completely understand if the Minister says that this is not necessary because they can already do this. We are talking about statutory processes and local planning authorities who are so pressed that they will not do what they are not required to do. In order to make this system work, a Regulation 19 requirement to notify Natural England to inform the process of EDP making would be a helpful addition.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made a very important, practical point.

I shall speak chiefly against government Amendment 68. I shall also briefly reflect on Amendment 194, following the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about these powers being delegated to another person. I hope the Minister can reassure me that this is not in the Government’s mind. I hope she can guarantee that there will not be the outsourcing to giant multinational companies that are expert in bidding for contracts but terrible at delivering on them that we have seen in so many areas of government, and that we will not see another outsourcing disaster follow the many other outsourcing disasters. When we think about what has happened, for example, with building control, it is really important that oversight is not outsourced to the people who then end up marking their own homework.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

5: In inserted subsection (4) of subsection (2), at end insert “and is designated as an Infrastructure Provider under Regulation 8 of those regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 7 in my name. They are all designed to achieve the same purpose, which I will go on to explain, but happily I do not have to explain at any length because of the admirable way in which the Minister introduced Amendment 4 and explained her approach to Amendments 5, 6 and 7. I am most grateful for the time she gave for the discussion last week on the amendments and my proposals for amending that. Noble Lords will recall that there was no debate on this in Committee; these are amendments tabled just at the beginning of last week. I hope we all agree that the purpose is a beneficial one: to facilitate the pace at which we want to proceed with water dams and reservoirs as nationally significant infrastructure projects.

--- Later in debate ---

I recognise that the loss of homes or of heritage assets will be of great concern; I recognise the sensitivity of those issues. I hope that the steps that I have outlined, and the very detailed way in which the Planning Act 2008 applies, will have reassured Members and that they will feel able not to press their amendments. I commend the government amendments to the House.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I beg to move Amendment 5.

Amendment 5 (to Amendment 4) agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

6: In inserted subsection (3) of subsection (3), at end insert “and is designated as an Infrastructure Provider under Regulation 8 of those regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 306, which is in this group in my name, but I want to make a number of other points. First, I want to note that we have just agreed Clause 65. I remember that my noble friend Lord Caithness did ask a question in a previous group at an earlier time about the opportunity to challenge an environmental delivery plan, to which the answer was that there was a provision for that somewhere. This is indeed true; it is in Clause 65, which we have just agreed. I will just point out—we may need to return to it and check that we are clear—it is a challenge by way of judicial review; there is not the opportunity to challenge an environmental delivery plan in circumstances where one believes that the facts and the evidence are wrong. The merits of the decisions may not be challenged; only the procedural aspects may be challenged by way of judicial review.

I mention that because, in this group, my noble friend in his subsection (1)(c) of the new clause in Amendment 308 refers to a right of appeal in relation to the establishment of the levy. This is an appeal on a question of fact, so it is a different kind of an appeal for a different purpose. I think that it is rather a good thing, but the question is: to whom should it go? Clause 70 sets out that there may be an appeal, but, unfortunately, it does not say to whom, or how or whatever. Do the Government happen to know to whom the appeal will be made? When I look at Clause 69 and the provisions setting out at some length how the charging schedules may be established in regulations, it seems to me awfully similar to the legislation that provides for the community infrastructure levy, for those who recognise these things. An appeal against the community infrastructure levy would be to the District Valuer Services, so it might be sensible for Ministers, if they can do nothing else, to at least tell us if it is the intention that the District Valuer Services would undertake the work on charging schedules and levy amounts for the environmental delivery plans.

The point of my Amendment 306 is to acknowledge that we have this lengthy set of clauses that tell us that the EDP must be calculated in relation to its costs and that that must be turned into a charging schedule. Clearly, we cannot assume that the development will be the responsibility of any one person; it may be the responsibility of many persons. The charging schedule is actually very like a community infrastructure levy charged against the development, and indeed it might be imposed, and the charging schedules could, as Clause 69 says, be determined by reference to the nature and/or the amount of development. It could be very like a community infrastructure levy for commercial purposes; it could be so many pounds per square foot and so on. If it is very like it, it would be quite useful to know that.

The Minister might say there is not really a requirement on local authorities to consult about a community infrastructure levy, but actually many do. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that, when an environmental delivery plan is proposed, it will be the intention of Natural England to talk to the people who are potentially liable to pay the levy. Otherwise, I am not quite sure how we arrive at the point, which the legislation appears to anticipate, that the developers would volunteer and request to pay the levy. They need to know about it and be consulted. They should also be consulted about the charging schedule, not with a view to agreeing it, but certainly to be able to understand the nature of the additional costs.

This is linked to the second point in my amendment, which is about the regulations setting out when and how a viability assessment might be undertaken. Often, for developers, the viability assessment that matters is the one that starts out the development—at the point at which one is buying the land, at the point at which one is understanding the costs, at the point at which one puts all these potential costs together and says, “How much is this option worth? How much is this land worth?” The later viability assessments are potentially very burdensome and may torpedo a development, but that is not what we want to do. We want to arrive at an understanding at the earliest possible stage of what all the costs look like.

The regulations should provide for Natural England to talk to the potential developers who might pay the levy and make provision if necessary for a viability assessment to be undertaken at a relatively early point. To that extent, it is a probing amendment, because I want to be sure that these things will happen. They can, under the legislation, be included in the guidance that is to be provided. The question is: will they? If Ministers cannot say that they will do so, perhaps they ought to reconsider or at least look at whether the regulations should provide for that.

In Clause 69, when the amount of the levy has been determined, we suddenly encounter the proposal that the environmental delivery plan may be mandatory. I have not found the place where we understand in what circumstances and for what reasons the levy becomes mandatory as opposed to voluntary. I would be grateful if the Minister, either at this stage or at a later stage, would explain that to us.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 304 in this group on the payment of the NRF levy and appeals. This amendment seeks to ensure that

“the cost of works for nature restoration and enhancement are covered by the developer, in accordance with the Polluter Pays Principle. The setting of the Levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developments that would have an outsized impact on the natural environment, redirecting them to locations with lower environmental impacts”.

This is an amendment to Clause 67 aiming to define the fundamental purpose of the nature restoration levy and to embed a core principle of environmental justice into the legislation. In this way, the amendment is quite different from the others in this group, and it is important. It proposes that the Bill explicitly states that the Secretary of State, in making regulations for the levy,

“must ensure that the overall purpose of the nature restoration levy is to ensure that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features are funded by the developer”.

It further clarifies:

“The setting of the Levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developments that would have an outsized impact”,


thereby redirecting them. This is important to make sure that we are not just permitting this kind of damage.

I thank the Ministers for their letter earlier today. I was in Committee this morning, so I have not managed to go through it fully, but there are still concerns about the nature restoration fund and developers paying to offset and the potential impacts that exist in the Bill. My amendment seeks to change this by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that the overall purpose of the levy regulations is that developments remain economically viable. The approach in the Bill has been identified by the Office for Environmental Protection as risking leaving the process open to economic compromise. The Wildlife Trusts, similarly, has articulated that it is essential that it is not the case and that achieving overall environmental improvement should be an absolute priority within the new system. It argues that that would

“correct the oddity of clauses which are meant to be environmental in character having an economic viability overall purpose”.

The amendment directly addresses this flaw by placing nature restoration, funded by the developer, as a primary overarching purpose of the levy. In so doing, it does three things. As I said, it upholds the “polluter pays” principle. It prioritises nature recovery; it ensures that the nature restoration levy is a tool for delivering genuine ecological improvements rather than a mechanism designed primarily to facilitate development viability at nature’s expense, and it directs the levy to act as a deterrent. A robust levy set appropriately will incentivise developers to choose sites with lower environmental impacts, thereby proactively safeguarding our natural environment and preventing irreversible harm.

This is a sensible amendment. I welcome the other amendments in this group, which I read as probing amendments, so I am interested to see what the Minister says in response to those. This is an important matter. I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister prior to Report and to her response.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to appeals. Levy regulations will be done by an affirmative SI. They will draw on CIL, so there is a potential for the district valuer to be involved with these as well.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I note that, in Clause 69, there is a provision that the regulations may require or permit Natural England to integrate the process—that is the levy process—

“to the extent and in the manner specified by the regulations, with processes undertaken for other statutory purposes”.

Are we in that territory? Are we in the territory where a community infrastructure levy, environmental delivery plan levy or the nature restoration levy could be part of the same process?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not sure they would be the same process, but I think that refers to the fact that some of the same processes—for example, the appeal process—might be similar to the process being used for the levy for the EDP. That is what that reference is to, but if it is any different to that or more complex, because the way that the noble Lord described it would be a much more complex integration of both processes, I will confirm to him.

The noble Lord also referred to the viability assessment and the way that developers do this. In my quite lengthy experience of planning, I have found that developers are pretty masterful in developing their viability assessments. In the early days of this, they will want to look at how EDPs and the charging regimes around them are being framed. Most developers are quite competent at working up a viability assessment to take into account some of the new things that come along. The guidance point is an important one. We will always aim to assist those who are involved in this process with guidance, so I would anticipate that there will be guidance forthcoming. With this explanation, I hope that noble Lords will be content not to press their amendments.

Finally, Amendment 306A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seeks to allow the nature restoration levy regulations to impose the liability to pay into the nature restoration fund where the impact of the development cannot be fully dealt with through the mitigation hierarchy. The levy regulations will already allow for differential rates to be charged based on the varying impact of development. It follows that development that is having a greater impact on the environmental feature will be charged a higher levy rate. Where a developer chooses to use the existing system, they would need to address the impact of development through that approach. However, should a developer subsequently decide that they wish to use an EDP, they could still make a commitment to pay the levy prior to the planning application being determined. As such, the legislation can already accommodate the circumstances envisaged by the amendment, so I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before my noble friend replies, can I just ask the Minister if—perhaps not now, but at some point before Report—she could just go back to the question on Clause 66 regarding the circumstances in which an EDP makes the levy mandatory and explain what kind of circumstances are anticipated?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not answer his question, which was quite clear. I think the issue of mandatory EDPs was put in as a precaution, but he is right—it would be useful to have some examples of where that might be necessary. We will come back to that between Committee and Report, so that we are all clear on the kinds of circumstances where a mandatory EDP may be put in place. It is important that we all understand that.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 187, 200, 201, 202 and 203, which relate to the relationship between development corporations.

Development corporations are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. As we continue to deliver the many homes that this country desperately needs, we expect the number of development corporations to increase in the coming years. Different types of development corporations have been created in law to respond to the circumstances of that time. This has created ambiguities within the current legislative framework so that multiple development corporations could be created within the same locality. This risks creating confusion and delaying the speed of delivery for key strategic projects, which can be unhelpful and frustrating for all.

As the intention of our reforms in this Bill is to create a clearer, more flexible and robust development corporation legislative framework, I believe that these amendments are necessary. This is because they will set out the relationship between different types of development corporations by aligning their boundaries and removing any doubt over decision-making. These amendments will create a backstop so that, for example, if, following consultation, a centrally led development corporation had an overlap with a mayoral development corporation or a locally led development corporation, the overlapping part would automatically become part of the government-led area. The same would apply for a mayoral development corporation, which would have the same power over a locally led development corporation.

I hope that noble Lords understand why the amendments are necessary. Before I respond to the other amendments in this group, it would be helpful to listen to noble Lords’ views, so I shall reserve any comment on them until I wind up. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 206A, 351ZA and 362 in this group, which also relate to mayoral development corporations. I am supportive of what the Minister is proposing in Amendment 186 and the related amendments. It is helpful to see that there is an established hierarchy between development corporations so that, if the Government establish a development corporation, it trumps a mayoral development corporation, in effect, while a mayoral development corporation trumps a locally led development corporation. However, my amendments raise an additional—and, I hope, helpful—issue.

Before I come on to that, let me say this: the underlying purpose of the development corporations in Part 4 of this Bill is to give mayors, through such corporations, the scope to engage in not just regeneration but development. So mayoral development corporations can be the vehicle for significant new settlements, both as urban extensions and in new sites. That is helpful, too.

Of course, what we do not have in this hierarchy of development corporations is the availability of local authorities to propose locally led development corporations on the same basis as the Government and mayors can do. That was in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but has not yet, with the exception of one of the accountability measures at the back of the section, been brought into force. Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, as I understand it, it is not the Government’s intention to bring into force the further provisions of that Act on locally led development corporations. For the avoidance of doubt, if I am wrong about that, I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us so in her response to this debate.

Members who were attentive to the running list of amendments will recall that I tabled Amendments 204 and 205 back in July. Their purpose is to give other mayors access to the same powers to establish—I should say “propose”, since the Government establish them—mayoral development corporations as are available to the Mayor of London under the Localism Act. This is not to say that mayors do not have any such powers. However, since the Localism Act, they have generally been established under statutory instruments. Some of those have given mayors similar powers to those of the Mayor of London, but there are often gaps; the time pressures on these debates does not permit me the pleasure of examining precisely which gaps have been identified and for which mayors, but that does not matter. The point is that my Amendments 204 and 205 had the objective of giving mayors—all mayors—the same powers as are available to the London mayor.

I then found, when the Government published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the other place, that Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill provided for other mayors to have the same powers as the London mayor. It struck me that, under those circumstances, there was no merit in my continuing to push Amendments 204 and 205, so I withdrew them. It further struck me that, if we provide for other mayors to have those powers under the English devolution Bill, it will run to a slower timetable than this Bill.

Therefore, Amendment 206A, which would bring into the Bill the new schedule proposed in Amendment 351ZA, is drafted in the same terms, substantially, as the Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It would have the same effect—to give mayors generally the same powers as the London mayor—but it would do so in this Bill. Instead of waiting until some time next year—a time to be determined—and given that this is the Government’s number one legislative priority and that we are going to debate into the night if we have to, we can be confident that the provision would reach the statute book this year.

Based on the past experience of the unwillingness of Ministers to bring provisions of Bills that we have passed into force, Amendment 362 requires that the provision be brought into force within two months after the passing of this Bill. Therefore, we would be looking at all mayors having the powers by the early part of next year. This is important and relevant because we are already beyond the point at which the New Towns Taskforce said that it would publish its recommendations, including sites for new towns. It said in its interim report that it would publish the final report and recommendations in the summer; it is definitely now no longer the summer. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it will do so shortly, as there is a degree of planning blight associated with their not being published. There is benefit to delivering on the objective to build more homes if we publish them sooner rather than later.

I hope that this Bill will secure Royal Assent this year—ideally, by the end of November—and that, by the end of January, with the inclusion of Amendment 206A and the proposed new schedule, the mayors will have access to those powers by the end of January.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 195A and to our probing opposition to Clause 93 standing part of the Bill.

Starting with Amendment 195A, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant in practice by the provision that allows a development corporation to

“do anything necessary … for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.

How is such a wide power to be defined, limited and safeguarded in its use? I would be grateful for a clear answer on that point.

Turning to Clause 93 more broadly, I make it clear that we are supportive of development corporations. Our concern is to understand more fully how they are intended to function under the Bill and to ensure that they are established on a sound and accountable footing.

I ask the Minister how local accountability will be preserved under the changes to the development corporations, given that they already have the ability to operate across multiple non-contiguous sites, an ability that will no doubt take on greater significance with the advance of devolution. How will such corporations function in practice alongside devolution? What safeguards will be in place to avoid confusion or diluted accountability, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation? This question seems especially pressing in the light of the changes that may arise from the forthcoming English devolution Bill, which your Lordships’ House will be considering in the coming months. How will the Government ensure that the role of development corporations sits coherently alongside wider reforms to local and regional governance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start with the notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, opposing Clause 93 standing part. I welcome the opportunity to explain the intentions behind this clause. Clause 93 clarifies and extends areas for development and the remit of development corporation models. It includes changes to legislation that would extend the remit of mayoral development corporations, so that they can deliver regeneration and new town development rather than just regeneration. It also allows that separate parcels of land can be designated as one new town area, overseen by one new town development corporation.

The current framework is outdated and not fit for purpose. Each development corporation model was developed to address a specific circumstance at the time of its introduction. This poses a significant risk to the effective delivery of the development corporations. For example, mayoral development corporations can be used only for regeneration projects, as the model was developed initially for London but then widened out to areas outside London, including rural areas. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will enable strategic authorities to create more mayoral development corporations, so it is even more important to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose.

Amendment 195A aims to remove the power permitting new town development corporations

“to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.

I reassure the noble Baroness that this is not a new addition to the new town development corporation framework. This provision is already written into primary legislation underpinning new town development corporations, as well as urban development corporation models. The changes to the infrastructure provision include listing specific functions and bringing them in line with mayoral development corporations, with the addition of heat pumps, which have been added to the list of infrastructure that can be delivered by all models.

As development corporations are used to respond to the specific needs of developments or regeneration schemes, it is important that the legislation offers this level of flexibility so that they can be tailored accordingly. We all want to see large-scale developments and infrastructure projects that will support housing and economic growth, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure without compromising existing provisions. It would be a step backwards if we were to take the power away from new town development corporations and instead provide only a list of infrastructure, as some developments may require new technologies. Decisions to establish development corporations and the powers each will have will be made via regulations. Their oversight will be carefully designed and subject to statutory consultation.

Amendments 351ZA and 362, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I welcome his proposal. It is vital that we empower local leaders to transform underused sites to create thriving communities tailored to local needs. For this purpose, mayoral development corporations should be part of every mayor’s toolkit. However, we believe these amendments are unnecessary. The changes the noble Lord is proposing are already being made through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill introduced on 10 July 2025. Given its scope, that Bill is the most appropriate vehicle for these changes. I take the noble Lord’s point about delay, but I am not under the impression that there is going to be any grass growing under the feet of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think that is going to get moved on at pace and I hope that it will be appropriate for the changes that we are talking about.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Since we have in this Bill Part 4 relating to development corporations, I fail to see why it is not the appropriate place to legislate for mayoral development corporations, rather than the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think the evidence points to completely the opposite conclusion to the one the Minister just used.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think it sits alongside other measures in that Bill. That is why it has been put into the EDCE Bill rather than this Bill.

Amendment 362 would commence provisions in relation to the development corporations within two months of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill passing. I welcome the noble Lord’s enthusiasm in wanting the changes to be implemented quickly, and I share his passion for that. We recognise that they are important measures, creating a clear, flexible and robust development corporation legislative framework to unlock more housing across the country, co-ordinating that with infrastructure and transport to support sustained economic growth. We also want the changes to come into force as soon as practically possible. However—and I would say this—there is further legislative work and guidance to ensure that development corporations are set up for success. It takes a significant amount of time to establish a development corporation, including essential preparatory and scoping work. We do not envisage that this will cause any delays to those interested in setting up a mayoral development corporation, but I do not think the progress of the other Bill is going to hold things up unnecessarily either.

It might be helpful if I cover some issues around how this is going to work. We know that development corporations are a vital tool for delivering large-scale, complex property developments, particularly where the risk—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned risk—is too great for private sector delivery alone. To encourage the use of development corporations and reduce the risk of challenge, there should be clarity around their remit and functions.

Decisions to designate and grant powers to development corporations must be made by regulations. They are subject to statutory consultation, and they must be made with careful consideration of all the issues of oversight that we have heard about. The department consulted on oversight regulations for locally led urban development corporations last year, and the Government’s response is expected later this calendar year—I hope it does not run out before “later” arrives. Locally led urban development corporations cannot be set up before provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 are commenced.

In relation to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about South Tees, the Government have issued a response to the independent review of the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks joint venture, which included clarifying the available measures to strengthen the oversight for mayoral development corporations. On 3 April 2025, guidance was published which clarified legislation and scrutiny of mayoral development corporations. I hope that that gives an adequate response to his question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is not my understanding that there will be fiscal devolution powers in that way, but I will take that back and write to the noble Lord if I am wrong.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I understood from what the Minister was saying that it is the Government’s intention to bring all of Section 172 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act relating to locally led new towns into force. Am I correct in that? I got the impression that that is the Government’s intention, but it was not quite explicit.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that the powers in the Act relating to locally led development corporations will be brought into force, but I have committed to write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, with a full explanation. I will circulate that letter when I have published it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry if I misled the noble Baroness. I meant to say that the Government recognise the issue around planning capacity. We have already allocated that £46 million for local government, and we must have the discussions with Sir Michael Lyons that recognise that we need to make sure that the capacity is there to deal with new town development corporations as well.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Can the Minister tell us when we can expect to see the report of the New Towns Taskforce?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

In the autumn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before the Minister replies, I just intervene, not having spoken previously, to say there are always two sides to any argument. There were clearly two sides to the argument before the Supreme Court, the other side being Dr Day’s argument that those people who had the benefit of access to open space should have been consulted about the loss of that.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Banner that, clearly, the intention of the 1972 legislation was that local authorities could dispose of that land and that they would be able to do so notwithstanding the previous Open Spaces Act 1906. The point that was asserted on Dr Day’s behalf before the Supreme Court was that those people who benefit from access to open spaces should have been consulted. The opportunity should be taken just to establish that not only do we need to change the law, we need to examine how and under what circumstances local authorities that wish to dispose of land to which the public have access should consult those people who would be affected.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

In answer to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it was not my noble friend Lord Grabiner and I who described the situation as a mess. Those were the words of Lady Rose herself in the Supreme Court. I would not presume to suggest that the Supreme Court judgment was a mess.

While I am on my feet, I am grateful for the opportunity to mention that my noble friend Lord O’Donnell is here but was not here at the beginning of the debate. He tells me that he very much supports this amendment and would wish to be included in any meeting, if the Minister will grant one. He is a main committee member at the Wimbledon club. He strongly supports the amendment but cannot speak because he was not here at the beginning of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

238: Clause 55, page 91, line 33, leave out “one or more” and insert “the”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Lansley to Clause 55, line 35 would secure that each of the environmental features which are likely to be negatively affected by a development are identified in the EDP and the ways in which that effect is caused is also identified.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was talking about the various views that were being taken on Part 3. The beauty of Committee is that we can ride all those horses. The particular horse with which I am concerned is trying to find for the Bill precise drafting language that achieves precisely what is intended and is as clear as possible about what we intend.

As we get into Clause 55, we are in one of the central provisions where the environmental features and the impact of development on such features must be identified, all in the environmental delivery plan, as must the conservation measures needed to secure the overall impact. We will come on to debate the overall improvement test. I note that Amendment 266 is in this group but I am not quite sure why; I think properly it should be in the group relating to the overall improvement test, which we will get to on Wednesday.

The most important amendment in this group is not mine but the Government’s Amendment 247A, the effect of which is to add specific language about the conservation measures that will have to be taken offsite and what is required in those to secure the overall improvement test: that they will

“make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than measures that address the environmental impact of development on the feature at the protected site itself”.

That is a helpful amendment as part of the package of amendments that have enabled the structure of the Bill and the objectives to be slightly better than they started out.

Amendment 238 comes at the beginning of Clause 55 and relates to the identification of the environmental features likely to be negatively affected by a development. We know what the protected features of a protected site or a protected species are because those are set out in Clause 92, on the interpretation of this part. I am interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has to say about her amendment and I will wait to hear that.

Amendment 238 would amend Clause 55(1), where the Bill says that an environmental delivery plan must identify

“one or more environmental features which are likely to be … affected”.

I want to check precisely what the Government are trying to achieve by the words “one or more”. If they are worried that an environmental delivery plan may be challenged because not all the environmental features are identified, I do not think this drafting is helpful. If an environmental development plan does not identify an environmental feature that is likely to be affected by development, it is potentially able to be challenged in any case, and I do not think the language “one or more” would escape from that risk. The environmental features are the starting point of an environmental delivery plan. If one does not correctly identify the environmental features likely to be affected, that plan seems to me by its nature to be flawed. So why the words “one or more”? There will not be none or there would not be an environmental delivery plan. If there is more than one, it would be wrong for the environmental delivery plan not to take account and identify those, and leaving them out would make it flawed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very helpful response to this short debate. I enjoyed many of the contributions, not least that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Cambourne was of course in my former constituency. I would say to her that we have not given up on trying to get East West Rail together on the A428 corridor. Perhaps we will talk about that off-site, as we might say in the context of this Bill.

We learn as we go, do we not? I have learned—it was not clear—that the intention regarding the environmental delivery plans is that, once they have identified a development, even though it might impact on an environmental feature, that feature may not necessarily form part of the environmental delivery plan; it may be dealt with under the existing habitat and other regulations.

That is very interesting. However, that being the case—I will not dwell on it, but we may have to come back to it—Amendments 239 and 240, on the ways in which that negative effect is likely to impact on that environmental feature, should all still be included, and if they directly relate to the development they should definitely be included. Those two amendments still have merit in respect of the drafting. We could maybe talk about that at some point. With the hope that we might revisit those points, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 238.

Amendment 238 withdrawn