English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a visual artist. Amendment 4 in my name is a small but important clarifying amendment. It simply adds the words “including through tourism” to paragraph (d) of Clause 2, which already defines “economic development and regeneration” as a core “area of competence” for strategic authorities. This reflects the Local Government Association’s view that tourism should be explicitly recognised in the Bill rather than left implicit.

Tourism is not a marginal activity; it is one of the principal ways in which economic development and regeneration happen in practice. It supports local jobs, sustains town centres, underpins cultural and heritage assets and brings external spending directly into communities. In many places, particularly outside the large cities, it is the economic driver.

I have deliberately not proposed tourism as a stand-alone category nor sought to incorporate it into the important Amendment 6 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name. His amendment rightly strengthens the strategic recognition of the arts, heritage and creative industries. My amendment is narrower and more operational. It simply makes it clear that tourism sits within economic development and regeneration, which is how local authorities already understand and deliver it in practice.

Too often, tourism is grouped alongside the arts and creative industries in local authority structures, where its scale and commercial focus can unintentionally shape priorities and funding conversations that are not directly about culture itself. Placing tourism clearly within economic development helps to maintain that distinction while allowing cultural policy to retain its own strategic clarity. This matters particularly in the context of the Government’s emerging work on a visitor or tourism levy. Even at modest levels, published estimates suggest that such a levy could raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year in England and potentially over £1 billion annually if applied more widely—sums that would exceed Arts Council England’s entire annual capital budget and be comparable in scale to a decade of lost local authority cultural investment.

In the Cultural Policy Unit’s helpful paper A City Tourism Charge—the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will no doubt develop this point further on Amendment 6, with which I entirely agree—there is a strong and well-evidenced case that a significant proportion of any such levy should be invested directly in cultural and heritage assets, which are often the very reason that people visit in the first place. For strategic authorities to play a meaningful role in shaping and deploying such tools, tourism needs to be clearly within scope. Without explicit inclusion, there is a risk that tourism falls between stools—assumed but not quite owned. This amendment provides clarity, not prescription, and I hope that the Minister will see it as a proportionate and helpful addition.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 8 in my name, which would have the effect of adding to the list of areas of competence in Clause 2 an additional paragraph (h), “community engagement and empowerment”. Noble Lords would not be surprised by the suggestion that this should be designated as one of the areas of competence of strategic authorities and mayors, as the clue is in the Title: the Bill is about community empowerment, and community engagement is instrumental to the achievement of community empowerment. It is therefore one of the areas of competence for mayors.

This led me to thinking about what the Government are trying to achieve by listing the areas of competence—let us understand that and then we can decide what it is sensible to put into the list. As it happens, the White Paper was somewhat more helpful than the Bill itself in this respect, since quite clearly what is intended, as the White Paper puts it, is that this list should comprise

“areas where Strategic Authorities should have a mandate to act strategically to drive growth as well as support the shaping of public services, where strategic level coordination adds value”.

I am looking at that and thinking that “competence” is not necessarily the right word for this; perhaps it is “responsibility”. Let us not worry about the word, but let us at least understand what the Government are trying to achieve. Then I realised that, of course, the point is that they have listed seven because subsequently there is an intention to have up to seven commissioners. Is the answer, “Well, there just has to be seven”? I do not think we need constrain ourselves in that regard.

I then thought that perhaps these are listed because they are the areas of functional responsibility where additional functions are provided by the Bill at a later stage, but when one looks at the functions of mayors, six are the subject of additional functional responsibilities and powers itemised later in the Bill. Environment and climate change is left out but is none the less an area of competence, so we are clearly not talking just about what the Bill adds to mayors by way of responsibilities; we are talking about what mayoral strategic authorities should be engaged with to drive growth, to create social cohesion and to shape public services.

It seems to me, therefore, that there are a number of additions and no problem about how many, as long as they are genuinely representative of the areas of competence—meaning, responsibility and functional powers that are available to mayoral strategic authorities. It seems to me—this will save me getting up and saying anything more on the next two groups—that both Amendments 6 and 7 have merit, in that respect, in adding arts, cultural and creative industries on the one hand and definitely adding rural affairs on the other.

The number of commissioners should be determined in their own right, rather than by reference to the number of areas of competence. If there are more areas of competence than there are commissioners, that is not a problem. Interestingly, while listing the seven areas of competence as we have them in Clause 2, the devolution White Paper said:

“We are interested in where this list could be expanded now or in the future”.


I think that we can help the Government by expanding the list. I personally think that all three that I mentioned could be added without any demerits. They would then be more comprehensively illustrative of the range of functional activities that strategic authorities should be engaged in, in order to achieve maximum growth, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, quite rightly illustrated by reference to tourism—how they can promote growth, shape public services and improve the circumstances for the populations that they serve.

From my point of view, community engagement and empowerment is central to the delivery of many of these. I have no intention that community engagement and empowerment should be the responsibility of a commissioner. It should be the responsibility of the mayor and, of course, it is a cross-cutting area of competence. I can see no reason why one would leave it out, since it is instrumental to the achievement of the objectives.

I shall finish with just one question to the Minister, which I am perfectly happy to take up with her at a later stage. If it is indeed the Government’s belief that this list may be expanded, either

“now or in the future”,

as the White Paper said, where is the power to add to this list? I cannot find such a power. It seems to me that on the face of it there should be such a power. Even if the Government are not persuaded today, clearly in the future, if, for example, using later powers, the mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities were to make proposals for changes to the Secretary of State and acquire additional functional responsibilities, this may be in a new area of competence, but where is the ability to put that into the legislation? I hope that the Minister may, at this or a later stage, agree that we should add an order-making power at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will finish what I am saying, then I will see whether I can answer the noble Baroness’s question.

Including public safety within the areas of competence is important for several reasons. First, it enables devolution of further public safety functions. For example, consideration is currently being given to the role of strategic authorities in resilience as part of the post-implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, due to be completed by March next year.

Secondly, it allows mayors to delegate certain existing functions relating to public safety to a commissioner; where the mayor is responsible for policing, they must appoint a deputy mayor for policing to whom policing functions are delegated. Additionally, the inclusion of public safety within the areas of competence allows a mayor who is responsible for fire services, but not for policing, to delegate certain fire-related functions to a public safety commissioner.

Thirdly, it enables the mayor to convene local partners and collaborate with other mayors to tackle questions of public safety—something all residents would expect them to do. There is a wide range of activity in which we would expect mayors to participate.

Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to clarify how strategic authorities will seek and assume powers within their area of competence and then be held to account. One of the central aims of the Bill is to move away from the current patchwork of powers and piecemeal devolution of functions. To that end, the Government’s ambitious new devolution framework will set out a coherent and consistent set of functions.

Part 2 of the Bill sets out specific functions and the voting and governance arrangements that strategic authorities will automatically receive at each level of the devolution framework, categorised under the relevant area of competence. For example, the duty to produce a local growth plan is categorised under the “economic development and regeneration” area of competence. The Bill allows for new powers and duties to be added to the devolution framework over time, ensuring that it remains adaptive and responsive to future needs and policy developments. Mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities will also be able to request and pilot new functions so it will be possible to test and evaluate outcomes ahead of adding new functions to the framework.

Finally, I turn to accountability. Combined authorities and combined county authorities—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, while the Bill clearly allows for additional functions and powers to be given to mayoral strategic authorities, the specific question was whether the Bill has a power to enable the areas of competence list to be amended.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I heard the noble Lord’s question. I responded earlier that I will come back to him on how this works within the Bill, so if that is okay, I will do it in writing and share it with other Members of the Committee.

Combined authorities and combined county authorities are required in law to establish both an overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. Also, all strategic authorities are expected to follow the principles and processes in the English devolution accountability framework and scrutiny protocol. The Government remain committed to strengthening local accountability and scrutiny, and we are exploring models such as local public accounts committees; we will provide an update on our proposals in that regard in due course.

I hope that, with these reassurances and explanations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and my noble friend Lady Scott have stolen my first line about the size of this group; that is largely down to the structure of the Bill, which has numerous schedules. Consequently, we have tabled a vast number of amendments to make a relatively simple change.

I thank all noble Lords who tabled amendments on these issues. They are not merely technical adjustments; they are amendments that go to the heart of our concerns about the true purpose and direction of the Bill and the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State is taking in it. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has made clear, we on these Benches firmly believe that devolution must be locally led, rooted in local identities and local democracy, and not imposed by central government. Genuine community empowerment cannot be handed down by central diktat, which imposes structures that override locally elected representatives and residents. If devolution is imposed from Whitehall, it ceases to be devolution in any meaningful sense.

The amendments we have tabled seek to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot exercise powers affecting the governance, composition or boundaries of local authorities without their explicit consent. That consent is not an administrative hurdle; it is a democratic safeguard. Such changes must be based on local identities and local wishes to truly reflect the meaning of community. They should not be abstract or managerial plans drawn up at a distance in Whitehall, however well intentioned.

Communities are not interchangeable units on a map. They have histories, relationships and ways of working that cannot simply be redrawn by statutory instrument. Any restructuring must have a demonstrative benefit for local people, not just for the administrative convenience of central government. Crucially, it is local councils, through elected councillors accountable to their residents, who are best placed to judge what will or will not work for their area. This is a particular concern given the Government’s decision to cancel local elections this year, denying the vote to potentially 4 million people. I look forward to hearing other noble Lords’ thoughts on these timely issues and the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 21 and 24. My noble friends on the Front Bench have pretty much all the other amendments, with the exception of Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is a pity that she cannot be here, but I join in sending her our very best wishes and look forward to her return to the Committee.

Amendments 21 and 24 are in the same area of where proposals can be brought forward for the establishment of new combined authorities. Before I go on, I could have tabled—I neglected to table—two further amendments about county combined authorities in exactly the same terms as Amendments 21 and 24, which relate to combined authorities. Therefore, perhaps the arguments I am making on combined authorities can be taken as read-across.

The purpose of my Amendments 21 and 24 is to challenge the process by which the Secretary of State would make a decision on a proposal for a combined authority or a combined county authority that is brought forward by the constituent councils in an area. As things stand under the existing legislation, which was set up in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but, for the purposes of combined authorities, is in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009—LuRA 2023 has the same for combined county authorities—the way it works is that those proposals come forward for an area and are subjected to tests.

I am interested, in terms of how the tests are currently applied, in whether they are likely to improve

“the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people of the area”.

Additionally, I suggest that the proposal should be required to include the purposes that are intended to be achieved by the establishment of this combined authority or combined county authority. The Secretary of State would have to look at and assess—these are the tests—whether those improvements in economic, social and environmental well-being as well as the purposes included in the proposal are likely to be met.

To me, these are two elements of the test of whether a proposal coming forward from an area should be accepted. The first is an objective test: will it improve the well-being in the area in various ways? The second is more subjective but none the less purposive: the people in this area and the constituent councils have said why they want to have this authority, so the Secretary of State should look at those purposes and say whether they are likely to be met. In this Bill, the question put to a relevant proposal—what purposes are you trying to achieve?—is simply swept away. There is no requirement for such a proposal to have those purposes any more.

Amendment 21 would remove the requirement to have purposes so that they cannot form part of a subsequent test. The test that is to be applied would no longer be the test of economic, social or environmental well-being, which is an objective test related to the benefit to the people living in that area, and would be replaced by a statutory test: is it appropriate to make the order in relation to the area, having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence? In those words, “convenient” leaps out in particular. It makes one think that what my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook was just saying about the desirability of having conformity is what is actually driving these decisions now, rather than, “What is going to happen to benefit the people who live in this area?”, which should be the objective test.

That question did not escape the notice of the Lords Constitution Committee. In its 16th report, published on 13 January, it stated:

“We draw this provision to the attention of the House. It should satisfy itself that it is content to grant the Secretary of State this power within Schedule 1 to subject the new arrangements for a combined authority to such a broad and potentially subjective test”.


Of course, in the text at which the committee looked, what the committee means by “broad and potentially subjective” is, by implication, a bureaucratic test—“Is it convenient for us to have a combined authority?”—whereas what we have at the moment, which is what the committee is referring to, is, in essence, a test of the benefit. It is intended to be able to be determined more objectively, and it is certainly more relevant to the people who live in an area whether a combined authority is or is not in their interests.

When we go on with this Bill, I hope that the Government will in each of these respects think whether the statutory test should have perhaps both the bureaucratic element of whether it is convenient and the objective element of whether it can demonstrate that it will bring benefit to the people who live in this area.

My noble friends have two amendments in this group, Amendments 22 and 36, the purpose of which, as far as I can see, is to remove the power for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of combined authorities and county combined authorities. It seems to me that although the Minister said this is an exceptional power, there is a risk that once this power is available—again, because it will be convenient to do so—we will be instructed to have combined authorities according to the Secretary of State’s proposals rather than the ones brought forward from within the area itself.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy with the amendments spoken to so far, so I will not repeat what has been said. Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock relates to whether the Secretary of State determines local boundaries and whether decisions on local authority boundaries within a combined authority area are a matter for central or local government. In the spirit of this Bill, which is about devolution, I can see no reason why central government has to be involved. It ought to be a matter for local councils to decide on. Perhaps the Minister might explain why my noble friend Lady Pinnock has got this wrong; it seems to me that she has got this right.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the Planning and Infrastructure Bill return to this House for the final time. After today’s debate, the Bill will soon conclude its passage through Parliament and will thereafter become law. It will drive investment and productivity, and facilitate a step change in the delivery of the new homes and critical infrastructure our country so desperately needs.

This legislation will create certainty and speed up the process for consenting nationally significant infra- structure. It will create a new sustainable model for development and nature recovery, and establish mechanisms for effective cross-boundary strategic planning. We can and must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. That is why we have been so determined to ensure we can make use of its provisions as soon as possible and why I am delighted that, following today’s debate, it will shortly become law.

We have already debated at length the intention behind Amendment 33, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Following our debate last week, the Government tabled an amendment to give effect to this change, which will now see the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am pleased to say that, on Monday, the other place agreed to the government amendment which gives effect to that change, removing the unnecessary provisions in Amendment 33 in respect of future regulations, for which there are already powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his continued engagement. This change, alongside existing safeguards built into the legislation, will ensure that an appropriate amount of parliamentary scrutiny is able to take place on these provisions ahead of implementation. Given that this House has already confirmed its agreement with the noble Lord’s amendment, I trust it will now lend its support to Motion A. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, as the mover of the original Amendment 33, I am grateful to the Government for accepting the substance of that amendment. I therefore agree with Motion A to agree to the Commons’ further amendment. I heartily endorse what Minister Pennycook said in the other place on Monday: it is now about getting on with using the powers that are available under this and previous legislation. I wish the Government well in that endeavour.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, all through the debates on the Bill, we on these Benches have agreed with the principle of what the Government are seeking to do, but had concerns about the balance being created between the necessity to improve construction times, especially with infrastructure, and bearing in mind the needs of our environment and our heritage in particular. We do not think the balance is right at the minute, but we agree that the Bill must proceed.

On Motion A, we wholeheartedly agree with the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which we have supported throughout the Bill. With that, I thank the Minister for all her helpful discussions on the Bill and hope that this is the last we have to say about it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, as noble Lords can see, this is a doorstop of a Bill. I draw attention to my registered interests as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, and I support development forums in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cheshire as well—but of course anything I say is entirely my own view.

As a former Leader of the House of Commons with responsibility for parliamentary counsel, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that more than two-thirds of this Bill is to be found in its schedules. When parliamentary counsel published their most recent document on the drafting of Bills, they said that technical detail should not interrupt the narrative—the story one is trying to tell in the Bill—but that special attention should be paid to the question of whether material should be relegated to the back of the Bill. Well, virtually everything has been relegated to the back of the Bill. We have something like two dozen clauses that do not tell you what their intention is but simply tell you that there is a schedule to go and look at.

A rather effective example, referencing the interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is Homes England. The powers of Homes England in relation to the acquisition of land are to be found in Schedule 16, introduced by Clause 35, but it makes no reference to Homes England; it references only strategic authorities. So the uninitiated reader of the Bill would not find anything about Homes England in its contents at all, yet there are powers provided for it.

I will take only a couple of minutes, because there will be many opportunities in the Bill to take up many of the issues that I know the Minister understands very well. As we finish the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on Wednesday, we will start this Bill with some of the same issues in our minds: neighbourhood planning, how to relate local growth plans to spatial development strategies and, for that matter, what the spatial development strategies of strategic authorities should do in relation to the national land use framework when it is published.

On the principle of the Bill, I share the view that many have expressed that we want to see devolution achieved. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referenced the Localism Act 2011, but the then coalition Government, of which I was very proud to be a member, set us down this important path, which we wanted to see completed. I think our expectation was that, 15 years on, we would probably see devolution across the whole of England and Wales, but it is tough to do.

My own experience is in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, which is interesting and instructive, because it is not one of the city mayoralties with a metro mayor. From the outset it illustrated the difficulty, because we had parish and town councils—actually, there was no town council in my own constituency, because we had nothing in those days as large as a town. But we had parish councils, a district council, a county council and a combined authority. That was too many, and in principle the Government are right that we should arrive at a simpler structure. If we are going to have a strategic authority, we should have beneath it unitary authorities, to which people can relate, that are responsible for the delivery of the great majority of those local government functions.

At the same time, as these authorities get bigger, we must have effective neighbourhood governance. I am interested that there does not appear to be a schedule that tells us the detail of what effective neighbourhood governance looks like. We just have Clause 60, which tells us that appropriate arrangements should be made for that, but that is something that the Minister in the other place told us would be set out by way of principles in statutory guidance. Well, noble Lords might well find that it would be instructive for us to set out what the principles for effective neighbourhood governance might look like, rather than leaving it to civil servants in the ministry to do so at a later stage.

The only other thing I want to draw attention to is the importance of pace. When we had a devolution priority programme, I thought it was a priority programme because we would get on with it. I declare that I live in Suffolk—we have had contributions already from Norfolk, and we will have at least one more. We thought that we would get on with it, and people in local government thought that we would get on with it and have responded on that basis. It feels a bit like that memorable occasion: being sent to the crease having had one’s bat broken. I am afraid that, after the Bill’s passage through another place, it feels like the Minister—for whom I know we all have the greatest respect—had her bat broken by that decision before she came here to stand at the crease, as it were, to look after the Bill.

I have to say that I am a cynic. My noble friend Lady Shephard talked about this decision and why it might be motivated. It may be to do with this Bill because it will allow those mayoral elections to be conducted under the supplementary vote system in the future, rather than the first past the post system next year. Cynical politics is not what we were looking for in the devolution priority programme; we were looking for the positive politics of devolving decisions to local government and seeing local government take up that mantle. I hope that we can see that principle through in the Bill.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the informal meeting I had with the Minister last week. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in relation to my Motion E1, and I too will refer in a moment to the letter received. I am compounded by the fact that my train was late. This time a van had collided with a bridge, but, fortunately, there was no lasting damage and no-one was hurt, not like the Selby rail disaster. Then, I found that they have changed the classic Outlook to modern Outlook, and I could not load my emails. But I am very grateful for having had sight of the letter.

The Minister will be aware that the Toddbrook reservoir failed on 1 August 2019. Since that time, the Balmforth review was set up, but it is not due to report until 2027. My concern as regards large reservoirs is that the Government do not seem to be displaying any sense of urgency. I am mindful of how much reservoirs cost to build, even in spite of NSIPs under the Bill before us this evening, and that there are other barriers to overcome. The Minister may or may not be aware that each individual reservoir has to be signed off by a panel engineer. There is a chronic shortage of panel engineers, and I do not know that that is being addressed by the Government any time soon. My understanding—I have tracked this since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was adopted—is that the de minimis rules allowing a small on-farm reservoir require legislation to amend the de minimis rule to make sure that these on-farm, non-hazardous reservoirs can be constructed.

I take some comfort and great heart from what the Minister said when speaking to Motion E1 this evening, but I do not know that the issues that I have raised, both in Committee and on Report, have actually been addressed. The Minister referred to guidance being published. Can she confirm whether or not that is statutory? Just so those seeking to construct such reservoirs are very clear on it, what will the status of that guidance be? When will the actual guidance to which she referred be published?

Having made those remarks, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House, depending on what reassurance the Minister is able to give me. I put it to her informally last week that this amendment is designed to help the Government.

In June, the Environment Agency published its National Framework for Water Resources, which called for measures to curb the water deficit, including building more reservoirs, in the light of the potential public water shortages of 5 billion litres of water a day by 2055. We in Yorkshire are very conscious of the fact that the reservoirs have still not filled up since the drought this year. We have every prospect of a drought continuing into next year. The efforts to extinguish and control the wildfire on the North Yorkshire Moors were hampered by the lack of access to water. It was also the case that it was difficult for crops—arable and horticultural—to have access to water, and there was difficulty around the availability of watering for livestock.

These are very real urgent issues. I am afraid that the reason given by the Commons for failing to agree to Amendment 32 is very thin. We are told that it is not

“necessary to have a legislative requirement to publish the information required by the amendment relating to low hazard reservoirs”.

I have set out this evening the reason for urgency and why this is a very real issue. I believe we need to write in the Bill the concerns I have set out.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion B and Motion B1, which is the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. Lords Amendment 2A, which has been sent back to us, in effect puts the Planning Act 2008 back into the position it was originally in. To that extent, it is not so objectionable. But we are looking to ensure, as my noble friend eloquently presented, both now and on Report, that when these decisions are being made we take full account of the protections that should be available for irreplaceable heritage assets.

In addition to the assurances about national policy statements that the Minister has given to my noble friend, I ask her whether she will look at the guidance, which Clause 7(2) provides for, that can be given about the preparation of local impact reports, which as she will know are a material factor in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008. If that guidance makes it clear that the local impact report must make specific reference to the heritage assets that are to be affected, and to the impact on not only those assets themselves but their environment, that might highlight any potential adverse impacts for when the Secretary of State has to weigh up the adverse impacts against the benefits under the Section 104 decision. I hope that the Minister might add that to the ways in which the assurances might be bolstered to protect heritage assets.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I support Motion E1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In particular, I agree with her about the level of urgency and the slow progress that has been made on this, and about the de minimis rules, which need thoroughly updating to make it more possible to avoid drought situations. I have just one question for the Minister. She referred to a paper appearing later this year. Does she mean this calendar year—in which case it would be just in time for my Christmas stocking?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as well as moving Motion F, I will also speak to Motions G, J and J1, with the permission of the House.

I will begin with Amendment 33, which was from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which sought to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on this very important issue. Having reflected on our useful discussions in previous debates and subsequent correspondence and having heard the strength of feeling in the House on this point, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that the Government agree with the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will therefore use the next opportunity in the other place to bring forward an amendment which will seek to give effect to the intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation are subject to the affirmative procedure. This, alongside the further safeguard built into the legislation which places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before they come into effect, should ensure an appropriate amount of scrutiny and engagement ahead of the implementation of the national scheme of delegation. I very much saw the noble Lord’s point about the first set of regulations coming forward, and I hope he is reassured on that point.

Amendment 37, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, exempted assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her very constructive engagement on this issue. We agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them though the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently under consideration by this House—we have not had its First Reading yet, but it will be imminent. If we agree where someone wants to demolish an asset of community value, it is only right they should have to submit a planning application so that the full planning merits can be considered. That is why the Government committed in the other place to consult on this proposal at the earliest opportunity. As mentioned in the debate in the other place, Parliament has granted the Secretary of State powers to make permitted development rights through secondary legislation. As such, the Government feel we should follow the proper route to amending these through important consultation. We hope these commitments reassure the noble Baroness, and we look forward to a consultation on the matter shortly. I hope the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to look at the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. There are significantly greater powers over community assets in that Bill than currently exist, and I hope that will reassure her of our intent in this matter.

Amendment 39 was on brownfield land and sustainable development. I completely agree with Peers on the need to prioritise and fully utilise brownfield land. I want to be explicit and assure Peers that the Government already have a brownfield-first approach to development—a principle that successive Governments have adhered to. That is why the Government updated the National Planning Policy Framework last year to further strengthen policy support for development on brownfield land. It currently states:

“Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.


We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include “large areas of hardstanding”, bringing more brownfield land into scope and limiting the need to look at other types of land. Of course, it is also the case that, as well as prioritising brownfield development, the existing NPPF already provides protections for non-brownfield land—such as protected landscapes, green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty—alongside guiding developments away from, for example, using the best and most versatile agricultural land where possible—I know that was a matter of great concern to noble Lords.

Last year, the Government published a Brownfield Passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. This included exploring the role of national policy in setting minimum density expectations for certain types of locations to support intensification in the right places. But we are committed to going even further to embed the brownfield-first policy into our planning system, which is why I can commit to consulting on a revised framework later this year that will set out a more rules-based approach to planning, including ensuring that brownfield land is the first port of call for development. In that consultation, we will put forward proposals that help prioritise brownfield land for development, set clear expectations for where development can take place and make best use of existing infrastructure to grow and densify our towns and cities and to support sustainable development. Our proposals will explicitly encourage mayors and local authorities to accommodate more development on brownfield land and specifically relate this to spatial development strategies.

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned that policy changes alone are not strong enough. I make it clear that the NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework—and all the points I have made previously on the priority use of brownfield land—is a material consideration in planning decisions. All strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, this is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.

Our newly revised NPPF, which we will consult on before the end of the year, will provide even clearer policies to drive more certain decision-making, including on brownfield development. Our changes will signal a step change and make clear our ambitions to drive forward brownfield development. We expect changes to meet the objectives of the brownfield-first principle. Our proposals will provide a crucial opportunity to test our approach and consider evidence from the sector to ensure that policies are robust and impactful.

We also know that policies can take time to feed through the planning system, and we will continue to keep policy and associated guidance under review. As such, legislative changes are not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that may not support effective delivery, or that sometimes may not allow for local circumstances to be taken into account.

I fear that the amendment would have become a charter for those who may seek to thwart development and the preparation of SDSs. First, the amendment would bite into SDSs. These are higher-level frameworks with the key aim of planning for medium-term to long-term housing and other development needs, aligning infrastructure provision to support that development. SDSs should of course take a brownfield-first approach, which, as I have mentioned, is already enshrined in a national policy framework that will go even further to prioritise brownfield land.

The other aspects of this amendment would create a legislative requirement for increasing densities and reducing travel distances. These are problematic in not allowing for the consideration of local issues—for example, the character of an area, the settlement patterns or the presence of important heritage assets. Consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at local level. As noble Lords know, brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable for development. A policy approach allows us to trust local planning authorities to arrive at appropriate judgments on the suitability of brownfield sites, having weighed up a balance of considerations. I am afraid that having such legislation, alongside creating overly rigid requirements, would serve only to open up SDSs to the increased risk of legal challenges on potentially very local issues that are not the aim or purpose of strategic development strategies. This may slow them down in providing the homes and infrastructure that our communities need.

Therefore, with the strong assurances I have made and the commitments to further strengthen the approach to brownfield land, I hope noble Lords will see the Government’s clear commitment on this and agree with the Motion not to insist. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, first, I remind noble Lords of my registered interest as chair of the development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank the Minister warmly for her engagement and that of her officials with Amendment 33 and for the Government’s support for it, giving this House the opportunity to examine on an affirmative procedure the first use of the national scheme of delegation. I shall not reiterate, as noble Lords have heard it in Committee and on Report, my view of the importance of the national scheme of delegation and, indeed, some issues about how it is to be used and structured. It is not simply a case of how important it is; there are still outstanding issues on the structure of the national scheme of delegation.

I am immensely grateful to the Minister that the Government are going to look that we insist on Amendment 33. I apologise for my poor drafting. Noble Lords know that I try hard on these matters, but I neglected to note that, if it became an affirmative resolution, the structure of the Town and Country Planning Act already provides that other regulations beyond the first use are automatically regarded as negative procedure. There will be further amendment to remedy that when the other place finishes its examination.

While I am standing up, I want to say that I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lady Scott about the scrutiny that we have afforded to this legislation. She and I—and, indeed, the Minister—went all the way through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. We spent 23 days in examination of that Bill, and we have spent only 16 days on this one, so to that extent we have rushed it through. I thoroughly support Motion F.

Fair Funding Review

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend that we need to make sure we realign funding with need and deprivation so that local authorities can deliver for their communities—as I said, the services that are needed and the economic growth that they need. The vast majority of councils with social care responsibilities will see their core spending power increase in real terms over the multi-year settlement. We will publish our response to the fair funding review and the policy statement and set out our plans for the first multi-year local government finance settlement. That is really important because it gives councils the certainty they need to plan over the medium to long term.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, while councils will benefit from increased council tax from new homes being built, the cost of providing services to those new homes will not be included in the baseline funding level unless and until there is a reset. Can the Minister tell the House how frequently the Government will undertake that reset so that the cost of providing services to homes is built into the baseline funding level?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Lord the exact answer to his question now. We have said that creating this multi-year funding settlement will help local authorities to plan for the future. We will keep in constant contact with our local government community to make sure that the changes we are making are made on up to date data—we have looked at a completely new dataset for the indices of multiple deprivation—because the data that was being used was not up to date. The Government will be working closely with local authorities as we move this forward to ensure that it is delivering the change we all want to see.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have a question about the amendment that the Minister has just moved to Clause 65. She will recall from the debates on Report that there is a whole structure in Clause 63 that is designed to allow Natural England, when making an environmental delivery plan, to focus on one environmental feature and, in relation to that feature, to focus on one negative effect of the development on it. It is structured so that the others are excluded, notwithstanding the wise insertion into that clause of material relating to water, nutrient neutrality et cetera. The new amendment, where the Secretary of State can make regulations relating to prioritisation, does not refer to the negative effect on development identified in an environmental delivery plan, but it talks about

“addressing any negative effect of development on a protected species or on a protected feature of a protected site”.

To boil that down, my question is: is it the intention that the Secretary of State’s regulations would look at only the negative effect of development on a protected feature that is identified in an EDP, or is it, at an earlier stage, setting out prioritisation in relation to what may be the negative effects of a development on a particular feature? I am afraid that it makes a significant difference when and how the prioritisation comes into effect.

While I am on my feet, I say a big thank you to the Minister and her officials for the several—in fact, many—occasions on which they have provided helpful guidance and advice on the interpretation of the Act, but I reiterate my continuing request that we be told when the powers that are relevant to the implementation of this Bill but are contained in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act are to be commenced or, more to the point, implemented. She knows that we are waiting on many of these and that they are as significant as some of the planning measures in the Bill itself.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to thank the Minister for her engagement and her reassurance on the exercise of CPO powers and the engagement of the private sector.

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

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
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

[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.