Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Lord Roborough ExcerptsWednesday 17th September 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Sep 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, this group covers further government amendments to bring confidence that the nature restoration fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. At its introduction, the Bill provided the ability for Natural England to include back-up conservation measures within an EDP which could be used if the initial conservation measures were not delivering the desired outcome.
Reflecting the original intent that these back-up measures would be used where necessary, Amendment 248A makes it mandatory for an EDP to include back-up measures as well as explicitly requiring Natural England to monitor the effectiveness of conservation measures so that it knows when it is necessary for these to be deployed. In addition, government Amendment 298ZA bolsters the duty of the Secretary of State to carry out remedial measures. Should the end-point report or the report following revocation contain an assessment that conservation measures are not likely to or have not passed the overall improvement test, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to take proportionate action to address any shortfall in environmental outcomes, whether the EDP is revoked or it reaches the end date.
Finally, the amendments make a series of minor legislative fixes and consequential amendments necessary for the correct operation of the legislation following these substantive government amendments. I hope that the Committee will support these amendments, and I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords these amendments brought forward by the Minister draw attention to a crucial point: environmental delivery plans, if they are to carry weight and deliver real outcomes, must be more than static documents. Amendment 248A rightly calls for contingency measures, back-up conservation actions that can be triggered if the initial interventions fall short. That is not only prudent but essential if we are to treat the environmental promises made in an EDP with the seriousness they deserve. Likewise, the amendments proposing a clear duty on the Secretary of State to act where an EDP fails the overall improvement test, together with publication requirements, are in my view sensible and measured. If the regime is to maintain public confidence, there must be accountability when delivery falters.
The environmental delivery plan must not be a one-shot deal; it must be an adaptive instrument capable of responding to what monitoring reveals and supported by a credible remedial pathway if things go wrong. These proposals help to strengthen that architecture, and I hope that the Government will give them serious and constructive consideration.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his supportive comments. I do believe these amendments show we have been listening to concerns. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough
“(9) Where an EDP identifies environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected by any invasive non-native species that is present at the site of the development, Natural England, or a body acting on behalf of Natural England, must take all reasonable steps to eradicate the invasive non-native species that has been identified at the site.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect all environmental features identified as at risk by invasive non-native species.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 253, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group. It is an embarrassment that in our small, wealthy island nation, there are, according to APHA, over 2,000 non-native species, of which 10% to 15% become invasive and pose a serious threat to our biodiversity and environment. We must make intensive efforts to control and eliminate those species to protect our own besieged biodiversity.
The grey squirrel has pushed the red squirrel out of much of our woodlands and now destroys countless young trees every year, making it almost futile to plant native broadleaves in my home county of Devon and many other parts of the UK. What progress is being made with the research into the sterilisation of grey squirrels, and when will that treatment be expected to be made generally available?
Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed have invaded our river systems, displacing our native flora and upsetting the ecology for animals and fish living in those waterways. I commend the Tamar invasives group for the work it has done in controlling these invasive plants under the auspices of the Tamar Valley National Landscape in that area. What similar work is being done elsewhere in the country to eradicate these species?
Signal crayfish are present in many waterways and reservoirs, spreading disease that kills our native crayfish and predating on our migratory and freshwater fish species. Muntjac deer are spreading rapidly across our country, feeding on our crops, damaging fences and stripping the bark off young trees. Numbers are out of control.
The purpose of these amendments is twofold. The first is to raise awareness of the damage that these and other species are doing to our environment. The Government need to change attitudes to these animals, birds and plants so that everyone in this country takes steps to eliminate them from their gardens, farms and land.
The second purpose is equally serious. I cannot see how any environmental delivery project funded by this new nature restoration fund can be judged to be successful if non-native invasive species are still present on the land within the project after five years. It simply does not make sense that the EDP can have done an acceptable job on the site if those species remain in place, attacking our much-loved trees, brown squirrels and aquatic species.
Should the Committee support this amendment, I fear there is a risk that Natural England could then choose sites that are not infected with those species. Can the Minister assure the Committee that would not be the case? I think that all who know and love our beautiful countryside appreciate how difficult a task it would be to achieve this even in these limited areas, but it is not impossible, and it is crucial. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, introducing his own amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I start by confirming my support for all three of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Amendments 253, 296 and 297. However, I caution the use of “non-native”; it is the invasive aspect that is the problem. What could be more English than a rose? What could be a more typical English fruit than an apple? Both of them originate from central Asia—they are not natives. However, I entirely take the point about invasive species.
Amendment 60, already debated, referred to guidance on planting along highways. There was much discussion about trees and wildflowers. I enjoyed reading what type of tree the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, might represent, which might repay people who want to look it up in Hansard. One plant that grows along our highways which was not mentioned in the earlier debate is ragwort, the bright yellow flowering plant seen everywhere alongside our highway network. Through lack of enforcement of existing legislation, this invasive plant has become a menace to the environment, animals and agriculture, and action to control it is long overdue. Once it has flowered, ragwort produces seeds that, like dandelions which people may be more familiar with, come with a downy parachute which means they float far and wide on the breeze across the countryside and into farmland, where they take root, produce more seed, and so on.
Ragwort is poisonous to livestock, and it is not advisable for people to touch it with their bare hands, although I spend many unhappy hours pulling it up myself with my own bare hands, as I am sure many other Members do. Grazing animals leave it alone while it is growing, but where a field is cut for hay or silage, as is the case on many grassland farms, it gets incorporated into the bales, animals cannot detect it, and they are poisoned by it. Finally, areas set aside for environmental benefits, such as margins for wildflowers, quickly become choked with ever-expanding stands of ragwort.
So much for the biology; what about the law? Ragwort is what is called a notifiable weed, and landowners and occupiers have a legal obligation to control and remove it, particularly if it is spreading, causing a nuisance, or posing a risk to livestock. The Weeds Act 1959 and the subsequent code of practice on how to prevent the spread of ragwort outline these responsibilities. Failure to comply can lead to legal action, and/or the relevant authorities can issue a clearance notice requiring action to be taken to remove it. Unfortunately, this has not been enforced for many years.
As part of my research in tabling this amendment, I asked a Written Question about notices or prosecutions in the last 12 months. I was informed:
“In the past 12 months, no notices in relation to ragwort control have been served to National Highways, and there have been no prosecutions under the Weeds Act 1959 or the Code of Practice”.
I would bet that we could go back a lot more years than the last 12 months and the result would be exactly the same.
That is not good enough. Defra and the Environment Agency need to enforce the existing law and regulations. The Bill will create new areas of land controlled by a quango. This amendment specifically identifies this problem plant and requires that at least in the development of new infrastructure, proper controls are carried out, and—my favourite theme—enforced where necessary. That would be a start.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the main deer that cause a problem is non-native, but we will not go into that. The department is currently producing the revised deer strategy, which I am sure we can share with the noble Earl when it is produced. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is working closely with the group working on the grey squirrel sterilisation programme. I have had meetings with him and his colleagues, but I cannot provide the details of that, as it is something that they are driving forward themselves. It may be worth the noble Earl having a conversation with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and we are supporting the work that he and his group are doing.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate, and particularly to the Minister for her knowledgeable answer. I add my thanks to the Minister for a meeting which she organised a couple of weeks ago with her officials. The depth of knowledge of those officials on this subject was phenomenal.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made a good point about public education. These are not adorable, furry animals, these are pests. They are causing damage to our wildlife, our trees, and to everything in our country, and people need to be aware of that. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, about ragwort. My experience is that responsible farmers remove this as soon as they see it, and it is disappointing to see public bodies not taking that responsibility seriously.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his points. He slightly contradicted himself; of course, it is very difficult to remove these invasive non-native species, but the point is that it is not impossible. I had the same experience with Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam; you can eradicate them, but you have to work at it.
I will take away the comments made in the debate, and perhaps see whether there is something we can do, in this Bill or elsewhere, to try to strengthen the defences against these. I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(4) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule in the course of preparing an EDP, Natural England must not include any potential capital costs for the purposes of acquiring land.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents Natural England from including Compulsory Purchase Order costs within their budgeting for an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 256 I will speak also to my Amendments 313, 315 and 317 in this group. These concern the use and governance of the nature restoration fund levy. This is a large group of amendments, so I will use what time I have available at the end to address other amendments. My amendments aim to reinforce the principles of fairness, transparency and proper fiscal stewardship in the deployment of levy funds, ensuring that the mechanisms intended to restore nature do so in a way that commands public trust and delivers tangible environmental outcomes.
Amendment 256 seeks to prevent Natural England from including the costs associated with compulsory purchase orders in its budgeting for environmental delivery plans. The use of CPOs should be the absolute last resort, not a built-in assumption or a line item in standard budget planning. Including such costs up front risks normalising compulsory acquisition, an approach which is both confrontational and potentially costly to the public purse. It also discourages collaboration with landowners, many of whom are keen to play a voluntary role in restoring our natural environment. This amendment therefore promotes a partnership-led model of land restoration rather than a heavy-handed and bureaucratic one.
Amendment 313 builds on this principle by explicitly prohibiting the use of levy funds for land acquisition via compulsory purchase. The nature restoration levy is paid by developers—and ultimately by the public—with the promise that it will support direct and measurable environmental benefits. Using those funds to acquire land through force undermines the voluntary market-based ethos behind the levy and risks reputational damage to the scheme. We must be clear that the levy should support restoration, not legal battles over land.
Amendment 315 would ensure that funds raised through the NRF levy are not squirreled away for indefinite or speculative future use. Money raised should be deployed promptly and transparently to deliver nature recovery now, not be locked up for uncertain projects that may or may not materialise in years to come. The public and contributors deserve to see timely, tangible benefits from these contributions, especially in an era of growing scrutiny over the effectiveness of environmental spending.
Finally, Amendment 317 provides the Secretary of State with the necessary regulation-making power to return surplus or unused funds to contributors. This is a basic fairness measure. Where funds have been raised in excess of what is needed, or where they cannot be spent appropriately, it is right and proper that they be returned. Without such a mechanism, we risk creating a one-way system of financial extraction without accountability. I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these amendments strengthen the integrity of the nature restoration levy by ensuring that it remains targeted, proportionate and fair. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
It is clear from the amendments in this group that there is broad consensus across the Committee on a number of key principles in the use and governance of the nature restoration fund’s levy. The first is transparency, the second is fairness and the third is value for money. The fourth is my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s point that the funds should stay local, as far as possible. We discussed, in a previous group, the implications of that for the BNG market.
Frankly, I agree with all the amendments. The Minister has given us a very comprehensive answer to the amendments, which was helpful. There was definitely some reassurance in there about the potential for ring-fencing the NRF; I will take those away and study them further, but I suspect this might be something that we return to on Report.
I think the Committee is concerned that this could become a slush fund. We know from the water restoration fund how resistant the Treasury is to the hypothecation of funds and how keen it is to get hold of penalties to the water industry and so on. We do not want to see this turning into a slush fund used to acquire land at will by Natural England, spent on bureaucracy or even returned to the Treasury. For now, I will withdraw my amendment, but I would very much like to return to this.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. He makes a point that I missed when I turned a page in my notes. Essentially, we are creating financial instruments with muddy wellingtons attached. We need to think about that balance as we contemplate how the Bill will work in practice, with those 80-year requirements to keep and maintain these projects contemplated by the EDP. It needs a change of thought.
Certainly, international accounting standards will be at the front of our mind. This is the sort of question that actuaries at life insurance companies are employed to handle. They know that they have a liability and what sum of money is needed up front to deal with it. That is not contemplated at all in Clause 59. It needs to be. That is the point I am trying to make. The state cannot do it itself—it needs a flow of private money coming into this space to benefit nature, but one that has its feet on the ground and where the numbers add up.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 318ZA seeks to ensure that farmers and farmer cluster groups are permitted by Natural England to apply to the nature restoration fund and actively participate in the delivery of conservation measures required under EDPs. This is a straightforward but essential point. Farmers are not just stewards of the countryside. In many cases, they are the very people who are best placed to implement and sustain long-term environmental outcomes.
If we are serious about delivering the ambitions of the Bill, we must make full use of the capacity, expertise and local knowledge of the farming community. Allowing them access to the nature restoration fund is not only fair but practical, efficient and better for nature and, to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, expands choice.
One of the many concerns that I and others have expressed about Part 3 of the Bill is that it disenfranchises the private sector, which has been developing BNGs to aid developers with the mitigation hierarchy. I appreciate that the Minister has suggested, and probably will again, that EDPs are intended to operate alongside the existing structures and to engage with the private landowner and farming community. But it is far from clear how that will work and it does not appear to be in the Bill. However, this amendment encourages Natural England to define the EDP that it is seeking to deliver and allows the private sector to offer solutions on commercial terms. The amendment has very considerable merit, as it guarantees the involvement of the private sector and takes pressure off the underresourced NE to design the EDP and deliver it. At a time when budgetary pressure and government decisions are seeing funding to the rural economy reduced in real terms, I hope the Minister will welcome this or any similar amendment.
Amendments 258, 268 and 353, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, aim to ensure that private market solutions can play a meaningful role in the implementation of Part 3 of the Bill, including through on-site mitigation by developers and investment in nature recovery through market mechanisms. We support the sentiment behind these amendments. They are thoughtful, interesting, pragmatic and right. The noble Lord rightly identifies that if we are to achieve our environmental targets, we must unlock private capital alongside public investment. That includes enabling developers to deliver effective biodiversity net gain directly where appropriate and giving confidence to investors that their participation in ecosystem markets will be valued and secure.
Amendments 318B, 320B and 325ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, would strengthen the obligation on Natural England to use private markets in delivering EDPs and introduce a clearer hierarchy for Natural England’s direct involvement. These amendments point to a real concern—notably the risk of crowding out private sector delivery by overly centralised or bureaucratic processes. They would also introduce a limitation on Natural England’s ability to compulsorily acquire land, requiring Secretary of State authorisation and evidence that land cannot be bought at market value. This too is an important addition to amendments we have already put down and debated trying to restrict Natural England’s power to compulsory purchase land at will.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Curry, for Amendments 258, 268 and 353. These amendments speak to the role that private providers of nature services will play in the delivery of the NRF.
We share the desire of the noble Lord—and that of other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—to support private sector investment in nature. We are clear that private and third-party providers will play a critical role in delivering the NRF. By design, this Bill allows a partnership approach to the delivery of conservation measures. This includes explicit reference in Clause 76 to paying others to undertake conservation measures. The Government expect Natural England to use competitive procurement approaches, wherever appropriate, to ensure innovation and value for money.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, we tried to spell this out a little better in the letter that we sent round. It explained that EDPs will provide new opportunities for the private sector, habitat banks, farmers, local authorities and environmental groups to supply nature services. Of course, local solutions are an important part of this, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord regarding processes. As part of the wider measures to support the NRF, the Government will issue guidance to natural England specifically on this point.
The noble Lord also asked about the percentage of the levy that would go to conservation measures and how much would be spent on other things. We cannot be specific on that because clearly it will depend on the nature and size of the EDP and the measures that are going to be agreed. Admin will be able to be claimed for, but the overall focus is delivering the conservation measures—that is what we want the money to be spent on. There will be charging schedules which will provide more information.
The problem with enforcing the binary choice in the amendments is that it would reduce the role for private solutions as part of the implementation of Part 3 of the Bill. My The noble Lord—I think I will call him my noble friend—Lord Inglewood rightly said that we need choices in order to have the best outcomes for nature.
On Amendments 318B and 320B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, Natural England will work with private providers and landowners to deliver conservation measures. We recognise the vital role these providers will play in making the NRF a success. Restricting Natural England’s ability to deliver conservation measures itself in the way proposed would risk EDPs being unable to deliver value for money for developers where the only available and willing providers are prohibitively expensive.
We are shortly going to be discussing compulsory purchase, so I will say here that we expect Natural England to consider compulsory purchase only where attempts to acquire land by agreement have failed, and that use of Natural England’s compulsory purchase power must be authorised by the Secretary of State. I trust the noble Lord will be content not to press his amendments.
I turn to Amendment 318ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I understand the desire for clarity on the opportunities for farmers and others to be involved in the delivery of conservation measures. As mentioned earlier, this model relies on close working with private partners and landowners, and we will publish guidance to support this. However, we are aware that local landowners know their land better than anybody else.
On Amendment 325ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I will be very brief. I reassure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary because, where the land is available to Natural England at market value, it will already be able to pursue the compulsory purchase order as there is a long-standing requirement that compulsory purchase orders can be used only where reasonable efforts to negotiate the purchase of land by agreement have failed.
Finally, regarding the noble Lord’s questions around SFIs, to confirm, we are looking to launch a reformed scheme next year. As I know more details, I will keep the noble Lord in touch with that. With those explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, would it be possible to share the guidance, or at least a draft of the guidance? I think it would help us to understand where we go to on Report.
Lord Roborough
“(8) Where the Secretary of State chooses not to make an EDP, the Secretary of State must also seek to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order where the Secretary of State has decided not to make the connected Environmental Delivery Plan.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 292 and speak to Amendments 298 and 324 my name. I will leave my comments on other amendments in the group to the time I have available at the end. However, I see merit in those amendments and hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, listens to those contributions. I apologise if I inadvertently misspoke when I interrupted the Minister at the end of the previous group.
As I have mentioned in previous debates, we are strongly opposed to Natural England being awarded CPO powers in connection with environmental delivery plans. We question the necessity of the nature restoration levy used to fund EDPs. Just 1% of housing applications consulted on by Natural England are objected to on the basis of environmental concerns, and only 10% of long-term infrastructure projects are challenged by environmental concerns. To suggest that environmental regulations are the reason that development is not occurring on the Government’s desired scale is simply not correct. For Natural England to then be given CPO powers for EDPs is surely rubbing salt into the wound.
The Bill threatens to create a Government monopoly on conservation project delivery and delegated responsibility to Natural England. With that in mind, these amendments attempt to rein in the powers of Natural England and outline their scope so that, while still extensive, they do not step into outright intrusive. Amendment 292 ensures that land that is subject to CPO is returned to the original owner if the intended EDP does not go ahead. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has already discussed the Crichel Down rules, and this amendment simply makes that part of this legislation. I believe that it is a valuable safeguard to ensure that land is CPO’d only when an EDP is certain.
Amendment 298 is in a similar vein, ensuring that land is also returned if a CPO is revoked—again, a valuable sanction against underperformance by Natural England. Amendment 324 seems a simple and obvious amendment, and a critical protection for every home owner or tenant in this country. Surely Natural England’s CPO powers should be limited such that it cannot CPO a garden, an allotment or indeed a home for an EDP. It may seem unlikely for that even to be a possibility. For that reason, some may think that this is not a serious amendment, but it is. What if someone’s garden or allotment is located in an area subject to an EDP and contains a feature, species or habitat that NE finds attractive? Under the Bill, NE has the power to force entry to assess it and to CPO it if the homeowner does not want to play ball. I urge the Government to accept this simple amendment to allow us all to remain secure in our enjoyment of our property.
I hope that the Minister, will listen carefully to the amendments in this group and be sufficiently stimulated to help to prevent Natural England’s becoming an authoritarian empire.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough, and I thoroughly support them. I do not wish to add anything to what he has said. I have also put my name to Amendment 323 in this group. I ask your Lordships to look at paragraph 816 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, which says:
“Subsection (2) sets out that the power can only be exercised if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure”—
and here are the important words—
“set out in an EDP”.
In other words, Natural England cannot go around compulsorily purchasing land for just any old conservation measure; it has to be one set out in an EDP. My Lords, I presume that this is just a typing error between the green pages of the Bill and the white pages of the Explanatory Notes, and that the Government will therefore be able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this group relates to the powers in Part 3 for Natural England to make a compulsory purchase for purposes connected with the taking of conservation measures. The Government have taken a cautious approach in respect of compulsory purchase powers, but it is clear that this needs to be available to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure that conservation measures are delivered. However, the Government recognise the need for such powers to be tightly constrained, and I am confident that, when considered alongside existing safeguards, the proposed amendments are not necessary.
I turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, which seek to require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order in two different scenarios. The first is when Natural England uses these powers to purchase a piece of land and the Secretary of State later decides not to make the EDP in question. I can assure the noble Lords that this will never happen, as Natural England cannot make a compulsory purchase before the EDP has been made.
The second scenario is when an EDP is revoked. Where an EDP is revoked, any land secured through compulsory purchase may still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Requiring land to be returned automatically would risk removing a crucial way of delivering remedial measures and potentially damaging the relevant environmental feature.
Where land has been compulsorily purchased and is not needed, and it would genuinely be surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply. The land would be offered back to the former owner, their successor or sitting tenants at market value, provided that the land has not materially changed and none of the exceptions under the rules applied. These rules are well-established, as we discussed in a debate the other day, so I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
Moving to Amendment 323, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I assure the noble Lords that the subject of their amendment is already addressed in the Bill. CPO powers may be used only in connection with the taking of conservation measures, as defined in the legislation. Amendment 324 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is part of a private dwelling. I would first like to assure noble Lords that this type of land is incredibly unlikely to meet the high bar for compulsory purchase or to be approved by the Secretary of State. The use, or future use, of land will be taken into account by the Secretary of State when approving the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight, and noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act 1998. I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned that himself.
Finally, Amendment 352 would extend the compulsory purchase powers to Crown land. The CPO powers in the Bill are there to provide assurance that land can be acquired where necessary to ensure that an EDP can deliver the necessary conservation measures. Extending these powers to cover Crown land is unnecessary. To put it simply, if Natural England were to require Crown land for a conservation measure, that would be resolved between Natural England and the relevant authority. I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this short debate and previous debates covering other amendments relating to CPOs have been a clear demonstration of just how emotive compulsory purchase is. Handing these powers to Natural England almost unfettered is surely a step too far. I am grateful to the Minister for trying to reassure the Committee, but the comments about going back at market value are exactly the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted: if that market value has changed dramatically between when the CPO happened and when it was decided to return it, that would seem rather unfair. A requirement to buy the land back at the same price would be fine.
Lord Roborough
“Nature restoration levy: payment, liability and amount(1) A developer may make a request in writing to Natural England to pay the nature restoration levy in relation to a development to which an EDP applies and if Natural England accept the request, the developer is committed to pay the nature restoration levy.(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the nature restoration levy (“nature restoration levy regulations”).(3) Nature restoration levy regulations may—(a) seek to ensure that costs incurred in maintaining or improving the conservation status of environmental features can be funded (wholly or partly) by developers in a way that does not make development economically unviable,(b) make provision about liability to pay the nature restoration levy in relation to a development, including who is liable to pay the levy, and when liability to pay arises.(4) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule, Natural England must have regard to, in the manner specified by nature restoration levy regulations, the actual and expected costs of the conservation measures relating to the environmental impact of development on the environmental feature to which the charging schedule relates.”
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 306A and 308 in my name. These amendments seek to introduce clarity, proportionality and fairness into the operation of this new levy.
Amendment 299 seeks to specify the principles governing payment, liability and the calculation of the amount payable under the nature restoration levy. I appreciate that the noble Baroness the Minister wrote a very helpful letter today laying out some of the process that developers will be subject to here. It is essential that developers have certainty and predictability. Clarity on who pays and how much they pay is fundamental to ensuring a functional and trusted levy regime that does not deter responsible development. There is considerable concern over the cost to developers of the EDP, particularly given that it appears it will be taken outside the Section 106 agreement and therefore threaten the financial viability of developments. My noble friend Lord Lansley appears to have a similar intent with Amendment 306, and I will listen to his comments with interest.
Amendment 306A deals with proportionality. It would recognise that, in some cases, even after applying the mitigation hierarchy in full, there may still be residual environmental impacts. This amendment would allow for a proportionate contribution, not a full contribution, to be levied in such cases. It would ensure that developers who are genuinely taking steps to minimise harm are not disproportionately penalised, while still upholding our responsibility to invest in nature restoration where impacts cannot be wholly addressed on site. I believe that this is an important environmental protection that ensures that mitigation on site remains incentivised, as it would result in a reduced contribution to the nature restoration fund. This would also help to ensure that private sector services remain important for developers. My noble friend Lord Grayling’s Amendment 305 again appears to pursue a similar aim, and I am sure that we will speak prior to Report if we do not receive satisfactory reassurance today.
Amendment 308 turns to implementation. It would ensure that the regulations governing the nature restoration levy include provisions for how it is to be collected and enforced. Crucially, it would require that the funds received are spent by Natural England on conservation measures directly linked to the environmental feature that justified the levy in the first place. This would not only increase transparency but maintain public trust in the system. Further, the amendment includes a right of appeal on a question of fact related to the calculation of the levy. This is a basic principle of fairness and accountability.
I believe that these are sensible amendments. They do not seek to undermine the nature restoration funds, but rather to ensure its integrity, effectiveness and fairness, all of which are principles that should be central to any regulatory mechanism. Put together, the amendments in my name would form a coherent and practical approach to ensuring that the nature restoration levy supports both environmental enhancement and sustainable development. I look forward to the remarks from noble Lords on all Benches. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not answer his question, which was quite clear. I think the issue of mandatory EDPs was put in as a precaution, but he is right—it would be useful to have some examples of where that might be necessary. We will come back to that between Committee and Report, so that we are all clear on the kinds of circumstances where a mandatory EDP may be put in place. It is important that we all understand that.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this short debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his comments clarifying my question about financial viability. I remain not completely clear. The letter this morning was helpful, but it would be helpful if, when the Minister responds to the questions raised in this debate, she could say whether the actual cost of contributing to the NRL will be available prior to Section 106 being available. The Minister has much greater experience than I do on how developers act in these ways, but it would be reassuring to know that there is no excuse for reopening affordable housing contributions in Section 106 based on unexpected costs of the NRL.
I thought the Minister’s response about the proportionate nature of the application of the nature restoration levy very helpful, and I will go away and read her comments. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments to say, basically, that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I thank her for her contribution.
I wholeheartedly recognise why both noble Lords have brought forward the amendments, the point that they are making about the energy transition and the fact that we need to get on and build this stuff. In doing that, however, there is a balance to be achieved. If we do not transition to clean energy, there will be an impact on the environment. Obviously, there are some cases where these things come into contact and conflict, so we need to find ways to manage them. It is absolutely vital that we transition. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we need to walk away from the polarised debates that are happening and to recognise that habitats are only one issue among a whole bunch of issues.
The bigger thing for me, weirdly, is the fact that the Bill could be doing more to help with infrastructure. There is a missed opportunity here, which is perhaps why there is talk of another Bill coming forward. I am interested to see how the Government will respond to the amendments. These are issues of balance, so painting all the problems as being about habitat regulations—and given the way that the noble Lords have painted their canvas—does not help the debate.
The Government have more to do to look at how we deliver infrastructure. I believe that that needs to be done—let us be honest—not at this time of night, with about four people in the Chamber who would rather be at home, but through a proper look. What I take away from the noble Lords’ amendments is that, with all these issues—getting to clean power, being a crowded island, managing habitat regulations and managing other projects—there is more to be done to consider other ways to help deliver the infrastructure that we all know we need, while balancing the facts that our nature is in decline and we are a small, crowded island. What we need to do is all work together in a spirit of co-operation to examine what are very technical and complicated problems. I thank the noble Lords for bringing their amendments, because they have resulted in important debates.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, these amendments address the critical interface between planning law and the protection of our sensitive natural environments governed under the habitat regulations.
Amendment 350, which I have signed—I should really have signed Amendment 349 too, which I also support—proposes a new Part 1A to the habitats regulations, placing scientific evidence at the centre of decision-making. That principle is vital. All too often, planning decisions are mired in ambiguity and subjectivity, which, in turn, creates delay and a window for opportunistic challenge. These amendments would create a framework that distinguishes between material and de minimis effects, gives due weight to credible science and offers clarity for both developers and conservation bodies. That said, we must take care that the new language, particularly around decisions not requiring absolute certainty, does not inadvertently weaken precautionary safeguards. It is a fine balance and one we will want to explore further.
I imagine that I am fortunate not to have read the article in the Telegraph today, so I am completely comfortable with the amendments. The only thing from the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, with which I did not entirely agree is the idea that nature has to suffer. A lot of the debate we are having around the Bill is about how to make sure that nature suffers as little as possible and how to mitigate that in the hierarchy. I believe that these amendments can be part of that.
That goes to the broader debate that we on these Benches have been having throughout the discussions on the Bill about why we have Part 3 at all. When we started debating the groups on Part 3, we offered a number of amendments to deal with nutrient neutrality, two of which, taken together, would have released 160,000 houses immediately after the Bill commenced. I am still not clear how EDPs will release those houses from the blocking guidance from Natural England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has tabled a number of amendments that would significantly restrict the extent of EDPs, which I also support. In all the amendments I have mentioned and which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has brought forward today, there are solutions which, frankly, would be far better than Part 3 for speeding up development, increasing certainty and reducing costs. I therefore support these amendments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendment 349A in this group makes a minor legislative fix, inserting the correct definition of the Ramsar site series into the habitats regulations.
I turn to the non-government amendments and the debate we have just been listening to. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath have tabled a number of amendments concerning the operation of the habitats regulations. I wish to add some detail to comments I made in Monday’s debate in response to amendments seeking to limit the disapplication of the habitats regulations to the specific features and impacts identified in the environmental delivery plan. This is an important point which is relevant for today’s debate.
As I said on Monday, the disapplication in Schedule 4 already applies only to the specific impacts of the development identified in the EDP. I want to set out how this could work in practice. If a development proposal comes forward that has three different impacts on protected features—for example, nutrient pollution, recreational disturbance on ground-nesting birds and an impact on dormice—there might be two EDPs covering the area where that development is located, each addressing strategically the impacts of development on one of those environmental features. In this scenario, the developer may choose to discharge its obligations in relation to the two environmental impacts covered by those EDPs through payment of the relevant levy for each. The remaining impact would continue to be assessed in the usual way, either through the habitats regulations assessment or by applying for a species licence. With the other two impacts being addressed through the EDPs, the remaining assessment would be more focused and streamlined.
I want to be clear that it would remain necessary to consider any effects not covered by an EDP. This is by design. EDPs are intended to be modular, with each one addressing a specific impact or impacts. They are not intended to be a comprehensive way of addressing all the possible environmental impacts of developments. I hope that helps to clarify.
I come to the specific amendments that we have been debating. I know that noble Lords have been concerned that EDPs might not deliver for infrastructure, so they have proposed these amendments to improve the operation of the existing system. Our focus in bringing forward the measures in this Bill has been on ways to practically improve the planning process. Case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much- needed housing and infrastructure, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, explained in his introduction. The nature restoration fund will allow developers to benefit from a streamlined process and simple user experience, while delivering better outcomes for nature. The Bill is also clear that EDPs can be brought forward to support nationally significant infrastructure projects.
The Government already plan to address, through improved guidance, many of the points made in the amendments and by noble Lords. Although I note the desire for an open conversation about wider reforms to the habitats regulations, noble Lords will recognise that amendments of the type proposed go far beyond the NRF and would benefit from proper scrutiny and consideration. Although many in the Committee may favour the spirit of some of these amendments, legislating in this manner at this late stage of the Bill would risk a period of significant uncertainty for practitioners and a potentially negative impact on development that we would all wish to avoid.
I turn to Amendment 346DA. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for raising the important issue of energy security. I wish to clarify that, through the overarching energy national policy statement, nationally significant low-carbon infrastructure is recognised as critical national priority infrastructure. In relation to such projects, the Secretary of State will start with a presumption in favour of granting consent. It is recognised that it is likely that the needs case for this infrastructure will outweigh the residual effects in all but the most exceptional cases, and we are already seeing positive impacts of CNP infrastructure. The current overarching national policy statement for energy also confirms that, where there are no alternative deliverable solutions to mitigating the impact of the NSIP on sites subject to habitats regulations assessments, then compensatory measures are still required.
Delivery of compensatory measures is an important part of protecting our network of protected sites, where damage to a site is unavoidable and where there is an overriding public interest. For offshore wind, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, explained, there are particular issues around the identification of suitable compensation, and the marine recovery fund will provide an optional mechanism which developers can pay into to discharge their environmental compensation obligations. In addition, for offshore wind, Defra recently consulted on changes to the environmental compensation requirements and intends to introduce a statutory instrument to deliver these changes. Where an environmental delivery plan is in place under the nature restoration fund, this will enable developers to fund strategic, Government-led conservation measures.
Amendments 349 and 350, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Amendment 349B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would fundamentally alter many of the well-established principles of the current regime. While the Government understand and support many of their intentions, the focus of Part 3 is to establish the nature restoration fund and create a tool to address the environmental impact of development. Expanding the scope of the Bill in this way, as I said before on the other amendments, risks introducing uncertainty into the system and could slow the consenting of development. Several of the amendments also raise questions in respect of how they guard against environmental regression and significant harm to protected sites.
We feel that such significant changes to the habitats regulations assessment process would be better addressed following greater scrutiny, including from affected stakeholders. However, they raise a number of very important points about the operation of the habitats regulations. To take two specific points, decisions should be made on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and the habitats regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately.
Government amendments to Part 3 include clarifying that both Natural England and the Secretary of State will take account of the best available evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP. However, introducing legislative definitions of “scientific evidence” or “scientific justification”, as proposed by these amendments, needs careful consideration to understand the impact of such changes and to avoid the risk that we introduce unnecessary uncertainty and increased litigation in this area.
Dan Corry’s review, which we have mentioned in previous debates, also suggests a potential reform to the habitats regulations and how they are applied, while ensuring consistency with international obligations. I can confirm that we are looking at how to improve the operation of the existing habitats regulations. We are preparing updated guidance on the assessment process, and the noble Lord’s amendment rightly addresses the role that guidance can play in encouraging a proportionate application of that process. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may also wish to note in relation to his amendment that the guidance will make clear the flexibility that exists in order to screen out the de minimis effects where it is clear that there is no risk of harm to the integrity of the protected site.
I supported much of what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, and the approach that he suggested—that we need to be much more considered and take more time over some of this. We will of course continue to consider ways in which the operation of the habitats regulations can be improved, while protecting our most valuable habitats and species, at the same time as providing more certainty and an efficient process for developers. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments but continue to work with us on this important matter.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, these Benches totally agree with the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because the depth and range of the changes encompassed in this Bill are significant and substantial. Throughout the Bill are references to the regulatory changes that will be made in secondary legislation; therefore, it is vital to retain understanding by the communities that are going to be affected and to help them with transparency on what the Government are doing to keep them on side rather than in complete opposition, at every turn. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, proposed, there is super-affirmative secondary legislation, the details of those changes could be properly scrutinised in draft form and then through the affirmative process. That seems an important route to take.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this and hope that the Government Benches, for once in this Bill, as we approach the end, will give us the affirmative nod.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we support these amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Coffey. I will start with Amendment 356 in the name of my noble friend.
I am sure it was not lost on the Minister that, when she informed your Lordships that the Secretary of State for MHCLG would be the directing and reporting SoS for Natural England on the nature restoration funds and EDPs, there was a huge collective intake of breath. What a sigh of relief it was this morning to hear that this had been reconsidered. I would be most grateful if the Minister could indicate the circumstances under which it may not be the SoS for Defra, as she mentioned earlier.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, Amendments 351A and 351B, seek to ensure that the super-affirmative procedure is adhered to for any regulations to amend existing acts or assimilated law under Section 89(2). A super-affirmative procedure would result in both Houses having the opportunity to comment on proposals put forward by the Minister and to recommend refinements before amendments are tabled in their final form. I am sure that all noble Lords are of the firm belief that scrutiny of legislation and delegated powers are important principles and a staple of any democratic system. I therefore very much welcome the spirit of the amendments and look forward to the Government’s response.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Lord Roborough ExcerptsMonday 15th September 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VII(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (15 Sep 2025)
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this amendment relates to removing—or “disregarding”, to use the legislative term—hope value from recreational land that is to be purchased for public use.
The principle of hope value was debated at length and in detail during consideration of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in your Lordships’ House. It was agreed by the Government of the time that hope value could be disregarded by acquiring authorities for a number of purposes—including for schools, for example. However, hope value for public recreational uses was not included in the list of categories where hope value could be disregarded.
So Amendments 209B and 209C in my name seek to add the disregarding of hope value by acquiring authorities into the legislation. The reason for that is fairly straightforward and obvious. On a previous day in Committee, we had a debate on the importance of recreational land. My noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a strong case for better planning and more openness to planning applications for sporting use. These two amendments seek to add to that.
The importance of the availability of public recreational land cannot be overstated. In days gone by, children could go out of their front door and play in the street without risk. Now that is not possible because of the obvious influx in terms of every household having a car. So, in order for them to play outside, children have to be taken somewhere. If there are not enough “somewheres” to go to—somewhere to kick a ball in a local recreation area; a park, somewhere to go and walk round a lake; or somewhere to play on playing equipment that is provided—it is a huge loss to the development of young people.
Sport, such as the World Athletics Championships—I am an athletics fan, although I could not get to Tokyo—is really important to this country, so it is important that all children have opportunities for play. If local authorities wish to extend the use of recreational areas, it is best if the cost of that land is not added to by hope value.
Those two simple amendments have the same purpose: to enable local authorities to buy land for recreational use without hope value attached to it. I look forward to hearing about the other amendments in this group, and will respond to them when I reply to the Minister. With those short but, I hope, strong messages showing that this is an important issue, I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 210 and 211 in my name and Amendment 227G in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I refer the Committee to my register of interests, as I have previously disclosed on this Bill.
When we say that the Conservative Party is under new management, we mean it. We are rightly proud of much of the work that went into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, but we are also clear about areas where improvement is needed. I have tabled Amendment 210 to address one such issue, an issue that sits uncomfortably with our core principles of property rights and fair compensation. We believe deeply in the right of individuals to own property, and that such ownership should not be disturbed lightly. When it is, compensation must be fair and transparent and reflect the true value of what is being lost. That includes hope value.
Hope value is not a vague or abstract notion; it is a well-established component in the valuation of land and property, used not only in sales but in inheritance tax assessments and a wide range of commercial transactions. It reflects the possibility that land might in future obtain planning permission for a more valuable use. It is the very element that allows developers and others to bring forward land for development, persuading reluctant landowners to sell by recognising the future potential of their land.
To disregard hope value is to ignore how the market works. It risks undermining confidence in the land market and creating new barriers to development rather than removing them. The valuation methodologies underpinning hope value are well understood, professionally governed and economically rational. They are consistent with option valuations in financial markets, although I am not sure they go so far as to use the Black-Scholes option pricing model.
If a site has no realistic prospect of future development, its hope value will naturally be nil or negligible. However, where a site has a reasonable expectation of future change in use, reflected in prices agreed between buyers and sellers, we must ask why the Government or local authorities should be entitled to disregard that. In doing so, they risk ignoring market signals and distorting resource allocation. If the market values a piece of land as having the future potential for residential development but the authority wants to use it for a different, potentially less efficient use, that should prompt reflection, not concealment.
In a helpful Written Answer following Second Reading, the Minister set out the intended application of these provisions. That response included reference to land for educational and health purposes but also to housing, and not necessarily affordable housing. That gives little comfort. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has moved her Amendment 209B, which seeks to expand this to recreational facilities. Needless to say, we do not support that.
We are told that the powers will be used to support affordable housing schemes, but in practice the drafting is broad, the safeguards are weak, and I see no mechanism that protects landowners should the purpose of the CPO change after acquisition. Could the Minister clarify? Would these provisions still apply if the land were no longer used for the original purpose stated in the CPO? Clear guidance—or, better still, an amendment to the Bill—could help to avoid costly litigation in the years to come.
The Minister’s letter also cited examples where removing hope value might help to bring forward certain sites, such as brownfield land where viability is an issue, infill plots, and allocated sites that have not yet come forward, but that analysis does not hold. If viability truly is an issue, the hope value will already be low or nil, and on infill or allocated sites it is not the price that delays development but the length and complexity of the planning process and the delays caused by responses from statutory consultees and agencies.
I hope I have persuaded the Committee that removing hope value does not unlock land or accelerate housing delivery. On the contrary, it undermines property rights, weakens trust in the planning system and may ultimately deter landowners from bringing land forward.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. Amendments 209B and 209C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to amend Clause 105 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for compulsory purchase orders to be confirmed with directions for the non-payment of hope value compensation where justified in the public interest. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities. The amendments seek to introduce a change so that CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value.
While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we had a very interesting debate on this subject twice in last week’s Committee—I am afraid we are not able to support these amendments. The non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and carefully justified in the public interest.
Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits to be facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the public benefits and the justification for lower compensation for landowners are likely to be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities. The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered are clearly less identifiable.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his Amendment 210. This seeks to repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest for certain types of schemes. The amendment also seeks to remove Clause 105 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing, and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient. The amendment would remove the power, which was introduced, as he rightly said, by the last Government under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It allows authorities to take forward certain types of schemes by compulsory purchase, and to pay reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. To support the delivery of housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans can be delayed by heightened expectations of land values by landowners. This can result in the delivery of benefits to the public through the building of homes, transport links and schools being more costly, and significant amounts of developable land remaining unused.
The Government are committed to improving land assembly, speeding up site delivery and delivering development for the benefit of communities. We also remain committed to ensuring that landowners are awarded fair compensation where compulsory purchase powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
Amendment 211, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. I thank him for his amendment. As noble Lords will be aware, we will discuss the nature restoration fund and the role and powers granted to Natural England in more detail later this afternoon. To successfully deliver this new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to implement the conservation measures required. We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted, especially trying to acquire that land by agreement. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including authorisation by the Secretary of State. The landowner will receive compensation in line with the existing approach.
Requiring Natural England to return land in the circumstances set out in the amendment would undermine the rationale for allowing Natural England to have these powers in the first place. Some conservation measures will require Natural England to acquire land, whether by agreement or, where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, through compulsory purchase. Having this range of options provides certainty that conservation measures can be delivered. It is fundamental to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the overall improvement test will be met.
In line with the safeguards provided in the Bill, if land were required to be returned as envisaged by this amendment, this could lead to the environmental delivery plan needing to be amended because conservation measures would no longer be delivering as intended. That would reduce the amount of development that the EDP would cover; increase cost to developers; or trigger the need to revoke the EDP, requiring the Secretary of State to consider appropriate remedial action to ensure that the impact of development is addressed in line with the overall improvement test.
I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the hearts of many noble Lords. However, I trust that the Committee can recognise the need for these targeted powers, to ensure that the nature recovery fund delivers the much-needed win-win for nature and development. In a meeting with Natural England and a number of noble Lords who are here today, Natural England said that it had used the power only three times ever. I do not anticipate it doing this all the time.
Lord Roborough (Con)
In relation to Amendment 211, can the Minister indicate whether a CPO would happen only once a landowner or farmer had been offered a contract to carry out the EDP works themselves—after they had been offered the option of doing the work that Natural England was intending to do on that land under its CPO ownership?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on Amendment 213 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which probes the potential impacts of the Bill on rights of way, including those currently unrecorded and due to be extinguished at the end of 2030. He raises an important and timely point. The matter of unrecorded rights of way has long been a subject of interest and concern, particularly among landowners, local authorities and the walking public. The 2026 cut-off date originally proposed under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, later extended to 31 December 2030, was intended to provide certainty and finality. This amendment, while probing in nature, rightly encourages the Government to clarify how the provisions of the Bill will interact with that approaching deadline, particularly with the ongoing digitisation and modernisation of the definitive map process and how planning reforms may affect local authority resourcing for such work.
While there are undoubtedly historic rights of way that are not currently identified, mapped and protected, given the effort that has been put into doing so by various organisations perhaps one might assume that those long-unused rights of way are defunct. Rights of way were created through constant use establishing those rights. Surely if they are no longer used and are forgotten, their original purpose and right is gone. Rights of way were rarely established through leisure use, but were commonly the way that travel and commerce was conducted in this country. It is unhelpful to planning and infrastructure delivery, as well as to farmers and land managers, that claims can be brought at any time and can consume considerable time and resource to resist. I encourage the Government to stick to the existing deadline.
Amendment 213 prompts a worthwhile discussion. I think the idea of a review in six months is worth considering to ensure that our rights of way are properly protected. I thank my noble friend for raising the matter, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his amendment, which seeks to probe the effects of the Bill on rights of way, including unrecorded rights of way. I thank him for his kind comments about Lord Rosser; we still miss him very much, so I am grateful.
As we heard, the Government announced on Boxing Day 2024 their intention to repeal the cut-off date of 1 January 2031 for recording historic rights of way. This means that paths used by walkers, cyclists and equestrians can continue to be officially recorded after this date and will not be lost to the public. This is a significant step in preserving access to well-used but often unrecorded paths across England, many of which have been in place, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, for hundreds of years.
Local highway authorities have statutory duties to record and maintain public rights of way, allowing them to be accessed and enjoyed by the public. They must also have a rights of way improvement plan which explains how improvements will be made to public rights of way, preserving them and providing a better experience for users. Given the statutory duty placed on local authorities to maintain and protect public rights of way, an additional review is not necessary.
A thorough and meaningful review would also not be possible within six months of publication of the Act. Local authorities are already handling a significant volume of unrecorded rights of way registrations, and the requirement to conduct a review would result in further delays to this process. In addition, the repeal of the cut-off date means that historic public rights of way can still be officially recorded, so will not be lost but can continue to be enjoyed by the public.
I will pick up a couple of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I will check whether the working party is still in place; I do not know the answer to that. I hope it is, because working parties like that help us to shape government policy. On the question of why we should not use this Bill for the repeal, I suspect that a deal of consultation would have to be carried out, and that is probably why it is not in this Bill, but I will respond in writing to him on that point.
For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has made the point that we on these Benches would wish to make.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 214 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and thank him for bringing forward what is, I believe, a thoughtful and timely intervention. The amendment seeks to ensure that the Government provide annual updates on agricultural land lost as a result of the Bill, along with any consequent risks to the UK’s food and water security.
We have heard, both in and beyond this Chamber, growing concern about the pressures being placed on agricultural land—particularly the cumulative effect of development, including infrastructure and renewable energy projects, on land that has long supported our domestic food production. This is not an abstract concern. Recent debates around the siting of solar farms on high-grade best and most versatile agricultural land have brought this issue into sharp relief. Although renewable energy is vital for our long-term sustainability, it must not come at the cost of food security.
Food security is a strategic national interest. The experience of recent global shocks, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, has reminded us just how important it is to maintain a strong, resilient domestic food supply. Once high-quality agricultural land is lost to development, it is not recovered. We must therefore be careful stewards of this finite resource, particularly the best and most versatile land, as my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out.
My noble friend’s amendment rightly presses the Government to monitor and report on these risks with due seriousness. The principle of ensuring that we do not undermine our food and water security through planning reforms is one that I believe all sides of this House can support. If I may provide some reassurances to my noble friends, global food production has grown at 0.7% on average per annum for decades, in line with global population growth. That is on stable acres, with lost acres in some regions of the world balanced by other regions, such as Brazil. Acres of land that are lost in this country to development are most likely being replaced by the Cerrado, and possibly even rainforest, being cleared in Brazil. There is a serious leakage issue when we lose our agricultural land. On that, I highlight my register of interests, including as a shareholder of SLC Agrícola in Brazil.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment and to hearing how the Government intend to safeguard these critical national interests as the Bill progresses. I also support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the land use framework.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report
“detailing the total area … of any land that has been taken out of food production as a result of the provisions of this Act”,
as well as an assessment of any increase in risk to the water and food security of the UK.
As noble Lords know, the measures in this Bill provide changes to the existing planning process to speed up housebuilding and infrastructure delivery. In other words, they are levers within an existing planning system. It is therefore impossible to measure whether any land use change from development is as a result of specific measures in the Bill. Furthermore, the Government already publish regular reports on land use change and food security. These include: statistics on land use change from agricultural land to residential use every three years; a report by Natural England on agricultural land take to development over the period 2013 to 2022, following previous reviews undertaken by Defra; annual analysis on agricultural land use change through the annual June survey of agriculture and horticulture; statutory annual analysis of agricultural statistics through Agriculture in the United Kingdom; and statutory analysis of statistical data relating to food security in the UK at least every three years. The Government therefore already have legal requirements to report regularly on matters relevant to food security in the UK.
To address the concern driving this amendment, I reassure noble Lords once again that the Government are clear that food security is national security. We absolutely understand that point, made powerfully by noble Lords during this debate. In July, Defra published the good food cycle as part of the UK food strategy. It outlined the development of work on sustainable, resilient domestic production of food. There are planning policy measures in place to ensure that non-agricultural land is encouraged over agricultural land.
As I have mentioned a couple of times already today, the National Planning Policy Framework also safeguards the best and most versatile land, which is land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.
Furthermore, on the point made by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government consulted on land use in England from January to April this year. The responses are informing the preparation of the land use framework, which will be published later this year. It will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land.
The Government do not believe that new water resources infrastructure, such as new strategic reservoirs or local catchment solutions, will threaten food security. Of course, a successful agricultural sector depends on access to secure water supplies, and the National Farmers’ Union and farmers are working with the Environment Agency and water companies to help us develop water resources.
The Government also do not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar generation poses a threat to food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mount solar PV panels covered only around 0.1% of the total land area of the UK. The Solar Roadmap also sets out how much land we estimate could be taken up by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in the most ambitious—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed Amendment 219. It would introduce a new clause so that where there is permission for a development of 100 homes or more and it is not used, it is use it or lose it, and within the applicable period there is a justifiable case for compulsory purchase of the land. I do not think anyone in your Lordships’ House is going to disagree that we have a housing crisis and a broken housing system. I point noble Lords to a recent “Big Read” in the Financial Times titled “Making British homes affordable again”, which focused on a number of issues, including the role of financial deregulation in the massive escalation of home prices.
Here, we are talking about the plan where the land is identified and everyone agrees this is the way forward, and then we run into the private housebuilders, where the legal obligation of the managers is to make money. They have no legal obligation to build homes: the law says to make as much money as you possibly can.
I would be very tempted to use the term land banking to describe managers who just sit on land and wait until they can make more money. That means that homes are not built, and they are needed in places where people want to live. The amendment does not force anything but allows the possibility of a CPO, to take this forward to get those homes built. Surely, that is what some communities are desperately aching for.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this important group of amendments about planning consents and compulsory purchase. I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 217, so convincingly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It seeks to ensure that acquiring authorities and those acting on their behalf adhere to the normal code of conveyancing practice—the same principles that would apply in a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is a sensible and pragmatic proposal. Compulsory purchase is, by its nature, an intrusive power and must always be exercised with care, transparency and fairness. Ensuring that conveyancing practice aligns with what would be expected in an open market transaction will help to build trust and minimise disputes between landowners and acquiring authorities. It is essential that landowners do not continue to be disadvantaged and mistreated through the CPO process, as the noble Lord described.
Amendment 219 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, proposes a new clause that would make land subject to automatic consideration for compulsory purchase under the Housing Act 1985 where permission for a development of 100 homes or more has not been acted on within the relevant period. She touches on an interesting and widely debated issue: the problem of land banking—if I may use that term—and delays in delivering housing once planning permission has been granted. Her amendment raises the question of how we might create stronger incentives to build out permissions in a timely manner, particularly where housing need is acute.
Before considering supporting this amendment, we would need to understand how widespread this practice, as the noble Baroness describes, really is. The figure of 1.2 million homes consented but unbuilt is bandied around. However, how many of these developments are unviable due to the Section 106 costs, community infrastructure levies and biodiversity net gain costs that are put on them? How many of these homes are stalled in negotiations around the details of implementing those consents? How many are stalled due to other issues outside developer or landowner control? I am not convinced that land banking is necessarily such a widespread issue as she contends, but I am very willing to listen to evidence. I would be grateful to the Minister for any information she can share with us.
It is worth bearing in mind that housebuilders are businesses: they have obligations to their staff and their shareholders, and they need to have a build programme that ensures they know they can employ their staff over a multi-year period and develop profits which allow returns to shareholders. The shareholders are often pension funds and other such institutional investors in this country. The principle of housebuilders making profits is important. Where a developer does have more short-term supply ready to build on its balance sheet, in most cases it will be because it is building out sites in markets that can absorb only a certain number of units each year without undermining prices to the detriment of the local community. Housebuilders also generally have a 15% return on capital employment commitment to their shareholders. That means that if they are holding land off the market, they need to be very confident that they are making more than 15% per annum doing that, otherwise they are letting their shareholders down. The financial incentives for land banking are not clear.
I would be most interested to hear if the Minister can identify what land banking is really happening in this country, where developers or landowners are holding on to consented land that could be built on right now without impacting on local housing prices. I very much look forward to her reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for putting his name to the amendment and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for ably moving it. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their participation in this interesting debate, which has raised some key issues.
Amendment 217 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a new statutory code of practice for all acquiring authorities when exercising compulsory purchase powers for planning and development purposes. The statutory code of practice would be enforceable by a mechanism set out in regulations required to be published by the Government, and there would be penalties for non-compliance.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government understand the concerns behind the amendment. We recognise that compulsory purchase proposals can lead to periods of uncertainty and anxiety for those involved, whether that is prior to, during or after the making of a CPO. However, the Government consider the proposed code of practice to be unnecessary. First, government guidance, last updated in January this year, states that acquiring authorities should undertake early engagement with landowners and identify what measures can be taken to mitigate the impacts of their schemes. Where this is not done, CPOs are at risk of failing.
Secondly, when making and confirming CPOs, both acquiring and confirming authorities should be sure that the purposes for which the CPO is made justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. As we have already discussed, particular consideration should be given to the provisions of Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the convention.
In addition, acquiring authorities should consider the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 when making a CPO and have regard to the needs of meeting the aims of that Act. The Health and Safety Executive has also publicly stated that employers have a duty to protect the health not only of their staff but of other people—for example, stakeholders and those who they do business with or otherwise impact, such as landowners. This principle would apply to acquiring authorities undertaking CPOs.
Furthermore, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to, has published the professional standards expected of its members involved in the valuation of compulsory purchase compensation. These standards lay out the ethical conduct and competence expected of RICS members.
I will comment on a couple of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He raised some issues and some terrible examples of things that can go wrong. On recourse, if it is a local authority that is the acquiring agency, the appellant can appeal to the monitoring officer. Landowners can challenge a CPO in court and can make referrals to the Upper Tribunal.
The noble Lord asked that they be paid promptly, and I agree with him on that point. As regards ensuring the prompt payment of compensation, a person who is entitled to compulsory purchase compensation may request an advance payment of that compensation. If an advance payment is requested, the acquiring authority is obliged to make the payment once it has begun implementing the CPO: either 90% of the agreed total compensation sum or 90% of the acquiring authority’s estimate of the total compensation payable. I hope that is some reassurance for him. This amendment would add duplication and complexity to the CPO process, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives of making the process more efficient to deliver benefits in the public interest more quickly.
Amendment 219 seeks to ensure that there is an automatic compelling public interest case for the compulsory purchase of land where permission has not begun within an applicable period for developments of 100 houses or more. I reassure the House, as I stated when debating the topic of land banking last week, that I fully agree with the objective of improving the build-out rate of residential development. The Government are committed to making sure that planning permissions are translated into homes, and developers must do all they can to deliver.
However, I believe that the amendment would be disproportionate and might have a chilling effect on development, as developers and landowners might be unwilling to make planning applications if they risk losing their land if the planning permission is not implemented, for any reason. Instead, as I set out earlier this week, we published in May an important working paper on speeding up build-out, which sets out a more proportionate, effective and comprehensive approach. This includes better transparency of build-out rates; new powers for local authorities to decline to determine applications from developers who have built out slowly; a stronger emphasis on mixed-use tenures; and the exploration of a potential delayed-homes penalty. Of course, that would be a last resort, but it would be useful to have it in the toolbox.
I want to highlight in particular that the working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to acquire land through a power to conditionally confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this in the public interest. We are now analysing the responses to the working paper and we will set out our next steps in due course. However, I again emphasise that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the build-out of the housing development we all want to see. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Roborough
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 227H and address the proposition that Clauses 53 to 92 of Part 3 should not stand part of the Bill, as well as a number of other amendments, notably Amendments 334, 346DD and 346DE in my name, which are intended to provide an effective, simple and cost-effective way of addressing the issues that Part 3 professes to simplify.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I wish her a speedy recovery—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for their support to the clause stand part propositions. This is a broad church, and our reasons and solutions are likely to differ, and I look forward to their contributions. I am also grateful to the Minister for stepping in to help her colleagues with her deep Defra expertise, and for making time the other day to meet before this Committee sitting.
I have asked for the amendments to be grouped in this way to allow a debate on the limitations of Part 3 and on better ways of addressing the challenges it is seeking to tackle. I will endeavour not to repeat arguments that I have made previously, but a common thread of argument runs through all the amendments in this group, and it seems only reasonable that we should debate them together in this way.
At Second Reading I expressed deep scepticism about the approach to be taken to simplify environmental objections to planning processes in Part 3 of the Bill. I quoted environmental NGOs, rural lobbying groups and even development bodies that were united in their opposition to or concern about Part 3. I am most grateful to the Government for their amendments to strengthen environmental protections in this part. However, I am concerned that they are missing the point. The purpose of my amendments at this stage is to probe the necessity of such dramatic changes to environmental protection in the planning process. I would very much like to have a comprehensive answer from the Minister to the question of what exactly is wrong with the current environmental protections that cannot be addressed by tweaks to our current regime?
I do not wish to open up a complete Second Reading speech about everything that is wrong with Part 3 and why. I simply highlight that the effect of Part 3 is to create another process for dealing with environmental issues alongside existing processes. That will lead to confusion and muddle. The body tasked to implement this part is widely believed not to have the resources to do so effectively in a timely manner, and in fact often seems to be part of the problem. Existing protections for the environment through the planning process, such as the mitigation hierarchy and the use of private markets for biodiversity net gain, are functioning well and improving every day. The implementation of EDPs—environmental delivery plans—is likely to ride roughshod over the interests of farmers and land managers, be more costly than the current system, deliver uncertain outcomes and remove localism.
We know that up to 160,000 houses are being blocked by Natural England advice on nutrient neutrality. This House chose to defeat our amendments to what became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that would have removed this blockage. These regulations are not designed for or well suited to our country, and the sooner we make them fit for purpose, the better. Amendments 346DD and 346DE are a reformulation of the amendment we proposed to that Act. This means that those 160,000 houses could be unblocked by the Secretary of State from the commencement of this Bill, faster than any EDP can deliver. It would be simple and free.
Amendment 334 would require the JNCC to review the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and to publish a report on consolidating them. This would be with a view to the Government bringing forward legislation to replace them with domestic legislation that is fit for purpose in this country. This need not be a lengthy process and is a medium-term solution to the issues we have been left with in our planning system from adopting one-size-fits-all EU regulations. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the dynamic alignment with Europe that her Government appear to have adopted would pose problems for our legislating to protect our own environment.
We know that what appear to be poor decisions have been taken on a number of occasions: the £100 million bat tunnel for HS2 and the protection of the Ebbsfleet site as an SSSI. As we dig into these issues, we find that all too often it is questionable work that leads to these poor decisions, not the system itself. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising tabled Amendment 346DB, debated in an earlier group, which would remove protections for bat species that do not need them in our country. Had that been in effect, it would have meant no bat tunnel under HS2, as well as reducing the cost and increasing the speed of many if not all refurbishment and construction projects across our country. I know that my noble friend has taken on board the criticisms of some noble Lords and is working on a more nuanced amendment for Report.
I am not suggesting that these amendments are the only solutions to the planning issues being experienced in protecting the environment, and I know that they will not necessarily win everyone’s approval. I have also put my name to Amendments 242A, 185F and 185G in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, which provide a constructive alternative approach that could also offer a better solution than Part 3 of the Bill. I know that those will be debated later in Committee.
Amendments 302 and 303 may not fit particularly well in this group, but they are tidying amendments which would make it clear that, under the auspices of EDPs, only the direct actions of those EDPs to address those features allow those features to be disregarded. I am very grateful again to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her support on these amendments.
We on these Benches are trying to provide a constructive alternative to Part 3. These are, by their nature, probing amendments. We are not intending to destroy Part 3 but simply questioning whether it is the right answer and whether more direct and simple action within the existing system is not better. I hope I have made the case that judicious use of the scalpel, through these and other amendments, can revise current environmental protection without weakening it and immediately get Britain building, rather than relying on yet another team of government employees with an open-ended chequebook. I very much look forward to other contributions to this debate and the Minister’s response. We are trying to unblock the planning system and reduce cost and complexity. I will need to be convinced that Part 3 is necessary not to bring similar amendments back on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed all the clause stand part elements in this group, which essentially aim to delete Part 3. Unlike the noble Lord, we in the Green group think that Part 3 is not as bad as it was, but we would still be better off without it. That is the view of many NGOs, campaign groups and experts who have been in contact with me. Indeed, although there is a bit of competition at the moment, the mailbag I have had on this issue is one of the bigger mailbags that I have encountered.
My noble friend majored on this in her Second Reading speech and asked why the Government had it in for bats, newts and frogs. It appeared that perhaps some members of the Government were scared by some of them as small children and were bearing the scars. It is encouraging to see that we have seen some back-pedalling in their apparent attitude to harmless small mammals and amphibians, but none the less there are still grave concerns about Part 3. We have already debated this in a number of groups, and it is a pity that we are getting to this so late and in such an incoherent manner, given the importance in this hugely nature-depleted country of the issues covered by Part 3.
I will not run through all the amendments, but I want to highlight the response of the Office for Environmental Protection, which published an analysis of the Government’s amendments. It states that,
“even after the material amendments the government proposes, the Bill would, in some respects, lower environmental protections on the face of the law.”
I will raise four big issues and I hope that we might hear some reassurance from the Minister. We have had some reassurances in statements from the Government, but that is not the same as on the Floor of the House. The first issue is the safeguarding of the mitigation hierarchy, ensuring that the developer has taken reasonable steps to appropriately apply it, including by seeking to avoid harm whenever possible to our most important biodiversity assets. We are still nowhere near where we need to be on that.
Secondly, there is the overall improvement test so that conservation measures must significantly and measurably outweigh the negative impacts. We are talking about biodiversity net gain, but we are also talking about the conservation status of identified features, given the absence of European protected species legal tests. Thirdly, this is all about environmental delivery plans, and there needs to be an implementation schedule to provide the guarantees that the conservation measures will deliver the benefits, prior to the damage being done. Once valuable biodiversity is lost, it is gone, and promises to fix something up later, I am afraid, just do not crack it.
Finally, something I feel very passionate about is the irreplaceable habitats. I have stood at the foot of oak trees that were many hundreds of years old and thought about all the species and biodiversity that are dependent on them. There is no way of replacing that once it is lost and we have lost so much that we cannot afford to lose more. I am afraid that the Green position remains that we are nowhere near where we should be, and we are still heading in the wrong direction. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate; I can see many noble Lords have stayed late with the intention of delivering a forceful message, I am confident. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and am very impressed by the depth and timing of the Minister’s response. It was clearly a lonely place to be defending Part 3 today. The concerns were well aired around the Committee about its impact, as well as questions about exactly what the problem is. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, put it very well: where is the problem? The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I talked about surgical solutions to some of the issues that we consider to be the problems that are blocking planning.
Despite the impressive response from the Minister, I still have not heard a justification for why Part 3 is in the Bill. Clearly, I will not press these amendments now, but I would like the Committee to bear that in mind as we go through Part 3 and debate the amendments. I hear a commitment from the Minister to work with the Committee to improve Part 3, but I still question why it is there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Natural England or a person designated under section 86 of this Act, about the making of an EDP and they must comply with any such guidance.(5) Guidance issued under subsection (4) above may include—(a) where and how draft EPDs should be published for public consultation,(b) guidance on minimum development thresholds for an EDP,(c) the types of measures that may be included as conservation measures, and(d) the use of its compulsory purchase powers, with a particular view to ensuring that—(i) the powers are not used in a manner which would threaten the viability of an existing agricultural business,(ii) the use of the powers takes account of the need to protect domestic food security, and (iii) to ensure that the impacts of the use of such powers on important social and cultural traditions, such as those that exist around common land, are protected.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confirms that the Secretary of State has a power to issue guidance to Natural England or a designated person about the preparation of an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would clarify that the Secretary of State may issue statutory guidance to Natural England or any person preparing an EDP, with they must which comply. We have heard concerns during debates on Part 3 of the Bill about Natural England’s ability to manage EDPs. We also know that 160,000 houses are being held back by Natural England’s guidance on nutrient neutrality. This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has greater control over the process by which EDPs are made. This would give Ministers the tools they need to ensure that Part 3 is effective in delivering on their intentions.
Does the Minister agree that this discretionary power granted to Ministers would be helpful in a hypothetical circumstance where Natural England’s implementation of EDPs does not follow the Government’s intentions? I will be arguing in later groups, in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey, that Natural England should continue to report solely to the Secretary of State for Defra rather than to MHCLG as is planned in this Bill. I am deeply concerned that reporting to two separate departments is likely to lead to significant complications in management, direction and allocation of resources.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra are sensible. Amendment 270A would require Natural England to have regard to any local nature recovery strategies in preparing an EDP. The interaction between EDPs, the mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity net gain is complex for developers already, but the interaction between EDPs and other strategies for local nature recovery is also complex, especially where the conservation measures specified within an EDP interact with them. My noble friend is right that these should be taken into account by Natural England, and we are interested to hear whether the Government will accept this amendment.
Amendment 277A limits the number of EDPs that Natural England may make each year. This speaks to questions about Natural England’s suitability as the body for making EDPs. I know that several noble Lords have expressed their frustration with specific cases where Natural England has not got things right. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what assurances she has had from Natural England in respect of its plans to ensure that it has the appropriate staffing and skills in place to deliver its functions under Part 3 of the Bill efficiently and effectively. This part of the Bill is designed to unlock development, so any delays or mistakes that have to be resolved at Natural England will hinder the achievement of that overall objective.
The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Caithness are all sensible amendments that probe some of the crucial questions on EDPs. The reality is that we have still not got real clarity about how well EDPs will fit into the existing environmental protections regime. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has done some very good work on trying to understand, as the Minister described earlier, exactly how this new process for developers fits into the wider picture. I hope that the Minister can help clarify these issues further from the Dispatch Box today. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 231, moved by my noble friend Lord Roborough, and will also speak to the other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Currently, the Bill requires the EDP to set out the measures to be taken to address the identified impact on environmental features and to achieve overall improvement. However, no justification or explanation is required, and I believe that that is wrong.
Amendment 249 is needed to ensure that an EDP states that the scientific basis for the conservation measures is considered appropriate, as this will provide greater confidence in the ability of the EDP to contribute to an overall improvement and therefore improved outcomes for nature. Monitoring will also be key to achieving success, as required by Clause 57(7), so it is important that this and associated costs are set out in the EDP under Clause 55(6). In addition, this amendment seeks to link the EDP with local nature recovery strategies and other relevant policies, so that it is clear how it contributes to local nature, and to identify the time frame required, given that this would vary in accordance with the impact being addressed.
Amendment 274 requires Natural England to define at an early stage the proposed conservation measures and then seek expressions of interest from persons or organisations as to their suitability to deliver these. This is key, as it opens up the opportunity for private sector involvement and would also help NE to meet its obligation under Section 57(2). I pose the same question as I did earlier to the Minister: given how Natural England has treated BioCore, as I mentioned earlier, what confidence can she give the Committee that Natural England will treat the private sector in a proper and fair manner when it comes to EDPs? If it does not, it will only be doing EDPs itself, and it will become state-owned and a disaster.
I turn now to Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and myself. This amendment refers to the land use framework, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, when we were discussing Amendment 214. I am sorry that she is not in her place. This amendment is to ensure that the choice of land and the choice of land management practice to be used for an EDP are not directly contrary to the principles laid out in the coming land use framework. In the same way that some of us might balk at the idea of using first-class food-producing land for, say, solar panels, we might equally balk at such high-production land being set aside solely for biodiversity. I emphasise the word “solely”, because you can produce food and biodiversity from the best land if it is managed properly. I believe it would be sensible if this Bill pre-empted the production of the land use framework and made allowance for its appearance on the scene.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I cannot remember whether it was in the previous debate or the one before that, but I clarified that a vehicle for challenge is available. It is there. I cannot remember if it was mentioned in the previous debate or the one before that.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply to this group. If Ministers choose to press ahead with Part 3 of the Bill, developers, local authorities and other interested parties need clarity on how EDPs will work in practice.
We are going to return to the question of private sector involvement in EDPs and the duration and timing of EDPs in later groups. I would just say that, on the guidance point, it is far from reassuring if that guidance is coming from the MHCLG on the environmental impact of these EDPs. It just seems completely wrong, and we will return to that later. In the meantime, I am most grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 234, I will also speak to Amendments 235 and 236, in reverse order. Clause 54(7) relates to the start and end dates of an EDP. To ensure meaningful outcomes, the EDP timeframe should not be specified in legislation as it will clearly depend on the nature of the environmental impact and the conservation measures required.
I am sure we all agree that restoring and recreating some habitats can take considerable time to achieve full functionality. Given climate change and other environmental impacts, EDP measures will require adaptive management, hence the need for review and ongoing monitoring. What happens at the end of 10 years? How do we retain the overall improvement? How do we know that a developer will not change the new site? How do we know that a farmer will not return the site to food production in the wrong way? These are hugely important questions in order to fulfil an EDP and I do not believe it should be limited to 10 years.
Given that it is going to take a long time, I need now to look at the start date, because it is vital that, the moment planning permission is granted and thus the loss of a protected site or species is imminent, Natural England should get on with it. According to Clause 58, there is a lot of process and consultation to be carried out, and so not a moment is to be lost. We must bear in mind that the Government are legally committed to halting the decline in our biodiversity by 2030. The concern of the start date moved my noble friend Lord Cameron to poetry. He sends his apologies to Andrew Marvell, as he penned these words:
“Had we but world enough and time,
Delay my Lords would be no crime.
But at my back I always hear
Time’s winged chariot hurrying near.
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity
Where nature bids us all good-bye”.
We need to fire a starting gun to ensure that Natural England gets on with it, hence the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses concerns that EDPs, as drafted in this Bill and despite the welcome improvements offered by the Government, create considerable unease over their effectiveness and the timeliness with which they will be developed to address the harm being done elsewhere.
Amendment 235A in my name recognises that 10 years is a blink of an eye in environmental terms. It might take only days to destroy a natural environment, but it takes decades to restore it and centuries to return to a more natural state. In our environment, the fastest-maturing native trees take over 30 years to mature and the slowest take over a century. Likewise, it can take decades to restore a blanket bog or peatland.
My Amendment 235B suggests 30 years as the appropriate timeframe for an EDP. The advantage of 30 years, as opposed to 10, is simply that this is a proxy for our own generational timing; that in itself is appealing, but this is also consistent with biodiversity net gain units. I fail to understand why 10 years has been regarded as appropriate for EDPs, and I look forward to the Minister explaining why this should be so. In that regard, I prefer this to Amendment 236 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. However, his Amendment 234 is a sensible measure that would ensure there is a coincidence in the timing of the EDP and the commencement of the development.
One of the concerns expressed by developers is the reputational risk they carry if they are undertaking a development which has included the NRL as its environmental contribution, but there is no evidence of the EDP associated with that development occurring. I am sure the Minister can understand this concern and will be keen to ensure that developers do not carry that reputational risk to the actions or lack of action by Natural England.
I hope the Minister can reassure us in her reply to this short debate that these concerns are being addressed. However, there is a strong case that these issues should be dealt with in the Bill, rather than relying on guidance that can change over time. The obligations around timeliness and effectiveness of EDPs are simply too loose in the Bill.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will speak to his Amendment 265, which has a notable similarity to Amendment 237 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. If the noble Lord were here, I am sure he would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for co-signing the amendment, as I did.
Amendment 265 deals with one of the fundamental concerns that we have with EDPs: the issue of timing. As it currently stands, if you have to engage with the habitats regulations or biodiversity net gain, remedial measures have to take effect before the developments are undertaken. In contrast, that is not the case for the EDPs. There is the fundamental question: what happens if the desired mitigation measures, as outlined in EDPs, do not happen? They might not happen for a number of reasons; for example, because some of the money may not come in from the developers—they have the right to appeal, as we have heard in earlier debates—or because not enough developers sign up for an EDP and therefore not all the measures can be delivered. In that case, you do not get enough of a quantitative biodiversity gain to deliver the mitigation measures for what may have already taken place in a site that has already been damaged.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, does two things. First, it calls for an implementation schedule for an EDP, and I believe that the Minister, in summing up, will say whether government Amendment 245A partly addresses that by promising an implementation schedule. However, I have not seen anything from the government amendments that deals with the more fundamental issue that the remedial measures for an EDP do not come until after the damage has been done. Secondly, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, says that, if Natural England believes that there will be irreversible damage, those measures have to be undertaken before the damage is caused. That is the issue on which we are seeking some reassurances from the Minister this morning, and if we do not get them, I am sure that we will return to it on Report.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to my amendments, I will talk to them briefly. First, I welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, which improve Part 3 processes in response to the pressures in the other place on the Bill and the OEP verdict of significant environmental regression.
My Amendment 240A is a bit nerdy at this time of night but noble Lords should pay attention because there will be an examination at the end. It replaces “may” with “must”, in that
“environmental features identified in an EDP must”—
not may—
“be either a protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species”.
I think the clause as drafted could result in unintended consequences. For example, Natural England might identify an assemblage of species rather than a single species as the environmental feature covered by the EDP, such as the entire bat assemblage of a particular area—I use the word “bat” advisedly.
If this were done, the overall improvement in that feature could be said to occur if, say, half the species in that assemblage were expected to benefit, even if one or two of the rarest and most important species in the assemblage were to be driven to local extinction. It would risk this trade-off within a sort of bulk buy of species, and would definitely risk that species that are more difficult to make alternative provision for would be sacrificed in exchange for benefits being delivered to the easier species. My amendment would require EDPs to address species and features individually, not as part of an EDP bulk purchase.
Amendment 251A in my name is a separate amendment, which raises an issue that I do not think has been raised elsewhere. It seeks to establish what happens with the ongoing protection of habitats that are created by way of compensation under an EDP. It cannot be right that compensation habitats are created under an EDP to replace species and habitat features that currently have the highest level of protection when the habitat that is there to compensate for them has no level of protection whatever. That cannot be the right outcome but, from the way I read the Bill, after the EDP’s end date, there is no clarity about their conservation status.
In the past, there have been pretty notorious examples of compensation habitat subsequently being trashed, often by successive development, neglect or land-use change. When the extension of the M4 across the Gwent Levels was being proposed, we had the distressing consequence that the habitat that was created to compensate for the road extension was promptly put back up for grabs when the next road extension took place. That was fought off, mercifully, but the further road extension was going to go through the very compensated habitat that was put in place for the first road extension.
I was involved in the creation of the new village of Cambourne, just outside Cambridge, which had compensatory habitat designed into the development. The developers worked very successfully with Natural England and the local wildlife trust. I declare an interest as a former president of that wildlife trust. The habitat that was created was very valuable for wildlife and it offset the development impacts. It is now much loved by residents but, lo and behold, 20 years later, East West Rail is going right through one of the major wildlife sites that was created. That cannot be right: we cannot be providing compensation for it then to be up for grabs for any use.
So my Amendment 251A seeks protection in perpetuity. I cannot think of any other length of time with any logic to it, because the reality is that the sites being destroyed or damaged have protection in perpetuity, so the sites that are created in compensation for them should have protection in perpetuity.
I thank the Minister for taking an interest in this at her drop-in session last week, when I think I heard her give an undertaking to look seriously into what needed to happen on this as yet unaddressed issue.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 250 is an important clarifying measure that would ensure that, when Natural England seeks to impose planning conditions as part of an EDP, they must be directly related to developments that fall within the scope of that EDP. This addresses an important point of legal and procedural clarity. Without such a safeguard, there is a risk that conditions could be sought or imposed on developments beyond the defined remit of the EDP, which could lead to regulatory uncertainty and potential challenge.
By linking conditions strictly to developments within the EDP’s scope, this amendment would protect against regulatory overreach and maintain the principle of proportionality, ensuring that developers are subject only to conditions that are relevant, necessary and reasonable. This is not about restricting environmental protections but about ensuring that they are applied fairly and transparently, thereby supporting the credibility of the planning system and maintaining public trust.
Briefly, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 238 to 240 would sharpen the focus of EDPs by requiring that all relevant environmental features are identified and that the nature of any direct impact is properly addressed. This is not simply a drafting improvement; it is about ensuring the robustness and accountability of the system that we are creating.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her Amendments 240A and 251A. These would be important improvements in the Bill.
This short debate has highlighted that further tightening and improvement is still needed in this clause, despite the Government’s welcome amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond encouragingly.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will introduce Amendment 266, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, is somewhat surprisingly in this grouping. It seeks to ensure that the EDP delivers a significant improvement in the ecology of a habitat, a species or an ecosystem.
I think that the Minister will say, with some justification, that government Amendment 247A in this group addresses this by making it clear that Natural England can do this EDP only if it can contribute to a significant environmental improvement. We welcome that, but I want to press the Minister a bit further on how Natural England will make the judgment that it will deliver a significant environmental improvement. How will it ensure that the information it uses is robust? The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has been concerned in debates that I have heard her speak in about whether the modelling that it uses will be sufficient. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned earlier, nature does not always behave as modelling might suggest. How will Natural England make that judgment?
If the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was here, I am sure he would thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Whitty, for supporting this amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Lord Roborough ExcerptsMonday 1st September 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (1 Sep 2025)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, to pick up the point of the noble Lord, I remember my uncle getting pylons next to his house and how the compensation saved the day for his small business.
My own view is that it is good to have permitted development rights for minor changes, particularly if energy providers are calling for them. It makes sense to use this Bill to allow permitted development. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that it was hugely important, and I think it is hugely important to speed things up. As we have already heard, it is a surprise that some of these things require planning permission, and there is a lot of potluck as to whether you can get planning permission quickly in any particular area.
I just believe that we need to get things moving so I am not sure why the changes need to be in a regulation, as proposed in Amendment 77 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Can the Government not work out what can be easily excluded from planning control and put it in the Bill? That is how we used to do things in the Bills I remember presiding over in the 20th century when I was a civil servant. Is there anything that we can do to get rid of these things, rather than wait for further regulations and consultations, if it is straightforward?
I agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey that we should be careful not to allow multiple wind turbines through a back door. Clearly, the detail of this needs to be looked at; it has to be genuinely smallish things. I am less sure about permitted development rights for floating solar simply because I know so little about it; if we were to proceed with that, it should be in regulations. I am always asking the Minister how we can speed this process up. Permitted development rights here, and perhaps elsewhere in the Bill, can play a part.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to designate certain electricity network upgrade works as permitted developments within 12 months of the passing of this Act. I refer the Committee to my register of interests, including as a developer of solar and wind energy generation infrastructure.
The amendment is detailed and specific, covering a range of necessary and often routine upgrades to our distribution network. These upgrades are not exceptional; rather, they are part and parcel of the essential modernisation of our grid. As demand for electricity grows, driven by electric vehicles, heat pumps, an increasing shift to electrified systems and the construction of new data centres, so, too, does the need for a distribution network that can meet that demand safely and efficiently.
The concerns raised by the noble Earl in bringing forward this amendment have merit. Local electricity distribution is hampered by regulatory delays, planning burdens and procedural hurdles, which can slow down or increase the cost of what are in many cases necessary infrastructure improvements. We understand the motivation to streamline these processes and provide industry with greater certainty. However, there are important questions around local engagement, visual impact and environmental considerations, which would need to be worked through. Permitted development rights by their very nature bypass certain planning safeguards, and we must take care not to undermine public confidence in the system by extending them too broadly or too quickly. I ask the Minister whether there are other ways of simplifying the decision-making on such upgrades.
Amendment 94E in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend permitted development rights to include the installation of floating solar panels on reservoirs. At a time when we are seeking every opportunity to expand renewable energy without placing additional pressure on land, utilising existing bodies of water in this way may present a pragmatic and low-impact solution. My noble friend makes an important and timely point about the potential of underused spaces to contribute to our energy goals. I hope that the Government will look closely at how permitted development rights can help facilitate the responsible deployment of floating solar technology.
In a similar vein, Amendment 185B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas seeks to expand permitted development rights for small-scale onshore wind turbines up to a height of 30 metres. This, too, is a proposal worthy of consideration. Enabling more local generation of renewable energy, particularly where there is community support, can play a valuable role in decarbonising the grid and improving energy security.
I look to the Minister to provide clarity on the Government’s current thinking in this area and to address the important questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lucas. Specifically, I hope that he can reassure the Committee that the Government recognise the need for timely electricity network upgrades and are actively considering how the planning framework can support that aim while balancing the interests of local communities and the environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising this important issue through Amendment 77. The Government fully recognise the need to accelerate electricity network upgrades to support the transition to net zero. We agree with the intent behind this amendment and with many of the specific proposals that it contains. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill at this time. The amendment proposes exemptions from the consent process under the Electricity Act 1989. These are technical and regulatory matters that are generally best addressed through secondary legislation, following proper consultation.
The Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow. It includes proposals that closely reflect those in this amendment and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. The Government must undertake a thorough evaluation of consultation responses to understand any stakeholder concerns or unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, whether through primary or secondary legislation, before that work has been done would pre-empt the consultation process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowners’ rights. We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete, but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for raising the important issue in Amendment 94E. The Government are committed to achieving clean power by 2030. We will need to see significant increases in the development of all types of solar, whether sited on land, rooftops or water, to achieve this mission. The Government are therefore supportive of floating solar and consider it a technology ripe for development, especially considering the increased efficiency of solar panels on water and the wider benefits of preventing algal blooms and reducing climate-related evaporation. An effective planning system is pivotal to delivering our clean power mission. The system must work in a way that supports both new infrastructures, such as floating solar, and more established technologies.
The noble Baroness may have seen that the Government published their first ever solar road map on 30 June; it commits to more than 72 ambitious actions across several areas, including planning. The road map includes a section on the opportunities of floating solar and identifies the needs both to provide clarity on the planning requirements for what is a relatively new technology in the UK and to ensure that these measures are proportionate. In the solar road map, the Government made a clear commitment to explore how planning levers could further support floating solar projects. This work will be overseen by a new government and industry solar council, which is being set up to assist in driving forward and monitoring progress on solar road map actions. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill. I believe that it is only right that we conduct further work to ensure a strong evidence base on potential proposals and ensure that we have considered the breadth of benefits and impacts. I hope that the noble Baroness is content with this response; I kindly ask her not to press her amendment.
Amendment 185B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to classify some small-scale wind turbines as permitted development, provided certain conditions are met. I am grateful to the noble Lord for this amendment. He may have seen that the Government published their first ever dedicated onshore wind strategy on 4 July; it commits to more than 40 ambitious actions across several areas, including planning. One of the opportunities identified in the strategy regards small-scale deployment. The Government recognise the importance that small-scale onshore wind developments could play in achieving our wider decarbonisation goals and want to consider changes to the planning system to better support it—[Interruption.]
Lord Roborough
“(4) Any fees received by the Scottish Ministers under paragraph (2)(d) may only be used to fund—(a) consumer benefits packages, or(b) local planning authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that any fees paid to Scottish Ministers are allocated to either community benefits packages or to support local authority planning departments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 80 I will also speak to Amendments 81 and 82, which are in my name, as well as Amendments 85A, 88B and 88C in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe.
The amendments in my name deal specifically with consent and the exercise of planning powers in Scotland under the provisions of this Bill. I begin with Amendment 80, which seeks to ensure that any fees collected by Scottish Ministers for purposes related to planning are hypothecated—that is, ring-fenced—for either community benefit packages or the direct support of local authority planning departments.
There is a simple but important principle at the heart of this amendment—that money raised locally, ostensibly for planning purposes, should be used locally for planning purposes. It is about transparency, accountability and trust in public institutions. If the Scottish Government are to charge fees for planning processes, it is only right that those funds are seen to benefit either the communities directly affected by a development or the planning departments tasked with delivering and managing this complex work.
This is not a theoretical concern. As noble Lords will be aware, Scottish local authorities are chronically underfunded by the SNP-run Scottish Government. Planning departments in particular have suffered disproportionately. According to recent studies, planning is now the most reduced and lowest-funded local authority service area in Scotland. That is simply not sustainable, and it is certainly not compatible with any Government’s stated ambitions around housing delivery, infrastructure development or environmental management. Amendment 80 is, therefore, not just a matter of good governance but a matter of necessity. Without proper funding, planning departments cannot attract the right skills, cannot deliver timely decisions and cannot properly engage with local authorities.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments and to those of my noble friend Lord Goodman. I am afraid that the track record in Scotland does not inspire confidence in the planning process and the application of those fees, but obviously I will withdraw my amendment today. I will just underline, though, that Amendment 80 is about fairness and accountability: the public must be able to trust that money taken for a specific purpose guarantees that that purpose is delivered. That is what we are trying to achieve with this amendment.
Amendments 81 and 82 are about clarity, co-ordination and respecting local voices. By clarifying jurisdictional processes and ensuring better co-ordination between UK and Scottish systems, we can reduce confusion, avoid unnecessary delay and make sure that communities are not cut out of the conversation.
We share the Government’s aim of speeding up the planning process and the delivery of projects and getting the balance right. These are constructive amendments. I hope the Minister will agree that proper resourcing, clear governance and meaningful local engagement are not obstacles to infrastructure but are essential to getting it right. As I mentioned earlier, we are fully supportive of my noble friend Lord Goodman’s amendments and we would very much like to see the Government make progress with implementing them. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 80.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee greatly with this amendment. It seeks to ensure that, when electricity storage systems are planned, it is with the full knowledge and consent of the local fire authority, so that fire and public safety risks are understood and mitigations are put in. Surprisingly, there is no duty for promoters of these schemes to consult the local fire authority, so my amendment would correct that omission.
As the grid is reinforced, the ability to stabilise and isolate the electricity supply from surges and shocks is essential, and a number of short-term and long-term technologies exist to smooth the path of electricity from the generator to the consumer. The people of the Iberian peninsula will attest to the consequences of failing to have network stabilisation in place, especially when dashing for renewables. Some of these smoothing technologies contain highly flammable materials such as lithium. Hydrogen is another but, given the time constraints today, I will focus on the lithium side for the purposes of proving the point.
Not a day goes by without a fire being caused by a lithium battery. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is promoting a Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill; this does not seek to trespass on that, but it demonstrates that fires caused by batteries are a thing. The issue is clear: when a lithium battery, for example, catches fire, huge quantities of water are required to extinguish it. Your Lordships will recall the car-based conflagration at Luton Airport, where the multi-storey car park was totally consumed. Whether or not that fire was started by an electric vehicle, once it took hold the batteries in those cars quickly made the fire unfightable for longer—more so than had petrol or diesel alone been involved.
The dangers are further illustrated by the number of fires in bin lorries. Even a small computer battery can consume an entire refuse freighter. Airline passengers are now routinely warned about the dangers of phone batteries catching fire and imperilling the whole aircraft in an inextinguishable blaze. Imagine the scale of the flames if an entire grid-scale battery storage facility caught alight.
This issue needs to be taken seriously, and the Bill as drafted fails to do so. It just glosses over the consequences of failures in long-term and short-term energy storage, including large-scale battery systems—especially those storing huge electrical capacity and containing flammables. You do not need to be a bright spark to realise that an electrical spark can spell danger.
Many of the proposed LDES and BESS schemes are in the countryside, where the existence of fire hydrants is limited. Rivers and ponds may be far away across the fields or along narrow lanes. Water carriers may be miles away and, during a dry period, deep-seated and hard-to-fight fires can spawn secondary blazes that can run wild across a whole area. In towns, the proximity of businesses, schools, homes and buildings adds a further dimension of public safety to the mix. In both cases, consideration of the leakage of lithium, in particular to the underlying aquifer, from the firefighters’ runoff water is essential.
Of course, there are other risks: the availability of water carriers, of appliances and of specialist equipment in areas which may be staffed by part-time retained firefighters are just a few. This amendment would therefore enforce a duty for an applicant for an energy storage facility and the local fire authority to fully assess the risks, including fire and public safety, and to pay a reasonable fee to do so. If the Government resist this stipulation, we risk damage from uncontrollable fires to people, property, businesses and the environment at significant cost to the wider taxpayer and local government—costs which should be borne by the developer.
I have had representations from councils that the costs of providing water storage lagoons, additional appliances and staffing should be fully borne by the applicant, not the taxpayer. I have not gone that far with this amendment, but I wonder whether the Minister would meet me to explore this if other noble Lords feel that it is a good idea, in which case I would consider bolstering this proposal on Report. For the moment, if we just take the issue of fire safety for these high-value, high-consequence electricity storage systems, we would be doing not just this House but society a favour. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 82B in my name would require the Government to evaluate and report on how this legislation affects the UK’s capacity for long-duration electricity storage. Clause 25 outlines the introduction of a scheme intended to stimulate investment in long-duration electricity storage. Yet, as with any initiative of this scale, we must pair aspiration with scrutiny. It is one thing to launch a scheme, but quite another to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
We hear regularly that storage will solve the challenge of intermittent renewables. It is a reassuring narrative that excess wind and solar can simply be stored away, ready for when needed, but that message risks masking the scale of the task ahead. To get the facts straight, the UK’s average electricity consumption is around 780 gigawatt hours per day. Current grid-scale battery storage stands at roughly 12 gigawatt hours, enough to meet national demand for just 30 minutes. On a global scale, the picture is not much better. All the batteries in the world combined could keep the UK powered for less than a day.
Storage is not futile. However, we must acknowledge that we are starting from a very low base. We must also ensure that any storage added to our energy infrastructure does not undermine grid stability and that it is available to release power in the timeframe needed. This could be seconds for battery through to hours for pump storage. My amendment seeks to ensure transparency. We need regular reporting to Parliament on whether the measures we are introducing are expanding our storage capacity at the pace required.
Moreover, as we look to scale up these technologies, safety must be a central concern. My noble friend Lord Fuller rightly highlights the risks associated with high-capacity storage, particularly lithium-based battery systems. These systems often contain highly flammable materials and, when they fail, the consequences can be catastrophic. Fires involving lithium-ion batteries are notoriously difficult to control and demand vast quantities of water to extinguish. In rural areas, where many of these installations are proposed, access to that water is limited. Climate change and restrictions on the preventive burning of fuel load in wild environments are leading to greater wildfire incidence and severity. In urban settings, proximity to homes, schools and critical infrastructure raises additional risks. We must ensure that local fire services are not only consulted but properly resourced to assess and manage these risks. Any developer seeking to install large-scale storage must be required to engage with emergency services and contribute fairly to risk assessments and preparedness.
We must also consider the environmental impacts. In the event of a fire, runoff containing hazardous materials could seep into groundwater or flow into rivers. This is not just a fire safety issue; it is a matter of public health and environmental protection. We cannot afford to be complacent. As our electricity system becomes more complex and decentralised, so too do the risks. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that those risks are identified, assessed and addressed. Long-duration energy storage may be a useful addition to our energy mix. However, we cannot rely on this technology alone to support our renewable future.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond briefly to this group of amendments on long-duration energy storage. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for bringing forward Amendment 82A. These are important topics. While long-duration energy storage facilities are essential to the energy transition and have a very high safety record, they are still an emerging technology and it is right that we seek to balance planning and safety regulations with the need to build these facilities. To be clear, a number of the fires that he referred to were from individual batteries and not big long-duration energy storage facilities. As far as I am aware, there have been only two such fires in the UK. These big long-duration energy storage facilities have a very strong safety record.
However, it is true that UK fire and rescue services have described BESS and long-duration energy storage facilities as an emerging risk, noting that when these fires occur, they can last for hours or days and produce toxic emissions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment, as it rightly highlights the critical importance of the safety of long-duration energy storage as we accelerate towards our energy transition.
The amendment would establish a specific statutory duty requiring operators of long-duration energy storage systems to consult local fire authorities prior to installation, with the authority empowered to assess fire risks and levy a reasonable fee for doing so. On the face of it, I recognise the merits of such an approach. These can pose material risks and it is important that the fire brigade is involved and included in some of these planning decisions. It is also important that our fire services are aware of and prepared for particular hazards and have clear plans to deal with them should anything untoward happen. That being said, there are questions as to whether a statutory provision of this kind is the right or appropriate mechanism at this stage. A number of regulatory avenues already apply, including planning law, the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, and general fire safety legislation. The Government have also indicated their intention to update planning and permitting frameworks, considering the rapid growth of battery storage technologies. It is absolutely right that they do so.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 86 in this group on bill discount schemes and community benefits. It sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major infrastructure schemes. The amendment proposes a new clause that would establish a statutory scheme to provide community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects, ensuring that those who host the infrastructure necessary for our clean energy transition are directly recognised and rewarded.
Let me begin by acknowledging and welcoming what the Government have already done in this space. The provisions now in the Bill for compensation for households living near transmission lines represent, without question, an important step forward. Households living day in, day out under new pylons or beside substations reasonably expect that there should be some benefit for them and their local communities. I welcome the fact that the Government have done that. I also take on board my noble friend’s point that this stuff is also good for all in our communities and our future.
I welcome the position that the Government have taken in the Bill but, as part of this broader group, it is important that we discuss some areas of how the Government have designed their own compensation; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, clearly mentioned, there is the point about generation not being included, as well as the fact that a fixed 500-metre distance was used in the DESNZ consultation. There are strange situations in which you could get compensation and not have visible sight of pylons, and there are other situations where you could have visible sight of pylons and not receive compensation. All of that needs a bit of working through; I welcome the other amendments in this group that are trying to do that. We should circle back to this on Report, but the important thing is that there is a compensation scheme. We on these Benches welcome that.
My amendment wants to go a bit further; it is additional to what the Government are doing. Although individual compensation is welcome, it has more limited scope and is of more limited benefit than pooling money together and using it to provide community benefits. I fundamentally believe that that is a better way of bringing real transition and change to the lives of the people who are impacted by this stuff.
Crucially, my amendment seeks to tie the benefit directly to the scale of the project, amounting to 5% of annual revenue. This is important because it requires not one or two pieces of infrastructure but lots of the stuff that we will have. As I said at the beginning, in energy terms, this is as big as the Industrial Revolution. Our communities will carry this weight; they should be able to be transformed by, and to get benefits from, it. I believe that pooling those benefits is a better way of helping our communities.
For example, I know that, over the summer, the Labour Party had a real concern about what happens to our coastal communities, which are some of our country’s poorest and most deprived communities. In the GB energy Act, we have community energy. It struck me that we could be doing a lot more if we used this type of money to help build local windmills and provide energy to these people living in poverty; that could be a really good scheme. It is important that this is about not the Government doing things to people but them doing things with people—that is, taking people with them on this journey and allowing them to be included in it, to benefit directly from it and to see it. I want people to go down the pub and say not, “Green energy is going to make my bill more expensive”, but, “We’ve got a local windmill or solar farm and we’re benefiting from it. We’re included in it. We participate and we get something back from it”. That is a very different conversation from the conversations that are happening now.
I recognise that my amendment is not fully workable; there are areas that obviously need reform and change. What I am trying to do is make a point. I am asking the Government to go further and go beyond what they have done already. In this country, there is a lot of conversation about and resentment of the Norwegian sovereign fund. When Norway started developing its oil and gas wells, it had the foresight to create that sovereign wealth fund; it has benefited from it. We did not do that in this country, and we have blown through most of the North Sea oil and gas. We do not have those long-term benefits.
As we start this new energy revolution, there is an opportunity here to make a system that compensates our communities and gets benefits flowing to our communities—indeed, to our whole society—from this new form of energy and transition. We can use that to bring people in and take them with us on this journey in order to make sure that this is about not one Government or one party but all of us working together for our communities, our future and the future of our children. I accept that there is a lot more to do but lots of other countries are doing this stuff, including Denmark, Germany and France, which has been mentioned. I encourage the Government to look at some of the schemes that other countries have, to look at what works and what does not, and to look at this again.
Turning briefly to the other amendments, I fully recognise the purpose of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. She said that this is time limited, and I also note that there are over 20,000 pylons. I am interested to know whether the Government could do an assessment on what the cost of that would be; I suspect that it would be quite big and could well be prohibitive. I do not know the answer to that, but it is a question that needs asking and it is good that it is being asked.
I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is in his place, but we do not support fracking. It is not appropriate and will not solve our energy problems; it will cause pollution to our groundwater systems as well as earthquakes. It was his own party that decided that fracking was not the answer and, as far as I am aware, the Conservatives have not changed their policy on that part of the energy transition. That is certainly one amendment—unless he is working for Reform, which I doubt—that I cannot see the point in adding to the Bill.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 83, which seeks to introduce a bill discount scheme for eligible households living near major energy infrastructure. This amendment seeks to ensure that those most directly impacted by the presence of new energy developments, especially large-scale infrastructure, receive a tangible, meaningful benefit—namely, a £1,000 annual discount on their electricity bill for 10 years. In contrast to Amendment 86, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which appears to direct funding to local authorities rather than local consumers, we want to see individuals benefiting directly, not local government.
This proposal stems from a clear and pragmatic principle: if the Government are to meet their national energy and net-zero targets through new infrastructure, they must take the public with them. That includes recognising that hosting such infrastructure in their area has consequences for local communities, whether because of the visual impact or disruption from construction. It is disappointing that the current Government have chosen to step back from the community benefit scheme proposed by our previous Conservative Government. In doing so, they have shown not only a lack of ambition but a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact that these developments can have on communities.
Indeed, in a 2023 paper published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, it was recommended that
“an electricity bill discount for properties located closest to transmission network infrastructure … could offer up to £10,000 per property (£1,000 per year, ~£80 per month, over 10 years)”.
The rationale was simple: communities should be compensated for their proximity to infrastructure that serves the national interest. In achieving this compensation, there is likely to be greater community consent, limiting the length of time for the planning decision to be taken and the cost associated with it. Yet despite this recommendation, the Government have failed to follow through with a credible or generous offer. Amendment 83 seeks to correct that failure.
Amendment 84, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, would provide for the creation of community benefit schemes linked to onshore wind turbines. The amendment again recognises that, while additional energy infrastructure is essential, it is not always welcome, and that community consent is far more likely to be secured when there is tangible benefit for those living nearby. My noble friend’s amendment acknowledges that local communities must be partners in our energy transition, not passive recipients of top-down decisions. It would be helpful to understand the Government’s position on why onshore wind projects—and other energy infrastructure projects, for that matter—are not currently in scope of formalised benefit schemes and whether that could or should be changed.
Similarly, Amendment 94, also from my noble friend Lord Lilley, proposes that individuals should be entitled to financial benefits from shale gas companies. While shale gas remains a contentious issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, the underlying concern remains valid: communities affected by energy extraction and production should not be left behind. I also point out that fracking was pretty much invented in, and is commonly used throughout, the North Sea; it is simply the shale gas issue that we are addressing here.
I also support the sentiment of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These important amendments seek to extend benefit schemes to energy generation infrastructure and network transmission infrastructure and ensure that such schemes are not merely optional but required. They mirror the spirit of the amendment in my name by embedding fairness into our energy transition and making community benefit a standard, not an exception.
What links all speakers and amendments in this group is a shared concern for the people and places that bear the burden of our national energy ambitions. From onshore wind to transmission lines, from shale gas to solar farms, these projects do not exist in a vacuum; they are local and in real communities. These amendments attempt, in different ways, to ensure that the impact is matched by investment and that no community feels exploited in the name of national progress.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is uncosted, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, and concerns a retrospective scheme. The noble Baroness used the word “fairness”, and I ask: fair to whom? This provision, if implemented, would fall on bill payers and the infrastructure providers that had not anticipated these costs when they developed the infrastructure. I very much remain to be persuaded on the necessity for this amendment.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and urge her to provide clarity and assurance on the Government’s approach to community benefits. The concerns raised by this group of amendments go to the heart of fairness, consent and the long-term credibility of our energy strategy.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much approve of what the Government are doing in this clause. I think they should go a bit further. I want to illustrate this in the context of the challenges faced by southern broadleaved woodlands, which existed for many centuries as places of industry. People made things there; a lot of products came out of it. The whole biodiversity of that ecosystem comes out of a continuous pattern of use. It is interesting to see, for instance with NEP, how little biodiversity is left in the woodland when the woodland ceases to be of value. All the biodiversity there, which is considerable, has moved outside. Our woodland biodiversity is important.
The Government should be organising themselves, and the Forestry Commission, so that we can see a restoration of a commercial purpose to the southern broadleaved woodlands, particularly in England. We cannot at the moment rely on forestry. All the species that we used to grow in profusion have no big current use. Our neighbouring forest in Eastbourne was planted to beech 100 years ago. When they are felling it now, 100 year-old trees are going to firewood. There is no market now for really high-quality beech.
In the small wood that I own, oak is the main crop. We have acute oak decline coming in now. You are asked to wait 100 years for oak. If it is all going to rot away before then, there is no outlet. We really need a system that can take general wood output—branches, brash, thinnings, uneconomic trees—and turn it into something useful. The outlet available at the moment is energy.
The Forestry Commission is hugely important in this as it has a breadth of organisation and understanding, whereas the ownership of woodland tends to be extremely fragmented in the south. It can bring a lot in motivating, organising, inspiring and controlling when it comes to looking after biodiversity principles.
I am very pleased to see the direction in which the Government are moving here. My understanding is that this clause is written in a way that allows the Forestry Commission to work with partners in achieving its objectives; it does not have to do everything itself. However, I urge the Government to make one change to this: not just to look at renewable power but to look at renewable feedstocks for industry.
If we are to replace oil as the feedstock for our chemical industry, we need to go after every available source of concentrated carbon, and woods produce quite a lot of that. In looking at the powers that Forestry Commission has under the Bill—there are already young British companies using wood products to produce jet fuel and similar things—we need to add that extra aspect: not just renewable energy, but renewable feedstocks for industry.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to the vital role of our nation’s forests in delivering both environmental and societal benefits. As I begin, I refer the Committee to my registered interests, in particular as a forest owner and as a developer of new forestry and woodlands.
Turning first to Amendment 87, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I recognise its thoughtful intent. It seeks to ensure that public forestry resources are not disproportionately used to supply large-scale biomass operations. We are sympathetic to the amendment’s aims and to many of the comments made in this short debate. The responsible management of public woodland must prioritise environmental protection and long-term sustainability, but the picture is complex. Biomass plays a role in our renewable energy mix, and there may be cases, such as thinning or disease control, where repurposing woodland material is practical and sustainable.
This is ultimately a question of balance. I ask the Minister to outline how existing safeguards ensure that public forestry will not be placed under undue pressure from commercial biomass demand. I also note, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out, that the overwhelming use of felled broadleaves is currently for home heating. Without the wood-burning market, mature forestry economics are undermined in these situations. It would be a shame to lose that incentive for managing our native broadleaf plantations and natural woodland.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Lord Roborough ExcerptsMonday 1st September 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (1 Sep 2025)
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, Amendment 92 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, Amendment 94A in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Amendment 94B in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These amendments focus on a matter of strategic and national importance: the protection of prime agricultural land in the face of increasing pressure from non-agricultural development, particularly the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure. The arguments have been well made already in this short debate, so I can be brief.
In bringing these amendments, my noble friends rightly highlight the wider context in which we debate this issue. The agricultural sector has been under immense pressure from market volatility, environmental challenges and, regrettably, punitive tax measures such as the family farms tax raid. Against that backdrop, it is more important than ever that we protect our best and most versatile land, not just for farmers but for the long-term food security of our nation. The Government must support an approach that balances the need to scale up renewable energy with the critical need to maintain our ability to feed ourselves.
These amendments make a strong case for preventing the unnecessary loss of high-quality agricultural land. As I and other noble Lords have previously highlighted Committee, some of the largest solar developments are being approved without proper regard for the grade or quality of the land being sacrificed. Every one of the large-scale solar farms approved under NSIP that I have looked at has been materially located on best and most versatile land. That is not just a matter for the farming community; it is a matter of national food security. We cannot create a future in which we can switch on our lights and heat our homes but are unable to feed ourselves. We must not let the pursuit of energy security come at the expense of food security.
As others have highlighted, a disproportionate percentage of our best and most versatile land is going to solar. This is madness when 58% of our farmed land is not in the BMV category and there is also a significant amount of unclassified and unfarmed land that could be used for renewable development. With the Government’s ambition to triple solar capacity by 2030, the pressure on land is only going to intensify. Unless active steps are taken now to guide that development sensibly and strategically, we will continue to see the erosion of our agricultural capacity and, with it, increased dependence on imported food.
These amendments are both timely and necessary. They would ensure that solar and other non-agricultural developments are directed towards less productive land or even non-productive land, leaving our best farmland for the essential job of feeding our population. I urge the Minister to take these amendments seriously and offer clear assurances that under no circumstances will the Secretary of State approve developments that compromise the UK’s food security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 89, 92, 94A and 94B relate to Clause 28 and the protection of agricultural land. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for tabling these amendments. Is that the right pronunciation of Drumlean? I am glad he is not here, because I know he would shout at me if I got it wrong.
Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, seeks to prohibit the construction of ground-mounted solar farms on land of grades 1, 2 and 3A. The Government view food security as national security and champion British farming and environmental protection. All solar projects undergo a rigorous planning process, considering environmental impacts, local community views and any impact on food production. The Government believe that solar generation does not threaten food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mounted solar PV panels covered an estimated 21,200 hectares, which is only around 0.1%—not 1%—of the total land area of the UK. Even in the most ambitious scenarios, only up to 0.4% of UK land will be devoted to solar in 2030.
The Government are in total agreement with the noble Baroness in that we want to get the balance right between protecting fertile agricultural land and facilitating renewable energy. The Government agree that protecting food security should always be a priority. That is why land use and food production are already material considerations in planning. Planning guidance makes it clear that, wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where the development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land. However, we do not believe the accelerated rollout of solar power under present planning arrangements poses a threat to food security.
The government consultation on the land use framework sought feedback on what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. The land use framework, to be published later this year, will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land. It will also lay out how government intends to align the different incentives on land; ensure that joined-up decisions are made at national and local levels; and make accessible and high-quality data available.
As such, we believe that this amendment is not necessary to protect agricultural land. Moreover, a total ban on the use of higher-quality land may have several deleterious consequences. Quite often, a site suitable for solar development will contain soil of varying quality. At the moment, the amount of high-quality land proposed to be developed is examined by planning officers. This is a consideration in planning decisions. Were this amendment to be incorporated into the Bill, large projects could be rejected for the sake of a small area of higher-quality soil that constitutes a small fraction of the overall site.
This amendment would reduce the number of economically viable sites for solar generation, which would increase costs for developers. They may seek to recoup these by placing higher bids in the contracts for difference scheme. That cost is ultimately borne by bill payers. In short, banning all solar development on higher-quality land may endanger the Government’s mission to achieve clean power by 2030, increasing the exposure of British consumers to volatile imported fossil fuels.
I shall touch on the noble Baroness’s point about solar on domestic and non-domestic buildings. Deploying rooftop solar remains a key priority for the Government and we will publish the future homes standard this autumn. The new standard will ensure that solar panels are installed on the vast majority of new-build homes once it comes into force, saving households hundreds of pounds a year on their energy bills. That will support our ambition that the 1.5 million homes we will build over the course of this Parliament will be high-quality, well designed and sustainable.
Additionally, the recently published Solar Roadmap contained several actions for both government and industry to support the deployment of solar PV in the commercial sector. These included unpicking the complex landlord/tenant considerations in the sector by developing and distributing a toolkit for owners and occupiers. The Government set out that rooftop solar on new non-domestic buildings will, where appropriate, play an important role in the future buildings standard, due to be introduced later this year.
The Government have also announced £180 million of funding for Great British Energy to help around 200 schools and 200 NHS sites to install rooftop solar. We expect the first of these installations to be complete by the end of the summer—summer being a flexible concept, so whenever that comes. The Government are assessing the potential to drive the construction of solar canopies on outdoor car parks over a certain size through a call for evidence, which closed on 18 June. We will publish the government response to that consultation. I trust that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with that response and I kindly ask her not to press her amendment.
Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to remove solar projects on high-quality land from the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject. I know that he has spent many years serving in local government and has considerable expertise. However, I hope that he recognises the contradiction in his argument. At the same time as he argues about the very difficult conditions that farmers face in growing food, these are brought about by climate change, but he is using them as arguments not to tackle it by moving to clean energy—so there is a bit of a contradiction in the argument there.
It is vitally important that every project is submitted to the planning process that best suits its impact, scale, and complexity.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Lord Roborough ExcerptsWednesday 25th June 2025
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to rise to speak to the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill—second last, as I am sure that noble Lords are aware. There is much to commend in the Bill, easing the path to building more homes for the people in this country and allowing strengthening of our infrastructure.
Before I begin, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a farmer and landowner, an owner of residential development land, a developer of commercial property, renewable energy infrastructure and new forests, and an investor in natural capital-related businesses: Agricarbon, Cecil Earth, John Deere and Circular FX.
Planning goes to the heart of how homes are supplied. I hope that the Minister will consider the means by which we bolster much-needed supply, including the supply of planning officers, as many noble Lords have mentioned. We are deeply concerned about the proposed national scheme of delegation, which would remove councillors’ ability to vote on individual planning applications. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook set out earlier, democratic accountability matters, especially when it comes to housebuilding. Many noble Lords clearly agree.
Local consent, legitimacy and trust are essential to delivering not just more homes, but the right homes. While the planning system is part of the problem in the housing shortage and slow and expensive delivery of critical infrastructure, we must also address cost of delivery, heavily impacted by inflation on labour and materials; increasing energy-efficiency regulations; tighter environmental regulations; and accessibility and safety requirements. All these add to the cost, and we need to question whether we can truly afford all of them.
Housing affordability has also been impacted by the increase in mortgage rates, thanks to inflation and this Government’s forecast expenditure remaining at 45% of GDP over this Parliament, even with optimistic productivity forecasts, undermining financial markets’ confidence. What plans do the Government have to reduce the cost of building new homes and providing their infrastructure to make houses more affordable? Does the Minister intend to drive down new and existing house prices by creating a larger supply of houses than can be absorbed by the market at current prices? The housebuilders have received a bruising this evening, but what proportion of the 1.5 million target is expected to be supplied by the private housebuilding sector and what by the public sector?
I would like to focus on the environmental aspects of the Bill, set out in Part 3. While a nature restoration levy may appear to be a welcome simplification of the environmental conditions attached to the planning system, this is a problem that is more imaginary than real. As Richard Benwell from Wildlife and Countryside Link said in giving evidence to the other place:
“It is worth noting that Natural England reckons that 99% of the housing applications that it is consulted on go through perfectly properly; only 1% receive objections on the basis of environmental concerns. It is also worth noting that … the long-term trend is that only 10% of major infrastructure projects are challenged”.
Where is the problem that the Government are trying to fix with a radical overhaul of how environmental damage is dealt with in planning? Is this really because the Government resent £100 million being spent on a bat tunnel, or because the previous Opposition, now Government, rejected our amendment to the levelling-up Bill, which would have removed the blockage by Natural England advice on nutrient neutrality rules of well over 100,000 houses?
The fingerprints of Natural England are all over those instances, and I support my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lady Coffey and others in questioning whether Natural England should really be allowed to build an authoritarian empire to deliver these EDPs. Natural England will have forcible powers of entry, the ability to set its own fees, and uncontrolled compulsory purchase order powers, extending even to gardens and allotments. This does not seem right. We will be seeking to remove or restrict these powers and to challenge the role of Natural England in Committee.
We hear major concerns about Part 3 of this Bill from the National Trust, the NFU, the Wildlife Trusts, the Woodland Trust, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Better Planning Coalition, the CPRE, the CLA, the RSPB and many more—I do not think I have ever come across an issue on which they were united. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, highlighted, even the supposed beneficiaries are very concerned about Part 3 of the Bill. Many noble Lords from all Benches have added their voices today, and I hope the Government are listening to this debate and the negative response to Part 3 from all those organisations with deep domain expertise.
The Office for Environmental Protection has been cited in passing by a number of noble Lords. In its letter to the Government, it said that
“aiming to improve environmental outcomes overall, whilst laudable, is not the same as maintaining in law high levels of protection for specific habitats and species. In our considered view, the Bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”—
the Environment Act.
“As drafted, the provisions are a regression.”
I have a number of amendments that would have the effect of underpinning the Environment Act and simplifying the interrelationship between legacy EU law and our own law, which has driven confusion. I hope the Minister will take these in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.
The apparent removal of the mitigation hierarchy, mentioned by many noble Lords, appears to lead to the potential for a complete loss of protection for key environmental features, which is both a destruction of nature but also a loss of access to that nature for local communities. The requirements on the Secretary of State are very weak, with only a “likely” overall improvement in the same type of feature over 10 years—a vanishingly small amount of time in the lifespans of ecosystems, let alone trees, and a very low bar for decision-making. This does not fill the House with confidence, and we would be interested in working with all noble Lords to strengthen these environmental protections and restore the mitigation hierarchy in the Bill.
I question whether it is appropriate that the nature restoration levy should be used for compulsory purchase by Natural England. Why should developers funding EDPs be subsidising the Government’s acquisition of land? In the other place, we suggested this should fall to the Treasury, and I expect to repeat those arguments in more depth in Committee.
The Secretary of State in the other place mentioned that
“we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income”.—[Official Report, Commons, Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 15/5/25; col. 427.]
That is a generous sentiment but, as my noble friend Lord Lucas highlighted, nowhere in this Bill do I see any requirement for Natural England to consult with land managers and farmers, or to work with them on delivering environmental improvement within EDPs. At a time when the Government have imposed the family farm death tax, slashed delinked payments and slammed shut SFI applications, I am surprised that the Government do not look to allow farmers and landowners to provide these services commercially to developers or Natural England.
To add insult to injury, the publication of this Bill has chilled the biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality markets, undermining an existing business activity for many farmers. I join my noble friend Lord Goldsmith in asking the Minister how she sees Part 3 of the Bill relating to those markets? What role can they play if developers are forced to pay the nature restoration levy without the option of their own full or partial mitigation activities, either on-site or through these existing markets?
The Minister was unable to tell me, in an Answer to a Written Question, what levy rate developers will be required to pay nor how large the nature restoration fund is likely to be. I wonder whether the Government have given more thought to this and whether they can answer those questions now. How can we be confident this will not undermine the financial viability of developments or, as other noble Lords have mentioned, be used as an excuse to reduce other contributions made by developers?
Moving outside of Part 3 of the Bill and addressing other concerns that impact on the environment and rural community, I have been confused by comments from the Minister and her officials in meetings, and by the Secretary of State, in their descriptions of when they see compulsory purchase orders being used without hope value. I would be most grateful if the Minister could lay out exactly those circumstances.
Depending on the answer to the previous question, I also ask the Minister how this Bill really can be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, given that it allows the compulsory purchase of property at beneath its market price. Let me remind the House of the Council of Europe’s explanation of the ECHR:
“Under the European Convention on Human Rights, people have the right to possess property that is lawfully theirs. Governments cannot take property away without proper reasons - and neither can other people. For example, if a government takes land away from someone for public use, the former owner has to be properly compensated”.
In response to a Written Question, the Government helpfully cited that in 2024, local authorities used CPOs 54 times and others used them seven times. Can the Minister indicate what increase in frequency of CPOs is expected, both by Natural England and other bodies with CPO powers? Will these CPO powers be used on land already controlled by housebuilders, by Forestry England, by university colleges or by the Church? Who is excluded, apart from the Crown Estate?
I expect we will also address in Committee whether the Government have got right the balance and extent of compensation to landowners and occupants. Agricultural tenants invest heavily in equipment, buildings, soil, and indeed their businesses. Their economic loss as a result of a CPO is very material. To back up my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, I highlight that the Bill provides no protection to our best and most versatile land that is responsible for much of our food security, alongside reducing protections for other land.
The Bill is attracting considerable attention in this House and beyond. As His Majesty’s Official Opposition, we intend to play a detailed and constructive role in improving the Bill and helping to deliver a better outcome for all stakeholders. Noble Lords have raised considerable concerns, many reflecting those of rural representation groups and conservation bodies. I am grateful to the Minister for conceding that there is scope for strengthening the Bill, suggesting an openness to constructive amendments.
There have been many contributions over the course of the evening. Given the hour, I will return to those in Committee. We hope that the Government are able to take a co-operative approach, engaging with all Members of this House, and have an open mind to amendments that will allow better delivery of houses and infrastructure while restoring nature and protecting those impacted by development. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Roborough Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe why the government has sought to remove section 25(1) of the 1988 Act completely.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 176 and speak also to Amendment 177, in my name. Before I begin, I refer the Committee to my interests as set out in the register, as a farmer, landowner and residential landlord. In particular, I have a number of houses occupied by employees under assured agricultural occupancies.
These two amendments are probing amendments, intended to allow the Committee to understand better how the Government sees these provisions of the Bill operating and also to probe whether the impact of the Bill in this area may have unintended consequences that need to be resolved. Before moving on to the detail of the discussion, I shall follow my noble friend Lady Scott, who on an earlier group underlined the importance of being able to offer on-site accommodation to agricultural employees.
I have three herdspeople, and one relief herdswoman, who rise daily at around 3.30 in the morning to milk. Being a short walk from the herd and the parlour is critical to their employment conditions. Those herdspeople also take primary responsibility for animal health within the herds, as well as the linked young stock. Again, being on site is vital to allow frequent inspections of the animals to ensure that they are doing well. There is also an important security consideration in having employees on site and able to deal with any malicious trespass, animal escapes and so on.
In short, this may not be a matter of huge general interest, but it is critical to farming in general, and to livestock farming in particular, that accommodation is available on site for these employees. When they leave, it needs to be available for their successors. However, we must also recognise that farm workers may have lived for many years, and even decades, in a community, and that options for them to stay in the area even when employment ends are desirable.
Beginning with Amendment 176, my Explanatory Notes indicate that leaving out this paragraph is intended to probe why the Government have sought to remove Section 25(1) of the 1988 Act completely. Since the 1988 Act, it appears that agricultural occupiers with an assured agricultural occupancy are entitled to remain in that occupation, even if they leave the employment of the landlord, as long as they remain in agricultural employment.
Omitting this subsection could mean that agricultural occupiers retain protection even after their qualifying employment ends. I ask the Minister whether that is the intention. The subsection may be being removed because it refers to fixed-term tenancies, which the Government are seeking to abolish in the Bill. However, in this case, it is linked to fixed-term employment. It appears that the Government may not have considered the importance of this link and the necessity for landlords to be able to recover agricultural accommodation linked to employment. I also ask what impact this will have on assured agricultural occupants in tied agricultural dwellings where, if they are no longer employed in agriculture, it may well be a breach of planning regulations.
Amendment 177 is a similar probing amendment. Ground 16, for recovering possession of an assured agricultural occupancy at the end of employment, was omitted from the Housing Act 1988. This created a headache for agricultural employers, but in practice its implications have been rather limited, as departing employees often leave for other employment with accommodation included, or because the open market rent for quality rural accommodation tends to be unaffordably high for those working in agriculture.
In the Renters’ Rights Bill, the Government have continued to omit the ability to recover accommodation at the end of employment—or at least that is what I thought. On an earlier group, the Minister said that
“we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A”.—[Official Report, 24/4/25; col. 859.]
However, it does not appear that ground 5A is applicable to landlords and assured agricultural occupants to ensure that houses can be recovered at the end of employment, as it is omitted as being a ground. I would be most grateful to the Minister if she could explain how she sees it working in practice for agricultural employers to recover vital accommodation at the end of employment.
These assured agricultural occupiers will also gain greater protection, given that grounds 2ZC and 2ZB are not available for use. I ask the Minister why the Government think this is appropriate. Why are agricultural landlords being treated differently from other landlords and are not able to regain possession of the properties after the landlord changes under Section 18 of the Housing Act 1988 or after taking over a tenancy?
In a previous group, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, argued for making grounds 2ZC and 2ZB discretionary. In our view, this introduction of legal uncertainty would make the complexity even worse. From my limited exposure to this Bill, I am not sure how easily anyone will be able to administer all tenancies captured by it without a law degree. This discretion may elevate that base level of expertise to actually practising at the Bar. Given that it is largely estate agents and land agents who manage tenancies, it is important to make the Bill’s provisions as clear-cut as possible.
I also ask the Minister whether the Government have considered the impact of this Bill on a particular practice that we believe will deliver unintended consequences. Many agricultural employers, when housing employees, have understandably sought to avoid creating assured agricultural occupancies by serving notice before a tenancy begins and classifying that tenancy as an assured shorthold tenancy. This allowed serving a Section 21 notice with certainty that the house could be recovered at the end of employment to ensure it was available for the next employee. As a consequence of this Bill, those employees or tenants will now gain what appears to be greater protection than originally intended. Would the Minister consider adding a provision to allow landlords and employees in this position to change the status of those tenancies, potentially to assured agricultural occupancies, before the Bill takes effect? I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 182. I am a great supporter of the policy of right to buy and right to acquire. I think it is one of the best policies of the past 50 years, making sure that people had investment in their communities and were able to determine exactly how different things in their homes looked. Basically, it made sure that we had a greater proportion of owner-occupiers.
During my time as a Member of Parliament, I had not realised that, in effect, there had been discrimination against people living in the countryside. I discovered this when busily propagating some of the latest policies that my party was putting forward and had it said to me very squarely on a doorstep in a particular housing estate in Rendlesham in Suffolk. I was told that I was doing a load of good, but, frankly, it meant nothing to them because they had already tried to acquire their housing association home and had been told that they could not.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We hope to provide more financial sustainability to housing associations through our funding mechanisms, which I hope will prevent them having to do that. The Government have no current plans to change the right to acquire. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, in particular to my noble friend Lady Coffey for her comments on agricultural tie dwellings. I am also grateful to the Minister for providing a very helpful clarification. The question mark remains about what happens to dwellings that have an agricultural restriction on them which are occupied by agricultural employees after they cease to be agricultural employees but may be protected in their tenancy under the Bill. I hope she might write to me on that but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.