Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

It is still not too late to excise Part 3 from the record, and with only four days allocated on Report in October, that would make our job much easier. The assertion yesterday at the Dispatch Box by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, that this planning reform is going to speed up building is a confidence trick. I welcome Amendment 346E, as far as it goes, but it needs to go much further in contemplating the “how” as well as the “what” if we are not to stymie growth until the next Parliament.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, as this is the first group, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, stood up to remind us that this is a conversation, not a 10-minute monologue. As the noble Lord who spoke before me is new to this House, I shall tell him that civil servants cannot defend themselves in this Chamber. He arrived late at that meeting last week, so he was not there to have benefit the rest of us had of the information that they in good faith provided. I ask him in future discussions in this House to refrain from criticising people who cannot reply for themselves, and from making unnecessary comments about the Minister, who has shown to all Members that she is acting in good faith and will listen to our conversations—and, we hope, will come back on Report and offer us some changes based on the evidence.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 264A. My noble friend Lord Swire cannot be here. He has a particular theme running through on issues regarding pylons and he would appreciate a response from the Minister in regard to what he submitted. There is a broader point on how we are unfortunately going back to prioritising climate over nature, when they should go hand in hand. We hear comments like that from Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for DESNZ, about how climate change is the number one threat to nature; I am afraid that that is not what the scientists say. It is in the top five, but is not number one. When we are considering changes in this Bill more broadly—my noble friend Lord Swire reminds us of aspects of energy infrastructure—we should have that fully in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my two amendments in this group on the mitigation hierarchy—Amendments 251 and 275. I do not want to speak too long on this, in the interests of the Committee, but I think that this and the last group are the two key issues remaining in the Bill. To my mind, the Government have not made enough of a solid argument for removing the mitigation hierarchy system—a tried and tested system that works and can be relied upon. No doubt there are inherent risks with changing this new system, even with the best will in the world. Similar to the last group, I generally support all of the amendments in this group and I welcome them. However, despite the reassurances given by Ministers, there is still an air of concern around these issues across the Committee.

To my mind, the Government have not made the required level of argument as to why they need to remove the mitigation hierarchy. I want to look at that specifically in relation to housing, because—and I raised this in relation to the stand part group we had the other night—all the energy policy statements have recently been updated. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy—EN-1—has been updated and we have had new policies on renewables, new policies on the grid and new policies on nuclear under this Government. They all have the mitigation hierarchy at their core, and they are actually really good, solid documents. So, if this Government are able to deliver the energy transition with the mitigation hierarchy in place, why can the same Government not deliver new housing with it? It just does not make sense to me. That is something I will leave to be discussed.

My Amendment 251 seeks to ensure that Natural England accepts requests only when developers have properly applied the mitigation hierarchy and justifies projects due to there being no alternative solutions and no incorporated public interest grounds, especially for sensitive habitats. We believe that this basic safeguard is needed to embed our core principles of environmental protection in planning into the Bill.

My Amendment 275 seeks to intervene in Clause 58 of the Bill and is designed to inject rigour, accountability and genuine environmental protection into the heart of the new planning system. I am pleased that this amendment has the backing of the Wildlife Trusts. It mandates that Natural England, as a delivery body, must not only adhere to the mitigation hierarchy but demonstrate that any EDP will result in significant environmental improvement

“at an ecologically appropriate scale”.

Those words are important. Other Members have raised issues about the mitigation hierarchy. I recognise the commitments the Government have made, but I think there is still a need for reassurance on these matters.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I have been pleased to sign a number of amendments in this group, because the issue of the mitigation hierarchy is a big outstanding area of concern for those of us who want EDPs to be part of packages in the future but are concerned about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, have made the case, as has my noble friend Lord Russell, for our concern that the mitigation hierarchy does not remain for EDPs but does for other planning obligations.

I have one question for the Minister. Both Ministers provided a letter today that said that,

“an EDP can include planning conditions to avoid or reduce impacts on the site … before they can access the benefits of an EDP”.

I can see that that is an attempt to soften concerns that the mitigation hierarchy does not apply for an EDP, but I think the Committee needs quite a bit more information in the Minister’s summing up, and certainly before Report, about what exactly that means. I note that the letter says that an EDP “can”, not that an EDP “must”. I do not see how it is going to work.

The helpful chart drawn up by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, makes it clear that, for an EDP, there is absolutely no compulsion for an assessment of the environmental impacts by a developer of the site that they are going to develop before they can go straight to an EDP. How can you have planning conditions for a site where you do not even have an obligation to identify what the environmental impacts are?

We have heard from meetings with civil servants that they have been drawing up plans for two EDPs on nutrient neutrality and newts, so they must have some idea of what the type of planning conditions might be. I would like a bit more information about how the planning condition process might work and what it might be in order to give noble Lords more information before we get to Report. I have to say that I feel that being able to move straight to pass “Go” and avoid the mitigation hierarchy is a massive hole in this new system. As my noble friend Lord Russell has said, other parts of government have managed to find ways to incorporate it in equally important areas of infra- structure development.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for confirming earlier that the environmental principles policy is still in place. That matters in this particular group in terms of the mitigation hierarchy. When the Bill came through, the OEP expressed significant concern about the weakening of the mitigation hierarchy. I am not aware of its opinion on subsequent government amendments in that regard, but, of the five principles set out in the Government’s policy statement, “prevention” is a key element and “Rectification at source” is another one of the five principles.

We are trying to make sure this is crystal clear in the Bill and locked in because of comments made by the Minister in the Commons about flexibility. It is fair to say that, frankly, Clause 66(3) completely sets aside the mitigation hierarchy; to use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, it is cash for trash —basically, you can do what you like if you are prepared to pay for it. In that regard, it matters that the Government think again and put this in place in primary legislation. Despite that, Amendment 256ZA in particular is very useful where it talks about “reasonably practicable”. That is an element that, if necessary, can be tested in the courts in due course. But we need to correct this in this House, putting it very firmly instead of saying, as in the words of the Minister, “Our flexibility is fine”.