Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as vice-president of the Local Government Association.

We on these Benches support many of the Bill’s principles and ambitions, several of which build on work that we led in government during a period of record housebuilding. While not perfect, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act is a step forward, streamlining the planning system and focusing on local priorities. As a Minister, I recognised the urgent need for more homes, and I remain just as committed today to driving practical action to meet that need.

In 2019, the Conservative Party committed to delivering 1 million additional homes over the course of that Parliament. In 2024, before the general election, we delivered on that commitment. The Labour Party has now committed to delivering 1.5 million homes over this Parliament, and it is essential that it delivers on that manifesto commitment.

As the Bill progresses through this House, we will raise serious concerns: the removal of councillors’ voting rights on individual applications; sharply increased housing targets in rural areas, without sufficient protection for villages; the shift to strategic plans; and the questions over the deliverability of the 1.5 million homes target. That figure appears to be little more than the Deputy Prime Minister’s arbitrary aspiration. Announced in the other place without a road map, without detailed plans and, ultimately, without a credible delivery mechanism, the target lacks the very foundations required to make it achievable.

There are, quite rightly, widespread questions about the target’s deliverability, particularly in light of the February S&P Global UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index, which reports one of the sharpest monthly declines in housebuilding and construction on record. Furthermore, the joint report from Savills, the Home Builders Federation and the National Housing Federation estimated that the Secretary of State is likely to fall short of her target by as many as 500,000 homes.

Doubts about deliverability were only compounded by the recent spending review. The Chancellor’s announcement was heavily backloaded, with limited short-term impact; most of the uplift comes after 2030, with meaningful increases not projected until 2035-36. The headline figure, spread over a decade, goes beyond this Parliament and will have to withstand numerous fiscal events from a Government so often keen to change their mind.

There is, as yet, no formal multiyear budget commitment. It is a pledge, not a statutory allocation. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it, the £39 billion figure is meaningful only if future spending reviews confirm it. Even if the workable aspects of the Bill are able to deliver more homes, the Government must indicate how this funding will deliver their pledge in this Parliament.

The Bill also impacts our natural environment and rural communities. Later in this debate, my noble friend Lord Roborough will outline why, from these Benches, we view Part 3 of the Bill as a particular cause for concern. The proposed nature restoration levy may, to some sitting in an office in Whitehall, seem like a welcome simplification of the environmental conditions attached to the planning system. But in reality it appears to water down existing protections, and that is not a solution. The Official Opposition want to see the right homes in the right place, without weakening our position on nature restoration and appropriate environmental protections.

There are important questions that the Government must answer. What safeguards will ensure that the levy is proportionate to the environmental impact and does not simply become another tax or barrier to development? What is the expected timeline for implementing the environmental delivery plans, and have the Government factored in potential delays, including the possibility of judicial reviews? We look forward to the Minister’s reflections on these points. Our assessment is that it could take some years from Royal Assent before the environmental delivery plans begin to make a real-world impact. If the Government believe otherwise, we would welcome reassurances on this.

On outcomes, concerns persist. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management has warned that this system risks the immediate loss of natural capital, with any benefits only realised decades later. We hope the Government can provide greater confidence that this approach will deliver meaningful and timely results for the environment.

If the Government are now concerned with the issue of nutrient neutrality, perhaps I might draw their attention to the amendments we tabled during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Regrettably, the Government—then in opposition—chose to vote them down, thereby defeating the proposition. I would, of course, be more than happy to assist the Ministers by returning these amendments to the attention of the House, in the hope that even at this stage the Government might now reconsider their position.

Additionally, this Bill touches on the crucial area of energy. My noble friend Lord Offord will speak with authority on this subject later in the debate. However, I will briefly set out why we see it as so vital. The UK continues to face some of the highest electricity costs in the world, an issue that poses a serious barrier to growth. We therefore welcome commitments to energy infrastructure and support any measures that aim to reduce energy costs. This must go hand in hand with proper community consultation, particularly regarding the installation of overhead cables and new pylons. Finally, we must ensure that we are developing a diverse and resilient energy mix, one that provides stability and equips us to meet the challenges of an increasingly uncertain world.

On planning, the Minister is correct that we are deeply concerned about the proposed national scheme of delegation, which would remove councillors’ ability to vote on individual planning applications. Is the Minister not concerned about the systematic removal of layer upon layer of democratic oversight? Democratic accountability matters, especially when it comes to housebuilding. Local consent, legitimacy and trust are essential to deliver not just more houses but the right houses.

When local communities and their elected representatives have a meaningful role in the planning process, housebuilding is seen as something done with people, not done to them. Strip that away and you risk generating opposition, misdirecting development and ultimately building fewer homes. We want the right homes in the right places, and the Government need to bring communities with them if they are to deliver that. When communities are engaged and can see the shape and benefit of new housing, whether through affordable homes, infrastructure improvements or environmental safeguards, public support increases and delivery becomes more achievable.

We are particularly concerned at the proposed model of strategic planning. It could be—and is being—used to shift urban housing need into our rural areas. This is especially troubling in light of the disproportionately high increases in housing targets assigned to those rural authorities. The Secretary of State has raised the national housing target by 50%. Residents might reasonably expect that their local targets have increased by a similar amount, but that is far from the case. According to the House of Commons Library, in major urban conurbations, housing targets have risen by an average of 17%. In predominantly rural areas, they have increased by 115%.

To illustrate, London’s target is down 12%, Newcastle down 15%, Birmingham down 38% and Coventry down 55%. Meanwhile, Wyre Forest and New Forest have seen their targets doubled. Westmorland’s target has increased by almost 500%. This is neither fair nor sustainable. It erodes local trust and places significant pressures on our rural services, infrastructure and landscapes.

Worse still, it undermines the very reason we need more homes in the first place. High housing costs in major towns and cities act as a major barrier to interregional mobility. For low-income houses, households and renters, housing affordability creates a form of price lock-in, preventing them accessing areas with greater employment opportunities. If we are serious about boosting growth and supporting opportunity, we need the right homes in the right places. We need homes where opportunities are, and we need local representation to be involved in the process of building those homes. We therefore urge the Government to rethink this approach and to restore a meaningful role for democratic decision-making in the planning system.

From these Benches, we warmly welcome the Government’s greater emphasis on the local plans. A plan-led system is the right approach, and we recognise the effort to ensure that communities have a stronger voice in shaping development. However, we see opportunities to build on this. In particular, we would like to explore more ambitious support for small builders and self-builders, an important part of a diverse and resilient housing sector. The current 10% site allocation for such developments is a positive step, but we support the Federation of Master Builders’ suggestion that this could be increased to 20%. We also welcome consideration of an expanded role for Homes England in supporting microbuilders, who often face particular barriers to entry.

I turn briefly to the issue of grey belt. While we appreciate the intention to make better use of underused land, concerns remain about how these changes may impact the wider countryside, particularly village identity. Although this is not directly part of the Bill, it clearly interacts with the Bill, and we hope Ministers will continue to reflect on the balance between flexibility and long-standing protection of rural communities. There is also a risk of unintended urban sprawl. This would place significant pressure on our local infrastructure and services. We should prioritise the proper use of our existing urban centres, bringing empty properties back into use and supporting densification where appropriate to make the most of the space we already have.

Our aim in engaging with the Bill is not to obstruct its objectives but to contribute constructively to its success. We will bring forward amendments that are designed to strengthen the Bill’s ability to deliver well-designed, affordable homes, particularly for those on lower incomes and first-time buyers, while ensuring that local voices, rural character and environmental safeguards remain respected.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

3: After “infrastructure” insert “, thereby supporting delivery of the Government’s target of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England by the end of the 2024 Parliament,”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward a purpose clause which, as we have said, allows us to focus on the Government’s stated intent, specifically its overarching vision to enable housebuilding and support the development of critical infrastructure.

While we welcome the amendment, we on these Benches believe it can and must be strengthened. The Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes, but as things currently stand, that target is undeliverable. The Bill in its present form does little to change that fundamental reality; it does not move the dial in enhancing development across the country.

In 2019, the Conservative Party pledged to deliver 1 million additional homes over the course of that Parliament. By 2024, before the general election, we delivered on that promise. If this legislation is truly intended to unlock housebuilding, then that ambition must be explicit in the purpose of this clause. Only by doing so can we measure the Bill’s effectiveness against the Government’s target and hold them to account, both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. That is precisely why I have tabled an amendment to Amendment 2, to include the Government’s goal of delivering 1.5 million homes in the Bill.

In this House, we are united in the view that this country needs more homes. Housing unlocks opportunity, enables labour market mobility, allows young people to move forward with their lives and removes the key barrier to productivity. However, quantity must be matched by quality. New homes must be well designed and sensitive to local character, and I trust the Minister will agree with that point.

If the Bill is the Government’s legislative vehicle for delivering this, then that ambition must be stated clearly and unambiguously. We must support the Government’s stated aim, but the ambition must be backed by a credible plan, meaningful partnerships and, as we have heard, the active involvement of local communities.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord cannot withdraw his amendment until I have withdrawn mine.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her replies and I look forward to continuing to work with her throughout the Bill. I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing this forward; it is a debate that is useful to have at the beginning of any Bill, just to set the tone.

I want to return to the central issue, which was raised repeatedly by nearly every noble Lord who spoke in this debate, and that is the future of local democracy under the provision of the Bill. At Second Reading and again today, the Minister insisted that this legislation does not represent an attack on local democracy. She reaffirmed the Government’s position that local decision-making remains central to the planning process. I fear we may be reading different Bills, because in clause after clause the principle of localism—the very foundation of community-led planning—is being eroded. We are witnessing the repeal of large sections of the Localism Act and seeing the introduction of powers that allow government-imposed national and significant infrastructure projects to bypass not only local consent but, in many cases, meaningful public engagement altogether. This Bill shifts power upwards, away from communities and towards the centre. That is why I believe that paragraph (d) of the purpose clause is not only helpful but essential. It reasserts a principle that should never have been up for negotiation: local voices must be heard and development should happen with communities, not to them. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to supporting this principle.

Finally, I turn back to paragraph (c) of the proposed purpose clause. This is clearly an emotive issue, and rightly so. It has drawn attention from across the Committee today, not least because of the direct relevance to Part 3 of the Bill, which risks weakening vital environmental protections at precisely the moment we should be strengthening them. It represents a step backwards, a regression from the hard-won safeguards enshrined in the Conservatives’ Environment Act. The problems do not stop there: there are gaps, inconsistencies and serious omissions. I urge the Minister to please step back, listen carefully and engage with these concerns, not just from the Committee but from a broad coalition outside it.

I hope the Committee will forgive me—it is quite personal—if I say that in my opinion it is bizarre that during the passage of LURB, noble Lords blocked reform of nutrient neutrality in this place. This leaves me curious to see whether they will raise the same concerns now that nutrient neutrality provisions are in their own Bill. We have wasted a number of years when up to 160,000 new homes could have been built in this country.

I conclude by reaffirming that we are committed to working constructively with the Government throughout Committee and in the remaining stages of the Bill. We want to deliver more homes and the important infrastructure that this country needs, but we need the process to get that right.

I had the privilege of working on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and many noble Lords will recall the year I spent taking that legislation through this House. With the same level of commitment I had to that Bill, I look forward to engaging with the Minister to ensure that we get this Bill through and get it right. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2) withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

With Amendment 17 I will also debate Amendments 18 to 23 in my name. These have been described as a “redirection”; I am not exactly sure what that means, but there is a theme that I hope will become clear. I thank my noble friends on the Front Bench for adding their names to Amendments 17 and 23.

As the Explanatory Notes and various bits of memoranda make clear, this clause is designed to try to speed up aspects of planning, and I understand that flexibility may be wanted. I was a bit surprised when Minister Pennycook in the other place suggested in Committee, talking about offshore generation, that perhaps the MMO could become the planning authority in that regard. The MMO is simply not big enough to get into that.

The theme through my amendments is the fact that a Secretary of State has some literally very special powers, called special development orders. That is why I have tabled some quite detailed amendments. While the narrative, including in Committee and in various memoranda, has been that it can go to an alternative consenting authority, the reason I have tabled these amendments is that there is an alternative consenting authority: the Secretary of State himself or herself.

Amendment 17 tries to probe why the Bill refers to Section 59. You do not need to go through the NSIP and DCO process because the Secretary of State could, more or less, just authorise this tomorrow, without any public consultation, engagement and all sorts of things. The Secretary of State already has the power to do that. I expect that it is usually used for things such as MoD land, so the reasons may be somewhat related to national security infrastructure and so on, but I am concerned that this hands a heck of a lot of power to the Secretary of State, and we should at least be considering that carefully.

That is particularly true when thinking about nuclear and other energy generation, which my Amendment 23 covers. The amount of land taken by most energy projects is pretty significant, not just land for the station itself or the transmission network but the preparation land. That is why I would like to see a commitment, ideally in law, that this will never apply to where a Secretary of State themselves can, on request, give planning permission to something from a developer.

I turn to another aspect of my amendments. This is a novel process—I think that is the explanation in various memoranda—and it will be done by regulations. Putting in the Bill three months for the Secretary of State to make a particular decision seems reasonable if the whole point of this is that it be done quicker. By the way, that is just considering whether something should go through the DCO process or an alternative consenting authority.

In the debate on the first group, I clumsily mentioned the Minister’s commitment to write. It was actually Minister Pennycook, in the House of Commons Committee where this was considered, who pledged several times in the debate on this clause to write to the Committee. That letter may have been sent to the members of the Committee, but it certainly has never appeared on the Bill website or been deposited in the Libraries of either House. He pledged to give more examples of how this would work in practice. The reason for me probing this today is that we could end up with some kind of Stalinist Secretary of State who is determined to build whatever they like anywhere and everywhere. As it stands, through this amendment and this new clause, we will give them the powers to do that, and I do not think we should. That is why I wanted to look at this clause.

I turn to Article 6 of the convention on human rights. Again, a back-up memorandum says:

“These alternative consenting regimes are likely to be … the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Highways Act 1980, Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Harbours Act 1964”.


But it does not say that it will be only that, which, again, is part of my concern.

So, in a variety of ways, this is probing to see whether we can properly get, in effect, a commitment from the Government on the Floor of this House or through a letter from the Minister—if it is not in legislation—that can candidly be used in a future court case when somebody might want to oppose the Secretary of State doing something so draconian. It would show that it was made clear to this House and this Parliament that that would never happen. So far, none of the back-up memoranda or Explanatory Notes makes that explicit, and that is what I hope to achieve today.

I am particularly concerned about energy projects. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is no longer in his place, but I explained on the previous group that I have extensive experience of trying to handle NSIPs as a Member of Parliament and now as a Peer in this place, and I am still very concerned about my local community and what is happening in that regard. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for explaining this group. That leaves me no need to go through it again, but I am pleased to support her Amendments 17 and 23. I will be brief, but I wanted to say something about both of them, especially Amendment 17. This amendment is vital because it probes the fundamental issue of democratic accountability and local consent. If the government-imposed national significant infrastructure projects can proceed without planning consent or public engagement, we risk undermining public trust by excluding communities from decisions that directly affect them. This also weakens local accountability by sidelining local authorities and stakeholders, and it increases the risks of legal and political challenges, as the lack of consultation may well lead to resistance or even to judicial review.

Probing this issue is essential to ensure that any such powers are used only when they are truly justified—when they are proportionate to the situation and exercised with true transparency. I raised this concern in the opening group today, and it is one on which we really need some clear answers. I ask again, why is it necessary for government-imposed NSIPs to bypass both planning consent and public engagement? How is this consistent with the Government’s continued claims that localism is protected?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not preceding the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

Amendment 17 would remove the required consent for the construction of or extensions to a generating station for electricity. Can the Minister explain why, in this instance, the government proposal is that it be disapplied from the existing requirements for going through a proper process? It is important to understand the reason. If it is for timeliness, what causes the delays? If it is for reasons of cost, is that related to timeliness? Is there another way to have accountability and public discourse without creating delays and cost pressures? Otherwise, why would we want to disapply the current requirements for consent? Again, there is a thread of accountability running through this: there is a tension, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, between getting things done and accountability for local communities.

With those few comments, I look forward to a detailed answer from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

45: Clause 6, page 13, line 23, at end insert—
“(7A) Where the Secretary of State decides not to accept an application under subsection (2) and (5), the Secretary of State must publish the reasons for the decision and identify the relevant statutory or regulatory basis.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to increase transparency and protect developers from arbitrary rejection.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 45 seeks to enhance transparency in the development consent order—DCO—acceptance process. It would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons whenever an application is not accepted under the relevant subsections of Clause 6, along with the precise statutory or regulatory basis for such a decision. This is a simple yet crucial step towards ensuring accountability and transparency in the decision-making process.

By explicitly identifying the legal grounds on which an application is rejected, the amendment would help to eliminate ambiguity and to reinforce the rule of law within the planning system. Currently, developers face significant uncertainty and frustration when their applications are rejected without clear explanations. This can hinder timely resubmission by leaving applicants unsure of what issues need to be addressed or whether the rejection was based on procedural, technical or substantive grounds. The resulting delay not only increases the costs and administrative burden for developers but can stall projects that may be vital to meeting national infrastructure and environmental goals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, but I am not reassured. I am still not at all clear what the developers are being asked for, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Banner, and we have heard from developers as well. There needs to be clarity not about what they should change but why they have been turned down. I hope the Minister and I can talk more about this, but I am considering bringing it back on Report if we do not get the reassurance that the clarity that developers need from the Secretary of State will be delivered by any changes that the Government are making. If not, we will press to make changes ourselves. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 45 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, again, I have split this amendment off from the other consideration of energy infrastructure projects. To cut to the chase, we need to make sure, bearing on some of the debate that we have had earlier about how we are going to achieve joint objectives, not only that we have a fit-for-purpose grid but about how we move the transition along. I have consistently tried to make the case that that cannot be done at the expense of the natural environment.

Arising from the Environment Act 2021 is a duty on Ministers specifically to consider policy in terms of environmental principles, but I think I am right in saying there is also a requirement to consider the genuine impact of projects when a Minister is giving consent to them. One element will be thinking about biodiversity as well as considering the natural capital accounts of the country—on which we do annual balance sheets which are put forward by the Treasury—and a key consideration should be what is happening as a consequence of the environment to any particular project. One of the things that I am afraid is somewhat shrouded in mystery here is that normally there is just the response, “Yes, we have considered this”, and nothing is shared with the country. My amendment is intended to ensure transparency.

I am conscious that the sub judice rule might apply, and there is already a legal case against the Deputy Prime Minister over her Section 20 statement regarding the Bill—I am assuming that, by extension, that applies to the Minister as well. However, it is important that not only Ministers but the wider country understand quite what is happening in this balance. The reason I say that is that primary legislation is already in place where the primary indicator is about the recovery of aspects of nature, particularly thinking of species. As a consequence, transparency is vital, and the OEP has been regularly pushing for a lot more transparency on exactly this sort of information so we have a sense of whether we are going to be anywhere close to hitting the targets that this Parliament has already agreed to in both primary and secondary legislation. On that basis, given the time of the evening, I simply beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing Amendment 94F to the attention of your Lordships. It would ensure that the duty relating to environmental principles was published in full. I ask the Minister: how are the Government going to monitor compliance in relation to environmental principles? As importantly, how will Parliament be kept informed of progress in this area? I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling her amendment and allowing us to ask those questions, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I was beginning to feel a bit of déjà vu before the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke in place of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

Amendment 94F, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that where an energy infrastructure project requires an assessment in relation to the environmental principles policy statement by the Secretary of State or the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, this assessment and any advice provided and considered as part of that assessment is published.

As highlighted throughout today’s debate and in earlier discussions on the Bill, it is essential that we press ahead and deliver the critical infrastructure that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 and to achieve a clean power system by 2030. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment and for the opportunity to set out both how the environmental principles policy statement and the environmental principles more broadly are given due regard by this Government.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

94FB: Clause 48, page 61, line 3, leave out “or require”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s intentions in seeking the power to require a local planning authority to set the level of fees for planning decisions.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I start by reiterating our view that the Bill does not go far enough. It tweaks processes, roles, fees and training but leaves the fundamental planning framework—the very framework needed to unlock genuine house building—without the proper reform that Ministers promised. We now hear in the media that a second planning Bill is expected. The Government have missed an opportunity with the Bill.

Amendments 94FB and 94FC in my name seek to probe the Government’s intentions behind the powers given in Clause 48 to local planning authorities and the Mayor of London to set specific fee levels for planning applications. Fee setting must strike a careful balance between national consistency and local flexibility. Planning authorities operate in vastly different contexts, from rural districts handling modest, small-scale applications to major cities building highly complex developments. That diversity and its differences must be respected; a one-size-fits-all approach risks overlooking the practical realities faced by local authorities on the ground.

As currently drafted, Clause 48 enables the Secretary of State not just to permit but to require that these bodies set fee levels. While enabling authorities to set fee levels is one thing, which would potentially support greater local flexibility, requiring them to do so raises important questions: first, in what context would the Government require a local authority to set a specific fee?

My Amendment 99ZA is also a probing amendment. In tabling this amendment, we are seeking to understand how subsection (6) will work in practice. Can the Minister please explain the process Ministers intend to use in calculating appropriate surcharges, and how the duty to have regard to relevant costs will work in practice? It will also be helpful to know whether Ministers intend to consult local planning authorities going forward to ensure that the fees imposed do not exceed the relevant costs incurred.

I will now briefly set out our view on the other amendments in this group. We agree with the principle behind Amendment 94G from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Of course, all fees should be proportionate. That said, delivering it through an amendment to the Bill may be more challenging. Therefore, will the Minister please address the principle of proportionality and how the Government intend to ensure that fees are proportional as well as responding to the amendment itself?

I move on to Amendment 95, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As drafted, Clause 48 explicitly excludes enforcement. She makes a strong case for her amendment, and I hope that the Minister will reply constructively. In particular, we would like greater clarity on the “polluter pays” principle. Will the Minister please explain why enforcement action has been left out of this fee-raising power? Is it because the Government feel that it would be inappropriate for applicants acting within the rules to pay a higher fee to cover the cost of enforcements against bad actors? I hope that the Minster will be able to give an unequivocal answer to that question.

Furthermore, Amendments 96 and 97, tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, address two important aspects of the planning system: transparency and heritage protection. Amendment 96 would ensure that guidance to local authorities includes references to archaeological and other services, so that external services are correctly funded. I know that my noble friend has a wealth of experience on heritage issues, and he was a truly excellent Minister for the arts and heritage. We would appreciate a clear assurance from the Minister on this issue.

Amendment 97 would rightly preserve the very long-standing policy of not charging for listed building consent. This is a vital protection for owners, who often invest significant time and resources in maintaining some of England and Wales’s most treasured heritage assets. Although policymakers in the socialist tradition and the owners or prospective owners of heritage properties may not be natural bedfellows, our historic houses have an important role to play in our housing stock.

The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe; almost four in 10 houses were built before World War II, and two in 10 were built before World War I. Too often, historic houses are left empty to wither and decay because of the costs and complexities of taking them on, yet every historic property that is restored is an empty home returning to use. We must encourage more people to take on the challenge of restoring our heritage properties, both as a practical step in driving down the number of empty houses and as a gift to future generations. Our historic houses are part of our great island story, and my noble friend is right to seek assurance from Ministers that listed building consent will remain free of charge. Can the Minister give him a cast-iron guarantee on this issue?

I turn to Amendments 98 and 99, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner. These proposals represent sensible and pragmatic reforms to our planning appeals system. We see the merits in the case that he makes for the introduction of differential fee levels based on the type or complexity of an application. His amendments reflect the practical realities of casework and seek to ensure that the system better aligns with the demands placed on it. Likewise, the proposal to allow the planning inspector to charge appeal fees and, importantly, to retain that income, is a constructive measure. It would enhance the inspector’s operational resilience and reduce their reliance on central funding.

Amendment 99 goes further by proposing a fast-track appeal process that is optional, fee-based and designed to deliver quicker decisions where appropriate. This is clearly a constructive proposal that Ministers should take away and consider carefully. I hope the Minister will engage positively with this amendment.

In conclusion, this group of amendments raises essential questions about the funding, fairness and functionality of our planning system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my succinct and simple Amendment 94G, and in doing so draw attention to an issue—planning fees—that might seem a bit techy on the surface and perhaps even boring, but in reality strikes at the very heart of fairness, opportunity and the future of our housing market. I recognise and acknowledge that this Government are trying to address the concerns of SME builders in different ways; thus I believe that this amendment is in line with their thinking. It seeks a simple fix to a gross unfairness within the planning fees regime.

The reality is that the way our planning fees are currently structured disproportionately penalises the very people we need most—the small and medium-sized enterprise builders, the SMEs who once formed the backbone of housebuilding in this country. Our high watermark was the 1960s and 1970s, when SMEs delivered almost 50% of our homes. But now, there are just 2,500 SME builders, down from just over 12,000 in the late 1980s.

When the large developers apply for planning permission, they can absorb the cost of these fees—dozens, or even hundreds of units. For them, the fee for a major scheme is just a fraction of their overall margin. It is, if you like, just one more line on a long spreadsheet. But for the SME builder, often working on only one site at a time, sometimes building just a handful of homes, usually locally in the community where they live, the same planning fee represents a very different calculation. Proportionally, it is far higher—sometimes eye-wateringly so—relative to the potential return. For some, it can make the difference between a scheme being viable or never getting off the ground.

Let us not forget that many SME firms operate on tight margins—it is just a fact of the market today—and have limited access to capital. They do not have the balance sheets of the volume builders, nor teams of in-house planners and consultants to smooth the path. They are nimble, creative and often willing to take on small and difficult sites—precisely the kind of brownfield or infill plots that larger developers might overlook. In that sense, they perform a vital public service, delivering homes in places where others cannot or will not. If the Government are serious about reviving the role of SME builders, whose share of new homes has plummeted to barely 10% today, we cannot afford to ignore the structural barriers that hold them back. Planning fees are one such barrier, and it is entirely within our power to address them in this Bill.

My amendment addresses this issue without costing the Treasury a single pound. I am not suggesting that planning departments should be starved of resources—quite the opposite: we all hope that they will be even busier in the future. We all know they need proper funding to recruit and retain skilled staff and to deliver timely decisions, but surely there is a case for a more proportionate, graduated system—one that recognises the scale of development, the number of units and the genuine impact on the planning service. Without such reform, we risk reinforcing the dominance of volume housebuilders, who are of course essential; this is not a downer on them but a recognition of the role that SMEs can play in increasing innovation and diversity. They bring local knowledge and understanding to their role. By ignoring this, we weaken our ability to deliver the variety of homes this country so desperately needs.

The reason for my amendment is that planning costs are probably the most significant disparity, with SMEs facing costs that are over 100% higher than their plc counterparts. In fact, planning fees at the moment are £626 per home for the first 50 units, and only £189 per home thereafter. Therefore, a 50-home scheme pays three times more per unit than a 1,000-home scheme. This is where it creates a real structural disadvantage for SMEs, deterring those much-needed smaller developments and slowing delivery on small and medium sites. Under the Bill, fee-setting powers are being devolved to local authorities and/or mayors, so there is a genuine opportunity to fix the imbalance.

This is not about special pleading; it is about fairness, proportionality and the kind of housing market we want to create. Do we want one dominated by a handful of big players, or one where smaller, local builders have the chance to thrive? I urge the Government to look again at the planning fees regime and at how it might better support our SME builders. Without them, our housing crisis will only deepen. My amendment would help ensure that SMEs are not burdened with excessive costs; and, over time, alongside other government measures, it might reverse their sad decline. I am pleased to note that it also chimes with Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I hope the Minister agrees.

--- Later in debate ---

It is important to note that the Secretary of State already has flexibility to set and adjust surcharge levels through regulation, subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. The current provisions strike the right balance, allowing for both cost recovery and broader investment in system-wide improvements, such as relevant training for local authorities. Moreover, the uniform application of the surcharge promotes operational simplicity and avoids the complexity of case-by-case billing, which could delay decision-making. The Government are also committed to consult on the details of the surcharge to be set out in the regulations, including rates and application types, ensuring transparency and stakeholder engagement. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured and will beg leave to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in an important debate. In closing the debate for the Official Opposition, I would simply like to say that a number of crucial issues have been raised this morning by noble Lords across the Committee. We hope that Ministers will continue to engage constructively between Committee and Report, as there are still some questions to answer about the proposals, so that we can come to an agreement on a number of areas where we believe the Bill can be improved. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 94FB withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Training is not everything, but it helps; there are other factors. I would be interested in the noble Baroness’s thoughts on those strands and what we might need to do to look at them.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I apologise to the Committee, as I should have done that earlier.

Under the previous Government, as part of the capacity and capability programme, the planning skills delivery fund was established to support local planning authorities to manage backlogs and strengthen professional expertise. Around £24 million was committed over a two-year period, in recognition that, for far too long, a shortage of skilled planners has represented a barrier to effective development and regeneration and the delivery of sustainable communities. I am pleased that this Government have continued that funding.

It has been clear from the debate that, across all sides of your Lordships’ Committee, there is a shared recognition of the central importance of training, whether, as we have heard, on good design, the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity, the practical application of planning law or, importantly, building healthy communities—as ably argued by my noble friend Lord Moynihan on his Amendment 99AA.

There is broad agreement that both elected members and professional officers must be equipped with the knowledge and confidence to take decisions in the public interest. I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken on and reinforced the value of a well-trained planning system not only for councillors but for planning officers and, indeed, all those who play a formal role in shaping or determining planning applications. Ultimately, if we want a system that is trusted, effective and capable of delivering the homes and infrastructure that our country needs, investment in skills and training must remain at its heart.

I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his Amendment 103. His contribution underlined that training should not be regarded as simply a local requirement but as something that ought to apply consistently across all levels of government, including civil servants and Ministers. That emphasis on alignment between national and local implementation is an important reminder that central government must also hold itself to the same standards that it expects of local authorities. He is also right about the importance of driving up standards in decision-making. I therefore ask the Minister to set out how the Government intend to align central and local government training standards. How will they help bridge the gaps between national policy direction and local implementation?

I also thank and support my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendment 162, which requires local authorities to appoint a chief planning officer to ensure professional leadership. I am sure that the Government can do nothing but support this amendment. If they do, I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks a chief planning officer’s role might be in co-ordinating central government, local authorities and industry stakeholders.

Amendment 99A from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, also raises the important issue of design. In government, we did important work on design, and it was very disappointing when the Government announced the closure of the Office for Place. Well-designed homes that are in keeping with local vernacular are what local residents want and what this country needs, which is why design has such an important role to play in planning. Therefore, can the Minister give the House a clear assurance that the Government still recognise the important role that good design plays in housing delivery? In addition, how will the Government ensure that the future training requirements are properly supported so they are realistic for local planning authorities already under considerable pressures? How can we be confident that training will genuinely enhance decision making, rather than becoming a formality, and how best can consistency across the system be achieved while still respecting the role of autonomy in planning? These are important questions that have been asked in the last hour or so, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Thurlow, Lord Moynihan and Lord Lansley, for their amendments, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this very important debate around training. I agree with what noble Lords have said generally about the importance of training in this area. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Best, Lord Carrington and Lord Banner, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Sater, for their contributions, which are much appreciated.

Before I started working on the Bill, I did not realise that it was not compulsory for members to have training in planning. It has always been compulsory on my local authority, both at county level and Stevenage level, and I was quite shocked to find out that it was not compulsory.

Before I refer to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I did not really recognise his description of rows of box-type construction. Since I became a Minister, I have visited literally dozens of construction sites across the country, from Durham to the Isles of Scilly, and from Greenwich to Northern Ireland. What I have seen is that they do not have this issue. There is certainly not a lack of regard for design, biodiversity or zero carbon. We have a dynamic building industry, overseen in planning terms by local councillors and officers who genuinely want the best for their communities. I have seen some excellent examples. I am sure there are some that are not as excellent as some of the ones I have seen, but this is a very dynamic industry, and it is doing its best to provide homes and communities for people across our country.

I turn to Amendments 99A, 99AA and 100, which seek to ensure that the training of committee members includes climate change, biodiversity, ecological surveying, design and healthy placemaking. I assure noble Lords that the Government believe that all these matters are crucial to good planning, and all feature strongly in the national planning policy framework. To respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on her point about design, the Government are absolutely committed not just to good design in the properties themselves but in placemaking as well. That is set out in the NPPF and in design guides, and we will be publishing our future homes and building standard later this year, which will go further in setting out what we expect. I always had a rule when I was a council leader that I would not build any homes that I would not want to live in myself. I hope to apply the same guidelines as a Minister.

I would expect these matters to feature in any training for planning committee members. For instance, it would be unthinkable for the training not to mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain. The Government believe, however, that it is unnecessary to stipulate all that in the Bill. It is customary to use regulations or guidance to set out details with regard to the implementation of planning law, and the training of planning committee members should not be an exception.

The details for the training are currently under development. We will continue to engage with local government and industry to ensure that the training covers all the basic principles of planning. It would be impractical in primary legislation to provide a complete list of matters that must form part of the training content. This is an area that develops all the time, and we want to make sure we have a mechanism for changing it as things change.

There will be an element of local consideration in this. For example, I think chalk streams were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have chalk streams in my area; they are not right across the country. Everyone should know about them, in my view, and I always talk about them. If you lived in an area where they were present, you might want more training on that aspect.

Furthermore, such a list would have to be kept up to date. That process would take up valuable time in Parliament to amend the Bill. 

Amendment 101 seeks to include National Highways, local highway authorities and integrated transport authorities as local planning authorities to which mandatory training will apply. Although National Highways, local highway authorities and integrated transport authorities are intricately involved with spatial development, they are not local planning authorities and do not have a decision-making role in planning committees, which is the focus of this Government’s training reforms. We therefore do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend the provisions to them.

 Amendment 102 raises important questions about who the training should apply to. The Government introduced mandatory training for members of local planning authorities to improve the decision-making process for the many planning applications that are considered by local planning authorities every year through the planning committees and delegated authority. Many councillors sitting on planning committees are proficient in planning matters, but that is not necessarily the case, nor is it expected to be. Councillors are lay people with busy lives, juggling their councillor duties with other responsibilities. It is important that we get the balance right between training that is necessary for them to be able to take their decision-making properly but also to enable them to make the kind of decisions that make sense to local people. The training is therefore aimed at them so that they better understand the key principles of planning. In doing so, we want to ensure there is a higher level of debate and consistency in decision-making across the country.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly raised the issues of standards. I pay tribute to our planning officers. They face unacceptable behaviour from the public but also, occasionally, regrettably, from councillors. I can reassure the noble Baroness that I am about to embark on a significant piece of work with the code of conduct task force. We will be talking about that more in the early part of next year.

The training is not intended for officers of local planning authorities with responsibility for making or advising on planning decisions, nor any other person to whom decision-making functions are delegated. That is because it can reasonably be expected that all officers who have a formal responsibility for advising on or determining planning decisions are recruited with an emphasis on professional planning qualifications or have extensive planning experience. As we know, they are also able to call in support from experts on key issues where it would not be proportionate for a local authority to have that expertise in house.

On Amendment 103, for similar reasons, the training is not intended for civil servants who make decisions on behalf of Ministers. As noble Lords will be aware, if an applicant appeals or applies directly to the Secretary of State, a planning inspector considers the case. They are planning professionals recruited for their expertise and the Planning Inspectorate provides them with considerable ongoing training.

On the training of Ministers, it is important to highlight that Ministers need, and get, bespoke training and support to fulfil their decisions. They also operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance. It is probably a good soundbite to say that Ministers should also be subject to the same training requirements as a councillor. From a personal point of view, I welcome training. I have had some training, and I am happy to take it on. But I understand that in practice the role is different. We therefore do not intend to extend these mandatory training requirements to Ministers who make planning decisions—for instance, when they call in applications.

Lastly, Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, ably assisted by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Best, seeks to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities either separately or jointly. The noble Lord is quite right to point to the practical approach of local government in some areas in developing joint planning functions to improve their capacity and resilience, and the scope of their work, which can often help with recruitment and retention as well—and the noble Lord also spoke about appointing a suitably qualified chief planning officer.

I share the noble Lord’s ambition of ensuring that all planning decisions are made with professional leadership. I am not convinced that we need to put the chief planning officer role on a statutory footing. We need to consider what a very clear rationale for such a step might be, and I am very cautious about overlegislating as the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to determine the structure of their planning departments. In practice, local planning authorities already have a senior officer who performs a function similar to that of a chief planning officer, but I will continue to reflect on that because as we go through the process of the further changes we are anticipating to the planning system, I think we need to consider it further. I hope to carry on discussions with the noble Lord and others on that. For now, for these reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

This would remove the provision allowing for the delegation of planning decisions in England. Specifically, it would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations that would specify which planning functions may be delegated to planning officers.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have degrouped the Clause 51 stand part notice to facilitate an urgent debate on issues that have come to a head over the Summer Recess—namely, local community engagement on asylum hotels and media briefings from the Government in respect of environmental regulations. As such, I will not elaborate much further on Clause 51, given that most of the relevant issues have been debated on a previous group.

I begin by addressing the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on bat protections. Without pre-empting his argument, I believe his amendment was born out of the report in the Times on 17 August 2025 that the Chancellor is considering reforms to change the rules on nature protections in respect of bats and newts. My noble friend will surely set out the case for his amendment, but this Bill is an opportunity to deliver the reforms we need to unlock housing. If the Government hope to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, as they have promised, they cannot afford to wait for a second planning Bill for these reforms.

I now turn to the issue of asylum hotels and to Amendments 135HZB to 135HZD, 360A and 360B in my name. At their core, these amendments are about fairness, accountability and democratic consent. They seek to give local communities and planning authorities the voice and the agency they currently lack. Too often, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. We saw this most recently in Epping, where anger spilled on to the streets only after the decision had already been taken.

The principle is simple. Changing the use of a hotel or an HMO, a house in multiple occupation, to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use under planning law. That would mean that planning permission is required, just as it would be for a significant change of use or major building works. This change matters for two reasons. First, it would ensure that local people are consulted through the normal planning process before hotels or shared housing are converted for this purpose. Communities deserve a say in decisions that affect their neighbourhoods. Secondly, it would resolve the current legal uncertainty highlighted by the Bell Hotel case, where the courts have been asked to consider whether an injunction should apply. The Court of Appeal ruling on the Bell Hotel was not a decision on whether planning permission was required. Rather, it was a decision on the merits of an interim injunction, which is a particular type of urgent planning enforcement.

Case law and planning decisions on both sides have accepted that individual hotels did or did not require planning permission when they changed into asylum hostels. In the absence of any MHCLG planning policy, the practical result is uncertainty for councils, uncertainty for residents and uncertainty for local businesses. It would be far better if there were a clear set of rules, with individual councils determining planning applications on their merits with due process, rather than councils and courts retrospectively enforcing vague laws.

Above all, these amendments are about trust—trust between government and local communities, trust that local voices will not be bypassed and trust that decisions with such profound social consequences will be taken openly and not forced on people with no notice and no consultation. I hope that noble Lords on the Benches opposite agree.

The choice before us could not be clearer: either we stand with local communities that want a fair and reasonable voice on how and where asylum accommodation is provided, or we allow the current system of central diktat and imposed asylum hotels to continue. These amendments are targeted, proportionate and urgently needed. They offer a sensible way forward that balances compassion with consent and national responsibility with local accountability. The country is watching us. I hope that the Minister takes these amendments forward and that the Government reconsider their position of placing the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of our local people. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 346DB in my name is a probing amendment to debate what can be done to get rid of the absurd rules relating to bats—I am resisting calling them “batty”. The legislation is complex, but that does not alter the need for something to be done to get rid of the present insanity.

There are no bats in the United Kingdom of the type that is threatened with extinction, so there is no harm or danger to them; you cannot damage something that does not exist. There are some types that are close to being endangered, but there are abundant quantities of these types in other countries throughout the world. If the existing legislation were got rid of, there would be no danger to the world’s bat population. In short, legislation to preserve bats is unnecessary.

I will give two examples of the absurdities caused by the present legislation. Your Lordships will have read of the first, which my noble friend Lord Fuller referred to—the £100 million bat tunnel built during the construction of HS2. At a time of appalling government finances, it is scarcely credible to spend £100 million in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he feel a sense of humility given that, by 2023, a peak of 400 asylum hotels had been reached under the previous Government?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

By June 2024, that had gone down to 213. At the moment, there are 2,500 more asylum seekers in those hotels than there were when the Government changed.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I will answer the noble Lord’s question directly, because this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The points I have just made—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I will give the noble Baroness one brief answer to her question. An asylum seeker who was living at the Bell Hotel in Epping has been found guilty of the sexual assault of a young girl. That is just one small reason.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, there were 400 hotels—we have heard from my noble friend Lady Coffey the reasons for that. But in 2024, just before we left government, we were down to 213 hotels. By now, if we were still in government, we would not have any hotels; we were working the number down. It would have helped if the Government opposite, when they first came into power, supported the deterrent that we were going to have—we would then not have the problem.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

That was a somewhat desperate contribution—seriously so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this group.

As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising made clear, his amendment is throwing down a gauntlet to the Government. If media reports are correct, Ministers have plans to deliver reforms that will unlock housing while maintaining genuine protections for endangered wildlife. But my noble friend made it very clear that he thinks that the Government should get on with it. We believe in protecting our green and pleasant land, and we made progress on environmental issues when we were in government, but we also believe in common sense. The much-lampooned HS2 bat tunnel and the ridiculous situation my noble friend had to deal with personally are clearly perverse outcomes, and the Government should seek to resolve them urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

I support Amendment 110 from the noble Baroness and its supporting amendment, which nobody else appears to have picked up so far, Amendment 111.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for these amendments. They are aligned with the shared principle of fairness where development will impact existing communities and infrastructure. In this case, they speak of the need to ensure that businesses already existing in an area do not suffer as a result of the development. I absolutely agree that it is often music businesses or noisy businesses that cause these discussions, and they should be protected: they were there first and everybody should put up with them, in my opinion. They should not suffer as a result of any further development or have unreasonable restrictions placed on them, as I have seen in the past, which does not seem fair. Does the Minister believe that the agent of change principle should have a statutory weight on it, rather than being solely in the NPPF? I think that is the important issue here.

Moreover, Amendment 111 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering touches on the role of local government as the arbitrator between the business and the developer. This highlights an important issue as we seek to balance the need for social stability with the growth that the Chancellor is promising, and I think these issues will come forward more and more in the future, so we need to get this sorted.

There is no denying that we need more housing—that is clear—but development must always go hand in hand with local economic needs. Without that balance, we risk creating a dormitory town, stripped of social fabric and disconnected from opportunity. How will the Government ensure that local authorities across England are supported to strike this essential balance?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments. I share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to ensure that new developments do not place unreasonable restrictions on existing businesses and are integrated effectively into their surroundings, and the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just made that live music venues are the things that make our communities vibrant and alive. We have just had our fantastic Old Town Live festival in Stevenage, in a series of music venues right along our high street; they are the things that bring people together and make it a good place to live.

The agent of change principle is already embedded in the National Planning Policy Framework. I reiterate my comments earlier that, although the National Planning Policy Framework is not a statutory document in itself, it forms part of the statutory planning process. The Government are clear that where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on a new development in its vicinity, the applicant or agent of change is responsible for providing suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.

Local planning authorities can also use planning conditions to make developments acceptable by addressing specific concerns, such as environmental impacts from noise pollution—for instance, by the use of engineering to reduce noise at source, or the use of noise insulation to mitigate the impact of noise on residents. Where they receive complaints, local authorities are obliged to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate. This allows them to consider a variety of factors in determining whether a complaint constitutes a nuisance in the eyes of the law. Additionally, local licensing authorities can incorporate the agent of change principle into their statement of licensing policy if they consider it useful to do so. This is at their discretion, as they are best placed to understand their own local context.

I understand the desire to embed these principles into law, but we believe this to be unnecessary given the provisions that already exist. It also risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments. We will continue considering how the agent of change principle can be better implemented within the planning system through national planning policy reform. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 112 and 185H in the names of my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. At the heart of this debate lies the recognition that housing is not merely the business of bricks and mortar, nor simply the provision of shelter; it is about the creation of places where people may live, thrive and belong; it is about communities, places to call home.

Cultural values matter profoundly. They matter both in housing and community building. When we lose the local pub, the music venue—as we have heard—the sports club or the community hall, we do not simply lose a building; we strip away the places in which people meet, share experiences and forge common bonds. These are the lifeblood of our neighbourhoods.

Assets of community value are often deeply rooted in local history and identity, as we have heard many times this afternoon. Protecting them is a necessity for living in communities and a gift to future generations. In government, we invested in the community and cultural assets through the levelling up fund, which the Government have since scrapped. But we, as a party, will continue to champion our cultural assets in opposition.

Amendment 112, in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, has the benefit of simplicity. This is a straightforward change in law that could save many important community assets. Amendment 185H is a little bit more complicated. If the Government were to accept the principle of this amendment, we hope that Ministers would be able to flesh out a little more detail on their intentions in the Bill. We do not want a need for delegated powers and then it goes into the ether.

If we are to build not only houses but homes, not only developments but communities, then these questions to the Minister are of no small importance.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for tabling these amendments which relate to the assets of community value scheme, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Freyberg, the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for contributing to the debate. This is an important scheme to enable communities to identify local assets that are important to them and to protect them for future community use. I am grateful for the commitment of noble Lords to ensuring that the scheme provides robust protections for a broad range of community assets, including cultural assets.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for mentioning the Cavern Club. Some of us are heading up to Liverpool in a couple of weeks’ time, and I am sure I will renew my acquaintance with the Cavern Club. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about a relationship between culture and locality—if there was ever an iconic one, it is that relationship between Liverpool and the Cavern Club.

Amendment 112 would add assets of community value to those buildings that are excepted from the demolition permitted development right. This would mean the owner of a listed asset would need to submit a planning application if they wished to demolish it. Concert halls, live music venues and theatres are already excluded from the demolition permitted development right. In addition, the Secretary of State and local planning authorities have the power to remove certain permitted development rights more widely in their area, through the making of an Article 4 direction, provided there is justification for the direction’s purpose and intent. I trust that the explanation provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 185H would create a separate assets of cultural value category that would operate in a similar way to the existing assets of community value scheme. However, it would specifically protect arts and cultural spaces that are of importance to the community or foster specialist cultural skills. This would enable community bodies and other bodies to nominate cultural assets, and if a listed asset is put up for sale, provide a set period for this body to put in a bid to purchase the asset to maintain it for cultural purposes. The cultural value of the asset would also be a material consideration in planning decisions.

Noble Lords will be aware the Government have recently introduced the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which contains new provisions to give communities a right to buy valued community assets. Through this change, we have amended the current assets of community value scheme to ensure that it is as strong as possible at protecting locally important assets. This includes updating the assets of community value definition to help bring more assets into scope of the policy, including those that support the economy of a community and those that were historically of importance to the community.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, invited me to acknowledge that other jurisdictions do this better. I entirely agree, but they do not always have the same regulatory baggage that we in this country seem to have; perhaps there is something that can be unpicked and dissolved there.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Khan. Although he sat on the Opposition Benches, he always approached his shadow ministerial duties in your Lordships’ House with courtesy, commitment and friendship. He was diligent, engaged and unfailingly respectful in his dealings with me and my team. While we did not always agree, I greatly valued the constructive spirit he brought to our debates, and I wish him well in whatever lies ahead; I will miss working with him.

I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling these probing amendments, which raise important issues about the way we prepare our housing stock for the future. Amendment 115, on rainwater harvesting, Amendment 116, on communal ground source heat pumps, and Amendment 117, on solar panels, speak to the wider challenge of how new homes can be made more resilient in the face of climate change. The principle of future-proofing is one most of us would support, but the question for government is how far and at what cost such measures should be mandated, and the practicality of doing so. Can the Minister clarify whether, in the Government’s view, current building regulations, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, already provide the right framework to encourage technologies such as rainwater capture, ground source heat pumps and solar panels, or is further regulation envisaged? Has the department carried out an assessment of the costs and benefits of making such systems compulsory, including the potential impact on house prices and affordability, and how these costs might be lowered in the future? Has it also considered the capacity of local electrical grids to support these systems and other potential loads such as EV charging?

There is also a question of consistency. To what extent are local authorities currently able to set higher environmental standards for new developments, and do the Government believe this local flexibility is the right approach, or should it be centralised?

Finally, how are the Government weighing the balance between affordability for first-time buyers on the one hand and, on the other, the need to reduce the long-term costs to households and infrastructure of failing to invest in resilience? These are the issues I hope the Minister will address, because it is that balance between ambition, practicality and cost which must guide policy in this area.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for moving her amendment. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said about my noble friend Lord Khan, who is actually a friend and was a very good Minister. We really appreciate the effort he put into his role in this House, and I wish him well for the future.

We have had a very good debate this afternoon on these issues. I too declare my interest in water butts, since I have two in the garden which we use for watering it. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that they fill rather quickly, so it is a good, efficient use of water, rather than using the hosepipe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I am not sure that this amendment hits the target of potential corruption in relation to planning. In my view, the central problem is not with central government but with local government. We are all becoming accustomed to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, who is very eloquent, describing the council that he has been involved in as a paragon of perfection over the last 20 or 30 years, and I accept what he says about his council down there in Norfolk. However, those of us who have been in legal practice over the years, and/or have been Members of the other place, and/or have had to deal in other ways with allegations of corruption, are well aware that there is a centuries-long history of local government corruption in relation to planning issues above everything else. I accept that there are protections and that most councillors, such as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would never consider being involved in corruption. But my experience of doing criminal corruption cases in relation to local government is that the people who commit the corruption, whether they are councillors or officers, are not the ones who subscribe to the regulations and the registers that have been set out.

We must continue to be extremely vigilant about corruption in relation to planning. There is an enormous amount of money involved. I hope that the Minister is of the view that to call this kind of amendment an appalling stunt is to lose oneself in the backwoods of local government and to be not a frequent reader of newspapers.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this has gone a different way, has it not?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling Amendment 120. Not knowing which way it would go, and not totally agreeing with my noble friend at the back, I think this raises an important point of principle that deserves to be considered.

At first glance, this is a very specific proposal, but the noble Baroness is right to highlight the broader issue that lies behind it, without the political point-scoring. It is the need for transparency, integrity and public trust in the planning system. We all recognise that planning decisions, as we have heard, are among the most contentious and sensitive areas of government, nationally and locally. Undue influence or even the perception of it can do damage to public trust in local communities and in Ministers and government. The noble Baroness is therefore right to remind us that we must be vigilant about conflicts of interest and that transparency is the best safeguard against suspicion.

The principle that the noble Baroness presses is a sound one, but there is a question of whether it is practically deliverable. Do our local planning authorities —which are, as we hear every day, underresourced—have the skills and capacity to deliver on this requirement? I am not sure that they do. Perhaps we should consider whether MHCLG should take on this responsibility, as it has greater access to the information that would be required. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on this one.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for another interesting debate on an issue around which we need to continue to be vigilant. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling Amendment 120, which seeks to introduce a requirement on local planning authorities to keep a registry of planning applications made by political donors which are decided by Ministers.

The honourable Member for Taunton and Wellington brought this clause forward in the other place, and in doing so, he referred to a particular planning case that had raised cause for concern. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss that case, but I would like to echo the sentiments of the Housing Minister when I say that I also share those concerns.

However, we believe that this clause is unnecessary. Local planning register authorities are already required to maintain and publish a register of every application for planning permission and planning application decisions that relate to their area. This includes details and application decisions where the Secretary of State, or other Planning Ministers who act on his behalf, has made the decision via a called-in application or a recovered appeal. This is set out in Article 40 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

In addition, the Secretary of State’s decisions on planning cases are also published on GOV.UK in order to provide additional transparency. The details on GOV.UK include the decision letters that set out the reasons for the decision. When determining applications for planning permission, the Secretary of State and other Planning Ministers who act on his behalf operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance. Planning propriety guidance makes it clear that decisions on planning proposals should be made with an open mind, based on the facts at the time. Any conflicts of interest between the decision-making role of Ministers and their other interests should be avoided.

Planning Ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the Ministerial Code. The Ministerial Code makes specific provision for the declaration of gifts given to Ministers in their ministerial capacity. Gifts given to Ministers in their capacity as constituency MPs or members of a political party fall within the rules relating to the registers of Members’ and Lords’ financial interests.

Also, before any Planning Minister takes decisions, the planning propriety guidance sets out that they are required to declare anything that could give rise to a conflict of interest or where there could be a perceived conflict of interest. The planning casework unit within the department uses this information to ensure that Planning Ministers do not deal with decisions that could give rise to the perception of impropriety—for example, if the Minister in question has declared that the applicant of the proposal is a political donor, they would be recused from making the decision.

We therefore feel that there is sufficient transparency on planning casework decisions made by the Secretary of State and Planning Ministers who act on his behalf, and it is not necessary to impose an additional administrative burden on local planning authorities, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, we need to continue to be vigilant. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Going back to a previous group we had late last week, does the noble Lord think it could be useful that all Ministers taking planning decisions had a little bit more training, as we suggested?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

On this particular issue, they do take training, and it is deemed at the moment to be necessary, but obviously all this stuff is kept under review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to my own Amendment 194 in this group, at the end—or heading towards the end—of what has been an incredibly impassioned debate with very little disagreement about the broad principles in every one of these amendments. It is an extremely good group of amendments. I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for their support for my Amendment 194.

This new clause would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in all new developments. As we have heard so much in this discussion, green spaces are not just an optional extra, they are an essential part of infrastructure. They are an essential part of delivering healthy, sustainable, happy, fulfilled communities. This amendment was originally tabled by my colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, the MP for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that green infrastructure is planned alongside traditional facilities that we think about, such as GPs, transport, and water connections. Development corporations must ensure that green spaces are included and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has just referenced, properly maintained. From private gardens and balconies to community gardens, this is not just about planting trees. This is about creating lasting accessible space for everyone and making sure that our communities do not have to fight for every single square inch of that greenery.

We have already heard much about the findings from Natural England, that we can reduce the need for GP appointments by 28%. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, gave an impassioned and convincing speech, and I can confirm to her that it was the National Institutes of Health which identified that acute hospital patients feel better and leave sooner if they have greenery just outside their window, let alone a hospital garden. So there is direct evidence and we heard much of it from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and I thank her for that.

Given how much we have heard, I will cut out quite a lot of the speech I prepared on this amendment. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested. There is a huge amount of consensus in this group of amendments. It seems that there is potential for us to work together and possibly—and I am looking at whichever Minister is summating for us—getting together with the relevant Ministers and seeing whether we can find some way of ensuring that this is not merely a nice to have but an essential, integral part of infrastructure.

Finally, I refer back to the lovely ducks that were so supportive outside the window of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, when she was very ill. Let us get our ducks in a row. Let us get together and see whether we can drive this forward as a united Chamber.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments, in different ways, all concern the provision of green and blue spaces. Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, raises the vital issue of whether minimum requirements for green space should be set in new housing developments. I ask the Minister whether the Government are considering such a standard and, if so, whether it would vary between urban and rural contexts.

Amendment 138 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne invites us to consider whether the current breadth of strategic provision under the spatial development strategies is sufficient in respect of green spaces and allotments. Do the Government accept that the definition may be too narrow, and if so, are they minded to expand it to give strategic planning authorities more flexibility to deliver for their residents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group raise important questions about the definition of affordable housing and how far the Government’s current proposals will deliver against the need that is obviously widely recognised. The term itself is much used yet too often detached from the realities faced by families across the country. These amendments draw attention to the gap that can arise between policy definition and practical affordability, and they raise the question of how local circumstances are to be given proper weight.

In addition, there is the matter of delivery, as we have heard. What is the expected scale of provision for social rent in the year ahead, and how does that compare with the assessed levels of need? Every independent analyst points to social rent as the tenure under the greatest pressure. The amendments, in their different ways, put that issue squarely before the House and before Ministers.

We welcome the affordable housing 10-year plan and the money that has been invested in it, but the money is back-loaded into future government spending reviews, so it is by no means certain when we will get it. That money is required now.

As we have heard, we have also had the precedent of earlier legislation, including the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, in which Parliament accepted the principle that local plans must take account of housing need. That is not just one tenure of housing but all tenures, whether private, social, affordable, housing for young people or for older people. Under that Act, local authorities are required to look at the needs in their area and to have plans to deliver those housing tenures. Those figures should be subject to scrutiny by local communities through the consultation for the local plan. How does the Bill intend to carry that principle forward? Is it going to enact that part of the levelling-up Act, or does it have other plans of its own?

The amendments collectively press for clarity, accountability and ambition on affordable housing delivery. We need to deliver the homes people need, and I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to explain what steps the Government are taking to deliver that number of affordable and social rented homes over this Parliament. I hardly need remind your Lordships’ House that the Government are also well behind in the delivery of their manifesto commitment to provide the 1.5 million homes that we all urgently need.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on social and affordable housing. As Members of this House will know, I personally and the Government are very supportive of the intent of the amendments in this group, which is to increase the delivery of affordable and social housing. Noble Lords will already be aware that this Government have committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent. As other Peers have indicated, we allocated £39 billion over the course of this Parliament to social and affordable housing, the biggest amount for generations, and we have indicated that 60% of that should be for social housing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, spoke powerfully about the crisis we faced when we came into office and frankly—and I have said it before—169,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation is a shameful record. We will tackle that. We are working on it immediately and doing everything we can to address it. The investment made at the Spring Statement, which was the £39 billion, follows the £800 million new in-year funding which has been made available for the affordable homes programme 2021 to 2026 that will support the delivery of up to 7,800 new homes, more than half of them social rent homes. That is significantly up on the £700 million that was mentioned.

Furthermore, we have announced changes to allow councils to retain 100% of receipts generated by right-to-buy sales. This is not a one-off. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, spoke about the net gain in housing and there are other issues we need to address, including right to buy. We recently consulted on wider reforms to right to buy; that consultation has closed. We also consulted on a long-term rent settlement that would allow rents to increase above inflation each year for five years from 2026. That consultation has closed, and we are looking at responses from the sector to deal with that. It is our intention to give long-term rent settlements so that registered providers can have the certainty they need to invest in housing.

Amendment 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to set out a minimum proportion of social rent provision on new developments and require any affordable housing requirements to be fully implemented on them. I thank the noble Lord, as ever, for being such a passionate advocate for affordable housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned the definition of affordable homes. It is now specific in the NPPF that authorities should separately set out social housing need in their local plan and not just use that broad term of “affordable housing”, which was never very satisfactory.

The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that we need to significantly increase the number of affordable homes built each year, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We will continue to take steps to deliver a planning system that supports this. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned that the target has not yet been achieved. We need to lay the foundations for this. We need the funding that we have put in to deliver social housing. We also need this planning Bill to go through to free up the planning system so that we move it forward quickly. I know our new Secretary of State will be very focused on that: I have already spoken to him today about it.

We will continue to take the steps we need to deliver the planning system that supports this, but I do not believe this amendment goes quite in the direction that we need to go. Our revised National Planning Policy Framework provides greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit particular housing needs. The framework makes it clear that local authorities should, when producing their local plan, assess the need for affordable housing and homes for social rent and then plan to meet those needs. This includes setting out the amount and type of affordable housing that should be secured on new developments.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned viability guidance. We are reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure the system works to optimise developer contributions, allowing negotiation only where that is genuinely necessary. We will produce this guidance later this year, so I look forward to discussing that with noble Lords. We must also acknowledge that there are times where flexibility is necessary to ensure sites can commence when there is a change in circumstances, such as a change in the economic situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the CMA report which resulted in a fine of £100 million to the major developers. We need to carefully consider—and we have talked about it before in your Lordships’ House—how to make sure that that does not just get recirculated to develop further profits for the same developers that caused the problem in the first place; that is, those that were fined. We have already allocated a package of support for SME builders and I hope the very significant sum allocated in the affordable homes programme and other funds that may come forward will help to support local jobs, training, apprenticeships, supply chains and those SME builders. It is very important that we all focus on that as well.

Consequently, we must aim to balance strengthening the developer contribution system with retaining the necessary degree of flexibility, allowing negotiation and renegotiation to take place but only where it is genuinely justified. Planning obligations entered into under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are legally binding and enforceable. A local planning authority may take enforcement action against any breach of a planning obligation contained within a Section 106 agreement, including any breach of the affordable housing commitment. We will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing as we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making later this year.

Amendments 141, 150A and 151, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, seek to ensure that a majority of any affordable housing specified or described by a strategic planning authority in its spatial development strategy is housing for social rent as defined in paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023. The wording of the Bill gives strategic planning authorities the flexibility to plan for a broad range of affordable housing types, allowing them to respond to the specific needs of their areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, rightly mentioned nationally important landscapes. In this new planning Bill, they retain their very strong protections. We are very interested in—and have talked a lot about—the rural exception sites and, where housing is necessary, working with local areas to determine where that housing should go and potentially have local lettings plans to go with them. The Government have already put forward some strong measures, particularly on empty homes but also on second homes in terms of council tax measures and so on, that can be taken.

Insisting that spatial development strategies must specify or describe a certain amount of one type of affordable housing could prevent authorities including other important forms of affordable housing when setting out the amount or distribution of such housing that they consider to be strategically important to their area. This could significantly reduce the variety and volume of affordable housing delivered.

I turn now to Amendment 137, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This would require a spatial development strategy to have regard to the need to meet a specific target for new social homes each year. New Section 12D(5)(b) already enables a spatial development strategy to outline an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other type of housing—social housing, certainly—that the authority deems strategically important for its area.

Amendment 171 asks the Government to commit to update guidance in relation to affordable housing. I am in full agreement that we have to ensure affordable housing is genuinely affordable to local people and addresses local needs. That is why we have made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit housing need in their areas. In addition, we have committed that new investment to succeed the current affordable homes programme will have a particular focus on delivering social rent—that is the 60% I referred to earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to net new homes. Delivery of new homes is only one element of that; so are changes to right-to-buy provisions which the Government have already outlined. Planning policy already supports many of the aims of this amendment, requiring local planning authorities to assess the range of affordable housing needs in their area and set out the types of affordable housing to be prioritised.

On a couple of other points, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, reminded us that there are economic benefits to providing social housing. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the Benefits to Bricks campaign. It is very important as we look to reduce the benefits bill that that £30 billion—or £35 billion, as I think she cited—often used to house someone in expensive accommodation that does not meet their needs, is much better focused on delivering social housing where we can ensure that it meets the needs of those who live there.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the amendments on shared ownership from the noble Lord, Lord Young. They are part of the Renters’ Rights Bill, and we have had very useful meetings with the noble Lord. No doubt that will come back to us when the Bill comes back from ping-pong. We have already made a clear commitment to consider further steps to support social and affordable housing as part of our intent to produce a set of national policies for decision-making in 2025. It is as part of these changes that the content and timing of further updates to guidance are best considered. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

What is being proposed is drastically reducing the amount of time if anyone wants to bring a judicial review. I have already mentioned the barriers of raising money, assuming you can raise that. Perhaps this will be a change, but the High Court will not like this. It will absolutely kick off. Right now, Governments really struggle to not do the whole amount of—forgive me, I have forgotten quite the phrase, it is disclosure but there is a particular phrase that goes with candour. But if that is the way and we are going to go with three weeks, then honestly the delays will get worse. Be careful what one wishes for in regard to three weeks versus six weeks. I think this is an unnecessary amendment, whereas I am somewhat supportive of the other amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has tabled.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and my noble friend Lord Banner for their careful thought and experience in tabling these amendments. On Amendment 135D, I recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in seeking to restrict appeals to the Court of Appeal where the High Court has deemed an application to be totally without merit. This is, of course, a delicate balance between ensuring access to justice and preventing the courts from being encumbered by hopeless claims. I am grateful to him for placing this important matter before your Lordships’ Committee.

Similarly, the noble Lord’s Amendments 357, 358 and 360 raise pertinent questions about the commencement provisions of various clauses, particularly in relation to the new measures on planning and legal challenges. It is often the case that commencement by regulation can leave uncertainty. The proposal to provide for an automatic commencement two months after Royal Assent is, at the very least, a reminder of the need for clarity and timeliness in the law. These points merit careful reflection, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I now turn to Amendment 168, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner. This amendment addresses a very practical difficulty—namely, the risk that development consents are lost due to time running out during the course of judicial or statutory reviews. By stopping the clock, the amendment would ensure that the permission does not simply expire while litigation is pending. This is important not only for developers and investors who require certainty but for local communities who deserve clarity about the projects affecting them. Without such a measure, there is a danger that meritless legal challenges might be deployed as a tactic to run down the clock, thereby frustrating legitimate development. I believe my noble friend is right to highlight this problem, and I warmly welcome his amendment.

I conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Banner for their thoughtful contributions. We on these Benches will listen very closely to the Minister’s response on these matters.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions on this group. I turn first to Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which seeks to reduce the time limit for bringing a legal challenge against planning decisions from six weeks to 21 days.

Judicial and statutory review of planning decisions are already subject to a compressed six-week window within which a claim may be brought, compared with the three-month time limit in most judicial reviews. It is the Government’s view that the current time limit strikes the right balance between providing certainty for developers in local communities and preserving access to justice. Further shortened, the time limit for bringing a claim would risk restricting the public’s ability to hold the Government and planning authorities to account on planning decisions.

A shorter time limit would also leave less time for meaningful engagement between the parties to potentially resolve matters out of court or to narrow the scope of any claim. Claimants who fear being timed out may also feel compelled to lodge protective claims just in case. This could inadvertently lead to greater delays due to a potential increase in the number of challenges.

The Government are taking forward a wider package of reforms to improve the efficiency of the planning system, including measures to speed up decisions and encourage early engagement. These changes will have a far greater impact than trimming a few weeks off the judicial review timetable. While I recognise my noble friend’s intention to reduce uncertainty in the planning system, I believe the three-week time saving from the shortened time limit is outweighed by the risk of restricting access to justice and the practical implications of such a change. Therefore, I respectfully invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

I turn next to Amendments 129, 130 and 135D, also tabled by my noble friend, which seek to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effect of these amendments largely reflects that of Clause 12, which makes provisions specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008.

The measures in Clause 12 follow a robust independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a subsequent government call for evidence that made clear the case for change regarding these major infrastructure projects. We currently do not have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. We will therefore need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of the changes made to Clause 12 will be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.

With regards to the amendment, which seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court, this is not necessary, as the process is set out clearly in the relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for his Amendments 357, 358 and 360 concerning the commencement of Clause 12 and the new judicial review provisions which he is proposing. The amendments seek to ensure that these provisions all come into force two months after Royal Assent. With regard to Clause 12, this requires changes to the relevant civil procedures, rules and practice directions. The current power, which allows this measure to be commenced by regulation, is designed to ensure that the necessary provisions are in place before the changes come into force. I reassure my noble friend that the Government intend to commence the measure by regulation as soon as practicable following Royal Assent. With regards to my noble friend’s amendment linked to his proposed new provisions, I think he would agree that this amendment is no longer required as the related provisions are now being withdrawn. For these reasons, I kindly ask that my noble friend withdraws his amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for Amendment 168, which would extend the time period to commence a planning permission if the permission was subject to judicial proceedings. The Government agree with the policy intention behind this amendment. The statutory commencement provisions under Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are an important and long-standing part of the legal framework for planning permissions to ensure that permissions are implemented in a timely manner, and lapsed if they have not begun within the prescribed time period.

However, we recognise that it would be unfair on the applicant if judicial proceedings—where the court has confirmed the lawfulness of the permission—led to delays that mean that the commencement period of the lawful permission is effectively curtailed. Legal challenges on the validity of the permission should not seek to time out the practical implementation of the permission. That is why Section 91(3A) to (3B) was introduced to automatically extend the commencement period for a formal planning permission by a further year if there were judicial proceedings questioning the validity of a planning permission. This extension of a year is sufficient to cover the typical period for a planning case at the High Court, so applicants, where their planning permission has been lawfully upheld, should not lose out from the delay caused by the legal challenge. In light of these points, I kindly ask that my noble friend does not press his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak broadly in support of this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth. The amendment would embed the promotion and use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution in our planning system. I inform the Committee that I have been an elected local councillor sitting on a planning committee and worked for a number of years as a community mediator, helping to run a community mediation service specialising in neighbour disputes.

For too long, our approach to resolving planning disputes has been overly adversarial, leading to court battles, mounting costs, lengthy delays and frustrated developers, communities and local authorities. Too much of our planning process revolves around zero-sum games—talking to people, doing things to them and resorting to formal legal processes when things go wrong, as they inevitably do. The amendment is an invitation to do things better, for the benefit of all people and the interests of better governance and speeding up the planning process.

Mediation is no longer an untrusted novelty. It is widely used in all sectors of society. Its benefits are well established in many sectors and many areas of everyday life. It is used fairly infrequently, but it is used in the planning process. Properly structured and supported mediation interventions and processes can resolve specific contentious issues at an early stage, reducing hostility and helping to build trust, to foster positive relationships in a way that litigation is not capable of doing. When used, it produces high satisfaction, more creative solutions and results that last beyond the immediate dispute. As opposed to legal processes which are imposed from on high, mediation resolutions are designed and tailored by the parties themselves to fix exactly their individual needs. These outcomes can be transformative and, because the parties design them themselves, they tend to work more for their specific needs, meaning that they are more committed to the outcomes that they have helped to create.

Mediation will obviously not work in all cases, but it can work in some. What is certain is that, if mediation is not widely available, not promoted and not explored, it will not work in the planning processes. In some areas I do disagree with the noble Lord. My view is that mediation should be wholly a voluntary process for both parties. Every dispute that is kept out of lengthy appeals or court hearings is a saving to the public purse, a saving to local councils and a help with the Government’s stated aim of speeding up the planning processes. Studies have found that as many as 73% of mediated cases avoided further appeals, cut expenses and helped to reduce times.

It is not just about saving money. This is about making the system more accessible, making it work better for the people involved and making it more inclusive. Mediation enables genuine dialogue and empowers communities to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process. It is especially effective in complex cases—major developments, local plans, Section 106 negotiation and compulsory purchase disputes—where misunderstandings and mistrust can easily escalate into enshrined conflict. Mediation offers confidentiality, tailored solutions and better governance. Some worry about the cost, but this could be overcome and lead to savings. I call for the Government to look at this and to take it seriously. However, for this system to work it would need some dedicated funding and support from government.

I conclude with a couple of questions. We know that we have some mediation processes within planning, but they are rarely used and not very well embedded. Have the Government done any assessment on the use of mediation to date? Has it helped to speed up processes? Has it resulted in better outcomes? Have those outcomes lasted longer than legal ones? If the Government are not going to support this amendment today, can they consider doing a larger-scale trial of the use of mediation within the planning process? Then the outcomes can be properly monitored and the Government can make a fair assessment of the use of mediation more wholly within the planning process.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on Amendment 133, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. We welcome the opportunity the amendment provides to hear more from the Government on how they intend to reduce the risk of lengthy and expensive litigation within the planning process. As many in the Committee will know, such disputes can cause considerable delays, uncertainty for local communities, and significant costs for both the applicants and local authorities. It is therefore important to understand what practical steps the Government are considering to streamline proceedings while ensuring that proper scrutiny and accountability remain in place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 135 and 135H. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I think I am in the middle of building one of these self-build houses—I know I am, but I do not think of myself as a self-builder because I am not out there with bricks and mortar. More seriously, the complexity involved and time it takes for an individual who wants to convert their own little two-bedroom cottage to get through the planning system is unbelievable—it probably took me two and a half years. That is not acceptable and it does put people off, I am sure.

On Amendment 135, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, modern housing delivery, particularly self-build and custom housebuilding, is important because it can add to supply. It can provide homes that better meet local or individual needs, and it can encourage innovation. Too often, as I have said, individuals face barriers in accessing land or securing timely permission. Will the Minister set out how the Government intend to make the existing right to self-build more effective and ensure that local authorities bring forward and encourage more sites to be built out in this way?

Amendment 135H, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, addresses modular and off-site construction, where homes are manufactured to a set design and then assembled on site. When I was a Minister, I spoke many times on this, and I know that these methods can improve speed, quality and sustainability, yet planning delays can hold them back. Will the Minister please set out how the Government will support modern methods of construction in the planning system and whether they will streamline processes to encourage their wider use? Critical to making modular and off-site construction companies successful, and helping them survive, is that they need a pipeline of contractors putting in contracts. How do the Government propose to support the sector on this issue? It is a critical sector for building out these 1.5 million houses as quickly as possible and for them to be sustainable into the future. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for these amendments. By the way, I hope it is not the nephew of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is building the structure next door to the garden of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 135 seeks to restrict the types of development permission that may be counted by relevant authorities in meeting their duty to grant development permission for self-build and custom housebuilding under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 to those set out in the new clause. The Government recognise that self and custom-build housing can play an important role as part of measures to diversify the market and support SMEs to ensure we can deliver the homes we need and support home ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady McIntosh, for the amendments relating to planning authority meetings. Amendment 135E would require councils to stream their planning meetings online, to publish records of those meetings and to allow members of the public to speak at them via online participation.

I have to say “well remembered” to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the levelling-up Bill—I think all of us who worked on that Bill deserve a badge to say that we survived. I indeed supported this issue, and the Government are committed to legislating to allow councils to meet remotely in response to our consultation. We are working with sector representatives such as the Local Government Association and others to clarify how this would work in practice, including how to ensure that existing rules around meetings are applied appropriately to remote and hybrid meetings without undermining democratic accountability or procedural integrity. We want to get this right and that might mean taking a little longer to work through the detail of the proposal to make sure that the changes are legally robust, practically workable and aligned with the expectation of both local authorities and the public.

We are committed to ending this micromanagement of local councils from Whitehall. Decisions about how councils run their day-to-day affairs should be taken locally. We do not think it is appropriate at the moment to make streaming meetings compulsory, as this amendment proposes. Councils can already stream their meetings online and can, if they wish, make arrangements to hear representations from the public online. Indeed, many councils already do this. The Government encourage councils to consider how they can make local democracy accessible to their residents, and that includes for reasons of disability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out. Streaming meetings may be a helpful step to make local decision-making more transparent. However, making that a locally operational decision and not because of a diktat is important.

Amendment 135HZA would allow planning committees and subcommittees to meet remotely or in hybrid form in circumstances to be specified in regulations. Outdated legislation has the implied effect of requiring all local authorities to hold their meetings in one physical location only. This was confirmed by a court case several years ago. As I mentioned earlier, all local authorities are independent bodies with their own democratic mandate, and as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has raised several times in this House in recent years, they should be able to decide how they want to organise their own meetings and Parliament should not stand in their way. That is why the Government have committed to allowing councils to make decisions themselves about whether to hold their meetings in person, to do them fully online, or to have a hybrid form.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Have the Government looked at any legal opinion as to whether a planning meeting is different from any other council meeting because it is quasi-judicial?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is exactly the detailed work that we are doing now with the Local Government Association and with other advisers to make sure that we get all the regulations right so that we do not breach any legal duty that councils have as we go through this process. We think this choice should apply to all council meetings and not just planning committees or planning authorities. We do not think there should be conditions attached to the decision. We trust that local authorities will make arrangements that work for them and for their residents, but we need to carry out the further work that I have referred to in order to bring this forward. However, I am very committed to moving it onwards, but we do not believe that the amendments are necessary and I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 135E.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will make just one point. While I very much agree on the necessity of accurate and supportive assessments of the needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities, alongside that, and as part of that, I hope that the needs of show people will not be forgotten. As a Member of Parliament, I had the pleasure of having quite a substantial show people site, which was developed from what was previously a Traveller site, and they were extremely good neighbours. Their needs should be taken into account. I do not want to see us in a situation where the loss of a Traveller site is treated as a detriment if, as in our case, it is converted for use by show people to come and go on a long-term basis. That actually was very successful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this group of amendments, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. On these Benches, we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that Gypsy and Traveller communities have access to appropriate accommodation. However, we do not believe—to put it bluntly—that these amendments are the right way forward. Local authorities already have duties under existing planning and housing law to assess accommodation needs across their communities, including those of Gypsies and Travellers.

To impose further statutory duties of the kind envisaged in these amendments risks unnecessary duplication and centralisation, adding bureaucracy without improving outcomes. We believe that the better course is to ensure that the current framework is properly enforced, rather than creating new and overlapping obligations. For that reason, we cannot offer our support to these amendments; nevertheless, we look forward to the Minister’s reply.

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

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 145, 173, 174, 175 and 176, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is a passionate advocate for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites. I was very happy to discuss this with her yesterday during the debate on Awaab’s law. We have had many meetings on the subject, which I welcome.

I completely agree with the need to ensure sufficient provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to make the distinction between show people and Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. I believe that local authorities can already make a distinction in planning terms between the two. If that is not right, I will correct that in writing. Therefore, local authorities have the ability to do that.

Amendment 145 requires the spatial development strategy to specify an amount or distribution of Traveller sites. However, under new Section 12D(5), the Bill would already allow for spatial development strategies to specify or describe housing needs for Gypsies and Travellers, provided that the strategic planning authority considers the issue to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. The new clause refers to

“any other kind of housing”

the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be part of its strategic consideration.

Amendments 173, 174, 175 and 176 seek to introduce measures into the Bill that would require an assessment of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs to inform local plans and development strategies. The amendment is unnecessary as there is an existing duty, in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of those people residing in, or resorting to, districts with respect to the provision of caravan sites or houseboats. This provision covers Gypsies and Travellers.

Furthermore, planning policy is already clear that local planning authorities should use a robust evidence base to establish Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs and to inform the preparation of local plans and planning decisions. In doing so, they should pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with both settled and Traveller communities and should work collaboratively with neighbouring planning authorities.

We have also committed to a further review of planning policy for Traveller sites this year, as part of which any further changes, including the need for guidance on the assessment of needs, will be considered. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that we will not be sleepwalking into these; they will be evidence based after clear consultation with all relevant bodies, including the communities themselves. As housing legislation, planning policy and the Bill already adequately support the provision of Traveller sites, I therefore ask my noble friend not to press her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and to support my noble friend Lady Hodgson in her Amendment 215. I will focus on villages.

The Committee will recall that the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the purposes of the green-belt policy, one of which—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, may not entirely agree that it is working—is to restrict the sprawl of large built-up areas. That essentially is where the London green belt really came from. Having absorbed Hampstead Heath, Dulwich Village and Wimbledon and so on, the question was: how far is this all going to go?

Let us accept that but what is interesting is that the NPPF goes on in paragraph 143(b) to say that another purpose is

“to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another”;

“towns” is the key word here. Separately, and I note it because otherwise the Minister would be on my case to refer to it, paragraph 150 says:

“If it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt”.


I submit that that is essentially about the character of that village from landscape and related points of view, rather than anything to do with its relationship to any other settlement, or its history.

We tend to focus on the National Planning Policy Framework, but we should bear in mind that it was followed in February this year by further guidance, which in three respects looked at those purposes and tried to categorise the contributions to the purposes in various respects. It is interesting that one of the three purposes is about urban sprawl. It says that

“villages should not be considered large built-up areas”,

which seems obvious, but the point is that the guidance selects villages to be excluded from this purpose. Under “Preventing neighbourhood towns merging”, it goes on to say “towns, not villages”. In the third purpose, relating to the setting of historic towns, it says:

“This purpose relates to historic towns, not villages”.


What have historic villages done to make themselves so unpopular from this point of view? Why are historic villages not important in the same way as historic towns—and, for that matter, historic cities?

Ministers, including the Minister responding to this debate, will not recall previous debates in which I was very supportive of green-belt reviews. We had a green-belt review in Cambridge and, if we had not had one nearly 20 years ago, we would not have the Cambridge Biomedical Campus that we have today—we gave up green-belt land. I declare an interest in that I was Member of Parliament there, so I had to represent both sides of the argument, and I am currently chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, so I have skin in that game too. Nearly 20 years ago, we gave up a significant part of the green belt to enable that to happen. Subsequently, a planning application came through for development to the west side of the Trumpington Road, which would have built on to Grantchester Meadows. We resisted that, because it was not necessary to take the development across the Trumpington Road and nor was it necessary for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The central point is that Cambridge would not be regarded as a large built-up area for this purpose, but it would have reached out and this would have meant the coalescence of Cambridge with Grantchester, a historic village. The same could apply to somewhere such as Bladon, in relation to Oxford.

This is about the coalescence of settlements and a recognition that the historic setting of a historic city, town or village should be protected. Can Ministers agree to continue to look at the definitions of towns and villages, and the way villages are being excluded from any protections, whereas towns are included? This is not an immaterial issue; it has been the subject of a number of appeals to inspectors and they have more or less said—I paraphrase—“Okay, this is a village. It is not a town and therefore it does not have protection”. There are circumstances in which villages should have protection; they have an openness of character and contribute to the green belt for landscape purposes, but in specific instances the nature of that village as a settlement should be recognised in relation to its historic role.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for raising this important issue of village and specific land protection.

We fully appreciate the intention behind seeking to make better use of underused land by the Government, but concerns remain about the potential impact of such changes on the wider countryside and, crucially, on the identity of our villages. Although this matter may not directly be in scope of the Bill, it clearly interacts with it, and I hope Ministers will continue to reflect very carefully on the balance between flexibility in planning and long-standing protections afforded to rural communities.

In particular, I draw attention to Amendment 215, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. This is an important amendment, which states:

“Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate”


to those afforded to towns. I will not go into an explanation, because that has been given clearly and concisely by my noble friend Lord Lansley. However, it is important specifically in relation to preventing villages merging into one another, and in preserving the setting and special characteristic of many of our historic villages, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

We must ensure that village identity is properly protected. Rural communities are not simply pockets of houses; they are places with history, distinctiveness and a character that contributes immeasurably to our national heritage, and to the lives of the people who live there. This is a firmly held view on these Benches. I shall not detain your Lordships’ House by rehearsing our manifesto, but we will continue to stand up for the green belt and for all our villages.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to an interesting debate. As someone who lives in a small village in the north-east of England, I found it really interesting. I am obviously concerned for personal reasons about saving the green belt and looking after historic buildings. When I look out of the window, I can see a grade 1 listed church, so I know the importance of looking after these buildings.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hodgson, for their amendments, which arise, I suspect, as much from our revision of green-belt policy in the National Planning Policy Framework as from the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we published the updated framework last December. The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least by checking the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another.

Amendment 157 would require local authorities to identify land that contributes towards the green-belt purposes, and, once this land is designated as green belt, prevent any development of such land for a minimum of 20 years.

Planning policy is already clear on the ability of local authorities to establish green belts, and provides strong protections against development on green-belt land. As I have mentioned, our revised National Planning Policy Framework maintains these strong protections and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. The framework also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.

However, we know that brownfield land alone will never be enough to meet needs. This is why the revised framework continues to recognise the limited circumstances in which the use of some green-belt land for development may be justified and allow for the alteration of green-belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances.

A new requirement to prevent any development on designated green belt or alterations to green-belt boundaries for 20 years would limit authorities’ ability to respond to changing circumstances. It would override the discretion of the local community to discuss and consider whether existing green-belt land is still serving the purposes of green belt, and how and where to allow new homes or other essential development in sustainable locations.

Amendment 215 would require the issuing or updating of guidance for local planning authorities to restrict the development of villages. I make clear that neither our green-belt reforms nor the green-belt guidance make any change to the long-standing green-belt purposes, which include preventing the merging of towns and safeguarding the setting and special character of historic towns. Our guidance is clear that, when identifying grey belt, it is the contribution land makes to the relevant purposes that should be considered.

This reflects the fact that the fundamental aim of green-belt policy is, rightly, preventing urban sprawl, with an explicit focus on larger built-up areas and towns. The guidance does not remove appropriate and relevant green-belt protections from land around villages. It makes clear that any green-belt land, including land in or near villages, which contributes strongly to the relevant purposes should not be identified as grey belt.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Will the planning policy be changed to include villages? At the moment the protection is for urban areas, not rural areas. If the Government continue to look at changing green belt to grey belt, surely there should be further protection for villages to stop them being coalesced together.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I hope to address that in a little bit—the noble Baroness may think that I will not, but that is the intention.

Local authorities continue to have various other ways to manage development in villages, and neither the Bill nor our policy reforms exclude the consideration of matters such as the character of a village or the scale and style of development, where relevant, in planning determinations. For instance, a local plan may designate local green space safe from inappropriate development or recognise a Defra-registered village green. Historic village character can also be preserved by using conservation area policies, neighbourhood planning, local listing of important buildings or local design guidance.

As planning policy already sets out adequate and appropriate protection from and support for development relating to villages, both inside and outside the green belt, I do not believe this amendment seeking to use green-belt protections to restrict development in villages is appropriate. Neither of these amendments is necessary to protect the green belt or the character of villages, and their statutory nature would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop sound strategies and make the decisions necessary to ensure new homes and jobs in the right places. I therefore ask the noble Baroness kindly to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is about “having regard to”. We have had that debate on other groups.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that everybody would be in favour of this. I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling Amendment 166 and bringing this important issue before the House. The principle of proportionality deserves to stand alone in this debate, for it goes directly to the heart of the speed, efficiency and accuracy of our planning system.

As ever, my noble friend has presented the case with his customary clarity and intellectual weight; I thank him for that. He has shown that this principle is not only desirable, but essential. His amendment would embed proportionality firmly within the planning process, giving decision-makers, applicants, consultees and indeed the courts confidence that less can sometimes be more. It would allow for decision-making that is sharper in focus and public participation that is clearer and more effective.

I accept that this is a technically complicated clause, but it is also a vital one. At its core, it states that the information and evidence required to determine any planning application should be proportionate to the real issues at stake, taking into account decisions already made at the plan-making stage and recognising where issues could be dealt with later, whether through planning conditions, obligations or other forms of regulation. It is important to be clear about what this amendment would not do. It would not dilute or weaken the responsibility of local planning authorities to justify their decisions, particularly when refusing or withholding planning permission. Rather, it would ensure that planning does not become mired in an endless accumulation of unnecessary reports, assessments and duplications that add little value but cause delay and frustration.

That is why this apparently technical definition is in fact deeply needed reform. It would be a practical safeguard against a system that too often risks becoming paralysed by its own complexity. If we are serious about unblocking progress and enabling the timely delivery of new homes—1.5 million in the next three and a half or four years—and, with them, the wider infrastructure and investment our communities require, principles such as this must be at the heart of a modern planning system. The Government would do well to accept this amendment. In doing so, they would signal that they are not just merely managing a process but are serious about reforming it, serious about tackling the barriers that hold us back and serious about delivering the homes and the growth that this country so urgently needs.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendment 166, regarding proportionality in the planning system, ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I thank him for bringing it forward. It seeks

“to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that”

in the planning system

“less can be more”.

We agree with this sentiment. If we are to meet the 1.5 million homes target, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has just outlined, the planning system needs to operate more effectively and with greater certainty. Of course, the problem here is that although the noble Lord described it as reality and pragmatism, unfortunately one man or woman’s reality and pragmatism will be somebody else’s dystopian nightmare, so we have to be a bit careful about how we move forward.

We all know that planning has got much more complex and litigious, which has led many local planning authorities to take a precautionary approach when preparing local plans and dealing with planning applications. This is why we too want to see a more proportionate approach to planning. However—and this is where, unfortunately, we disagree with the noble Lord—we feel that introducing a new statutory principle of proportionality across all of planning is not the way to achieve this. This itself would introduce a new legal test, which risks more opportunities for legal challenge and grounds for disagreements—points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. Instead, we believe it is better to promote proportionality through national planning policy and by looking at specific opportunities to streamline procedures through regulatory reform.

The Bill already includes important reforms to achieve this, including the nationally significant infrastructure projects reforms and the creation of the nature restoration fund. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, issues concerning SME builders and how to support them are under very serious consideration, including the large package of financial support that the Government have already announced, and we will continue to consider what more might be done in that regard. We are also doing much more alongside the Bill—for example, scaling back the role of statutory consultees through our review of those bodies, and examining whether there should be a new medium development category where policy and regulatory requirements would be more proportionate, as we recently set out in our site thresholds working paper. For all the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Banner for raising this issue through Amendment 169. His last point was that this is the second piece of planning legislation since the Hillside judgment in 2022. The earlier legislation was the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. My noble friend was not in your Lordships’ House at the time of its consideration but he will no doubt have noted that Section 110 of the Act provides for the insertion of new Section 73B into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the purpose of which is to say that material variations are permitted, as long as they are not substantially different from the original permission.

What reading the legislation will not tell him is that, during the course of the debate on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I introduced an original amendment, the purpose of which was to restore the law to the Pilkington principle—in effect that overlapping permissions would be lawful, as long as the subsequent permission sought did not render the original permission no longer physically capable of being implemented. My noble friend on the Front Bench, then the Minister, may recall that the Government at the time did not accept it, but did accept that they should legislate. There is a difference between Section 110 and the Pilkington principle. There are, in practice, quite a lot of cases in which the permission that is sought does not render the original permission incapable but would substantially amend the original permission, and does not meet the narrow test of being not substantially different from the original permission.

It was not all that I was looking for but it was considerable progress in the right direction. It was important, because a judgment subsequent to Hillside, as my noble friend will recall, said that the original planning permissions in these cases were not severable. You cannot go in, take some part of an original permission and amend it, and treat the rest of the permission as being valid. The whole permission needs to be sought all over again, which is exactly what has caused a substantial part of the problem that my noble friend has benefitted from, in the professional sense, because there are so many such permissions that would otherwise have to be sought all over again.

I agree with my noble friend that something more needs to be done. I happen not to agree with his drafting of Amendment 169. We would be better off saying of overlapping permissions that, where the later permission does not render the original permission wholly incapable of being implemented, it would remain lawful, otherwise you run the risk of inconsistent, overlapping planning permissions, which is not a place we wish to get to. It would also be entirely helpful if the amendment to be introduced would make it clear that, for the purposes of this, the original planning permission is severable—you can have a drop-in permission.

I hope my noble friend would agree with all of that. More to the point, I hope Ministers will agree that we have not solved this problem. In particular, we have not solved the problem as Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, bringing in the new Section 73B, has not been brought into force. I have asked this question before and had a positive answer, and so I hope it is the Government’s intention to bring Section 110 into force, and I hope that can be done soon. At the same time, I suggest that my noble friend comes back to this issue on Report and perhaps brings us an amendment capable of amending the new Section 73B to restore the Pilkington principle and enable planning permissions that would otherwise relate to the same overall red line to be severable for the purposes of a material change in planning permissions.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for bringing to our attention the practical implications of the Hillside judgment within Amendment 169 today. These are complex issues, but his amendment shines a clear light on the risks to developers and local authorities alike, and the potential chilling effect on much-needed projects. It is precisely at moments like these that the Government should lean on the wisdom and experience of noble Lords who understand the realities of these issues on the ground.

We have had the benefit of meeting my noble friend Lord Banner privately to discuss these matters in detail. That conversation was extremely valuable in setting out the issues so clearly, and we are grateful for his time and expertise. We will continue to work with him to ensure that these concerns are properly addressed. I very much hope the Minister will give a positive and constructive reply and that the concerns raised today will be fully taken into account.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the great benefits of being in your Lordships’ House is that every day is a school day and you learn something new. I had no idea there was anything like a reverse declaration of interests, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, just made, in saying that he is going to lose out if this amendment is taken into account.

This is a highly technical amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, for his explanations of the background to the case and for setting it in a context which made it a little easier to understand. I am grateful for the amendments around the Hillside Supreme Court judgment.

Amendments 169 and 185SB are technical but important amendments about overlapping consents. Amendment 169 seeks to address the implications of the Hillside judgment in relation to overlapping planning permissions. It seeks in particular to enable the carrying out of a development under an initial permission when an overlapping permission has been implemented, making it physically impossible for the first permission to be carried out.

Amendment 185SB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, focuses on overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders. The Government recognise that the Hillside judgment and subsequent court decisions have caused concerns across the development sector, and the noble Lord was kind enough to send me some of the articles that have been written since, setting out which problems they are causing. It has made it more challenging to use the practice of drop-in permissions to deal with changes in development proposals for plots on large-scale residential and commercial development in response to changing circumstances. There have been concerns about the implications for the implementation of development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects when planning permissions have been used to deal with minor variations.

We want to ensure that large-scale developments, where they need to change, can secure the necessary consents to deal with these changes effectively and proportionately. Unfortunately, we are not persuaded that Amendment 169 is the solution to Hillside for overlapping planning permissions. It is too broad in scope, and we must be absolutely sure that it would not undermine the integrity of the planning system. The long-standing principle that Hillside endorsed—that it is unlawful to carry out a development when another permission makes it physically impossible to carry it out—is a sound one. Decisions are made on the merits of the entire development proposal, and this amendment would allow developers to pick and choose what parts of an approved development they wanted to implement when they had a choice.

Similarly, we need to consider carefully the implications of legislating to deal with overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders in general terms. While I understand the desire for certainty, there is more flexibility through a development consent order to deal with the overlap with planning permissions.

That said, I emphasise again that, as a Government committed to ensuring that the planning system supports growth, we are keen to ensure that the right development can be consented and implemented quickly. We want to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to deal with change to large-scale developments. Clause 11 already provides a framework for a more streamlined and proportionate process to change development consent orders, but we also want to look at how the framework can be improved for planning permissions. We would welcome further discussions with your Lordships and the wider sector on this matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for pointing out issues around Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. I need to revisit our correspondence to refresh my mind on what we said about that, but his point about restoring the law to the Pilkington principle is noted and I am sure we will come back to this.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendment 227F and for his continued commitment to energy security and net-zero objectives. This amendment seeks to create a statutory timeframe of 10 weeks for decisions to be made on compulsory purchase orders made under the Electricity Act 1989. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030 and it is clear that rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. We recognise the importance of providing all parties with a clear understanding of likely timelines to support project planning and investment decisions but do not consider the imposition of statutory deadlines for processing applications to be the best way to achieve this.

The process required for a CPO varies depending on the features of each case, which means that different types of case require different timescales. Guidance from MHCLG already includes indicative timings for the determination of CPOs in England. These range from four to 24 weeks, depending on the case and the process required. Using shorter deadlines to speed up a process is like passing a law that outlaws any delay in your journey up the motorway. That might sound appealing—especially if, like me, you have to travel on the M25 quite regularly—but, if something needs to be done more quickly, one must first find out what things are causing it to take the time that it takes and then address those issues. Otherwise, one is simply legislating in a way that says: “Do it faster”.

I know that, as a former Minister in DESNZ responsible for planning decisions, my noble friend will recognise that what is really needed are system reforms and simplifications, a more efficient digital case handling system and more capacity. I am delighted to confirm that the Government are already delivering on all three of these things. We are treating the disease, not just the symptom.

I have listened carefully to all the arguments put forward today and can assure noble Lords that we share the aim of ensuring that all processes for CPOs proceed as expeditiously as possible. I hope, for these reasons, that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel that I have been reprieved on this amendment. I will do my best to keep it short, although it is a bit technical. It is a proposed new clause. The Front Bench will be relieved to know that none of my supporters can be here; they are all in far better places and having a much better time, which will definitely cut down the time taken on this.

The amendment is supported and was mainly drafted by the Heritage Alliance, which represents 200 of the heritage bodies in the country. It is a very weighty amendment that has been extremely well thought-through by the umbrella body for the heritage sector. Who could resist an amendment drafted by such a public-spirited body? It is also in the spirit of the Bill. It is about freeing up growth and innovation through housing, public services and more besides. The clinching argument is that it would bring out-of-date legislation into current policy, guidance and best practice. I think the Minister can only commend this amendment, because it would bring clarity and confidence across the whole field of heritage and planning.

Briefly, national heritage planning policy is based throughout on the principle of conservation, defined in the NPPF, which we have heard about a lot on this Bill, as:

“The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and, where appropriate, enhances its significance”.


The definition goes back decades. It was pioneered in America and we incorporated it into English Heritage’s conservation principles when I had the privilege of being its chair in 2012. It was incorporated into the NPPF in that year too. It has meant in practice that conservation has become the lodestar of heritage practice, encouraging and enabling the repurposing of historic buildings into working spaces for today’s students, crafts men and women, housing families and organisations, while retaining the character of those post-industrial towns and their buildings which means so much.

Anybody who has watched “The Great Pottery Throw Down” will know Middleport Pottery, which was rescued at the very last minute, supported by the King, and restored to all its glory. There is the marvellous work on St John’s, at Waterloo, which has kept its extraordinary heritage and community activities and so on. There are hundreds of outstanding examples. Were the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, here, he would talk about historic farm buildings and the contribution they make to the continuing character and vitality of the countryside.

What needs changing? Lurking in the planning legislation is a residual leftover from another age, when the object of heritage was to preserve and not conserve. Let me explain. The concept of preservation dates back to the 19th century, well before there was any consciousness of what historic buildings might be used for. There was then a binary choice: knock it down and lose it or preserve it. The Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 was the attempt to provide legal protection for the first time. That concept of preservation against loss prevailed for a century and it remains at the heart of the planning system. In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 there is still a legal presumption in favour of preservation. This amendment seeks to bring planning policy and guidance into line and substitute the phrase “conserving or enhancing” for “preserving” in each of the relevant subsections.

Why is it urgent to do this now? Every listed building consent and planning decision near any listed building, and every planning decision in England’s 10,000 conservation areas, must explicitly give special regard to “preservation”, not “conservation”. Planning law overrides and outranks policy and guidance, so this planning legislation can have a chilling effect on imagination, innovation, and the creative use of rare and useful buildings, working against the possibility of housing, public services, leisure and much else.

This is not some nit-picking attempt to tidy up legislation. Heritage is not a peripheral issue in planning. We are an old country, with lots of stuff, and a third of planning applications involve heritage. But heritage is now so often seen, and can be seen in the Bill, as blocking change—a lazy reaction. At a time when we are looking for economic growth, and growth in housing and services, this prejudice prevents the right sort of change and growth. It is bad for the past and bad for the future.

Take town centres, for example—which our Select Committee recently looked at. They are robbed of their original purpose and yet still recognisable in the churches, civic buildings and law courts which make up the heart of the community. They may have lost their original purposes but they are immensely useful buildings which can transform community engagement. They are ripe for repurposing for local authority services, diagnostic medical centres, craft workshops and galleries —all it needs is imagination and the change in the law that we are proposing in this amendment. Historic England estimated that 670,000 new homes could be created in England alone by repairing and repurposing existing historic buildings.

This is an obvious and timely change to make and is extremely discreet. It is a very limited amendment and would have no damaging implications for any other form of legislation. It would simply remove the inconsistency between heritage policy and heritage legislation by using the same terminology in both and ensuring that heritage becomes part of the wealth of the future as well as the past. I really hope the Minister will support this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, heritage assets, as we have heard, are not simply buildings or sites of historic interest; they are living reminders of who we are, where we come from and the values we wish to pass on. Turning to the amendments before us, in Amendment 172 the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raises an important and interesting issue—the inconsistency, as I understand it, between heritage policy and heritage legislation. I am keen to hear the Government’s reflections on this matter and whether they believe that an amendment of this kind is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the system. I will wait to hear what the Minister says, and I would love a conversation about this with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.

Turning to a series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as he so often does, he has raised some significant, thought-provoking issues. We worked tirelessly on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act. Anything that helps to get on with the commencement of some of the key aspects of that legislation would be most welcome. In that context, Amendment 182, on the commencement of provisions concerning the duty to have regard to heritage assets in planning functions, is of particular importance. Ensuring that heritage is properly taken into account in planning decisions is a safeguard for the future as much as a means of showing respect for the past.

We also hear what my noble friend says in Amendment 185C, which proposes that national listed building consent orders under Section 26C of the 1990 Act be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That seems a practical suggestion, and I hope the Government and the noble Baroness will consider it carefully. Heritage is, after all, not about blocking change but about managing it well and ensuring that the past informs and enriches the future. These amendments, in different ways, all seek that balance model.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their amendments. Amendment 172 would align the terminology of the listed buildings Act with that of the National Planning Policy Framework. It also seeks to encourage desirable change which will benefit our heritage assets. While I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, the use of the word “preserve” in heritage legislation is long standing and supported by case law. Case law, in particular, has emphasised that if a decision-maker follows the policies protecting designated heritage assets in the NPPF, including giving greater weight to their conservation, it will have discharged its duty to have special regard to the preservation of a listed building. I am wary, therefore, of changing the wording to “conserve”, as doing so might create more uncertainty and lead to further legal challenge when the position is settled in case law.

As I am sure my noble friend is aware, the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which are the subject of Amendment 182 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seek to introduce the term “enhancing” into heritage legislation. My noble friend Lady Taylor has met with the heritage organisations and the DCMS once in the past, and we are committed to meeting them again before Report.

I now turn to Amendments 182 and 183, which both seek to commence provisions in the 2023 Act. I reassure the Committee that the Government have not forgotten about these provisions. We are continuing to consider our approach to heritage planning policy in the context of the wider planning reforms, including further revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework. We will keep implementation of the 2023 Act heritage measures under review as part of that work.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 185C, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which would make national listed building consent orders subject to the negative procedure. My noble friend Lady Andrews, especially, but perhaps also other long-serving Members, will recall that it was the intention of Parliament that national listed building consent orders be subject to the affirmative procedure. This was largely in response to concerns raised about the power and breadth of discretion given to the Secretary of State.

The noble Baroness commented during the debates on the 2013 Act:

“There is concern that a general national class consent order, saying something about the works that could be done to listed buildings without consent, could not conceivably be so sensitive that it did not have some perverse or damaging consequences”.—[Official Report, 14/11/12; col. 1545.]


Therefore, we need to be very cautious about changing the procedure to the negative procedure without significant engagement with the heritage sector and others. With these explanations, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Minister also mentioned the money that has been put aside by the Government to support further planning, skills training et cetera. Did she say that that could be used also by development corporations? I had the understanding that it was for local government and not for development corporations.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of other speakers, I am interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and will be even more interested in the Minister’s response, bearing in mind what I said in the previous group about management of risk and who underpins a development corporation in the event of financial loss.

Amendment 197 is very important. There are two issues: the automatic

“removal of hope value from the valuation of the relevant land”

proposed for development and, secondly, whether land purchases by development corporations should be seen as

“public sector investments to be counted against departmental expenditure limits”.

This amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is important and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendments. The financing of development corporations is an important issue and we will continue to engage on it. I look forward to the views of Sir Michael Lyons’s task force on the issues raised by noble Lords in this and the previous group on the financial aspects of development corporations.

We need to ensure that financing is long term and sustainable. If corporations are to take on debt to fund infrastructure, they and their lenders will need confidence that the debt will be repaid. This is a particular issue as a current Government cannot bind a future one. I will not comment on the issues in Amendment 197 as it has not been spoken to, but I assume that they will be discussed in group seven.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am amazed that no other Members of your Lordships’ House want to speak about local news and newspapers. I broadly agree with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is absolutely right that the question we have to ask ourselves is: with the sad decline, as I see it, of printed local news, how best do we make sure that important public notices, as defined in legislation, that are currently placed only in printed news outlets, get a greater reading and more information about them spread by including them in reputable or quality online news outlets?

I agree with the noble Lord that it should be both, because a number of people still read a paper version of a local newspaper. I am amazed that there are people where I live—they contact me—who read these public notices and ask, “What on earth is going on here?”, even though they are printed in font size 6 or 7, so you need a magnifying glass to read them. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has considered that public notices in the print media are very tightly printed, and how they can be accessible online. Sometimes, you get a whole page of public notices. I generally agree that we have to do something to make sure that more people have access to important information.

My understanding is that currently there is a public notice portal—public notices are gathered from the print media and put on to this portal. It would be interesting to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is thinking about enabling councils, through legislation, to choose whether to publish directly on to that public portal.

Generally, I more or less support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have to have reform and your Lordships’ House and others have considered this in detail, so the question is how we set about it. With those remarks, I look forward to other comments on this group of amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas highlight and reaffirm the importance of local news publishers. Increasingly, these are online, but not always. Some areas still have quite successful newspapers that have print runs, sometimes daily but now often weekly, but this differs in local areas, so I think that local authorities are best placed to decide what medium they use for advertising all things planning.

On this side of the Committee, we support the existence of local news publishers across the United Kingdom. As we have heard, they serve as an important conduit between local people and their authorities and are crucial for upholding community engagement and local democracy, values which I hope all noble Lords will join me in supporting. Indeed, the importance of local news publishers is even more significant when we consider it in context of important planning and development decisions. Local people are those most affected by such decisions and it is important that their voices are heard and meaningfully listened to. Local news publishers play a vital role in making sure both that local people are represented and that the relevant information is disseminated to them. I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and I look forward to hearing how they will be addressed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling these interesting amendments, which relate to the publicity of notices on compulsory purchase orders. I cannot help thinking that there is a solution to this, but perhaps not exactly this one. We have to have a think about this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I support local news publications. I am one of the sad local government geeks who always turns straight to the public notices, not just because I want to see what my own council is doing—now that I am not there anymore—but because I want to see what the next-door councils are doing as well.

Local newspapers are an important part of the way that information is shared, but they also play an important role in supporting democracy, communicating with our residents and being a signpost to all kinds of events that are going on locally. I know that they have been through a very tough time recently. In my area, if we did not have the paper edition of the newspaper, we would probably not have an online paper either—the paper is produced online but also produced as a paper copy. It is not delivered anymore but you can pick it up in a supermarket, so it is an important part of our local life.

The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper that notices of making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain quality and readership criteria, including possessing at least one director legally resident in the United Kingdom, employing at least one journalist not funded or operated by a government, political party or legislative institution, being subject to a code of ethical standards and demonstrating strong connections to the locality in which they operate.

The legislation currently requires acquiring authorities to publish notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. The Government consider that the requirement to publish notices in newspapers is an important part of the CPO process. Acquiring authorities are already motivated to ensure that notices are well publicised, because that helps them to avoid legal challenge.

However, these amendments would constrain and place unnecessary burdens on acquiring authorities when attempting to comply with the requirement to publish notices. The amendments would make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process, increase the potential risk of legal challenges, which would result in additional costs, and delay decision-making and the delivery of benefits in the public interest. The amendments would therefore complicate and delay the CPO process further, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives.

It would be helpful if the notices could be published in a bigger font. I believe that the noble Baroness said that it is usually size 6, but it is more like size 2 in my local newspaper. Something I find helpful is taking a picture of them on my phone and then expanding that.

For all the reasons I have given, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am concerned about this amendment, in particular subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, because it talks about repealing primary legislation. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is getting at in trying to make legislation straightforward. That is why we have all these schedules to legislation nowadays, to try to bring that about. I fear, and I have heard on the grapevine, that the noble Lord has been advised by somebody who is now advising somebody very important in the Government and who has also made subsequent comments about how nature is getting in the way of development. While I am conscious of the positive intentions that the noble Lord seeks to achieve through the amendment, I am just flagging my concern.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing forward Amendment 356A for the consideration of the Committee today. The proposed new clause would allow for pre-consolidation amendments to be made to planning legislation in anticipation of a full future consolidation Bill. Its purpose, as I understand it, is to probe the desirability and feasibility of consolidating the extensive and at times unwieldy body of planning law. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the matter.

It comes at a timely moment. We hear that, hot on the heels of the first planning Bill, the Government may now be contemplating a second. As we have said from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, if the Government had proceeded to commence either in full or even in part the schedules and clauses already contained within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, we might well have avoided the need for yet another Bill in the first place.

That brings me to the specific questions for the Minister. Can she confirm whether there is any truth in the strong rumours circulating that a new planning Bill is indeed on its way? If so, will such a Bill aim to consolidate the many changes that have been made right across the breadth of planning law in recent years? Do the Government accept that consolidation is both needed and desirable, not least to provide clarity and certainty to practitioners, local authorities and communities alike? Finally, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered what such a consolidation process might look like and under what timescale it might realistically be delivered? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for Amendment 356A and for highlighting the merits of consolidating our planning legislation. As someone who has been on the sticky end of it for a number of years, I can absolutely see his point.

My noble friend is not the first to consider this. Indeed, the existing legislative framework provides the Government with sufficient powers to consolidate the planning legislation at an appropriate time. Specifically, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, Section 132 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides the Secretary of State with broad and flexible powers to make regulations that amend, repeal or otherwise modify a wide range of planning-related statutes.

While we have no immediate plans to consolidate planning legislation in England, we will keep this under review, as we recognise that consolidating planning legislation could offer some benefits. Since the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the legislative framework has undergone numerous amendments, and consolidation may help to streamline and simplify the system. However, a comprehensive consolidation needs to be weighed against the risks of uncertainty and disruption, particularly at a time when the Government are prioritising targeted planning reform to drive economic growth.

Any move towards consolidation would also require substantial resources, so we would need to be confident that it has clear benefits. At this stage, we believe that targeted reform is the best way forward, but we are live to the possibilities that consolidation offers. I hope that my noble friend and other Peers with an interest in planning will continue to work with us. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, SME builders play a very important role in the housebuilding sector of the country because they are able to build on small sites that often need to be redeveloped or are in villages or small townships. We need to encourage SME builders, because they add variety to the range of housebuilders that we rely on in this country. It does seem that, throughout this Bill, there has been too much emphasis on the major house developers—on the basis, I guess, that they are the only source of the very large numbers of housing units that the country requires.

I know that throughout the Bill the Government have attempted to support SMEs, although I am not sure that that has been sufficient. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has important points to make about SMEs. As always in planning, it is the balance—between encouraging SMEs, maybe at the expense of some of the regulations regarding environment, and relying too heavily on the major housebuilders, which will be able to cope with the growing need for consideration of environmental responsibilities. I look forward to what the Government are going to say about this; encouraging SME builders is really important.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are nearly there. I thank all noble Lords from across the House for their contributions to the Bill. Over long and often intricate debates, sometimes stretching well into the night, your Lordships have engaged with candour, with insight and with seriousness befitting the weight of these issues. The cross-party spirit of scrutiny and the diligence shown in Committee has, I believe, genuinely strengthened our deliberations.

Amendment 361, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is sound and reasonable. I shall not detain the Committee with another extended rehearsal of why Part 3 is, in our view, both damaging and unnecessary. But let me be clear: despite the Government’s determination to plough ahead with this part of the Bill, the opposition to it will only crystallise further on Report. Part 3 needs to go. At the very least, there must be an independent oversight of its administration. Without that, the concerns raised in Committee will only deepen.

The two thoughtful amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe are practical and considered proposals that go right to the heart of the issues we have debated throughout Committee. Amendment 363 would ensure that the Secretary of State updates all national policy statements before the Act can be commenced. This is vital; out-of-date national policy statements do not provide the clarity or certainty required for developers, planners or communities.

Meanwhile, Amendment 364 would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes an analysis of how each section of the Bill will affect the speed of the planning process and construction before any provisions are commenced. If the central purpose of the Bill is, as Ministers insist, to accelerate planning and speed up delivery, it is only fair to ask how it will achieve that objective in practice. Will it, for example, make any real progress towards the former Deputy Prime Minister’s target of 1.5 million new homes, a promise which, under this Government, looks ever more distant as housebuilding rates continue to decline?

I conclude by returning to the point that I made at the start of Committee. This Bill does not go far enough. It makes adjustments to processes, to roles, to fees and to training. But it leaves untouched the fundamental framework of planning—the very framework that needs serious, bold reform if we are to unlock the scale of housebuilding that this country so urgently requires. We now hear rumours of a second planning Bill to come. If that is true, what your Lordships’ House has been asked to consider is not reform but merely a prelude.

The Government have missed an opportunity with this Bill. They had the chance to set a clear vision for the planning system that delivers for communities, supports growth and tackles the housing crisis head on. Instead, they have brought forward a piecemeal piece of legislation more about tinkering at the edges than about grasping the real challenge. The Government have chosen to use up their remaining political capital on Part 3 rather than building more homes, and the Minister will soon realise that she and her department have wasted their energy on this Bill.

I repeat my thanks to all the staff in the House: the doorkeepers, the technical staff and Hansard have all had to work very hard on nights when we have sat late on this Bill, and I thank them very much for that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the amendment, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee debates and the meetings we have held around the Committee stage of the Bill. We have apparently spent 60 hours in the Chamber debating the Bill and covered 650 amendments. Noble Lords’ knowledge and experience have helped us to shape this important new approach to planning, growth and the environment, which has been especially valuable.

I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople who have shown great stamina and fortitude, which has been really greatly appreciated. I also thank all the outside bodies who have contributed to our debates in the House. I especially thank all the officials who have worked on the Bill. The processes in the House of Lords mean that our officials often have to work at very short notice on putting together papers for Front-Benchers. I also thank the staff of the House, who have worked often very long hours on the Bill.

I also give my personal thanks to my fellow Front-Bench government spokespeople, the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Wilson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who have supported me so ably on the Front Bench during Committee. I am extremely grateful to them for their support.

This final group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, relates to the commencement of the legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her support and encouragement of the growth agenda that the Bill is aimed at promoting. As we have made clear throughout Committee, our Planning and Infrastructure Bill will play a key role in unlocking economic growth, and we must progress to implementation as swiftly as possible to start reaping the benefits of these measures and getting shovels in the ground—including shovels operated by SME builders. My noble friend Lord Livermore yesterday quoted the fact that this Bill has already been assessed to be making a great contribution to the economic growth we all want to see.

On Amendment 363, while I commend the intent of bring all national policy statements up to date, we must resist this amendment because the clauses in the Bill already address this through the introduction of a requirement for all NPSs to be reviewed and updated at least every five years. These clauses include transitional requirements, the most stringent of which require the NPSs which were designated more than five years before the date when the clauses came into force and have not been amended, to be brought up to date within a two-year period. Delaying the commencement of the rest of the Act until such a time as all NPSs have been updated is therefore unreasonable and would have a detrimental impact on the objectives of the Bill, stalling delivery and growth in our country.

Amendment 253 also seeks to have all remaining sections of the Bill come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. Commencement regulations under this amendment are to be subject to a negative resolution. The commencement of each section of the Bill has been carefully considered with regard to the specific issue and relevant circumstances to determine whether that provision should come into force on the day the Act is passed, or a set period beginning with the day on which the Act is passed, or on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. This bespoke consideration should not be displaced by a blanket rule requiring commencement regulations, and I do not believe there is any reasonable basis for requiring all commencement regulations to be subject to the negative procedure rather than the generally standard procedure of commencement regulations not being subject to any procedure.

Amendment 364 would require the Secretary of State to publish analysis regarding the impact of each section of the Bill on the speed of the planning process before we can commence any of its provisions. I appreciate the noble Baroness’ intentions behind this amendment, and we are aligned in that we want the Bill to have as big an impact as possible in unlocking growth and accelerating development across the country. However, we have already published a full impact assessment on the Bill, including analysis of how each measure will impact on the planning system. As I mentioned earlier, this analysis showed that the economy could be boosted by up to £7.5 billion over the next decade by this pro-growth legislation, and we should not look to delay the implementation of these clauses and the reaping of the Bill’s benefits across the planning system.

We are confident that the Bill will streamline and turbocharge planning processes. For example, our analysis of the Bill’s reforms to the pre-application stage of the NSIP regime shows that these changes could reduce the typical time projects spend in pre-application by up to 12 months. This is a dramatic acceleration of the current system and of delivery of major economic infrastructure and demonstrates clearly how the Bill will get Britain building again. With these reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

This is a massive missed opportunity, because the Government did not spend a moment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, did, to work out for themselves what they wanted to achieve or set a purpose that works with the grain of the nation, rather than always kicking against the bricks that should be laid by the bricklayers—the ground workers, tilers and carpenters—who now sit idly as a result, until the moment when we get another planning Bill. I shall not stand against the noble Baroness, but I hope that she will reflect in winding that perhaps she could and should have gone a little further to frame her amendment in enhancing that delicate balance between the private and public interests, so that the economy can get going and these houses can get built.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward this purpose clause. It serves as a timely reminder of what the Bill is meant to achieve: the delivery of 1.5 million new homes and important infrastructure projects. It is increasingly hard to escape the conclusion that this goal is slipping further and further from reach. The problem is not simply one of ambition but of process and principle. The Government have tabled no fewer than 67 new amendments to the Bill, in almost 30 pages of legislative text, and have done so at a very late stage.

The media were briefed in advance, I note, yet this House received no explanation from Ministers when those amendments were laid until last Tuesday. Under normal circumstances, such sweeping provisions would warrant detailed scrutiny in Committee, not introduction on Report. To describe them as minor or technical, as Ministers have attempted to do, simply does not match the scale and significance of what has been briefed to the press. The Financial Times and others have reported that the Government’s own description of these measures is that they represent substantial reforms to the planning system, so which is it? Are these minor adjustments or a fundamental rewrite of national planning policy? It appears that we are witnessing a major talk-up—an oversell of provisions designed to mask the Government’s ongoing failure to deliver the homes. It is a conjuring trick, saying one thing to the press and quite another in this Chamber.

According to reports, the Prime Minister himself ordered a last-minute rewrite of the Bill, with Ministers working throughout the weekend to agree a package intended to speed up major housing and infrastructure schemes. That was on Friday 10 October. Earlier that same week, the Financial Times revealed that that rewrite forms part of a broader effort to boost growth and patch up public finances ahead of the November Budget—a Budget date already circled in the calendar of many families in this country and of businesses and pensioners, though not with much enthusiasm.

Monthly construction output fell by an estimated 0.3% in August 2025, after showing no growth at all in July. I therefore ask the Minister how the Bill will change that. Should not the Government instead focus on things such as modular construction, utilising 3D modelling and reviewing outdated regulations? No Act of Parliament can succeed if the construction industry itself is faltering under the environment the Government have created.

It is therefore fair to ask whether these amendments reflect deliberate legislative design or the political and fiscal pressures of the moment. By mid-October, the Treasury would already have seen the OBR’s preliminary focus and, I rather suspect, blanched at what it showed. It may be that in the face of deteriorating growth and revenue projections, someone in Whitehall decided that a hasty burst of planning reform might steady the nerves ahead of the Budget, but legislation made in haste rarely makes good law. The planning system must balance the urgent need for homes and infrastructure, with, as we have heard, the rights of local communities and the principles of democratic scrutiny. Bypassing consultation, local accountability and indeed proper deliberation in your Lordships’ House, the Government risk undermining the very trust and co-operation they will need to deliver their own housing ambitions.

The Government have clearly not learned. They crudely cut £5 billion from welfare in haste in the spring in pursuit of a green tick on the OBR’s scorecard. I fear that they are now making the same mistake again, rushing to legislate for the sake of appearance rather than outcomes for this country. That is why this purpose clause is so valuable. It brings us back to the first principles. What is the purpose of the Bill? Is it truly to build homes or to centralise power? We do not even know who is in charge of this legislation. Is it No. 10, No. 11 or MHCLG? The Minister knows that throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to offer the Government constructive support, but it becomes ever harder to do so when their approach borders on chaos: saying one thing and doing another; briefing the press with grand claims while sidelining Parliament and scrutiny. I hope the Minister recognises the depth of disappointment felt across this House.

In conclusion, whatever the Government’s intention, the manner in which these amendments have been introduced must not diminish the scrutiny they receive. The House has a duty to examine legislation carefully, especially when it touches on this delicate balance between local democracy and national authority. We will approach these amendments in that spirit—with diligence, patience and respect for due process—and we will not be rushed or intimidated into setting aside our responsibilities in the name of political convenience. The scale and consequence of these proposals demands nothing less than the full and thoughtful consideration of your Lordships’ House.

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

Well, well, my Lords, that was a wide-ranging debate for an opening debate on a purpose clause. Nevertheless, I thank those who contributed to the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank her for her extensive engagement between Committee and Report.

This is indeed an ambitious piece of legislation. It is our next step to fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. The Bill will support delivery of the Government’s hugely ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that his Government had 14 years to fix the sclerotic planning system that has hobbled growth in this country for over a decade, yet they failed to do so. Our Government are working across departments—yes, and I welcome that—to deliver what the last Government failed to do, which is to build the homes we need and the infrastructure that will support those homes, and to get our economy moving again.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I am afraid she cannot have it both ways on the amendments that the Government have tabled. She has accused me in this Chamber of not listening. Well, we did listen in Committee and some of the amendments are in response to issues that were raised then. A number of those amendments relate to the devolved Administrations and we rightfully had consultations with those Administrations between Committee and Report. There are some truly pro-growth measures that we feel are rightly pressing and need to be done to improve the delivery of infrastructure, and there are a number of technical, minor amendments.

The Bill is not the only step towards improving the economy and delivering against our plan for change. The noble Baroness will know that we have reissued the National Planning Policy Framework; we have provided funding and training for planners; and we have provided a huge packet of support for SMEs. I met the APPG for SME House Builders the other day and it was pleased with the package that is being delivered. There is more to be done in working with the APPG, and I will be happy to do that. We have also carried out a fundamental review of the building safety regulator. All these things will contribute to the growth we all want to see.

I outlined the core objectives of the Bill at Second Reading, and we also discussed these at length in Committee. I do not suggest that I do so a third time. I recognise that planning law can be a complex part of the statute book to negotiate and interpret, whether you are a developer, a local authority, the courts or even a member of the public. I also appreciate that where a Bill has one sole objective, a purpose clause could clearly articulate this, assist people with understanding the Bill and affect the interpretation of its provisions. This Bill has a number of different objectives, with much of it amending existing law. A purpose clause is not helpful in these circumstances and could create unintended consequences. It is simply not possible or prudent for all these objectives to apply equally to each provision.

I believe we are all united by a shared objective today. On whichever side of the House we sit, we all agree that this House plays an important role in scrutinising legislation to ensure it achieves the intended objectives and to maximise the Bill’s benefit. I firmly believe that the intention behind this amendment is noble. I understand that it is tabled to aid interpretation of the Bill. My issues with purpose clauses, and the reasons I cannot accept this amendment, boil down to two things: their necessity and the potential for unintended consequences. Well-written legislation provides a clear articulation of what changes are proposed by the Government to deliver their objectives. It is for the Government to set out in debate why they are bringing forward a Bill during parliamentary passage. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the intended changes to the law should speak for themselves.

The Government’s objectives are clear. They are also woven into this legislation through reference to a number of different targeted documents that set out the Government’s strategic intent in specific areas of policy. It is right that these objectives vary according to the topic—some of these objectives will be more important for one issue than another. If this was not the case, the Bill would lose its strategic vision.

The Government strongly support a strategic approach to planning. The word “strategic” is mentioned 196 times in the Bill, as amended in Committee. The Bill inserts a part specifically called “Strategic plan-making”, intended to ensure that planning decisions are undertaken at a more strategic level. Large parts of the Bill are drafted to take a more strategic, targeted approach to achieving the Government’s objectives. For example, this legislation gives regard to other strategic documents, such as the clean power action plan. This is all done with the intention of making clear how this legislation seeks to deliver the Government’s objectives.

Adding a purpose clause to the Bill is not the answer to addressing the complexity of the statute book, or even this legislation. In practice, it would do the opposite; it would add additional room for interpretation to a Bill intending to accelerate delivery and simplify a system. It risks creating additional complexity in interpretation, gumming up the planning system further. It risks reinserting the gold-plating behaviour we are seeking to remove. Developers and local authorities, for example, would feel obligated to show how they have considered priorities that are much more relevant to other parts of the Bill for fear of legal action. A purpose clause would provide a hook for those looking to judicially review or appeal decisions in order to slow them down.

The measures in the Bill should be allowed to speak for themselves. They have been carefully drafted to be interpreted without a purpose clause. The courts should be left to interpret the law without having to navigate their way through a maze of different purposes sitting on top of strategic objectives. A purpose clause would create ambiguity rather than clarity.

It does not appear to me, from the debate I have heard, that the House is confused by why the Government are seeking to bring this Bill forward. I think we all know that we seek to achieve the growth and the homes that this country deserves. We should therefore move forward to further debate how best to achieve them. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I am speaking ahead of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who has Amendment 7B. It is a pity she said 20 or more houses, because the loss of any number of houses to a large reservoir should cause us to stop and think. That will have a significant impact on people, on their family histories and on the whole way their little community works. If the noble Baroness pushes her amendment to a vote, we on these Benches will be inclined to support her.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 4—the new clause to be inserted after Clause 2—relates to projects concerning water. As I understand it, this amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties, appointed by water undertakers, to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project under Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008, provided that the other conditions set out in Sections 27, 28 and 28A of that Act are met.

While I appreciate the intention to streamline delivery and facilitate investment in critical water infrastructure, I must raise a number of concerns and questions to the Minister. First, what safeguards will ensure that the thresholds for NSIP designation—particularly those relating to scale and national importance—are still meaningfully applied? It is essential that this designation remains reserved for truly nationally significant projects, not simply those that happen to be large or, indeed, convenient.

Secondly, can the Minister clarify why the existing provisions—which limit NSIP status to projects undertaken directly by water undertakers—are now deemed insufficient? What problem, precisely, is this amendment intended to solve?

Additionally, are the Government considering similar extensions of NSIP eligibility in other sections of infrastructure? If so, it would be helpful for your Lordships’ House to understand whether this represents a broader shift in planning policy or an exceptional measure just limited to water infrastructure.

Finally, will the Government commit to a review of the amendment’s impact after, say, three or five years, to ensure that it has not led to unintended consequences, particularly in relation to accountability, environmental standards or the integrity of the NSIP regime?

I also welcome my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments in this group. I understand he has had many discussions with the Minister, and I thank the Government for their response on these amendments.

Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also raises important questions for Ministers about the ability of farmers and landowners to develop small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities. We know we need more reservoirs, and the Government have talked about this a great deal. We look to Ministers to show willing on smaller reservoirs too, and we encourage the Minister to listen to my noble friend on this important issue.

Finally, Amendment 7A in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson and my Amendment 7B are on introducing due process for communities and heritage threatened by reservoirs being delivered through the NSIP process. We tabled these amendments in response to the Government’s amendment tabled last Monday and we are keen to work with the Government to get a workable amendment into the Bill, if it is necessary.

I also say at the outset that we are fully supportive of the steps to get on with the delivery of critical national infrastructure, but where consultation of local communities and heritage protections are disapplied through the NSIP process, we have to be sure that is appropriate in those cases. As the Government seek to deliver more reservoirs, we want to ensure that communities, heritage and local individuals who have their homes, gardens and history invested in those areas are protected and that the Secretary of State takes proper account of their views. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay has spoken about a number of historical examples. If villages are to be flooded in the future, with all their history and heritage, we must make sure a proper process is followed.

It is not just in the north of England that we have reservoirs. I farmed near Bough Beech and I knew Bewl Water in Kent; both of these were where some communities were flooded. Decades and generations on, people are still talking about the community that is under that water.

We will therefore seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7B and ask the Minister to seriously consider making sure that future communities will be protected.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will keep my comments relatively brief, because I had a lot to say at the beginning of this group. I start my concluding remarks by pointing out to noble Lords that it was concerns about water provision that encouraged the Government to bring forward further amendments in this respect. I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in engagement both in the recess period, which I was very grateful for, and subsequent to that. I thank all those who met with me.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his contribution. He set out his concerns very clearly and we appreciated that. That is why we are able to accept his amendments.

On the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I understand the great and ongoing concerns around the Capel Celyn issue. I am afraid that the powers in this Bill are for England, but I will come back to him in writing about what powers the Senedd has to act in a way that might help with his concerns. If that is acceptable to him, I will write to him on those specific issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, discussed the efficiency of reservoirs. There have been recent improvements in that, but there is room for further improvement, and I am sure that colleagues in Defra are as exercised as she is in making sure that that is the case. I am very glad that she mentioned Professor Bellamy; that brought back some very happy memories. I will not try an impression—I am not very good at them—but he was a real character. His contribution to the natural world in this country was enormous, and I am very grateful for that.

The noble Baroness asked about how the need for water is assessed; the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to that too. Water companies have a statutory duty to provide a secure supply of water for customers efficiently and economically and to set out how they plan to continue to supply water through statutory water resources management plans. They are assessing that constantly. These set out how each company will continue to meet this duty and manage the water supply and demand sustainably for at least the next 25 years. There is therefore a constant assessment of that.

On the noble Baroness’s points about smaller reservoirs, I hope that I set out clearly in my comments that these can be undertaken currently under permitted development. We recognise the need to look at those permitted development regulations, and we will return to them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

7B: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Projects relating to water which require the demolition of villagesAfter section 35(4) (directions in relation to projects of national significance) of the Planning Act 2008 insert—“(4A) Where a development falls within the definition in section 27 and requires the demolition of more than 20 residential properties the Secretary of State may not give a direction under subsection (1) unless the persons who live at, or otherwise occupy, premises in the vicinity of the land have been notified and given the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State.””

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. However, for future communities who may be affected by the issues we have been debating, and in order to ensure not just proper consultation but proper engagement in those schemes, I wish to divide the House on my Amendment 7B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened in Committee to the concerns that were raised about the acceptance process. I am pleased that there has been a rethink. The changes proposed in the amendments are not opposed by these Benches.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have before us the Government’s latest set of amendments to Clause 6—or should I say what used to be Clause 6 before the Government took a pair of legislative shears to it? This clause as originally drafted, as we have heard from the Minister, would have changed the test for when an application for a development consent order is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. The Government now appear to have decided that their proposal was, in fact, unnecessary, perhaps even unworkable, so we are back to the status quo: the clear, objective test that ensures that applications are accepted only when they meet the proper standards of completeness and adequacy. Thank goodness for that. The test protects everyone: developers, communities and the integrity of the process. It ensures clarity at the gateway stage, not confusion. I thank the Minister for making these changes to the Bill.

Amendment 13 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. It seems that all the experience we have is that there is not coherence where there ought to be. I thank the Minister for her earlier willingness to react to the House and show that she was able to make the changes the House asked for. I hope she will say to her colleagues how much it helps the Government if we feel that they listen on things which are not party political but about how best to organise ourselves.

With the range of regulators we have, it is crucial to get coherence. I believe that we all know we have not got it at the moment. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, may not be ideal—I do not think he sees it in those terms—but it seeks to get from the Government a coherent programme for coherence. We all know that every day the urgency that climate change forces upon us gets more and more obvious. I have just come back from Northern Ireland, where businesses right across the board were saying how important that was and—I have to say to my noble friend—pointing out how unacceptable it is to try to change the architecture we have to try to deal with this. That architecture will work much better if we get a greater coherence across the board.

Therefore, I hope the Minister will be kind enough at least to give us some understanding of the way in which the Government hope to bring about that coherence and, in that, give us something about dates and times. I was a Minister for rather a long time and I know perfectly well that it is very easy to promise in general about the future almost any nice thing but what really matters is when and how it is going to be done.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 20A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, was considered in Committee. A number of questions were asked, and I think a number of questions remain unanswered. While we fully recognise the importance of sustainable development, we are not persuaded that this amendment is necessary. It appears to us that the Government already have—or should have—the tools they need to guide public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process, and I think we are satisfied that these powers are sufficient.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for meeting me during recess to discuss this. His Amendment 20A seeks to ensure that, in relation to NSIP for low-carbon energy, relevant authorities should have special regard to the achievement of Government’s environmental targets and sustainable development.

The amendment is similar to one debated in Committee. It refers specifically to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting and adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts under the Climate Change Act 2008, the achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021, and achieving sustainable development.

As the Government made clear in Committee, we recognise the importance of this issue, but we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It is vital that we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure we need, not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. The Bill will deliver a win-win for growth and nature. Developments such as clean energy infrastructure are key to tackling the climate crisis and supporting nature recovery. The Government also appreciate the important role that these bodies play in the planning system. That is why we have taken action in response to the Corry review to ensure that these bodies are joined up and aligned with the Government’s broader priorities. I will say a bit more about that in a moment.

As I did in Committee, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are already utilising the tools they have to guide the considerations given by public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process. The first of these relates to national policy. The energy national policy statements already take full account of the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and to ensure that the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. We are also strengthening national policy statements through this Bill by requiring that they are updated at least every five years, and by making it easier to undertake interim updates for certain types of material amendments. The Government have recently concluded consultation on drafts of EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5, which will be updated to reflect the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan.

The second relates to guidance. It is critical that public bodies engage fully in examinations so that the examining authority has access to their expertise and can properly scrutinise the application before reporting to the Secretary of State. Through the Bill, the Government are introducing a new duty on public bodies to have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State in making representations as part of examinations. This guidance will support government objectives by ensuring that these bodies engage effectively in the process and can provide the right information in a timely way.

We are currently consulting on reforms across the NSIP system to streamline the process. As well as consulting on what pre-application guidance to applicants should contain, we are seeking views on whether to strengthen expectations that statutory bodies attend hearings in person where relevant. As we then review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider how this, alongside government policy in national policy statements, can support the intent of the amendment.

As I have made clear today, the guidance the Government will issue to statutory bodies about their role in the NSIP process will play a vital role, I hope, in addressing noble Lords’ concerns. The Government are clearly in the process of developing policies to update, streamline and rationalise the operation of these bodies and that of regulators and their role in the operation of the planning system, in response to both the Corry and the Cunliffe reviews. My colleagues would welcome further engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and others in the House who have a particular interest in this area, as we undertake the important work.

Complex projects engage multiple regimes, and I understand that they find themselves batted backwards and forwards between Defra regulators. So we are piloting a lead environmental regulator model to provide a single point of contact for developers on the most complex schemes. We have already made a start, working with the Lower Thames Crossing on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked about the timescale for releasing strategic policy statements for Defra regulators in response to the Corry review. This is one of nine fast-tracked recommendations—and I mean fast-tracked. We will communicate on this very soon—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that I am sorry to use that term—and, when I say “very soon”, I am talking about days, not weeks or months; I hope that gives him some guidance. As the noble Lord knows, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters that are relevant and important to decisions. For all those reasons, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is right to raise this as an issue of importance. Equally, she pointed to the fact that the impact and effect of EDPs will be discussed at more length when we discuss Part 3. Although EDPs do have a significant part to play in any NSIP consenting regime, the essence of this is about EDPs. Therefore, I hope we can look to a further debate on the whole issue of EDPs when we come to Part 3 later on Report.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing forward Amendment 21. Ensuring that planning consent adequately considers environmental protections is vital and must not be overlooked. However, we are clear, and indeed passionate in our conviction, that the implementation of environmental delivery plans in their current form is deeply problematic. As drafted, the policy risks riding roughshod over our current environmental regime. We must also not forget the interests of farmers and land managers, who are, after all, the principal stewards of our natural environment. My noble friend Lord Roborough will speak in more detail on this topic and develop our position further from Committee in the coming days. My noble friend Lady Coffey is right to highlight how a local environmental delivery plan will interact with a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Government must be clear on how this will work in practice and what they intend to consider when reviewing the impact of these projects.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan, or EDP, is taken into account by the Secretary of State when making a decision whether to grant permission to a nationally significant infrastructure project.

I can assure noble Lords that the way in which EDPs will work in practice means that this amendment is not necessary. Meeting the relevant environmental obligations with an EDP, just as when satisfying them under the current system, is a separate part of the process to the granting of permission. When a promoter commits to pay the levy in relation to an EDP, the making of that commitment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.

I emphasise again that it will, aside from in exceptional circumstances, be a voluntary decision for the promoter of a nationally significant infrastructure project to decide whether they pay the levy to rely on the EDP. This means that while the Secretary of State will need to consider a wide variety of matters, for the purposes of these decisions, the EDP will not be a consideration other than as a way of reflecting that the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature will have been addressed. It does not need to be considered beyond that in the decision to grant permission. This notwithstanding, the Secretary of State may already have regard to any matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision.

I therefore hope, with this explanation, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I have just a few brief points to add to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, stated. For me, this goes back to the governance system. Of course we have made progress in recent years; we have the strategic spatial energy plan, which is being managed by NESO, but we are hearing some feedback on that plan. In effect, it tries to map out what energy projects should be located where, in minute detail across the country. The industry has highlighted a number of problems with trying to do this at that scale; we need local knowledge flowing up into these plans. As well as the top down, we need the bottom up. We need to capture all the great knowledge that local areas and local authorities have.

I will just take heat as an example. One area may be better suited to heat pumps and another to heat networks. One area may have relatively well-insulated housing stock; another, poorly insulated housing stock. We need to capture all that and bring it into the energy transition. It is an important piece of the puzzle to making this energy transition work and making it cost effective. A recent study by UKRI highlighted tens of billions of pounds of savings if a place-based approach is taken over a place-agnostic approach, so it is important that the Government make some progress on this. We have not seen the progress needed.

We have had some good pilots using this approach in various areas across the country, but we now need the Government to get behind this approach to feed all the benefits of that local knowledge into the energy transition. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister at least on timescales, on how they see this programme developing and on it reaching a decision on the role that local area energy plans will play in the energy transition.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to ensure that small-scale renewable energy products are prioritised by the independent system operator and planner. As the noble Baroness knows, we on these Benches are very concerned about energy prices and want to see Ministers taking a pragmatic approach to delivering the energy infrastructure that we need.

I know that there is a particular interest in renewables, but we need to take a whole-system approach, tackling policy costs as well as the marginal costs of electricity. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the current support for renewables at a smaller scale, and it would be helpful for the House to know what plans the Government have on smaller renewables.

Although we feel that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is too prescriptive, it raises an important question about planning our energy supply for the future. Clearly, local needs should be taken into account. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Amendment 24 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, though well intentioned, is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome of greater support with the grid connection process for smaller renewable energy projects. The amendment seeks to require the independent system operator and planner to prioritise support for smaller renewable energy projects when they apply for a grid connection. I recognise the noble Baroness’s helpful attempt to support smaller renewable energy projects. The Government appreciate the important role that smaller renewable energy projects, such as rooftop solar and community energy, can play in meeting our clean power mission, reducing energy costs and engaging communities in renewable energy.

Along with the independent energy regulator, Ofgem, the Government also recognise that more needs to be done to support smaller electricity network connection customers, including renewable energy projects, but this is achievable within the regulatory framework without the need for primary legislation. Indeed, Ofgem has already proposed stronger incentives and obligations on network companies to provide better connection customer service. Following a consultation earlier this year, it expects to publish further details and next steps in the coming weeks.

The amendment’s wording would also not meet the desired outcome. Section 16 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires electricity distribution network operators to connect customers. The amendment would place an obligation on the independent system operator and planner only in terms of the way in which the duties under Section 16 are complied with. However, the independent system operator and planner has no duties under Section 16. Given the legislative unworkability of the amendment, and given work already under way to support smaller renewable energy connection customers, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw it.

Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to require the Government to commence a programme of research and analysis on the imposition of a statutory duty on local authorities to produce local area energy plans, and publish a report on their findings; and to require the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a formal policy decision on a statutory duty within two years. We recognise that the amendment moves the debate on from Committee so that an immediate burden is not placed on local authorities to produce a local area energy plan, and nor are the Government required to immediately produce national guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans. The amendment places this work in the context of planning for electricity infrastructure, but the approach set out in the amendment risks constraining and duplicating work already under way, and it may constrain the way the Government continue to work in partnership with local government.

The overall approach to this work is being undertaken jointly with local government through the ministerial Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which meets quarterly. This is co-chaired with the Local Government Association. The group has discussed the development of a framework for local government to provide more clarity on the roles and responsibilities for net zero and energy. This group will need to reflect on the role of local government on energy planning and net zero in the context of the warm homes plan and Great British Energy’s local power plan, both due shortly.

The kind of research envisaged by the amendment is already under way. This has been commissioned by DESNZ from local government officials working in local net zero hubs. This includes preparing guidance for local authorities on what they need to do on energy planning to prepare for the regional energy strategic plans that Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—are producing. Ofgem and NESO are looking to consult on the approach and methodology later this year. They are also developing guidance and tools for local government to help it specify and procure high-quality data to support energy planning, with outputs due by January 2026.

In conclusion, we do not believe that primary legislation is the right place to set out in such detail a programme of work to review local energy planning. We are sympathetic to the points raised and agree with the point made in Committee about the importance of including local understanding in delivering the bigger picture on energy planning. I hope I have been able to give some assurances that the Government agree that local involvement in energy planning is important and that the kind of work the amendment envisages is already under way.

I must stress the need to review local area energy planning in the context of ongoing work and other policies and strategies as and when they are published, rather than to the timetable and in the way set out in the amendment. Preferably, this should be in partnership with local government, reflecting needs and approaches. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is satisfied with our response and will consider withdrawing her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, group 14 concerns a matter of principle that cuts across the Bill: the appropriate level of parliamentary oversight for far-reaching executive powers. New Section 38A introduces a consumer benefit scheme to provide financial compensation to those living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The principle behind this is entirely sound. It is right that communities that host nationally significant infrastructure should share in its benefits.

We support Amendments 26 and 27 in the name of the Minister. Amendment 26 would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, not just those relating to offences or enforcement. These regulations will define who qualifies for support, how benefits are delivered and the responsibilities of electricity suppliers. These are substantive decisions that should not be made without oversight of Parliament.

Amendment 27 is a necessary consequential amendment to reflect this change. Given the wide scope of delegated powers in the new section inserted by the clause, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament has a say in how much a significant scheme is developed and applied. The affirmative procedure does not prevent progress. It simply ensures that when Ministers exercise broad powers, they do so transparently and with accountability.

We believe these amendments strike the right balance between enabling the Government to deliver the scheme and ensuring that Parliament plays its proper role. We are pleased to support them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for speaking, and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for getting Halifax and Huddersfield mixed up. But neither Halifax nor Huddersfield will be getting their own clause in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to respond to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. It aims to remove the size and complexity tests currently required for awarding a water infrastructure project licence. While this is a technical amendment, it would have significant implications.

Under existing regulations, a water infrastructure project licence is awarded only if the project is considered large or complex enough to potentially threaten the incumbent water undertaker’s ability to deliver services. The test involves assessing factors like projected costs, risk profile, delivery complexity and the water company’s competencies, among others, to determine whether specifying the project to an extended provider would result in better value for money and service stability. The amendment’s goal is clear: it is to remove this test.

I have listened to what the noble Baroness said. It is argued that the amendment would allow smaller or less complex projects potentially to be outsourced or treated as specified infrastructure projects, SIPs, and offer better economic efficiency. While we recognise that this could lead to broader applications of the project licences and potentially facilitate more third-party infrastructure projects in the water sector—we share this ambition to accelerate infrastructure delivery—we are cautious on this amendment, and I follow the line that we took in Committee. The current regulatory framework, which includes a size and complexity threshold, exists as a crucial safeguard. Ofwat’s regulations are intended, and the test ensures it, for ambitious projects, if managed by an incumbent company, not to threaten the water company’s fundamental services obligations to its customers.

Given the widely acknowledged fragility of the water sector more generally and the broken infrastructure that has led to substantial water wastage, we must think carefully before rushing to add to this. Instead of risking unintended consequences through a quick legislative fix, we prefer a more robust path that could be considered by the Government co-funding models, for example, similar to those used in the nuclear sector, if crucial projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver.

It is also essential to take note of the Government’s concerns raised in Committee regarding the amendment. They confirmed that they actively resisted this amendment, certainly in Committee. They have already made a commitment to review the specified infrastructure projects, SIPR, framework. Our understanding is that Defra intends to amend it to help major water companies to proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. The Government stated their concerns that removing the size complexity threshold now would pre-empt that planned review process. They emphasised the importance of ensuring that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry to create a regime that remains targeted and proportionate to the sector’s diversity needs. The Minister assured the Committee that this essential review, which follows the publication of the Cunliffe review on water industry modernisation, will be completed in this calendar year.

For those reasons, while we welcome the spirit of Amendment 58A, we believe that the responsible course of action is to allow the Government to complete their committed to and planned regulatory review, so we are unable to support this amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 58A, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. As we have heard, under the current framework, only projects deemed sufficiently large or complex can be considered for a separate infrastructure licence. This threshold may have made sense at the time that the regulations were introduced, but it now risks being a barrier to innovation and investment in the sector, which is already under increased strain. By removing this test, the amendment would allow projects to be assessed on their value for money alone—a clearer, more practical standard. It would not lower the bar for scrutiny but rather broaden the scope for alternative delivery models, where they can be demonstrated to give clear public benefit.

Given the ongoing challenges around water security, pollution and climate resilience, we should be enabling a wider range of solutions and not limiting them to outdated regulatory constraints. This is a modest and targeted amendment that would give Ofwat and the relevant authorities greater flexibility to support efficient investment in our water infrastructure. We agree with its intent, we support it, and we hope that the Government will think again.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which seeks to ensure that the specified infrastructure project regulations are amended to enable a broader use and to ensure that we get value for money for customers.

Two procurement models for delivering infrastructure exist at the moment: SIPR and direct procurement for customers—DPC. I acknowledge that we have to do all we can to make sure that customers get the good value for money that we are all seeking. That is why, in the Government’s response to the independent water review undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, we will address our proposals for changes across both those procurement models, in the White Paper that will be published shortly. For that reason, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, once more, the Government have chosen to add a new clause, through Amendment 64, at this very late stage in the Bill’s progress, as other noble Lords have pointed out. It really is not acceptable practice, for the reason the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave, which is that we have not been able to give this new clause proper and appropriate depth of scrutiny. The new clause has only four lines, and that includes its title. The other two and a half lines, if enacted, will have, as other noble Lords have said, a significant and maybe serious impact on local planning decision-making.

When I first saw the amendment, I was concerned and thought that I had perhaps got it wrong. However, we have now heard from across the House, including from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Banner, our expert in this House on planning matters, questioning the Minister on the meaning of what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Young, have all raised considerable concerns about the extent of what this brief clause will actually achieve. In her own inimitable way, the Minister has been able to underplay the clause by saying, “It is just an anomaly. It’s not going to make any difference really”. If it is not going to make any difference really, do not bring it in at this late stage. If it were so important, I am sure the Government would have noticed it, either in the discussions at the other end of the Parliament or at least in Committee here, so I have a feeling that it may not be as unimportant a clause as the Minister has been making out.

Where does that leave us? All noble Lords who have had experience, as many of us have, of the process of planning applications will know that planning committees are rightly required to make their decisions in accordance with planning legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework, all relevant national policies and their local plan, which includes local planning policies.

If a planning committee wishes to refuse a planning application, it has to do so, as others have said, with valid planning reasons. Failure to do so means that the applicant, rightly, takes that to the Planning Inspectorate for an appeal against that decision. If the planning committee has made a foolish decision, not giving valid reasons for refusal, the Planning Inspectorate, rightly, awards costs against the council, which is why there are not many planning appeals where costs are awarded against councils because planning officers in a local planning authority will advise their members accordingly.

Then you ask yourself: if that is the case and a refusal could go to inquiry or a written resolution of it, why is it necessary to call it in before a refusal has been given? The only reason I can come up with is that the Government wish to push through applications that are not relevant or appropriate to a local plan. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, hit the nail on the head: it substantially changes the tone and direction of planning, so that it becomes more of a national rather than a local decision-making process.

For somebody who is a cheerleader for local decision-making, who wants proper devolution, who thinks that making decisions locally is the right thing to do —as do many other parts of western Europe, which have successful governance as a consequence—to bring things back to the centre all the time is simply not acceptable. We on these Benches will strongly oppose government Amendment 64. I have explained to the Minister, out of due courtesy, that we will be doing so. This is overreach and will not do.

I turn to Amendment 87D. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have referred to it. The noble Baroness and I had a brief discussion the other day. She knows that I support Amendment 87D. If she wishes to take it to a decision of the House, we will support her. But, fundamentally, the balance between local and national decision-making is being tipped too far in the direction of national decision-making on policies, and that is not acceptable. As I have said, we will oppose Amendment 64.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Government Amendment 64 in this group. As we have heard, this amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission in principle by a local planning authority in England. Under Section 77(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by calling in an application for their own determination. Therefore, I ask the Minister, what has changed? Will the existing guardrails and provisions governing the call-in process remain intact? Will the mechanisms by which call-in operates continue as they do now? How will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision-making?

The Government should explain precisely what this amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law. If it represents a fundamental change to the call-in power, the Government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, we will be inclined to test the opinion of the House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power, the Government’s real focus should have been elsewhere: on proportionality and addressing the implications of the Hillside judgment. Energy should be directed towards tackling the real blockages in the planning system.

I turn to Amendment 65—which I hope will not be required—tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. This amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt up-to-date local plans and, in doing so, regain control over the granting of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. This raises an important point: the absence of up-to-date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration with the planning system. The Government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due regard and set out in clear detail how they intend to address the concerns it raises.

Finally, I am not quite sure why my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87D is in this group, but we have heard the feeling of the House on this. I know it is an issue my noble friend is rightly passionate about, and it is important. On the one hand, the Government have given communities their assets or enabled them to take them over; on the other, they are not protected from being lost. This is an important issue for the Minister, and I look forward to a very positive response to this especially important amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I point out that this is yet another late-in-the-day government amendment. However, the Minister will be pleased to know that this time I am in agreement with Amendment 67.

To extend the time limits from implementing a planning consent where there has been a legal challenge seems right and fair. I did not quite catch whether the Minister explained the full extent of it, but I assume that it means that for general applications that are subject to a judicial or statutory review it will be a one-year extension, a further year if it goes to the Court of Appeal, and then a further two years if it goes to the Supreme Court. The noble Baroness nods. So that is right and fair. That is a balanced approach, which is one of my ways of judging things: “Is it right, fair and balanced?” I think that is fair to the applicants. So, with the nod that I had from the Minister, I agree with Amendment 67 and with Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which is very similar.

The other amendments in this group, Amendments 77, 78 and 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, would make serious changes to the ability of citizens to go to law where they feel that due process has failed them. Restricting those rights does not feel to me acceptable without further and full consideration by those who are expert in these matters—which is not me. With those comments, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, and to government Amendment 261. We are grateful for the Government’s engagement with my noble friend on this issue.

These amendments would prevent planning permission from timing out as a result of protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews, as we have heard, often outlast the three-year planning deadline, leaving permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications and discouraging serious investment. Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste and deter vexatious claims. It carries no real downside for the Government.

The Government say that they agree with the policy intention. We welcome the Government’s move to address the concerns held on these Benches and their work with my noble friend Lord Banner on these issues. This is a question of proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted permissions should not be undone by process; it should be done by merit. Far from slowing down planning, this change would help to speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving confidence to investors and allowing us to get on with building in the right places.

Finally, I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts processed behind these amendments are good ones, built on a sound principle. However, we do not believe that these amendments are practical. The proposed process would involve going straight to a hearing. In our view, the court would simply not have the necessary bandwidth. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose of his amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from across the House for the Government’s amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has had to rush off to the Supreme Court, apparently, but I am grateful for his support for our amendment.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this amendment has been developed in response to a discussion that we had in Committee and with extensive engagement with fellow Peers to improve the process of judicial review, which has been an ongoing issue. I hope that this reassures her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 103, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner and co-signed by my noble friend Lord Jamieson and me. At present, planning processes have become anything but proportionate. The precautionary principle is too often applied as though it requires zero risk. Environmental statements run to thousands of pages; inspectors demand reams of questions; statutory consultees require unnecessary detail, even at outline stage; and consultants, fearful of liability, produce overlong reports that few people will ever read. None of this improves the quality of decisions, but it clogs up the systems, slows delivery and undermines confidence.

This amendment would not abandon the precautionary principle; it would preserve it in its proper sense by ensuring no regression on environmental protections while restoring a degree of pragmatism and common sense. It would help to strip out duplication, shorten an unnecessary process, and empower the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure flexibility and future-proofing. In Committee, the Minister conceded the main point. She openly accepted that proportionality is desirable and that the system has become overly complex. In doing so, she essentially validated the case for this amendment before rejecting it. That position is not sustainable. If we agree that the system is disproportionate, we should act to correct it.

This amendment does exactly that. It would embed proportionality into planning as a guiding principle, striking the right balance between proper scrutiny, environmental responsibility and the need to deliver homes and infrastructure in a timely way. When the time comes, we intend to divide the House on this amendment.

I turn to Amendment 119, tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment seeks to ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under this Act give due consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

73: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a hotel has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is a hotel proposed for use as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 73, 74, 75, 263 and 264, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 87E tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, are about fairness, transparency and democratic consent in how planning decisions are made, particularly when it comes to the provision of asylum accommodation.

Too often, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. Asylum hotels have dominated the news this summer, sparking protests and dividing communities—divisions that could have been avoided if people had just been given a voice.

The principle is straightforward: changing the use of a hotel or a house in multiple occupation—HMO—to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use under planning law. That would mean that planning permission is required, ensuring proper consultation and clarity for councils, residents and local businesses. At present, the law is uncertain and councils are left to fight retrospective battles in the courts. This is not about the approach of the current or the previous Government; it is about what is right for the British people.

Protecting local voices has been a priority and an issue we have fought for consistently throughout the Bill. It is a terrible shame that, when the same principle arises in relation to asylum, an issue that is dominating our local communities, people such as the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to support our plan to give local people a voice on this issue. We had hoped that all noble Lords would have been consistent with their commitment to protecting the voices of local people. These amendments are not a question of asylum policy; this is simply a question of giving communities a voice. The country is watching, and it is vital that we act. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, given that its focus is on the planning issues surrounding the use of hotels for asylum seekers, pending assessment of their applications. Amendment 87E in my name offers a different solution to those challenging issues. On these Benches, we recognise the importance of reducing the backlog of asylum applications and we are committed to constructively ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. I note that the Government have also committed to doing so by the end of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

I can very briefly come to the Dispatch Box now. Can I first say how much I respect the noble Lord? We are very clear: I know that the noble Lord and his party did not support the suggestion of starting at 11 am, but that was a decision of the House. My intention is that, when these votes are finished, we will rise. We have three votes, so after about 30 minutes we will be rising; I have no intention of going beyond that. We will have the votes and then go home.

I am also always very happy to discuss things in the usual channels, and obviously we will discuss things in the coming days and weeks. But we will have our votes and then we will adjourn the House.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, going back to the debate, it is quite extraordinary that the Minister has chosen to use her reply once again to dwell on the Government’s record on asylum hotels. This debate is not about asylum policy; it is not even directly about those who arrive in this country. It is about the rights of local people: the rights of communities to have a say when there is a change of use in their area, just as they would for any other form of development or planning decision.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Will the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, explain to the House why it has taken five years for her party to come to the conclusion that planning permission for a change of use is needed?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

When we were in government, we had a plan—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We did—and the party opposite voted against it. We had a plan and we were bringing down numbers quite considerably in asylum hotels. In fact, we would not have any open now if we were still in government.

At its heart, this debate is about fairness and local accountability. Time and again, communities feel that decisions are being made over their heads and imposed without notice, consultation or trust. This is precisely what this amendment seeks to put right. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Minister has sought to distract from the substance of this issue. The Government’s record on asylum hotels is neither here nor there. What matters is whether local voices are heard and respected in the decision-making process.

On Report, the Minister suggested that I tabled these amendments for a different purpose. She knows me well enough to know that, when I say something, I mean it. The purpose is clear and principled: to ensure that local communities are not treated as bystanders in decisions that reshape their neighbourhoods. Time and again, the pattern emerges: decisions are made from the centre, delivered without dialogue and defended without accountability. This cannot continue. This amendment is about restoring the balance between national necessity and local democracy, and we on these Benches are determined to stand up for local people and local communities. Now I wish to test the opinion of the House, first on hotels and then on houses of multiple occupation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

74: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a house in multiple occupation has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is proposed for use as a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we start the first group, I remind the House, as I did last week, of important guidance on Report, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly.

First, I note paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:

“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.


While debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, a number of earlier contributions strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny, while allowing us to make good progress in good time.

Secondly, I remind noble Lords of the Companion guidance in paragraph 8.82:

“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”


or pressing an amendment. Speeches appear to be getting longer, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we would be able to get on in a more timely manner.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify that 67 government amendments, I think, came in very late to the Bill? They have therefore not had a Committee stage. I hope he and the Minister will accept that some of those will need Committee, as well as Report, discussions.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

It is Report and all I would say is that, as long as the debate is relevant, we have no problem with that.

Amendment 84

--- Later in debate ---

There are a lot of amendments in this important group so, with that, I thank your Lordships.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of the intent behind this important group of amendments, all of which seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions around green infrastructure, heritage protection, sustainable land use and, importantly, play and sports areas, as in Amendments 170 and 121E.

Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would recognise the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic gardens and designed landscapes are a vital part of our cultural and national heritage, and their protection must not be left to chance. Giving the Gardens Trust formal status in the planning process is a logical and proportionate step, in our opinion.

On Amendment 88, we strongly support the call for a strategic approach to green and blue infrastructure—that is, parks, waterways and green spaces that are publicly accessible and which protect biodiversity and enhance well-being. These provisions would help to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of nature or public access to it. However, this amendment includes “network”, which carries a significant implication from a strategic planning perspective. Once we define these assets as a network, local authorities could be required not only to safeguard individual sites but to consider the functional and spatial connections between those sites. That raises questions of the maintenance, responsibilities and resources required to deliver a genuinely joined-up approach. We therefore could not support the amendment as drafted but there is another amendment, later on in our debates, about new towns. It is a different issue in new towns than it is strategically, which could be across three or even four counties or areas.

There is also clear cross-party consensus behind prioritising brownfield development and protecting our most valuable farmland and greenfield sites. Amendments such as Amendments 95, 96 and 118 rightly push for a sequential, sustainable approach to land use, beginning with sites already in use or disused, and protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land for food production and environmental benefit.

Amendment 96 in my name would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield land and urban densification, and to promote sustainable mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs and services. It underpins the widely supported “brownfield first” principle, which already commands public support and political consensus, but it goes further, linking that principle directly to community building, sustainability and the protection of the villages and open spaces that give our places their character. As Conservatives, we are passionate about protecting our green belt and safeguarding the countryside from inappropriate development. This Government have often relied on guidance rather than firm statutory safeguards, leaving too much to shifting policy documents and not enough to clear legal safeguards.

This is about a joined-up approach, encouraging regeneration where infrastructure already exists, reducing needless commuting and making sure that the new development creates mixed, vibrant communities rather than those isolated housing estates we see too often on the edges of our towns. It is about putting what is already in the NPPF—brownfield first, compact growth and protection of the countryside—into statute. I anticipate that the Minister may say, as the Minister said in Committee:

“I agree with the intent behind this amendment; however, it is already comprehensively covered in the National Planning Policy Framework”,—[Official Report, 9/9/25; cols. 1455-56.]


but if we all agree that brownfield first is the right principle, then why leave it only to guidance, which can be changed at will? If it truly is covered, then legislating to secure it should cause no difficulty. If it is not, then this amendment is precisely what is needed.

This is a proportionate and pragmatic step. It strengthens what the Government claim they already believe in, gives local communities greater confidence that brownfield will be prioritised and protects our green belts and villages from unnecessary pressure, and I will be pushing this to a vote when the time comes.

Finally, on Amendment 239, in my name but spoken to by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, I do not want to say any more, because she said it all and I do not want to take time repeating it. But this is so important, and again we may divide on this one when the time comes, because this concerns the protection of our villages in this beautiful land.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this very interesting debate for the very valuable contributions we have heard this afternoon. I have engaged with many noble Lords on these matters in the preceding weeks and our debate has focused on something on which I think we all agree, which is the need to ensure that, as we deliver the housing we need, we recognise the importance of green and blue space, sustainability, heritage and the important uses that allow our communities and the people that constitute them to thrive and succeed.

First, I remind noble Lords of my letter regarding the strength and influence that planning policy bears on the protection of vital green and blue spaces across the country, the power it exerts in practice and the degree of flexibility it allows for sensible choices to be made at a local level. The benefits of green space are not in doubt as far as I can see, for all the reasons set out in our debate. That is why there are such strong protections within the NPPF and in the planning system.

I turn now to the amendments we have debated. Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that the Gardens Trust is retained as a statutory consultee for planning proposals and that it is considered as a statutory amenity society. The Government have set out their intention to reform the system of statutory consultation. We want a streamlined, effective system of consultation that avoids uncertainty and delay. We will shortly consult on these reforms, including on the impacts of removing the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher-graded parks and gardens, so this consultation will help us to deliver a streamlined system and address duplication.

As part of our consultation, we will be very keen to test mitigations to ensure they continue to play a valuable role in protecting our heritage. Planning policy remains key. Registered parks and gardens are defined as designated heritage assets, and they will remain subject to the strong heritage policies protecting these assets in the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies require local planning authorities to carefully consider the impact of a development proposal on a designated heritage asset, and, if the development proposal would cause substantial harm, to refuse such applications.

I note the noble Lord’s proposal about amenity society status with great interest. Amenity societies are not subject to the full requirements of statutory consultation but are notified of relevant development. The Government really value the work of amenity societies, and I will add my own anecdote here about the level of volunteering. I was at our local community awards on Saturday, and I was delighted to see our amazing green space volunteers—across our gardens, green spaces and parks—getting awards. These kinds of volunteers who look after our green spaces—whether in committee rooms or out in the parks themselves—are incredibly valued, as are those who enable and encourage sport and physical activity, which we will come to later. I pay tribute to those who won those local awards on Saturday.

The Government are keen to explore whether this model would be suitable for certain types of development through our consultation. We believe there is an important, ongoing role for the Gardens Trust, working with local authorities and developers. No decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts from the consultation. My department will continue to engage with the Gardens Trust to understand the impacts of these proposals over the coming months.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, has tabled Amendment 88, and I thank her for our meeting last week to discuss the importance of networks of green and blue spaces to communities all around the country. I was very grateful for the information and research that she provided both to me and to officials from my department.

The NPPF, which will guide the development of new spatial development strategies, already highlights the need for plans to support healthy communities. I agree with the noble Baroness about equality in the provision of green space. I am grateful to her for agreeing to share the research she talked about, and I am happy to respond in writing to her on that.

I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on the amazing work she did during the London Olympics. When I was on one of my visits, I went to see a fantastic project on balcony gardens in Walthamstow, which has also invigorated that community. In my own area, we started a community orchard project. I completely understand the benefits of these types of projects.

Strategic planning authorities already have the ability to set policies that reflect the value of these spaces. Under new Section 12D(4)(c), a spatial development strategy may specify infrastructure that promotes or improves the social or environmental well-being of an area; this could include networks of green and blue spaces.

We should also remember that strategic development strategies will not be site-specific; instead, they will relate to broad locations. Some of the noble Lords who have had meetings with me will be aware that my noble friend Lady Hayman, the Defra Minister, is currently working on a comprehensive access strategy, which will come forward from Defra, to indicate how that meshes in with the planning process. While an SDS may consider green and blue networks at the strategic level, detailed site-specific matters relating to them are likely to be best dealt with through local plans.

Amendment 95 seeks to protect best and most versatile land, and Amendments 96 and 118 seek to encourage a brownfield first principle. I absolutely agree that we need to protect our best agricultural land. To that end, strategic authorities will need to have regard to ensuring consistency with national policy when preparing their spatial development strategies. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural. Planning policy recognises the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land, and if development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land—not in the top three grades that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned—should be prioritised. Furthermore, the forthcoming land use framework will set out the evidence and tools needed to protect our most productive agricultural land and identify areas with the biggest potential for nature recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support this amendment, which seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are formally consulted by applicants for a development consent order. The amendment is similar to the Environment Agency system and would help to avoid significant problems downstream.

Far too often, we have seen developments progress without any consideration of water supply, drainage or wastewater infrastructure, leading to unnecessary strain, additional cost and, of course, the human consequence of flood risk, which is worst of all. By ensuring that the relevant utilities are engaged early in the process, the amendment would promote better planning and ultimately save time, money and, above all, anguish for so many people.

The amendment aligns with some of the longstanding commitments we have worked on together in some of the APPGs. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, although I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment is brought forward and the specific issues it raises, it would introduce a level of prescription that may not be necessary. The planning system already provides mechanisms for consultation with relevant bodies, and it is important that we maintain a balance between thorough engagement and procedural efficiencies. We must be cautious not to overextend statutory requirements in ways that could complicate or even delay the development consent process. Flexibility and proportionality are key. As ever, my noble friend Lady McIntosh raises important issues. We look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 87FA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are consulted by applicants for development consent orders. I begin by acknowledging her long-standing interest in ensuring that infrastructure development is undertaken responsibly, with due regard to environmental and public health concerns.

The importance of early engagement with key stakeholders in the planning process is definitely not in dispute. Indeed, the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that meaningful engagement takes place at the formative stages of project development and where stakeholders are able to meaningfully influence, where appropriate.

As has been made clear in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Government have already taken steps to streamline the statutory consultation process under the Planning Act. Section 42, which this amendment seeks to modify, will be repealed via Clause 4. This reflects a broader concern that the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation were not functioning as intended, leading to delays, excessive rounds of engagement and an ever-growing volume of documentation.

That said, I want to reassure noble Lords that this does not mean that issues relevant to stakeholders will be ignored—quite the contrary. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will issue guidance to assist applicants with the steps they might take in relation to submitting an application. The Government acknowledge that stakeholders play a vital role in safeguarding public health and environmental standards, and the importance of their input and engagement will be made clear in guidance. The guidance will include expectations of who the applicant should consider engaging with and would positively contribute to a scheme focused on delivering the best outcomes for projects, and its impact on the environment and communities. This may include engaging with relevant statutory undertakers, such as water and sewerage undertakers, where it is beneficial to do so.

To be clear, the removal of statutory consultation at the pre-application stage does not remove various organisations’ ability to actively participate and influence an application through registering as an interested party. Statutory bodies will still be notified if an application is accepted and will be provided with the opportunity to make representations under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.

This amendment risks re-adding statutory complexity after the Government have responded to calls to simplify the system through Clause 4, which repeals statutory pre-application consultation. This has already been agreed and is not under debate.

In this context, although I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention to strengthen the role of water and sewerage undertakers in the planning process, I must respectfully resist the amendment in the light of the planned changes to pre-application consultation associated with applications for development consent. I hope that, with these assurances and noting the inconsistency with Clause 4, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, not for the first time in this House, I will strike a slightly contrary note. I believe Amendment 89 is well intentioned but goes a bit too far in calling for all housing to meet the standards set out in M4(2) and M4(3).

M4(2) sets a standard for new homes to be accessible and adaptable, meaning they are designed to be easily adapted for future needs, such as those of an elderly person or those with a temporary disability. It is not a standard for full wheelchair accessibility, which is covered in the much more stringent M4(3) standard. M4(2) requires the dwelling to have features such as the provision for a future stairlift or lift, and may require certain features such as low-level windows.

The regulations were naive in believing that one could build homes that could be easily adapted for wheelchair users. All of us on all sides happily voted these through. It is like motherhood and apple pie: we thought we were doing something helpful for the disabled, and I do not think we took into account the practicalities and the cost. I simply do not believe that you can build these homes to be easily converted for the disabled at the same cost as current homes.

It is not just a matter of level access; it is a whole host of different features. You need wider doors everywhere. Kitchens may have to be ripped out and built at a much lower level for wheelchair users. You cannot have any wall cabinets; there will never be enough space in a kitchen designed for wheelchair users.

As for bathrooms, it is not just a matter of extra grab handles; the whole bathroom needs to be twice to three times the size to fit a wheelchair user. If a wheelchair user is not ambulatory at all and has to be stuck in the wheelchair, you need an absolutely level access shower. That means ripping out the standard shower and putting in a flat one when you might not have the drainage to do it. These are just some of the practical problems I see day to day if one tries to design that in at the beginning. As for space to install a lift—forget it. That would require a massive redesign at potentially enormous cost.

The point is that there are an estimated 1.2 million wheelchair users in the UK. This number includes permanent users and the 400,000 ambulatory users, which includes people like me who can walk a bit, provided we have our chariot wheelchair to help us. Wheelchair users make up roughly 11% of the disabled population. That is why I think it is over the top to call for all housing to be suitable or adapted for wheelchair users when only 11% of the population needs it. Perhaps local authorities should be under an obligation to deliver 15% of wheelchair-accessible or adaptable housing in all new buildings.

Turning briefly to the housing needs of an older generation, I have a simple, one-word solution: bungalows, either detached, semi-detached or even a single-storey terrace. It is believed that about 2 million bungalows were built in the last century, before builders stopped building them, since they take up more space and they can now cram a dozen rabbit hutches of about three storeys high into the same space taken up by one bungalow. In 1987, there were 26,000 new bungalows registered. In 2017, there were only 2,210.

I do not have a solution to that. If builders will not build them, I am loathe to demand that there should be a compulsory quota. Perhaps another slogan for the Secretary of State, in addition to “Build, baby, build”, should be “Bring back bungalows”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 89 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would mean that the homes we build must reflect the needs of our population. In an ageing society and one where the nature of disability is changing, this becomes ever more urgent. Accessibility and adaptability are not luxuries; they are the foundations of a fair and future-proof housing system. We are therefore grateful to the noble Lord for bringing back this important debate on Report and thank him for his tireless work on these issues.

On Amendment 91, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, more homes are important—of course they are—but homes that respect local character, reflect vernacular and are, quite frankly, pleasant to look at are important too. Having scrapped the Office for Place and having not implemented the LURA requirements for design statements alongside local plans in local planning authorities, the Government appear to be riding roughshod over the very principles of good design and placemaking that Parliament sought to embed in legislation.

What are the Government going to do to uphold and protect the principles of design quality, to ensure that places we build are not only affordable and efficient but beautiful, sustainable and built to last? I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, shares this sentiment. She will speak to her Amendment 92 in the next group, which seeks to strengthen the same call.

On Amendment 112, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, as we said in Committee, stepping-stone accommodation is an idea with real potential and one that speaks to a compassionate and practical approach to housing need. But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of this amendment, but I sound a note of caution. Our existing space standards were developed for good reason. They exist to prevent a return to poor-quality housing—the rabbit hutch flats of the past—homes that compromise health, dignity and long-term liveability.

If we are to disapply or adapt such standards in specific cases, we need to do so with clear safeguards in place. The noble Baroness has helpfully proposed a specific minimum size and has begun to flesh out the practicalities of this proposal—that is a constructive way forward. But before we enshrine such figures in legislation, there should be a proper consultation both with the sector and, crucially, with those we seek to serve.

Stepping-stone accommodation could play a valuable role in tackling housing need, but it must be done right. It must offer dignity, not just a stopgap. Above all, it must serve the people it is designed to help, not simply the pressures we have in the system at this time.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments relating to housing design, accessibility and homelessness solutions.

Amendment 89 would require spatial development strategies to ensure that new housing meets the needs of older and disabled people. While I cannot pre-empt the forthcoming national housing strategy, I am sure the Minister in the other place has listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others, on the growing importance of ensuring we provide sufficient suitable housing for older people and those with disabilities. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not know about bungalows, but at this rate I am going to be given a whole wardrobe of hats to wear, which I look forward to.

The Government firmly believe that providing suitable housing for older adults and people with disabilities is essential to supporting their safety and independence. However, I do not agree that the noble Lord’s amendment is needed to achieve that outcome. Local planning authorities already have the tools to support the delivery of homes that are accessible and adaptable. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that authorities should assess the size, type and tenure of housing required by different groups—including older and disabled people—and set clear policies to address these needs. That is why I spoke earlier about having a sufficient quantity of housing, and local authorities are best placed to assess that need.

Authorities can also apply enhanced technical standards from the building regulations through planning conditions. Where there is clear evidence of local demand, authorities are expected to use these standards to help ensure a sufficient supply of accessible homes. That may include specifying the proportion of new housing built to M4(2) and M4(3) standards. The Bill also already enables strategic planning authorities to address this issue, where it is considered to be of strategic importance to the area. I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

96: Clause 52, page 73, line 29, at end insert—
“(9A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise development on brownfield land and urban densification.(9B) A spatial development strategy must seek to increase sustainability and community building by minimising travel distances between places of employment, residence and commercial or leisure activities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield and urban densification, and to promote sustainable, mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs, and services.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have tried every way possible over a number of years to ensure that brownfield sites are used for development, over and above our precious agricultural land. This is not working, so something addressing it needs to be put in statute. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 96.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we are actually engaging with the industry about this to understand its concerns. I do not want to say anything further on it this evening, apart from expressing my full support for my noble friend Lord Lansley. We will return to this issue for a much fuller discussion in a later group of amendments that we have tabled.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for yet again raising the flag on flooding—all strength to her— and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for adding her name. These amendments are clearly designed to address the escalating risks of flooding by embedding precise statutory safeguards into local planning.

Amendment 100 would convert the existing sequential test and the exception test from mere guidance into a legal requirement for local plans. The effect would be direct. Local authorities would be obliged to locate development according to robust risk-based criteria. Our colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos MP, talked in Committee there at some length on this issue and highlighted the dangers where planning permission is still granted for homes on functional flood plains and high-risk areas, often with households left uninsured and exposed to the heartbreak and terrible experience that we discussed a great deal in Committee. Amendment 100 would also mandate the incorporation of sustainable drainage systems, SUDS, except where demonstrably unsuitable. A lack of statutory backing for SUDS, as the APPG on flooded communities has made clear, continues to compromise local flood resilience.

Amendment 101 speaks to the need for reliable current evidence in planning and stipulates that strategic flood risk assessments, SFRAs, must be based on the latest available data from the Environment Agency. On these Benches, the one question we have about it is the level of burden and expectation on local authorities, which already have so many burdens and expectations, but the further burden on households and families of flood risks and living in homes that are built on flood plains without due care is obviously so significant that we cannot ignore it. These amendments establish enforceable statutory standards and require some practical action, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 100 and 101, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, are sensible and pragmatic proposals. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, the risk of flooding is increasing rapidly, and it is happening now. It is therefore entirely right that our planning framework should embed flood risk prevention and resilience more firmly at every stage, from local plans to individual applications, and I hope the Minister will give these amendments serious consideration and can reassure the House that stronger statutory safeguards against flood risk could still be part of this Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 100 proposes placing the sequential and exception tests on a statutory footing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her amendment. We share the view that these policies play a fundamental role in directing development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, but it is equally fundamental that we retain our ability to adapt the position in response to emerging evidence and changing circumstances. National planning policy already plays a critical role in the planning system, being a framework which both plan-makers and decision-makers must have regard to. Enshrining these tests in statute would not only unnecessarily duplicate the policy but also make it harder to adapt and refine our approach over time. Our policy and guidance do not stand still. Guidance on the flood risk sequential test was updated only last month, and we have committed to publishing an even clearer set of national decision-making policies for consultation by the end of this year. This will include updated policies on flood risk.

Amendment 101, on strategic flood-risk assessment maps, would require local authorities to base their assessments on the most current data from the Environment Agency. As previously outlined to the House, this is already established practice. The Environment Agency updated the national flood risk assessment in 2024 and the flood map for planning in 2025, based on the latest national flood risk assessment data. For the first time, the flood map displays surface-water risk and information on how climate change may affect future flood risk from rivers and seas.

The new national flood risk assessment also allows for continuous improvement of data quality. The Environment Agency intends to update flood risk data quarterly and coastal erosion data annually, as well as refining its modelling to increase data and mapping coverage from 90% to 100%. The Environment Agency also has a long-term strategic partnership with the Met Office, called the Flood Forecasting Centre, which forecasts all natural forms of flooding, including from rivers, surface water, groundwater and the sea, to support national flood resilience in a changing climate. Local authorities must use the latest available data when preparing their assessments, and the Environment Agency routinely updates its flood-mapping tools.

Nevertheless, I wish to reassure the noble Baroness that these concerns are being listened to. The Government are committed to reviewing whether further changes are needed to better manage flood risk and coastal change through the planning system as part of the forthcoming consultation on wider planning reform later this year. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Hear, hear to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I had a lot to say but I do not think I need to say it. My noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Lansley, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hunt, have said everything that can be said about this.

The amendments just seek to restore clarity and flexibility, ensuring that large schemes are not paralysed by legal technicalities. They would allow practical adjustments to be made, while fully preserving the principle of proper planning control. Surely that is what we want to deliver. We are not wedded to a precise drafting at this time—the Government are free to bring forward their own version—but I urge the Minister to please get on with it.

Without a clear mechanism to adapt site-wide permissions, investment is stalling and will continue to stall, projects will be abandoned, as they are being abandoned now, and the planning system itself will be discredited by outcomes that make very little sense on the ground. Down on the ground is where they are building houses—there will be fewer houses built, and more houses are needed. We need to get on with it. I urge the Government to commit to a good solution in this Bill and not to push it down the road.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hesitate to step into this very knotty lawyer’s wrangle, but it is necessary to do so because our common aim across the House is to sort out Hillside. We all know why we need to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, said, it is symbolic of all the issues that we are trying to get out of the way so that we can get on with the development that this country needs.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling Amendment 105—a repeat of his amendment from Committee that seeks to overturn the Hillside judgment—and for his new Amendment 113, which responds to some very constructive discussions we have had since Committee.

As I said in Committee, we recognise that the Hillside judgment, which confirmed long-established planning case law, has caused real issues with the development industry. In particular, it has cast doubt on the informal practice of using “drop in” permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments that could build out over quite long periods—10 to 20 years.

We have listened carefully to views across the House on this matter, and I appreciate the thoughts of all noble Lords who have spoken in this useful debate. One seasoned planning law commentator—I do not think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banner, or the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—called Hillside a “gnarly issue”, and it has attracted a lot of legal attention. It is very important that we tread carefully but also that we move as quickly as we can on this.

Therefore, in response to the concerns, the Government propose a two-step approach to dealing with Hillside. First, we will implement the provisions from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for a new, more comprehensive route to vary planning permissions—Section 73B. In practice, we want this new route to replace Section 73 as the key means for varying permissions, given that Section 73 has its own limitations, which case law has also highlighted. The use of Section 73B will provide an alternative mechanism to drop-in permissions for many large-scale developments—although we recognise not all.

Secondly, we will explore with the sector the merits of putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing to provide a further alternative. This approach will enable provision to be made to make lawful the continued carrying out of development under the original permission for the large development, addressing the Hillside issue. It will also enable some of the other legal issues with drop-in permissions to be resolved.

In implementing Section 73B and exploring a statutory role for drop-in permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments, I emphasise that we do not want these routes to be used to water down important public benefits from large-scale development, such as the level of affordable housing agreed at the time of the original planning permission. They are about dealing with legitimate variations in a pragmatic way in response to changing circumstances over time.

Amendment 113 seeks to provide an enabling power to address Hillside through affirmative secondary legislation. I recognise that this provision is intended to enable the Government to have continued discussions with the sector and then work up a feasible legislative solution through the regulations. As with all enabling powers, the key issue is whether the provisions are broad enough to deal with the issues likely to emerge from these discussions, as hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

Based on the current drafting, this enabling power would not do that. For instance, there have been calls to deal with Hillside in relation to NSIP projects. That would require a wider scope, so we cannot accept the amendment without significant modifications. That is why we think it is best to explore putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing first and then drawing up the legislation. This will give Parliament time to scrutinise.

To conclude, I hope that the approach I have set out addresses many of the concerns expressed in this debate. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.