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.