Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly, just in case there is a move to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. While we understand the intent behind the proposal, we on these Benches are not persuaded that removing the provision for mandatory payments to the nature restoration fund would be a step in the right direction. If developers choose to proceed through an EDP route, it is only right that they contribute to the environmental mitigation and restoration measures that make those plans effective. Allowing them to opt out of such payments risks undermining the consistency and fairness of the system and could weaken the overall purpose of the fund to ensure that development contributes positively to nature recovery. Therefore, we approach the amendment, and a possible vote on it, with considerable caution.

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

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to examine the circumstances in which an environmental delivery plan, and the associated levy payment, could be mandatory. Amendment 164, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would wholly remove the option for an EDP to be mandatory. Amendment 164A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Langsley, would significantly restrict the circumstances in which an EDP could be made mandatory. I assure noble Lords, as I previously stressed in Committee debates, that the scenario of mandatory EDPs and levy payments will arise only in limited, exceptional circumstances. I will explain that in a bit more detail—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested that I would say that again—to try to reassure noble Lords.

A key purpose of the NRF is to offer developers an alternative way to meet their environmental obligations, so it is not our intention to make EDPs the only route available. As I have set out, Natural England is able to recommend that an EDP be mandatory only where it believes this is necessary, and it would be required to set out its reasoning within that EDP. That would form part of the consultation on that EDP—allowing developers and others to support or oppose this approach —and the responses to that consultation would of course form part of the Secretary of State’s consideration before making that EDP.

We consider that these steps represent a significant consultative and democratic safeguard. However, we also recognise that there is interest in what circumstances the Government consider may be necessary for an EDP to be mandatory rather than optional. We consider that there are two broad possibilities, the first of which is in instances where the ability to make an EDP mandatory provides a crucial assurance to Natural England and the taxpayer. For example, were Natural England to work with the developer and invest significant resource into preparing a bespoke EDP to address the impacts of a single large development such as a piece of energy infrastructure, that EDP is not likely to be usable by anyone else. If the developer or promoter subsequently chose to discharge their environmental obligations via a different route, that cost of developing the EDP would be wasted. It is important, therefore, to have a mechanism to provide certainty that an EDP will be used in such a scenario.

Secondly, if an EDP could only secure the right conservation measures to pass the overall improvement test and if all developers in scope paid in, but consultation showed that a small minority of developers did not wish to do so, it may be reasonable for Natural England to recommend and for the Secretary of State to agree that the EDP should be mandatory. A consideration of the overall benefits to growth and development would be properly in the gift of the Secretary of State in this scenario.

It is also important to note that the Bill contains a duty on the Secretary of State in drafting the levy regulations to ensure that even where payment of the levy is mandatory, it does not make development economically unviable, as this would not deliver the win-win the NRF is seeking to achieve.

Noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. They are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, which will enable stakeholders to have the opportunity to comment on regulations before they are made. In developing the regulations, we will, of course, work closely with stakeholders to ensure the effective operation of the levy system. Given this reassurance as to the limited circumstances where the levy could be mandatory, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Amendment 158A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to limit circumstances where an EDP could be amended so as to make payment of the levy mandatory. I assure the noble Lord that while we do not envisage Natural England amending an EDP to make payment of the levy mandatory, the Bill already provides that an EDP could be amended in this way. Such a scenario would be very unlikely to materialise, because the Secretary of State would need to consider whether making an EDP mandatory meets the high legal bar of this being necessary. However, if it did, the Bill as drafted already allows for this to happen, crucially, following further public consultation and, of course, the consent of the Secretary of State. With this reassurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords for their contributions to this debate; it is a really important one. What the Minister said certainly added something new in terms of the operation of the viability test as a way of mitigating the risk that the mandatory levy would put developers in a disadvantageous position. Otherwise, what she said was what I had previously understood.

Personally, I do not think that Amendment 164A significantly narrowed the scope; it simply expressed what I hoped was the intention. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister continued to consider—if not in the Bill itself, then certainly in the regulations and guidance—whether Natural England is deterred from constantly pressing the Secretary of State to think of making the levy mandatory, simply in order to justify the fact that it put all its effort and money into preparing EDPs in the first place, which is, I am afraid, part of the argument it will inevitably present. But, subject to that request, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 158A.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

168: Schedule 4, page 171, line 28, leave out “section 126 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009” and insert “—
“(a) section 125 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (general duties of public authorities in relation to MCZs) insofar as it applies to any function of a public authority of determining an application (whenever made) relating to the development, and(b) section 126 of that Act”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the general duties on public authorities in s.125 of the MCAA 2009 when exercising decision-making functions that may affect marine conservation zones. Those duties require authorities to further the conservation objectives of each MCZ, so an EDP containing network conservation measures may cause a public authority to breach the duties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of both amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. The arguments were made powerfully and comprehensively in Committee and well summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. Farmers, in particular, should be given adequate notice of entry in order to take necessary precautions to manage their liability towards those entering the farm and to manage the biosecurity risks that entrants to the farm pose to their animals. If my noble friend is dissatisfied with the Minister’s response, we would support him in testing the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the specific amendments, I apologise for any discourtesy to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I take responsibility for that myself. Although he was kind enough to say that it was not my fault, it is always down to the Minister to make sure that Peers are responded to. I apologise if he did not receive the response that he should have.

I thank the noble Earl for tabling Amendments 183A and 183B, which would extend the written notice period required before Natural England could demand admission to land. This is currently set at 21 days for statutory undertakers and at least 24 hours in other cases. While we agree that it is important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions in the Bill are consistent with powers of entry requirements in other legislation. Through aligning with other legislation, we have minimised the risk of confusion for landowners, while also recognising the justified difference in how we treat statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and may require additional preparation to protect public safety and prevent disruption. There are also additional safeguards in the Bill to ensure that these powers cannot be used to gain access to a private dwelling. These safeguards further ensure that these powers cannot be used in any manner other than for carrying out surveys or investigations as specified within this part of the Bill. I hope that, with this explanation and the assurance that the NRF is in line with standard practice, the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks and for taking responsibility for the inefficiency of her officials. The rest of her remarks do not please me so much; I am very disappointed. There is no different argument to what was used in Committee. I just want the Minister to reflect. Does she really want to treat farmers in the way that they are being treated at the moment? This is not emergency legislation. There are, rightly, cases in legislation where emergency access is required and less than 24 hours’ notice is needed. That is not the case here. I disagree with her entirely that it will be confusing for the landowner in this instance. This is just sheer discourtesy towards the hard-working farmers of this country. I think that she would resent it if she was a farmer and was treated like this. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I did ask the Minister whether she might reflect on the debate we had earlier, and I would be very interested to hear whether she has anything to add. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The noble Lord asked for further assurances in respect of how land acquired under CPO could be returned where the land is no longer required. The Crichel Down rules are existing non-statutory arrangements under which surplus land that was acquired by, or under threat of, compulsion should be offered back to former owners, their successors, or sitting tenants.

In reference to land acquired under CPO in respect of Part 3, as I explained, it is very unlikely that land acquired by compulsory purchase under an EDP would not be used. It is unlikely to be surplus. This is because, if an EDP were revoked, the land might still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Where land that has been compulsorily purchased is genuinely surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply, as they would for land purchased under any other CPO power.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that addition to the debate. On that basis, I reserve the right to come back at Third Reading on this matter, but I am happy to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling her amendments in this group. I know that the whole House respects her for her commitment to the issue of sustainable drainage, and I pay tribute to her for her persistence in raising this particular matter, because it is about time that we made some progress on it.

Our water system is put under pressure when developments are built out and connected up, and my noble friend is right to raise this. Can the Minister please take this opportunity to set out the Government’s ongoing work on delivering a sustainable future for our water systems? We would also be interested to hear what active steps the department is taking to engage with the development sector, including small and medium-sized developers, to ensure that existing non-statutory standards for sustainable drainage have been implemented.

My noble friends have mentioned 2010. I can beat that. I think it was in 1992 that, as Environment Minister, I was shown a revolutionary new system whereby the downpipes from our houses are connected to a soakaway and a system of seepage pipes about a foot underground, where the water then slowly leaked back into the soil. For big commercial car parks, the seepage pipes were put down a metre, so they were not crushed.

Those systems were in development then, and I said, “This is a jolly good idea, we should do it”, but the word was, “Oh no, Minister, it is not quite the right time to do it yet”. So I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say about that particular area. What development work is going on for seepage systems in ordinary domestic houses? We have millions of gallons of pure raindrops falling on our roofs, we put it into the sewerage system and then the water companies spend millions of pounds taking out the clean water again. Seepage systems must be the way to go in the near future.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for proposing these amendments, and for her persistence in these matters. I remember having long discussions with her on the same subject over the course of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.

Proper implementation, adoption and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems can significantly reduce the pressure on sewer networks from new developments by as much as 87%. This creates capacity for further development in areas where conventional drainage alone would be insufficient. There is growing need for SUDS in more developments, with designs that can withstand changing climate conditions, support broader water infrastructure goals and contribute to addressing the water pollution challenges.

Progress has already been made through the planning system to improve SUDS delivery. I am afraid that I do not accept the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that MHCLG has been holding this up. The updated National Planning Policy Framework, published on 12 December, now requires SUDS for all developments that have drainage implications.

Sewerage companies have the authority to reject connection requests if they believe that the mode of construction or condition of the drain or sewer will prejudice their network or fail to meet reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to the sewer system.

The Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, has reviewed the regulatory framework for the water sector in England and Wales. Both the UK and Welsh Governments are assessing the findings, including any potential impact on the right to connect. Any legislative changes to Section 106 should take into account the findings of the Independent Water Commission’s report before moving forward. The Government remain strongly committed to requiring standardised SUDS in new developments and increasing rainwater management strategies to mitigate flood risks and to adapt to climate change.

In June 2025, the Government released updated non-statutory national standards for SUDS, which have been positively received by stakeholders as a very constructive development. Later this year, the Government plan to consult on national planning policies, including those related to flood risk and SUDS. Additionally, a consultation will be launched on ending freehold estates which will explore ways to reduce the reliance on private management arrangements for community assets, such as SUDS. When we bring those national planning policies forward, I hope that the noble Baroness will take part in the discussions. As she has such a detailed knowledge of the subject, I am sure that she would be very helpful in the preparation of those national planning policies.

For all these reasons, the Government cannot accept Amendments 197 and 198. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment 197.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in favour of the amendments—and to those who did not. I will take my colleague aside and teach him the error of his ways, perhaps acquainting him with Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

As a newly elected MP, I was surprised at two things: first, that we do not make new laws but amend existing ones; and, secondly, that, having passed a law, we do not implement it. I listened very carefully to the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. She has made the points for me: these are guidelines in the non-statutory National Planning Policy Framework and in the national standards for SUDS.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have explained many times during the course of the debate on the Bill that, although the planning policy statements and the NPPF are not statutory in themselves, they are part of a statutory planning framework and they must be taken into account as local plans are developed. They cannot be statutory documents because they have to be amended frequently, but they sit within that statutory planning framework, and that is what makes them powerful.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. It is not me that she has to convince, but the insurance companies out there, and the likes of CIWEM, who have to pick up the pieces when there is a combined sewage overflow. We have not plugged the gap of the highways runoff, either. I would like to reserve judgment about bringing back the amendment at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 207, 220 and 230, which are all linked. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for supporting them. I am also grateful for all the constructive engagement I have had with the Minister and her teams between Committee and Report. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, cannot be here this evening and wish her a speedy recovery.

I reflected on the Committee debate which highlighted the contentious nature of these amendments. Of course, noble Lords are concerned about rolling back protections for nature for infrastructure build, and the delays we have seen to large infrastructure in the UK are a multifaceted problem, but we cannot get away or escape from the fact that poor interpretation of environmental regulations is causing excessive cost and multiyear delays to many of our large infrastructure projects. The evidence here is clear—I will not go through the examples again that I cited in Committee.

The root cause of the delays to many of our offshore wind and nuclear programmes, and the other examples that I cited, and their excessive costs, comes down to an overzealous interpretation of the habitats regulations. Ironically, those regulations are causing long delays to much of our net-zero infrastructure and much else besides. They are impacting our national security, because energy security is national security.

My amendments offer a way through that, while maintaining protections for nature, by attempting to take the regulations back to their original intent by reversing case law and clarifying interpretation of existing law. These changes would move the dial significantly by ensuring that regulators are guided towards a more sensible and proportionate interpretation of the regulations and compensation, streamlining the programme for getting infrastructure through the system.

Finally, these points relate to a substantive proposal that the Minister has offered related to these amendments, so I look forward to hearing her proposal in detail when she sums up.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I should be clear at the outset that the amendments in this group seek to amend substantively the habitats regulations beyond the context of EDPs and the nature restoration fund, and beyond the current focus of the Bill. I am aware that these amendments, and the desire to make changes to the wider system of the habitats regulations, stem in part from a concern that the NRF will not deliver for infrastructure projects. I want to be very clear that this is not the case. We are all well aware of cases where vital infrastructure has been held up by specific environmental issues. We are currently identifying opportunities where EDPs and the NRF can have the greatest impact on infrastructure delivery, particularly addressing common challenges that are currently difficult for developers to resolve alone.

I stress that the Government are already taking action. We believe that the habitats regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately, with decisions based on the best available scientific evidence. The Government are working closely with stakeholders to improve the functioning of the habitats regulations, including by acting on the recommendations of the Corry review and the post-implementation review of the habitats regulations.

We know that there are particular issues with the delivery of suitable environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind projects. The consultation, which closed in September, covered proposed reforms to deliver a more flexible approach to this. We will make it clear in guidance that only relevant information needs to be considered in reaching conclusions on the risks to a protected site. The updated guidance will also make it clear that small effects that do not have any prospect of risking harm to a protected site can and should be screened out.

Finally, we will take the opportunity to set out more clearly where there is already flexibility in law in considering appropriate compensatory measures under Regulation 68 of the habitats regulations. Should guidance not be sufficient to make clear how the regulations should be applied, we may consider whether legislative change is needed, in careful consultation with developers, planners, ecologists and other relevant stakeholders. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, I very much welcome her commitment to address the points raised in the amendment through guidance and her recognition that legislation will be required. I look forward to working with the Minister and her team on that. Nevertheless, I stress the urgency of bringing forward guidance quickly in this area, due to the delays we are seeing. Can she offer any more information on the timescales for the issuing and release of that guidance?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord is making. I will take the subject back and discuss it with the teams in Defra and my own department, and then write to him, if that would be helpful. I am loath to make a time commitment from the Dispatch Box without doing that first.

Turning to Amendment 202, as previously noted I share the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to support new nuclear development, which will be critical for economic growth and achieving our clean energy mission. However, providing the Secretary of State the ability to completely exempt nuclear power stations producing more than 500 megawatts from requirements in respect to the habitats regulations, environmental impact assessments and any future environmental delivery plans would create uncertainty for developers and erode public support for such projects. These are important tools for making sure that the environmental impacts of projects are considered. The environmental protections they contain relate not only to nature but to the broader community impacts. This blunt approach to disregarding these obligations would put decision-makers at a disadvantage and prevent developers taking important steps to address the environmental impact of the development.

I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness; we need to do more to reform the planning system to accelerate nuclear development in this country. We are in the final stages of designating a new national policy statement for nuclear energy generation, EN-7. That will provide a robust and flexible framework for new nuclear developers seeking development consent and, alongside the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), will provide the Secretary of State with some discretion when considering habitats regulations and the environmental impact assessment during decision-making by defining low-carbon energy infrastructure, including nuclear, as a critical national priority. We are also awaiting the final recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce.

I hope, following my explanation, that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, will feel able to withdraw Amendment 202.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. Although I do not entirely agree with her arguments, I have made my case as well as I can and I do not propose to detain the House any longer, given the lateness of the hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.