Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 306, which is in this group in my name, but I want to make a number of other points. First, I want to note that we have just agreed Clause 65. I remember that my noble friend Lord Caithness did ask a question in a previous group at an earlier time about the opportunity to challenge an environmental delivery plan, to which the answer was that there was a provision for that somewhere. This is indeed true; it is in Clause 65, which we have just agreed. I will just point out—we may need to return to it and check that we are clear—it is a challenge by way of judicial review; there is not the opportunity to challenge an environmental delivery plan in circumstances where one believes that the facts and the evidence are wrong. The merits of the decisions may not be challenged; only the procedural aspects may be challenged by way of judicial review.

I mention that because, in this group, my noble friend in his subsection (1)(c) of the new clause in Amendment 308 refers to a right of appeal in relation to the establishment of the levy. This is an appeal on a question of fact, so it is a different kind of an appeal for a different purpose. I think that it is rather a good thing, but the question is: to whom should it go? Clause 70 sets out that there may be an appeal, but, unfortunately, it does not say to whom, or how or whatever. Do the Government happen to know to whom the appeal will be made? When I look at Clause 69 and the provisions setting out at some length how the charging schedules may be established in regulations, it seems to me awfully similar to the legislation that provides for the community infrastructure levy, for those who recognise these things. An appeal against the community infrastructure levy would be to the District Valuer Services, so it might be sensible for Ministers, if they can do nothing else, to at least tell us if it is the intention that the District Valuer Services would undertake the work on charging schedules and levy amounts for the environmental delivery plans.

The point of my Amendment 306 is to acknowledge that we have this lengthy set of clauses that tell us that the EDP must be calculated in relation to its costs and that that must be turned into a charging schedule. Clearly, we cannot assume that the development will be the responsibility of any one person; it may be the responsibility of many persons. The charging schedule is actually very like a community infrastructure levy charged against the development, and indeed it might be imposed, and the charging schedules could, as Clause 69 says, be determined by reference to the nature and/or the amount of development. It could be very like a community infrastructure levy for commercial purposes; it could be so many pounds per square foot and so on. If it is very like it, it would be quite useful to know that.

The Minister might say there is not really a requirement on local authorities to consult about a community infrastructure levy, but actually many do. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that, when an environmental delivery plan is proposed, it will be the intention of Natural England to talk to the people who are potentially liable to pay the levy. Otherwise, I am not quite sure how we arrive at the point, which the legislation appears to anticipate, that the developers would volunteer and request to pay the levy. They need to know about it and be consulted. They should also be consulted about the charging schedule, not with a view to agreeing it, but certainly to be able to understand the nature of the additional costs.

This is linked to the second point in my amendment, which is about the regulations setting out when and how a viability assessment might be undertaken. Often, for developers, the viability assessment that matters is the one that starts out the development—at the point at which one is buying the land, at the point at which one is understanding the costs, at the point at which one puts all these potential costs together and says, “How much is this option worth? How much is this land worth?” The later viability assessments are potentially very burdensome and may torpedo a development, but that is not what we want to do. We want to arrive at an understanding at the earliest possible stage of what all the costs look like.

The regulations should provide for Natural England to talk to the potential developers who might pay the levy and make provision if necessary for a viability assessment to be undertaken at a relatively early point. To that extent, it is a probing amendment, because I want to be sure that these things will happen. They can, under the legislation, be included in the guidance that is to be provided. The question is: will they? If Ministers cannot say that they will do so, perhaps they ought to reconsider or at least look at whether the regulations should provide for that.

In Clause 69, when the amount of the levy has been determined, we suddenly encounter the proposal that the environmental delivery plan may be mandatory. I have not found the place where we understand in what circumstances and for what reasons the levy becomes mandatory as opposed to voluntary. I would be grateful if the Minister, either at this stage or at a later stage, would explain that to us.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 304 in this group on the payment of the NRF levy and appeals. This amendment seeks to ensure that

“the cost of works for nature restoration and enhancement are covered by the developer, in accordance with the Polluter Pays Principle. The setting of the Levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developments that would have an outsized impact on the natural environment, redirecting them to locations with lower environmental impacts”.

This is an amendment to Clause 67 aiming to define the fundamental purpose of the nature restoration levy and to embed a core principle of environmental justice into the legislation. In this way, the amendment is quite different from the others in this group, and it is important. It proposes that the Bill explicitly states that the Secretary of State, in making regulations for the levy,

“must ensure that the overall purpose of the nature restoration levy is to ensure that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features are funded by the developer”.

It further clarifies:

“The setting of the Levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developments that would have an outsized impact”,


thereby redirecting them. This is important to make sure that we are not just permitting this kind of damage.

I thank the Ministers for their letter earlier today. I was in Committee this morning, so I have not managed to go through it fully, but there are still concerns about the nature restoration fund and developers paying to offset and the potential impacts that exist in the Bill. My amendment seeks to change this by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that the overall purpose of the levy regulations is that developments remain economically viable. The approach in the Bill has been identified by the Office for Environmental Protection as risking leaving the process open to economic compromise. The Wildlife Trusts, similarly, has articulated that it is essential that it is not the case and that achieving overall environmental improvement should be an absolute priority within the new system. It argues that that would

“correct the oddity of clauses which are meant to be environmental in character having an economic viability overall purpose”.

The amendment directly addresses this flaw by placing nature restoration, funded by the developer, as a primary overarching purpose of the levy. In so doing, it does three things. As I said, it upholds the “polluter pays” principle. It prioritises nature recovery; it ensures that the nature restoration levy is a tool for delivering genuine ecological improvements rather than a mechanism designed primarily to facilitate development viability at nature’s expense, and it directs the levy to act as a deterrent. A robust levy set appropriately will incentivise developers to choose sites with lower environmental impacts, thereby proactively safeguarding our natural environment and preventing irreversible harm.

This is a sensible amendment. I welcome the other amendments in this group, which I read as probing amendments, so I am interested to see what the Minister says in response to those. This is an important matter. I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister prior to Report and to her response.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lord Randall of Uxbridge cannot be here, but their Amendment 305, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench has also added his name, is really important in trying to make sure—going back to the environmental principles and government policy—that developers should be rewarded for doing the right thing up front, instead of just being prepared to sign a cheque. It is certainly not a blank cheque, but it could be a very big cheque. That should be offset, recognising the work done by developers as they develop their housing and other projects.

I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will go into more detail, but in essence, we risk entering a regime where mandatory levies are applied, and it is not even necessarily guaranteed that planning consent will be given. Meanwhile, instead of outsourcing, in effect, a lot of the work that would happen as a consequence of an EDP, we want developers to make sure that they design in the integration principle, which the Government have in their policies. It is a transfer of that into thinking how we build right first time, instead of constantly thinking about how to retrofit or do other elements, which, frankly, may not be as well done considering the original design.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments to say, basically, that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I thank her for her contribution.

I wholeheartedly recognise why both noble Lords have brought forward the amendments, the point that they are making about the energy transition and the fact that we need to get on and build this stuff. In doing that, however, there is a balance to be achieved. If we do not transition to clean energy, there will be an impact on the environment. Obviously, there are some cases where these things come into contact and conflict, so we need to find ways to manage them. It is absolutely vital that we transition. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we need to walk away from the polarised debates that are happening and to recognise that habitats are only one issue among a whole bunch of issues.

The bigger thing for me, weirdly, is the fact that the Bill could be doing more to help with infrastructure. There is a missed opportunity here, which is perhaps why there is talk of another Bill coming forward. I am interested to see how the Government will respond to the amendments. These are issues of balance, so painting all the problems as being about habitat regulations—and given the way that the noble Lords have painted their canvas—does not help the debate.

The Government have more to do to look at how we deliver infrastructure. I believe that that needs to be done—let us be honest—not at this time of night, with about four people in the Chamber who would rather be at home, but through a proper look. What I take away from the noble Lords’ amendments is that, with all these issues—getting to clean power, being a crowded island, managing habitat regulations and managing other projects—there is more to be done to consider other ways to help deliver the infrastructure that we all know we need, while balancing the facts that our nature is in decline and we are a small, crowded island. What we need to do is all work together in a spirit of co-operation to examine what are very technical and complicated problems. I thank the noble Lords for bringing their amendments, because they have resulted in important debates.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments address the critical interface between planning law and the protection of our sensitive natural environments governed under the habitat regulations.

Amendment 350, which I have signed—I should really have signed Amendment 349 too, which I also support—proposes a new Part 1A to the habitats regulations, placing scientific evidence at the centre of decision-making. That principle is vital. All too often, planning decisions are mired in ambiguity and subjectivity, which, in turn, creates delay and a window for opportunistic challenge. These amendments would create a framework that distinguishes between material and de minimis effects, gives due weight to credible science and offers clarity for both developers and conservation bodies. That said, we must take care that the new language, particularly around decisions not requiring absolute certainty, does not inadvertently weaken precautionary safeguards. It is a fine balance and one we will want to explore further.

I imagine that I am fortunate not to have read the article in the Telegraph today, so I am completely comfortable with the amendments. The only thing from the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, with which I did not entirely agree is the idea that nature has to suffer. A lot of the debate we are having around the Bill is about how to make sure that nature suffers as little as possible and how to mitigate that in the hierarchy. I believe that these amendments can be part of that.

That goes to the broader debate that we on these Benches have been having throughout the discussions on the Bill about why we have Part 3 at all. When we started debating the groups on Part 3, we offered a number of amendments to deal with nutrient neutrality, two of which, taken together, would have released 160,000 houses immediately after the Bill commenced. I am still not clear how EDPs will release those houses from the blocking guidance from Natural England.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has tabled a number of amendments that would significantly restrict the extent of EDPs, which I also support. In all the amendments I have mentioned and which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has brought forward today, there are solutions which, frankly, would be far better than Part 3 for speeding up development, increasing certainty and reducing costs. I therefore support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, I shall speak to Amendment 346DG. I should say at the outset that I agree with much of the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in the previous group. This probing amendment continues in a similar vein. It addresses the urgent need to accelerate the delivery of new nuclear power in all its forms in the UK. It is designed with a clear objective: to ensure that our planning system enables, rather than obstructs, the development of the energy infrastructure that this country so desperately needs.

British-built plants cost far more per kilowatt than those of our competitors—six times more than in South Korea. Both France and Finland deliver the same EPR design for far less per kilowatt, at 27% and 53% respectively. These costs are driven by many factors, including slow, resource-intensive consultations relating to planning and permitting, and an 80,000-page environmental impact assessment driving overspecification on environmental and safety grounds. We need the process to become much more efficient.

Amendment 346DG would allow the Secretary of State, when determining an application for a DCO, to disregard regulations relating to environmental impact assessment, habitats regulations assessment or any environmental delivery plan if it is considered necessary for the delivery of a nuclear power station. It also requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to put in place a more proportionate environmental impact assessment regime for a proposed nuclear power station development. This would put an end to the practice of blocking or delaying vital national infrastructure on environmental grounds alone and ensure that we cannot be held hostage to a system that prizes paperwork over progress and process over power generation.

The need for energy security is no longer a theoretical debate. It is a strategic imperative. We are presiding over the highest offshore wind auction prices in a decade, demand for electricity is rising rapidly and the UK is still overly reliant on imported energy sources. The last nuclear power station to come online in this country was in 1995. Hinkley Point C, the only one under construction, is now set to become the most expensive power station in history, not because the technology is flawed—far from it—but because of bureaucracy. We have witnessed the absurdity of eight years of negotiations to install 288 underwater loudspeakers—the infamous fish disco—to deter a trawler’s worth of fish from swimming into the water intake system. This amendment would put an end to that: no more paperwork that chokes innovation and pushes up costs, but rather a more proportionate environmental impact assessment regime that will give a level playing field to the UK nuclear industry.

We must be clear: nuclear is safe, is low-carbon and has the smallest land footprint of any energy source. Dr John Constable of the Renewable Energy Foundation estimates that wind and solar require up to 3,000 times more land to produce the same amount of power as nuclear. This matters—as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, agrees. We are a small island. In some regions, solar farm applications already cover up to 8% of available land, and the Government’s plan will require even more. Their decision to scrap our 24 gigawatt nuclear target—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I do not recognise the figure of 8%.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I did not say overall; I said in some regions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will very briefly respond on this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for introducing it on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel. To be honest, we are unable to support this amendment for various reasons. I understand that is a probing amendment, but it does not come across as a fully figured out or good way of doing things.

I fully take the point that other noble Lords have made about the announcements today on the back of Trump’s visit about small modular nuclear reactors, which this amendment is about, in terms of their importance for the economy. Separately, I have tabled an amendment to this Bill about the need for energy efficiency and for small modular reactors. It is important that, while we grow the economy, we make sure that the new things that we are building are actually energy efficient and fit for purpose. We cannot just keep having new power-hungry technology and expect to get to clean power at the same time. We cannot let the AI beast get out of control.

First, just to respond to this amendment, I know that it is probing, but the key thing here is that the Government have not asked for any of these powers. Indeed, they have just recently updated a lot of their nuclear policies. We have had an update to EN1 and to EN7. At no point during that time have the Government requested any of the sweeping powers set out here.

The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State may, if “this is considered necessary” and appropriate, disregard the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Infrastructure Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. That wording in itself is just a carte blanche for the Minister to do whatever they want whenever they want. It is not good wording. Moreover, the amendment slashes the page limits for environmental impact assessments to 1,000 pages. I fully get that some of these documents are too long and that that can delay things, but 1,000 pages seems an arbitrary figure: 1,001 is not acceptable, but 999 pages is. It cuts the consultation period to 21 days. Again, it strikes me that these are vaguely plucked out of the air and are not properly thought through.

This could undermine democratic accountability, and people being able to consult on these things. It could incur significant legal risk, as we have obligations under retained EU law, international treaties and all sorts of things. It is also a risk as we are transitioning to a completely new way of doing nuclear energy—dispersing it, having it run by companies, and, inevitably, its being situated closer to communities. It is important for delivering this transition that we take communities with us and, as we deploy a new technology, that this is done in a way that creates confidence and does not undermine the very thing that we want to do. As we start to roll this out, it is more important than at any other point that we do this properly and appropriately. My worry is that rushing to sweeping powers like this could do the exact opposite of what the amendment intends, and undermine confidence in this part of our energy transition, so I am not able to support the amendment.

I have raised this in the House before: whenever we have this conversation about nuclear, it is always put in opposition to solar, and solar has taken over the world. Actually, this week we have had the Treasury itself saying that the long-term geological store for our historical legacy of nuclear waste has gone on to the red list and is not deliverable. Nuclear energy comes with different issues and benefits, but also has big, non-associated costs that are not always put forward. It has a long-term historical legacy of highly radioactive waste that needs to be dealt with. We recognise that nuclear is part of the mix but, coming back to what I said on the previous amendment, if the Government feel they need more regulation in this space—they may well do—we will listen to that. However, that needs to be done in the round and, as we transition to a new form of nuclear energy, this stuff needs to be done very carefully indeed.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I wanted to speak briefly on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made on regulatory alignment. I like regulatory alignment in principle, provided it meets the right level of agreed regulation. I am fairly certain with everything I read that British regulators are perhaps over-nitpicking and over-fussy here, and are causing delays at Hinkley Point by double- and triple-checking the welding. I am also fairly certain with what I read that American regulators are—I would not say sloppy—much more relaxed.

If regulatory alignment comes about from British regulation experts talking to American regulation experts and reaching agreement, I can live with that. What I could not live with is a political agreement on regulatory alignment. I admire the way that President Trump goes around the world fighting for American interests, and stuffs everybody else provided that American interests come first. My worry here would be that, at some point, he may offer a deal saying, “Okay, Britain, you want no tariffs on steel and whisky? I can go along with that, provided you accept American terms on regulatory alignment for our nuclear reactors”. It is the political deal that worries me, not any regulatory alignment brought about by experts. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer that or comment on it; I merely flag it. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, nodding, and I am glad that we agree on this point.