Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Banner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Her Amendment 95 may be modest but it is very sensible, and I congratulate her on the way she outlined it. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on the way she outlined her amendment in this group. As well as speeding up the delivery of the provision of more houses, making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises is a way of making sure we can deliver the sorts of smaller developments that are popular in local areas and that match the local vernacular rather than imposing a sort of identikit, sprawling housing estate on every part of the country with no reference to local design.

I have Amendments 96 and 97 in this group, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who signed the second of these, as well as to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook for the support that she outlined and her kind comments in her opening speech. Clause 48 would allow the Secretary of State to subdelegate the power to set fees for planning applications to local planning authorities, allowing them to set their own fees to reflect the actual costs that are incurred in dealing with applications and other relevant planning functions, and with that income ring-fenced so that it could be spent only on those specific functions. In many ways that is a welcome and sensible provision; I can understand why local authorities would welcome it. But for it to be truly welcomed, a great many people would like to see some further details and to hear some reassurance about this proposed change.

As is so often the case with legislation nowadays, those details and that reassurance are not in the Bill but are to follow. The Government have said that they intend to consult on the precise arrangements for localised fee setting later this year, and in Committee in another place the Minister stated that detailed processes would be set out in regulations. But it would be very helpful if the Minister could make clear today that this new provision will not include the potential for local authorities to introduce fees for listed building consent. That reassurance would bring great relief to organisations from across the heritage sector, and indeed to the very many ordinary people who happen to own listed properties and who are worried about the detrimental effect on our shared heritage and the potential financial penalties for the people who are the custodians of it.

Under current legislation, obtaining listed building consent is a cost-free process. Consent is required for works that affect the special architectural or historic interest of a listed building under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in addition to any planning permissions that might be required.

Listed status is a badge of honour—a mark of our collective appreciation for buildings of particular significance—but it brings with it burdens in the form of conservation and maintenance that are in the public interest, not just for those of us who are alive today but for future generations too, and owners of listed buildings cannot opt out of these obligations. This issue affects a very large number of home owners, not just the grandest stately homes but ordinary family homes in every part of the country. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe, as my noble friend Lady Scott said, with around two-fifths of homes built since the end of the Second World War and one-fifth since the end of the First World War. There are some half a million listed buildings across the United Kingdom, many of them owned by people of modest and increasingly stretched means. Ensuring that this service remains free of charge to the people we ask to look after these historic buildings for posterity is hugely important. I am not the owner of a listed building but should perhaps declare a non-financial interest in that I am a trustee of the Cambridge Union, which has its own grade 2* listed property. This issue affects many charitable and civil society organisations as well.

Adding a fee for listed building consent would strongly discourage desirable work to listed buildings, especially work such as decarbonisation and conservation repair, which are often financially unrewarding to the generations that carry them out. Imposing a new fee would also discourage compliance, increasing the already considerable amount of work that goes ahead without the proper consent, risking harm to our cherished buildings and headaches when they come to be sold.

It is also worth noting that a high proportion of listed building consent applications mirror corresponding full planning applications, which already incur a cost. The introduction of fees for listed building consent would in effect be a duplication of costs for applicants when the applications are handled as a pair by the local planning authority. Even in cases where planning application is not required, having to make an application for listed building consent already carries substantial costs in the forms of obtaining drawings, which would not otherwise have been required, professional fees for analysis of heritage significance and potential impacts, and the cost of often lengthy delays. That is why a huge array of organisations across the heritage sector—the Listed Property Owners’ Club, Historic Houses, the Heritage Alliance, the CLA and the Government’s own statutory advisers, Historic England—have said that the applications for listed building consent should remain free. If the Government agree with them and with all this, and do not want to see local planning authorities introducing new charges for listed building consent, they could put that beyond doubt by adopting my Amendment 97. I hope the Minister will say that they are minded to do so.

Separately, in addition to the above, it is important that the consultation and regulations to follow the Bill recognise that many local planning authorities obtain their archaeological and other heritage advice from another local authority under service level agreements. For instance, county councils often provide such services for the district councils and national parks in, and sometimes even beyond, their own administrative area.

My Amendment 96 would ensure that guidance which goes out to local planning authorities about assessing the correct level of charges includes a reminder or recommendation that inputs from other authorities should be included to ensure that external services are correctly funded in this way. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 98 and 99, tabled in my name, which would enhance the existing statutory power under Section 303ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to charge fees for planning appeals to the Planning Inspectorate. That existing statutory power has never been used. There is currently no charge to submit an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the refusal or non-determination of a planning application. That contrasts with the position in relation to planning applications, where applicants for major developments pay application fees of tens of thousands of pounds, and sometimes more.

A huge amount has rightly been said in the context of this Bill and planning reform generally about the importance of ensuring local authorities are fully resourced to improve the speed and quality of planning decision-making at local level. That is of course right, but the same applies to the Planning Inspectorate, which performs a critical role in scrutinising local authority decision-making and plan-making. The inspectorate is already overworked and underresourced. This has consequences for its ability to deal as effectively as it would like with its existing case work, and for its ability to attract the widest possible range of candidates to become planning inspectors, including from the private sector. A couple of years ago, many inspectors went on strike due to what they said was unacceptable pay, which in most cases is significantly less than that of a First-tier Tribunal judge, which is, broadly speaking, the equivalent of a planning inspector in other aspects of the justice system.

With the expected uptick in planning appeals and local plan examinations resulting from the new National Planning Policy Framework, as well as the Government’s promised 150 development consent orders and a raft of new spatial development strategies which inspectors will need to examine, the demands on the inspectorate’s resources are bound to increase. Given the constraints on the public purse, an obvious solution is to introduce appeal fees for some or all types of appeal. I have advocated this publicly and privately for a long time—indeed, longer than I have been in this House. I have been reliably told that a key blocker to introducing this has been that, under the existing power to charge fees, any money charged by the inspectorate could not be retained by it but would go to the Treasury.

Amendment 98 is designed to address this by providing that, if the power to charge appeal fees is implemented in future, the fees received will be ring-fenced for the inspectorate. That mirrors the existing provision in Clause 48 for local authority planning application fees to be ring-fenced for planning. I must stress that this is only an enabling provision. The effect of Amendment 98 would not be to introduce appeal fees; it would simply ensure that, if the existing power to introduce such fees were to be implemented in future, the inspectorate could keep the fees. I find it very hard to see what policy objection there can be to that, particularly given the Bill’s existing provision for fee ring-fencing at local level.

Amendment 99 goes further and would make provision—again, this is only an enabling power—for an optional fee that appellants could pay for a fast-track, bespoke appeal process, a bit like one can pay extra for a fast-track passport or a fast-track visa. Ask any developer or land promoter what their biggest concerns about the planning appeal system are at the moment and they will tell you four things. The first is unpredictable delays in the process, particularly the time taken between when a planning appeal is submitted by the appellant and when the Planning Inspectorate validates it and issues a start letter.

The second is the lack of a right to a public inquiry, where the local authority’s refusal or non-determination of their planning application can be subjected to detailed scrutiny through cross-examination. The appeal statistics persistently show that inquiry appeals have the greatest success rate—they are the form of appeal that delivers more homes and more growth—yet there is no right to the inquiry. The Planning Inspectorate chooses the process and, given the constraints on its resources, there are only so many cases it can allocate to the inquiry procedure. More and more often, I personally have seen cases for substantial schemes involving issues of real complexity being allocated against the appellant’s will to the hearing process, or even written representations, which are much lighter-touch processes and, in my view, in the light of that have a markedly lower success rate.

Thirdly, there is the inability of the inspectorate to recruit from the widest possible range of backgrounds in the planning profession due to the pay constraints. There are, I must stress, many really brilliant planning inspectors, but there could be many more. Fourthly, once a planning appeal is started by the inspectorate, often after weeks of delay since the appeal was submitted by the appellant, inquiry or hearing dates are then imposed on the parties at relatively short notice, which can have the effect of depriving them of expert witnesses or legal representatives who have been on the project for years and are integral to its conception and formulation.

--- Later in debate ---

Training of planning officers to understand the need for beauty in the built environment is therefore vital. I raise only one question—or one query or even one doubt—about it, which is that if you train planning officers just as you train architects to think about what the current view of beauty is, they will tend to end up with the same answer. We saw this dramatically and catastrophically after the Second World War in the major council developments and the major artistic developments—a depressing number of which are now listed, I have to say. We ended up with developments which were outrageous and scandalous but uniform across the country. In other words, training leads to groupthink, and it leads to groupthink in planners, in architects and in builders, who leap upon it because groupthink of ticky-tacky boxes leads to cheap developments. The training and the nature of it are crucial, but, having said that, I think this Amendment 99A is a very welcome first step.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 162, which would put chief planning officers on a statutory basis. I agree with the case made for it by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Best. I can add little to what they said, but I want to emphasise one point in particular. It is not uncommon in some—not all—local planning authorities for officers to come under considerable pressure from members in relation to matters that are within officers’ remit, whether it is preparing an officer report or an application to committee, or a delegated decision or work in relation to an emerging plan. It is entirely right and proper for members to reach their own views on matters within their remit, but matters within officers’ delegated remit should be exercised in accordance with their independent professional judgment. Putting the role of the chief planner on a statutory basis would buttress their independence and that of those working underneath them, all the more so were it to be combined with a statutory purpose of planning, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, proposes in another amendment. This is an issue already; it will be all the more of an issue in the event that the proposed national scheme of delegation becomes effective pursuant to the Bill. Amendment 162 would help give greater effect to that national scheme of delegation and ensure that it would not be undermined by officers who have additional delegated powers going forward being unduly lent on by their members in the context of exercising those delegated powers.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, the issue of training was behind my comments in the previous group about planning and proceeding on the basis of competence and confidence, so I support all the amendments in this group as well, and particularly Amendments 102, 103, and 162, which are absolutely pivotal.

In my profession, it is incumbent on practitioners not to undertake tasks for which they have inadequate technical knowledge or practical experience. Unfortunately, there is nothing which currently mandates the use and input of such professionals. So, when resources are tight and finance is limited, the inevitable result seems to be that it is passed down to the lowest-cost element of the process. This is, as other noble Lords have commented, to the increasing dismay of local communities, many of whose members have high levels of relevant knowledge and are therefore particularly concerned about what they see as self-evident flaws in what is presented. It erodes confidence, and we should really be concerned about that.

I remember that some years ago a senior political figure rubbished the idea of quality in development. It was a numbers game, and not quality. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, referred to the critical nature of satisfaction. That is satisfaction not just in the physical environment but in the working environments that we present to the people who have to administer this. Once trained, the knowledge is, of course, portable with the individual. I remember not so long ago an instance of a planning officer who left his authority, tempted no doubt by better terms from a developer, who then returned as a private sector consultant only for the purpose of undermining the very policies that he had formulated and was defending in his previous authority.

As other noble Lords have said, this goes to the heart of the satisfaction of the job, the longevity of it and whether it is properly paid, respected and nurtured, both from outside in terms of the standing of the individual and inside among committee members—I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, referred to that. It is a false economy not to make these positions worth while, durable and of standing. I remember in my early profession how important certain local government officials were. The planner, the estates director or whatever his title was, and people in other walks of life, such as the district valuer for whom I worked for several years down in Brighton, had standing and status, but not so today. They are regarded as just another, if I may put it like this, petty official. That is to the great detriment of good delivery.

I wholeheartedly support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in support of Amendment 102. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Shipley and Lord Best, in particular, that we need to address an awful lot of these things if we are to achieve a fraction of what this Bill is capable of delivering.

I turn to Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. In the central government sector, I recently spoke to a professional body which had laboured long and hard to get a particular departmental official to understand a very complex series of issues, all of which had critical outcomes for the way in which policy would be delivered. I am not going to embarrass anybody by saying which department it was. However, with their having reached this elevated stage and got this person to really understand what was involved, that official was promptly moved to another, completely unrelated function—I am not even sure that it was within the same department. That was a loss of human resource and a waste of knowledge and experience, and it was to the considerable dismay of this body which had been trying to deal with it. If the idea is that as soon as somebody understands something, they have gone too native, or something like that, that is the wrong sentiment. We are losing people, and we are losing the force and direction of policy. While I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I fear that a much wider organisational change in terms of holding on to those core skills in appropriate locations is necessary.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred to the scope of training. I would add groundwater and geology to her list of basic skills and understanding. Like her, I do not suggest that people have an in-depth knowledge of this as a trained geologist or ecologist, but they must have a minimum understanding to do the job, to know when they need further, more detailed technical advice and to understand what the advice is when it is being given. On all those counts, we are falling down. Therefore, I very much support what she says about getting this right.

This is a very large issue. I fear that much of it may, in terms of policy and implementation, stray outside the strict terms of this Bill. However, unless we address these issues and unless that forms part of the consciousness of how we move this forward, we will have another large body of Explanatory Notes, impact assessments and all the rest of it, which will ultimately be on somebody’s cutting-room floor. That is a terrible waste of the resources of this House, of the other place and of all the people who have engaged with us to give us their views on how aspects of this should be brought forward. There is a common golden thread here that I hope will be picked up by the Government. It is at the core of getting delivery on this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I am very grateful for the intervention. It makes the world of Alice in Wonderland look normal and sensible, and that also applies to the front door.

My second example is on a smaller scale. With the support and blessing of English Heritage, I recently purchased and pulled down a particularly ugly and inappropriate 1960s chalet-style house adjacent to Castle Rising Castle, which is a listed monument, in order to replace the horror with cottages built in the traditional local stone. This was a project for the greater good that, fingers crossed, might have just broken even. That was before the bat people got involved.

An inspection took place to check whether there was any trace of bats in the house. There was no evidence of bats, but that was not good enough for the bat people. I was made to take off the roof, tile by tile, so that a bat person could inspect each tile as it was taken off. This was despite the inspection having shown there was no trace of bats. To get to the roof in safety, the building had to be scaffolded, an absurdity for something about to be pulled down. It then took six men four weeks to remove each tile and show it to the bat person before the tile could be thrown away. Using machinery already on site would have taken one man half a day. I ask your Lordships: what sanity can there be in carrying on in this manner?

I have not even started on what the archaeologist wanted. I was made to dig down three metres, a metre below the two-metre foundations that were planned. At all stages, this had to be inspected by an archaeologist, with men and machinery having to wait for the archaeologist to find time. Your Lordships can guess what that cost.

As a country, we have managed to get to a situation where the greater good is being destroyed by the antics of minority interests, which can look at things only from their own—in many cases laudable, maybe, but very narrow—perspectives. How can any Government expect houses to be built with the enormous difficulties that builders have to contend with? I have mentioned only two. Let us start on the road to sanity by repealing all legislation relating to the preservation of the bat population. They will not disappear; they will still be around centuries after the legislation has been repealed.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I offer some views on the legal effects that Amendments 135HZB and 135HZC, on asylum hotels and asylum HMOs, would achieve, in particular to develop the point made by my noble friend Lady Scott on the current legal uncertainty relating to those kinds of accommodation. Broadly speaking, under the planning Acts, planning permission is required for development. Development is defined in Section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as including

“the making of any material change in the use of”

the land or building in question.

As my noble friend Lady Scott has outlined, the current case law in relation to this kind of accommodation is that whether the change of use of a hotel to accommodation for asylum seekers is a material change of use is a matter of fact and degree in the particular circumstances of each case. There is no hard and fast rule. That, in turn, breaks down to two questions. Has there been a change of use, from hotel to what normally is sought to be characterised as a hostel for asylum seekers? If there has, is that use material in planning terms, having regard to the particular circumstances and effects?

The difficulty with that situation is that, as my noble friend said, it generates considerable uncertainty for all stakeholders. It creates uncertainty for the commercial party behind the hotel. Is the investment that they intend to make—in converting the hotel and making it fit for this kind of accommodation—at risk without obtaining planning permission or a certificate of lawfulness guaranteeing that permission is not needed? There is uncertainty for the local planning authority. Does it enforce, with the potential risk of enormous costs—potentially millions of pounds in a particular case—not necessarily knowing what the outcome of that would be? If it does not, has it turned a blind eye to something which is illegal? There are really difficult issues there. It is quite hard to advise local authorities in those situations which side of the line they are on, because it is so evaluative and fact sensitive.

There is obviously uncertainty for the public in question about what is going on in their area. There is, dare I say, quite possibly also uncertainty for the Home Office in understanding the planning status of asylum accommodation within this country. These amendments would provide clarity by drawing a clear line in the sand that this kind of accommodation requires planning permission, with the local consultation that goes with, so that everybody knows where they stand, thereby eliminating the current ambiguity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I will continue. Why has it taken five years for the Conservatives to wake up to the fact, as they seem to think now, there is a principled planning issue associated with using hotels for temporary accommodation for asylum seekers? That is the question.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

No, I am not taking any further interventions.

The failure of this approach is that, if hotels are not used, what other temporary accommodation is going to be used for asylum seekers? That is where we are with the attempt made by these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

The second is that councils are being put under tremendous financial pressure because of the extent of the need for temporary accommodation for their own local families. According to the last figures I saw, over 140,000 children in this country are currently in temporary accommodation. That is appalling. Yet here we are dealing with an attempt today to be rid of the use of hotels for temporary accommodation for asylum seekers that will add to the pressure of housing local families and children in suitable accommodation. The Benches to right stooping as low as they have is a shameful attempt to use this planning Bill for their own cheap political party points.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, as this debate has progressed, there has been increased heat and perhaps a commensurate decrease in focus on some of the issues that were raised. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I chose my own words extremely carefully when I outlined my legal views on the consequence of these amendments.

I reiterate that one of the key issues of the status quo is the uncertainty due to the fact that currently, there are no bright lines as to whether a change from hotel use to asylum accommodation or an asylum HMO is or is not always a material change of use. There is an advantage in having certainty one way or the other, and I am very deliberately not expressing a view on which way or the other it should be. It is simply that the ambiguity is deeply unsatisfactory. I stress that the extent of that ambiguity has increased in recent years, months and days. The case law—not just in the Epping case, but in earlier judgments by Mr Justice Holgate, which were earlier in the High Court concerning Great Yarmouth and other locations—has developed in such a way that the uncertainty has got greater, which has exacerbated the problem. Very respectfully, I invite any remaining speakers to deal with that point objectively and in a focused and unheated manner.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, who brings to this House a greater knowledge of planning law than the rest of us added together. It is absolutely right that there is uncertainty, and the uncertainty should be resolved by the Government having a look at whether the changes that he has suggested need to be made, not by the amendments that have been moved. What we have heard this afternoon sounded much more like the other place in action, where constituency issues have been brought to bear to try and deal with what really ought to be rational arguments.