Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Banner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

My final point is on Section 98(3) which, if brought into force, would also assist with the point that my noble friend Lord Banner will move on to discuss—the consistency of neighbourhood development plan-making with national policy. That subsection provides that neighbourhood development plans must be consistent with national development management policies, which, as the Minister kindly told us, are expected to be published for consultation before the end of this year.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 167, which stands in my name. It would require future neighbourhood plans to be consistent with national planning policy, in particular the National Planning Policy Framework. Neighbourhood plans, once made, form part of the statutory development plan in accordance with which planning decisions must be made, unless there are other material considerations indicating to the contrary.

Typically, for their first five years, neighbourhood plans attract the protection of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Even if the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d)(ii) applies, the proposed development is consistent with the NPPF and there is a lack of a five-year housing land supply, a development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan will fail to get permission, so they carry real force in the plan-making and development control system. The problem with this is that, under the so-called basic conditions against which new neighbourhood plans are examined, a neighbourhood plan has only to have regard to national policy, not be consistent with it. There is a world of difference between the two. I am sure that the Minister will have regard to everything that we say in this debate, but I dare say that not everything in her response will be consistent with it. There is a world of difference.

Neighbourhood plans of course have a role to play in what my noble friend Lord Jamieson called the “pyramid” of planning policy, in giving effect to national and district policy, but they should not be able to undermine it—yet that can happen currently. From my experience at the coalface of planning decision-making, as an advocate in planning proceedings, I know that happens with real regularity. For example, a neighbourhood plan can have regard to NPPF policies on greenfield development but then impose more restrictive criteria, making it harder than national policy envisages for developers to get permission on greenfield sites. Neighbourhood plans can self-impose a housing requirement for their area that is not consistent with the NPPF’s standard method for assessing local housing need, thereby downplaying local needs within their area and stifling necessary growth.

With the greater direction on planning policy from central government under this Government—something with which I have more sympathy than perhaps some other colleagues on this side of the House—the risk of neighbourhood plans undermining national policy is even greater. This tends, in my experience, to be particularly prevalent in those areas where parish councils or other neighbourhood planning authorities are well resourced: areas which are wealthy, where the affordability gap is perhaps greatest and where the need for new affordable homes is particularly severe. It is in those kinds of areas where neighbourhood plans tend to have the most deleterious effect on delivering necessary growth.

My Amendment 167 would eliminate this issue by putting neighbourhood plans in their proper place in the hierarchy of planning policy—not letting the tail wag the dog, as so often happens. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley that bringing Section 98(3) of LURA into effect would also help in relation to national development management policies, but that would still leave a lacuna in relation to the NPPF. I urge the Government to consider this proposal very carefully. I also endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Jamieson on his Amendments 150ZA and 150ZB.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 185M, which proposes a vital duty to ensure due consideration of neighbourhood plans. I am delighted that, in discussions on the Bill, we are spending time considering the importance of neighbourhood plans, because they represent the heart and soul of local communities’ aspirations for their areas. They are often painstakingly developed by local people, often without much in the way of expert advice, and the plans reflect the needs, the character and the priorities they want for their areas. However, without adequate statutory backing, these plans risk being marginalised by larger-scale development decisions.

If adopted, Amendment 185M would achieve two important outcomes. The first would be that a planning authority, including the Secretary of State, would have to give due consideration to any neighbourhood plan or, indeed, any draft neighbourhood plan when making a decision on an application for planning consent. If that happens, the voices of local residents, as expressed through their neighbourhood plans, will not just be there but be factored into major development decisions. Maybe that is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and others in this group of amendments.

The other outcome of the amendment would be that the Secretary of State would permit a variation to a neighbourhood plan only if the variation were clearly justifiable and unlikely to compromise the overall intention of the neighbourhood plan that has been proposed in a clear manner. The amendment would safeguard the integrity of neighbourhood plans, preventing arbitrary or poorly considered alterations that could undermine their community-driven objectives.

I suppose that, in the end, it depends how we look at planning. We have had two analogies today: a planning hierarchy from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a pyramid from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and I wonder whether using those images makes us think that the important bit is the apex. I would use a different analogy: our road system. The big NPPF, strategic plans and local plans are like major roads and motorways, but what gets us from one place to another are local lanes and byways—and that is the neighbourhood plans. Those are the ones that matter to people. Once we start thinking of pyramids and hierarchies, I think we tend to think that the top of the pyramid is the important bit, but actually it is the foundations. I have probably said what I need to say about that.

I am in broad agreement with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We went through all of them during the passage of the Levelling-up and Whatever Bill, now an Act. It is important that public bodies are made to assist with plan-making. If you do not, where does that end? The issue that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is trying to get us to think about is that frequently, in my experience, local people engage in planning only when it comes to a practical application on the table for a planning decision on a housing site, a commercial development or whatever it is.

Unfortunately, my starting point is that as a local councillor I often have to say to people that a housing site is already in the local plan and therefore the principle of development has been determined. Often, they will say, “Well, where was our say in this?” I will go through what I and others tried to engage with them and let them know what the proposals were. The difficulty that people often find is that this is a theoretical plan at a strategic level with great big sort of proposals for transport infrastructure, commercial development or housing. It is theoretical, as is local planning, even when it is allocation of sites. People often struggle to engage at that level. In this era of thinking about the creation of strategic planning and local authority local plans, we need to think very carefully about how that information is transmitted to the public.

Amendments in an earlier group on this Bill, probably two or three days ago, were about digital modelling. I think that would bring to life for people land-use planning and the allocation of sites. So that is my only difficulty with the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

The collective impact of all these amendments would create a more integrated and responsive planning system. If we want to put local communities at the heart of engaging with and taking part in responsible decision-making about what happens where they live, neighbourhood planning must be at the heart of that, because it enables proper democratic participation in making decisions about their area for their future. I hope that the Minister will give that a positive nod.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I invite the Minister and her government colleagues to consider, if in my Amendment 167 a requirement for consistency with the NPPF is considered to be too onerous in relation to neighbourhood plans, a middle ground of general conformity. That language was used back in the days of regional spatial strategies; local development plans had to be in “general conformity” with RSSs. It is an established formula that has been considered by the courts already, and it is a stronger direction than “have regard to” but with at least a degree of more minor flex.

I fear that the Minister and her government colleagues overestimate the rigour of the neighbourhood plan examination process. This is not done by independent planning inspectors; it tends to be done by consultants who are in the business of examining neighbourhood plans, so they have a degree of incentive to sign them off. It tends not to involve an oral hearing, being done on paper, and tends to give neighbourhood planning authorities a very wide margin of appreciation in practice. It is a lot easier for neighbourhood plans to depart from national policy in practice than it may appear to be on paper. That is my experience, and I encourage the Government to consider that midway ground between now and Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. I will take it back and reply to him in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Banner]

166: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Principle of proportionality in planning(1) The principle of proportionality in planning shall apply to—(a) applications for any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, including the supporting evidence base,(b) environmental impact assessment and habitats assessment,(c) the exercise of any functions within the scope of the Planning Acts, including but not limited to procedural and substantive decision-making (by local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State), and the preparation and provision of consultation responses (by statutory and non-statutory consultees), and(d) the determination by the Courts of claims for judicial and statutory review.(2) Applications for any permission, consent or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, and appeals against the refusal or non-determination of such applications, must be determined in accordance with the principle of proportionality in planning.(3) So far as it is possible to do so, the Planning Acts and any secondary legislation enacted pursuant to them must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the principle of proportionality in planning.(4) The principle of proportionality in planning means that the nature and extent of information and evidence required to inform the determination of any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts shall be proportionate to the issues requiring determination, having regard to decisions already made (whether in the plan-making or development control context) and the extent to which those issues will or can be made subject to future regulation (whether by way of planning conditions and obligations, or other regulation whether or not pursuant to the Planning Acts).(5) The Secretary of State may publish guidance on how the principle of proportionality in planning is to be applied.(6) The principle of proportionality in planning must not be interpreted as affecting existing requirements for local planning authorities to justify the refusal or withholding of planning permission.(7) In this section the term “Planning Acts” includes all primary legislation relating to planning prevailing at the time of the relevant application, decision or exercise of functions, including—(a) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,(c) the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,(d) the Planning Act 2008,(e) the Localism Act 2011,(f) the Housing and Planning Act 2016,(g) the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023,(h) the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025,(i) any secondary legislation relating to environmental impact assessment or habitats assessment, and(j) any other legislation relating to planning prevailing at the time of the relevant application, decision or exercise of functions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a principle of proportionality in planning to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that less can be more, so as to facilitate more focused decision-making and more effective public participation.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment stands alone and is tabled in my name. It seeks to introduce a principle of proportionality in planning, in accordance with which all planning functions would need to be exercised and all planning laws would need to be interpreted.

Although the basic structures of the planning environmental impact assessment and habitat assessment processes have remained broadly the same for a long time, their application has, over the years, become increasingly and unnecessarily disproportionate. For example, there is now in widespread areas of the planning system an overprecautionary approach to the precautionary principle which, in practice, is treated by many in the system as requiring zero risk even though the case law does not require that. Environmental statements, which in the early years of the EIA regime were reasonably concise, are now frequently delivered in vans and take up a whole room in offices, which is unhelpful to everybody concerned in the system. There is a recent instance of a DCO examining inspector asking 2,000 questions in relation to a DCO application. Again, it is not outside the norm.

Statutory consultees insist on planning applications providing a level of detail wholly disproportionate to the stage of decision-making in question. For example, in the context of an application for outline planning permission simply to confirm the principle of development for an allocated site, the principle of which is baked into the allocation, the developers can routinely be required to retest points that are already baked into the allocation or descend into matters of very granular detailed design that are far more suitable for reserved matters and discharge at condition stage. We frequently see consultants producing voluminous reports, often out of caution because of fear of being tripped up and being subject to a professional negligence claim, with considerable liability later.

These are not exceptions that prove a contrary rule; they are all too commonplace. The tendency for prolixity and disproportionality does not make decision-making any better; it just clogs up and slows down the system. This amendment is designed to give all stakeholders in the planning process the confidence that less can, and indeed should, be more, to deter them from delving into unnecessary detail and duplication. It would leave the precautionary principle untouched, so it would not amount to environmental regression, but it would, importantly, anchor it in reality and pragmatism.

There is provision in the drafting of this amendment for the Secretary of State to make and update statutory guidance on how the principle of proportionality is to be applied, which would ensure that the principle is adequately flexible and future-proof.

The proposal for the principle of proportionality has received widespread support in the development sector, including an emphatic endorsement from the Land, Planning and Development Federation, a leading representative body. Moreover, it is entirely consistent with the recently published findings of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, whose interim report was published last month. I commend that report to the Minister, if she has not had the opportunity to see it; it strays into other areas, and other ministerial responsibilities in other departments, but chapter 6 has a whole section on disproportionality in the planning context, specifically but not exclusively looking at the nuclear context. I shall quote from the summary of the findings, where it says:

“The preliminary view of the Taskforce is that problems with proportionate decision-making are interrelated and systemic. Various incentives drive more costly and time-consuming standards with no substantive safety or environmental benefits”.


There we have it in clear back and white letters from the regulatory task force that a principle of proportionality would add a huge amount of value to the planning system but at no environmental cost. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said on several occasions, we need to cut down on the bureaucracy of planning and the excessive application of policy on habitats. Even the Prime Minister has criticised the HS2 £100 million bat tunnel.

In my experience, we have an over-precautionary approach in planning, so I am attracted by the principle of proportionality, especially as it is promoted by a well-known planning KC, who has already contributed very positively to this Committee. My only question, either to him or to the Minister, is whether there is a risk of rising legal costs rather than the reverse, which I think is the intention behind the provision. Indeed, could this unintentionally hurt smaller builders?

[Lord Banner (Con)]

No, in my assessment. Whenever the law changes, there will be an adaptation period. That is axiomatic, but it will be the case anyway because we will have new legislation. The intention behind it, if anything, is to streamline and therefore reduce costs, including legal costs.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by this exchange, because the thought had occurred to me that, by introducing a principle of proportionality into the legislation, we would then open the floodgates to contention about what is proportional. The question of JR seems to be immediately rearing its head. Therefore, I cannot see how, rather than simplifying the system, it would not add a layer of complication.

The argument about the CIL in relation to small developments is a different one. There is some merit in that because of the flexibility one needs for small builders. However, that is only part of an ancillary argument to the broader and slightly dangerous argument brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in favour of over-complicating the planning system in the way he suggests.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, made the point that proportionality depends on who you are and whether something seems proportionate. If the noble Lord, Lord Banner, could give us a clear definition of proportionality—the Royal Town Planning Institute has one in its documents—there would be merit in it, but just saying “Let’s be proportionate” has less merit.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

There is a definition in proposed new subsection (4) of the amendment:

“The principle of proportionality in planning means that the nature and extent of information and evidence required to inform the determination of any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts shall be proportionate to the issues requiring determination, having regard to decisions already made … and the extent to which those issues will or can be made subject to future regulation”.


Proposed new subsection (5) then says:

“The Secretary of State may publish guidance”.


It is spelled out and would be eminently capable of being applied.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

[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.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her comments. It is encouraging that we share the overall objective of proportionate, streamlined decision-making, even if we part company, for now, on how to achieve it.

I would like to come back on a couple of points. On legal risk, the first point made by the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Pinnock, was about the definition—would there be ambiguity regarding what the principle means? I suggest not. It is set out in terms in subparagraph (5), with the ability of the Secretary of State to promote statutory guidance. It may be that the language can be improved, but I encourage the Government to continue the helpful discussions we have had outside this Chamber on whether that risk might be reduced.

In any case, given that the interpretive duty in the principle of proportionality is to interpret all planning laws in a proportionate, pragmatic way, the overall net effect of this amendment would in fact be to reduce legal risk. Because in any judicial review context, if somebody came along arguing for a particularly restrictive, over-precautionary interpretation, the court would have, in neon lights, messaging from Parliament that the court should take a less onerous, less prescriptive approach, which is bound to reduce the overall success rate of judicial reviews in the planning context. So, I suggest that, overall, this would reduce rather than increase legal risk. The stress test of that is the LPDF, which represents SMEs—those developers who would be particularly affected by increased legal costs were they to arise. Its emphatic view—in fact, this is the amendment, of all those before the Committee, it is most emphatic on—is that the amendment would be helpful. So, I will pursue it on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 166 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Banner]

169: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Relationship between overlapping permissionsAfter section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission for development already carried out), insert—“73AA Relationship between overlapping permissions(1) Where there is more than one planning permission which relates to some or all of the same land, the lawfulness of both past and future development carried out pursuant to one of those planning permissions shall be unaffected by the carrying out of development pursuant to another of those planning permissions, except to the extent expressly stated in any of those permissions or in any obligation under section 106 of this Act (planning obligations) related to any of those permissions.(2) Subsection (1) applies only where one of the relevant planning permissions was granted after the day on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.(3) In this section “planning permission” means—(a) a planning permission under Part 3 of this Act, and (b) a planning permission granted by article 3 (permitted development) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596).”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment addresses the potentially deleterious implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 169 seeks to mitigate the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment in a case called Hillside. I should at the outset declare an interest, in that I was leading counsel in Hillside, albeit I am no longer retained by the party in question. It is a highly technical amendment but really important, and I will do my best for the record to summarise the problem. The Minister and I have had discussions, and I know she is aware of the issue.

Large developments—the most important ones for the growth this country needs—such as urban regeneration schemes, new settlements, large urban extensions, infrastructure and the like can take many years, and quite often decades, to build out. Over that time, it is almost inevitable that some of the details of the later phases will need, by the time they get built out, to change and adapt to evolving needs, to things that have changed in the economy or in our ways of life since the original planning permission was granted.

To put a bit of flesh on that, for example, a mixed-use urban extension might have offices in the later phases that can no longer be filled due to the post-Covid shift to working from home, which could not have been foreseen at the time the original outline permission was granted. Therefore, it may be proposed to swap out those offices, which would simply be a white elephant, for last mile logistics, as the need for that sector has increased. A hotel planned for a later phase may no longer be viable because of changing tourism patterns, but there may be a greater need for a care home instead.

A very well-known example is the largest outline permission in this country, Liverpool Waters. The planning permission for the regeneration of Liverpool Docklands was granted in 2011. The city council is on the record as indicating that would be a three-decade planning permission to build out. During the currency of that development, an opportunity was identified to relocate Everton Football Club into its amazing new stadium, which opened only a few weeks ago. Therefore, the development had to be rejigged to accommodate the stadium.

For various reasons, applying for a new site-wide planning permission in circumstances where there has been a need to adapt and change in relation to evolving circumstances is not practical. It is too onerous in terms of the evidence base, because you need a new site-wide EIA, for example. It is too expensive for that reason, and due to the cost of planning fees for site-wide permissions and large-scale developments. Importantly, it is too slow, because everything would have to be reappraised. You would have to redo the surveys, which can take place only at certain times of the year, even in relation to those elements that are not changing, because the site-wide second permission would apply to the whole.

Therefore, a widespread practice has developed in the planning field in what is often called drop-in or stand-alone permissions, where the planning application red line is drawn not around the whole site area, but around the area it is going to change. In one of the examples I gave earlier, you would draw the line around the area earmarked for offices, not around the whole development. You would then apply to swap the particular development within that stand-alone planning permission area. The local authority would consider the planning merits of the change going on in that stand-alone area without having to re-appraise everything.

The developer would obviously have to make a good case for the change and if it did not, it would not be allowed. But if it did, and this routinely has happened, a change would be authorised. If permission was granted, the change would take effect pursuant to the stand-alone permission, so the area for the offices would become logistics in the example I gave, and the remainder of the wider development would proceed unchanged under the original site-wide permission.

The Supreme Court in the Hillside case has drastically affected this practice. The legal principle that the Supreme Court has enshrined is that if implementing a later stand-alone permission has the effect that it is now physically impossible in a material way to build out the site-wide permission in its entirety, the site-wide permission can no longer be relied on for any future development that is authorised by it but no longer built, so the residual site-wide permission is essentially lost, with very profound consequences.

There are sometimes workarounds, but they are incomplete and, even when they do exist, they can be uncertain, risky, cumbersome, slow and costly. To give a sense of the magnitude of this problem, since the Hillside judgment was given in late 2022, I estimate that I have written between 300 and 400 opinions on how to work around Hillside—so the one person who will lose out because of this amendment is me. This amendment would clear up the uncertainty and provide a clear route through.

I am not wedded to the precise drafting, if the Minister and her officials consider it could be improved. I expect the Minister will say that the Government recognise the difficulty presented by Hillside but that finding a solution to it is a complex matter which requires detailed consideration—and so it is. However, with respect, it is the job of the Government and Parliament to grapple with those complexities and come up with a workable solution, rather than kick the can down the road.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. I am relieved to know that, if I get hit by a bus on the way home today—which is very unlikely, given the strikes—my legacy to this House will be the concept of a reverse declaration of interest.

It seems that there is unanimity across the Committee that the Hillside judgment generates a cause for a legislative solution. It also appears to be common ground that new Section 73B, if and when it is enacted pursuant to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, would not be a panacea. It may help in some cases—probably about one-third, but no more than that, so there is a need to go further.

Where we part is on the drafting and what the right-worded solution is. I am very much not wedded to the wording of my amendment; it is really there as a challenge in the hope that, collectively, we can come up with something that carries the overall consent of this House. I look forward to working with the Minister and my noble friend Lady Scott to find a form of words that will achieve the solution that we need. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 169 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of Amendment 184 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on stepping-stone accommodation. This worthwhile amendment promotes transitional housing solutions for those at risk of homelessness, as well as creating incentives for young people to stay at work with financial independence and living in quality, affordable accommodation.

I have been a long-term supporter of the charity Centrepoint, which has done incredible work in providing solutions for those who have been unfortunate enough to be homeless. The stepping-stone homes initiative has delivered self-contained, high-quality homes for young people, with the rent capped, as the noble Baroness mentioned, at one-third of their income. Like the noble Baroness, I have been to see the Reuben homes in Peckham, and I was enormously moved. This cost-effective transitional housing solution has the advantage of not just supporting financial independence and reducing reliance on benefits but, most importantly, helping young people to build a stable future. It provides not just a roof but services, such as helping residents to get over the problems of unemployment, as well as education and other life skills.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, covered the obstacles to scaling this model nationally and the inflexible application of the national described space standards, the NDSS—there are all these abbreviations—which currently block these smart schemes from expanding. She mentioned the limitation of 34 square metres. These pods, as I would call them, are 24 square metres, but none of the young people complained about a lack of space. This amendment provides checks and balances for a limited and carefully designed exemption for accredited stepping-stone accommodation for young people while ensuring—I stress this—that there are still robust safeguards around design quality.

A transitional solution for two to five years, helping young people to settle into work, live independently and save money makes a massive difference to them moving on with their careers. The limited tenure of two to five years provides the push factor that makes stepping-stone homes a sustainable source of affordable housing. It is not just Centrepoint: several other charities are trying similar initiatives. For this reason, I warmly support this amendment, which effectively provides a crucial piece of the puzzle of tackling homelessness.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 184, to which I have lent my name. There is not much I can add to the eloquent and compelling case for it that has just been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord St John.

As I see it, the key point is about scaling up with necessary speed. While space standards can in principle be departed from, that requires negotiation and time, and there are concerns about the threat of judicial review, et cetera. The amendment would provide clarity and certainty that, for this specific kind of invaluable accommodation, the space standards do not apply. Bearing in mind that the space standards were not designed with this kind of accommodation in mind, because it has come afterwards, to my mind that would be a considerable advantage of this kind of accommodation.

I have looked at the draft and it seems to me to be watertight. There is no scope for other kinds of developers and developments to piggyback on to it and seek to avoid space standards for the kinds of developments that should be subject to them. So I urge the Minister to consider this amendment very carefully. I also emphatically endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne in relation to his amendment.