Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, this group consists of amendments relating to the circumstances under which the levy for the nature restoration fund should be made mandatory. The Minister may recall that, in Committee, this was not the subject of an amendment or substantive debate but of an exchange to try to better define the circumstances. At that time, the view was that this would be under exceptional circumstances. The question is: under what exceptional circumstances?

I am very grateful to officials who gave me the benefit of time and advice yesterday. I have tabled Amendment 158A because it was not apparent to me that an amendment to an environmental delivery plan could be made simply to make the levy mandatory after the EDP has been made. I am assured that the powers are available in Clause 62 for the purpose of amending it, and that that can be done to make the levy mandatory in circumstances where the EDP has already been made. I hope the Minister is in the happy position of being able to assure me that Clause 62 can do that.

Amendment 164A, in my name, is the substantive amendment in this group, in my view. I tried to establish in discussions with the department the circumstances in which the levy should be mandatory. To paraphrase, these came down to two things. The first was that there would be occasions when Natural England, in order to fulfil the objectives of its environmental delivery plan, would need full coverage of the levy to deliver the plan. If there was not full coverage—namely, if some developers chose to go down the route of not offering to pay the levy—then the EDP would not be able to be delivered, and those who had made such a commitment to pay the levy would not be able to fulfil their environmental obligations through that route. Secondly, in a large project, such as a nationally significant infrastructure project with, essentially, one developer, if Natural England were to make an environmental delivery plan and that developer or project controller chose not to go down the route of paying the levy, then all the work done on the EDP would be pointless and it would make no progress. I have tabled Amendment 164A to try to arrive at a point where we can specify much more clearly in the Bill the circumstances in which the levy can be made mandatory. This is not unimportant; it is a very important issue.

I remind noble Lords of my registered interest, but I rely not on that but on the submissions and representations made publicly to the Government about this from the Home Builders Federation, among others. It is very concerned. From the point of view of the development community, the whole purpose is to give developers the choice between meeting their environmental obligations through the habitats and other regulations or going down the route of an EDP, with the opportunity to meet their obligations through the payment of the levy. If it is made mandatory, the choice simply does not exist anymore. For that reason, I want to define the circumstances in a clear way in the Bill.

The latter circumstance, with a single developer, is not a substantive problem. If Natural England goes down the route of consulting on a potential EDP, it would be a matter of necessity that the developer concerned was part of that consultation. Natural England would arrive at a considered view as to whether the developer in that instance was going to pay the levy and go down that route. That would determine whether the levy can be made, and the Secretary of State could rest upon the results of that consultation.

However, I believe that there is a case where, if there are multiple developers associated with a particular area—the EDP might cover a number of development sites and range across a wider area—one or more of those developers may commit to pay the levy. It may be that it is literally not possible to meet the objectives of the EDP without the others paying the levy. If they choose to go down an alternative route, they may not be able to meet their habitats regulations requirements, because they would be mitigated through the mechanism of the EDP. Alternatively, they may be trying to freeload off those who are paying the levy by saying that they will meet their habitats regulations requirements, but in practice they would be met through the EDP managed by Natural England and paid for by other developers. There is therefore a case for a mandatory levy, but I do not believe that the Bill says what those circumstances are.

I am afraid that it is not at all satisfactory to leave the power unspecified, because it will increasingly be a temptation for Natural England to initiate an environmental delivery plan, do the work, set up the potential draft, consult on it and then reach the conclusion that only by making it mandatory will it secure the necessary coverage to fund an EDP. Far from it being an exception, we will find that Natural England is increasingly defaulting towards mandatory levy payments as the basis on which it can proceed with its ambitious environmental delivery plans. That is not where we were told this would be going.

I will not press Amendments 164A or 158A, as I do not believe that what we require in the Bill is as yet specified in those amendments. I can well see that my noble friend, with his Amendment 164, could do us a great service, because if we were to take out these provisions it would press the Government to reinsert them with the necessary detail on how and when the mandatory levy should be imposed by way of substituting for what is currently in Clause 66(4) and (5).

However, if my noble friend were to take the view that it would be better for the Minister to give an assurance that she will consider whether there is scope for specifying the conditions under which the levy is mandatory—and narrowing that down to the kind of examples that I have referred to in my introductory remarks—I would be happy with that. I do not want us to take out the mandatory levy entirely; I want us to be able to specify it in more detail. I beg to move Amendment 158A.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I have been sitting for the last eight minutes next to my noble friend Lord Lansley, and I am slightly concerned by what he said. He accurately painted a picture that shows that there will be a drift, an expectation and a move by Natural England towards mandation for an EDP. I have been concerned for a while that the process by which an EDP might be consulted on and have consensus built could take a long time; I believe that it is very unlikely that we will get any EDPs operational in this Parliament, such is the process that is outlined, with multiple grounds of consultation and so forth.

I will paint an alternative picture to that of my noble friend Lord Lansley that involves a developer who just has to get on. The site that he is trying to develop is eating its head off in interest and there might even be demand for the homes—who knows? The developer has to get on and cannot afford to wait for that third year, so they cut and run. They go with a private operator under the habitats regulations; it is a proper scheme—I am not talking about shortcuts—but it means that they can get on with it.

The problem with mandation is they could end up paying twice, and that is no good. The Bill is meant to be speeding up development. So if they could have a route to develop more quickly while delivering the environmental benefits, without going down the EDP route, it should be open to them. I am concerned that mandation—and the slippery slope towards mandation being the default position, which my noble friend laid out—would see development being slowed down when it could be speeded up. Who wants to pay twice? Rather than get on with it, they hold back on the supposition that, in due course, the EDP will somehow come to the rescue. This is working against the role of the private sector in innovating and bringing in new techniques, and it is reinforcing the notion that only Natural England—that dead hand of the state—has a monopoly on how these things should be delivered. That is dangerous.

I am not going to speak against my noble friend, but I do not feel that he entirely covered the double jeopardy point, which is the logical conclusion of the amendments he has laid. In accepting that my noble friend Lord Roborough may press his amendment, I note that it will come back at Third Reading. If it does, we will need to consider the double jeopardy point about paying twice.

--- Later in debate ---

Honestly, I do not know whether my noble friend is planning to test the House or considering bringing it back at Third Reading if we do not get a satisfactory answer, but this is absolutely key to making sure that we do sensible government and sensible politics, not party politics. This is something on which everybody is agreed, apart from a few people in MHCLG. Frankly, I believe that your Lordships should consider really pushing this through so we get on with some sensible stuff in this Bill.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, on this group of amendments I feel as if I am on my own. I agree absolutely that SUDS, or sustainable urban drainage systems, can play a wonderful role for smaller-style developments—for ones and twos, miles away from the mains in rural areas, they are obviously the way to go and oftentimes they are the only way to go—but I cannot see for the life of me how promoting SUDS and accepting these amendments will be proportionate when we are talking not just about connecting 10 or 15 homes but building 1.5 million. We will never solve the housing problem by connecting 1.5 million homes to SUDS. We have to connect them to the mains; it is the only way forward.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

That is what Schedule 3 does.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

But I am concerned, listening to this, because we will be letting the water undertakers—the sewage firms—off the hook if we are not careful. I say to my noble friend that I have looked carefully at the amendments. This whole Bill is about speeding up development; we have to get these homes going. It seems to me that we are potentially having a perverse incentive in allowing the sewage treatment firms to have a veto over new development.

The sewage treatment works and the operators—the water undertakers—are going to be the tail that wags the dog. If they say, “We haven’t got enough capacity, therefore you can’t connect”, no new homes will be built at all. I am really concerned about this. I went to the world heritage site at Iona in Scotland and its sewage treatment works were at capacity. It ended up with the visitor centre being forced to have its own package system that drained straight through the public areas, making it worse. In Norfolk, Anglian Water is saying that its sewage treatment plants are at capacity and it cannot contemplate any new homes. It is the blocker: 40,000 new homes in the greater Norwich area, as well as other areas, are now at risk. So far, so much for speeding development. This is going to slow it down, because it gives them a get-out—a perverse incentive not to invest in what they should be doing, while taking the money from business rates and so forth.

In aggregate, we are going to end up with more polluting package systems rather than connecting. That is no good for places such as Poringland, in my own area, where there is clay and the drainage is really poor. This is really important because by promoting a multiplicity of much smaller package systems, rather than incentivising the main sewerage providers to invest, we are going to avoid scale—and we need the larger, better-structured sewage treatment works brought up to scratch, because it is only then that they would address the phosphate problem. Phosphate is very difficult to do in a package system because there are harsh chemicals, so you have to wear face masks, gloves and all the health and safety paraphernalia. It all has to be carefully handled. This is where we get the economy of scale, which is what we should be encouraging.

Another point is that if we are to allow the sewage companies to say, “We think we’re full now, so you can’t have any more”, we will end up with more small package schemes. There is the smell. They are also unreliable and expensive to maintain. It is difficult to get them adopted.

I am really concerned about Amendment 198. I do not want to put the black spot on it entirely, but it needs to be improved. We would end up with a perverse situation in which there was a lack of capacity and we incentivised the sewage treatment companies and water companies to take it easy, rather than go the extra mile. This is not some theoretical risk. In places in Norfolk such as Heacham, Docking, Snettisham, Horsford, Brancaster and the entirety of the greater Norwich area, Anglian Water is holding up the delivery of tens of thousands of houses.

This is an infrastructure Bill, so there would be unintended consequences. While the amendment is well meaning—I accept everything the noble Baroness said about what is in the Water Act, and I accept that for smaller schemes this is it—if we are to have an infrastructure Bill, we need to remove the excuses for the sewage treatment companies and the water undertakings not to invest in that most basic infrastructure. It is as if we are going back to the days before Chamberlain in Birmingham and Bazalgette here on the Embankment in London. We spent ages on the Water Bill, and there is widespread concern about sewage discharge, but sewage discharges will be solved only if we hold the water companies’ feet to the flames and get them to invest. It is a real problem if they just say, “Well, it’s a bit difficult. We’re not going to invest, and therefore you can’t build houses and can’t get the economy moving”.

In summary, we need to make sure that we take into account that SUDS has a role for smaller schemes, but we should not allow the pressure to be taken off the large companies for the big schemes—the schemes that will deliver the homes this nation needs by getting roofs over people’s heads. Otherwise, we will never meet the targets. As it is, in the Times yesterday there were questions about whether we will even get half way to delivering the housing targets, let alone all the way.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I will speak briefly to this group. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her resilience in the face of some opposition from her own Benches.

Amendment 197 seeks to end the automatic right for developers to connect surface water from new homes to the public sewerage system, regardless of capacity, and would instead provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems.

Amendment 198, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would go further by linking the right to connect to compliance with the Government’s newly introduced national standards for sustainable drainage systems, creating a stronger incentive for developers to follow this guidance, in advance of full implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

I believe that some of this was developed by the All-Party Group on Flooding and Flooded Communities, among others, and we certainly support what the noble Baroness is attempting to do with these amendments. Managing surface water is a huge challenge. It is such an irony that we have the problem of lots of surface water, but we also do not have enough water.

Protecting water quality, supporting biodiversity and reducing flood risk are really important priorities. We see the merits of these amendments. While they are not the only steps needed to achieve a fully resilient water system, they represent a constructive approach to improving drainage management in particular, and to encouraging developers to take responsibility for sustainable practices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, having also attached my name to this amendment, for reasons I shall get to in a second, let me say that it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender —and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in particular, as she has been our champion in this space.

I am going to speak about two groups of trees in Sheffield. Members of your Lordships’ House may remember the great Sheffield tree controversy and the struggles that the whole city went to to defend its street trees. Two groups of those would, I think, have been covered by a heritage tree preservation order. One was about 40 trees on Western Road that had been planted in 1919 as a living memorial for the soldiers killed in the First World War from that community. The council planned to cut them down. There were paintings by artists underneath the trees and a huge march in World War I-style uniforms from the trees down to the town hall, and a huge campaign that demonstrated just how important those trees were to the community, and nearly all of them were saved.

On the other side of the city, in a much more deprived area, there were two cherry trees that were planted to commemorate two brothers killed in the Second World War. They were just cut down and people were deeply shocked. We have talked a lot in your Lordships’ House, throughout the passage of this Bill, about how nature is terribly important to people’s health and well-being, but here we are talking about individual trees that communities have an individual relationship with and that desperately need protection. They are part of their history, part of their future. At the moment, we do not have ways of protecting them, except for communities going to the kind of extraordinary efforts that the people in Sheffield had to go through to save those trees that they did manage to save.

I will make one other point. Poland has a green monument system that marks tens of thousands of trees across Poland, and Romania has a similar scheme. Britain is supposed to be really keen on nature and really keen on heritage, and look how far behind we are.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 199 because I think it is important that we protect and recognise our historic trees. I am thinking not just of the highway and byway trees; there are some really special champion oaks in South Norfolk, where I was the leader of the council. We took steps to recognise them, bring them into the local plan and give them special designations. They form the basis of the strategic gaps between settlements, which is not just a good thing for the landscape; it also maintains that spirit of community.

I am thinking in particular of Kett’s oak, which is a champion oak said to be over 500 years old—it might be more—sat there on the B1172 between Norwich and Wymondham. It was the site of Kett’s rebellion, where Robert Kett marched 16,000 people to Mousehold Hill in Norwich, having had a petition of 29 demands. I expect the Government to want to knock this one back, but I note the context of that historical nature, as well as the landscape importance. Some of Kett’s demands were to limit the power of the gentry and to prevent the overuse of communal resources. It did not do him any good—Kett was executed on 7 December 1549 —but it is part of the lexicon. I am conscious that my noble friend Lady McIntosh is going to take me outside and duff me up afterwards. I hope I do not suffer the same fate as befell Robert Kett.

My serious point is that having a national register of important trees is not just important for biodiversity and all that sort of thing; they are part of our history and culture, and these are things to be celebrated. I warmly endorse and support Amendment 199, with my personal knowledge of Kett’s oak, and other noble Lords will have similar stories from their own areas. I suppose the salutary lesson is that when that Sycamore Gap tree was felled, quite terribly, in Northumberland last year, there was a national outpouring. Amendment 199 attempts to capture that sense of pride and purpose, and it has my full support.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, we all share an appreciation of our heritage trees. The Fortingall yew in Perthshire is estimated to be around 2,300 years old, and there are oaks on the Blenheim estate that are estimated to be over 1,000 years old. Of course, the iconic Sycamore Gap tree, which I was driven past the day before it was cut down, was over 100 years old, but while it was a relatively young tree by comparison, I think it was probably the most famous iconic tree we had, loved by millions.

Whether they be ancient yews or oaks that have stood in Britain for hundreds if not thousands of years, our heritage trees are a link to our past. That is why we have robust tree protection laws. While we are committed to maintaining those protections, will the Minister please confirm that the existing protections for trees will not be swept away inappropriately without due consideration when developments are considered? It would be unacceptable to have an EDP that meets the overall improvement test but necessitates cutting down one or more heritage trees. I think we all agree that that would be unacceptable. Will the Minister please set out the Government’s view on the current penalties for breaches of tree protection orders? Do the Government feel that these remain appropriate, or do Ministers have plans to review them or introduce new regulations and new laws?