Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her clarification. That is a bit of a relief, to be frank, because most MHCLG Secretaries of State are not appointed for their depth of ecological knowledge, nor indeed are the civil servants in that department.

However, that does not overcome the principal problem that the way it is drafted rather implies that it is based on the Secretary of State’s judgment and consideration, rather than the evidence. Existing environmental law is effective because it requires that, if an adverse effect on the integrity of an internationally important site cannot be avoided, then changes that would impact it would be consented to only where there are imperative reasons of “overriding public interest”. That is a technical term which is well-based in case law, and there is long-standing case law as to the evidence base required to demonstrate overriding public interest.

Clause 63 seems to make the new overall improvement test a much more subjective decision of the Secretary of State for Defra, in that it is about his or her consideration, and the test is passed solely on the basis of whether or not the Secretary of State considers that it is passed. Therefore, it is not a requirement in the Bill for the opinion to be underpinned by evidence. We understand that, frankly, it would be crazy for the Secretary of State to make some wild, unevidenced decision, but the way the Bill is currently framed means that the decision is unlikely to be legally challengeable if they did.

My amendment proposes deleting

“the Secretary of State considers that”,

which would remove the subjective element and, I hope, establish that the Secretary of State’s decision on the overall improvement test would be more about objectivity and evidence. It would give scope for the Secretary of State’s decision to be challenged in court if it is clearly flawed or runs contrary to the scientific evidence, whereas, at present, the drafting of the Bill places the Secretary of State’s judgment in primacy over the evidence.

I repeat that this is, thank goodness, going to be done by a Secretary of State who may have a sporting chance of knowing what they are talking about, but it would be good to hear reassurance from the Minister as to the basis of the evidence on which the Secretary of State will make the decision about the overall improvement test in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 60.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 286 and 300, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, who, alas, gives her apologies that she is unable to speak today. I have signed the amendments, alongside other noble Lords, and hope I do them some justice.

As noble Lords will see, these two amendments—and pretty much this whole group—seek to improve the overall improvement test and ensure that EDPs deliver significant improvements. I echo the opening the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and welcome the letter this morning and the amendments put forward previously. That demonstrates movement.

I am afraid I will deviate a little. I do not think it has been incredible or extraordinary. I am glad that the Ministers—as I always say, my two favourite Ministers —have their doors open for us, though they may regret making that promise, as I have some concerns still with this. It is not just what has been expressed in this Chamber; it goes beyond this Chamber, on all sides of the debate, from ecologists and conservationists to developers, lawyers and so-called yimbys.

To turn to the specific amendments, Amendment 286 intends to strengthen the overall improvement test, and I welcome Amendment 286A from the Government, which seeks to do this. However, there are still questions. We hear that it is up to the Secretary of State for Defra and their judgment, ahead of any evidence to the contrary. Amendment 300 is related, and seeks to ensure that significant, measurable improvements to nature are achieved by the EDP. While I recognise and welcome what the Government have sought to do by putting in place back-up measures, what is the baseline evidence that the Secretary of State for Defra is looking at when making that judgment? It sounds like this is a recent development, but what are the so-called good reasons that it may fall outside the remit of the Secretary of State for Defra? If, hypothetically, it is just the Secretary of State for Defra—to park the “good reasons” wording—is it envisaged that that would be done in consultation with other departments, such as MHCLG or even HMT?

Overall, it is important that we put in checks and balances, and these amendments seek to do that. They would not wreck the Bill but seek to ensure the improvements that we all, including the Government, want. They would, I hope, ensure that development continues.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 289. Before I do so, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, as he came to what I think is the nub of this group and what the question really is. In my mind, it is this: are we content with the Government’s amendment, which changes the overall improvement test so that the wording is “materially outweigh”, or do we want it to be, as in the amendment from my noble friend and others, significant and measurable? As it happens, I agree with my noble friend and others that “measurably” and “materially” probably have meanings that are alike, but “significantly” should tell us something about the nature of the guidance.

However, we need to think very carefully about putting in “significantly”, because there will be material improvements that are not regarded as significant. Would that mean that there would be environmental delivery plans that could not be made because they would not pass the overall improvement test, even where they would lead to a material improvement? We need to think about this carefully. There is no simple way to use particular words in legislation. They have their plain meaning, and if we were to say “significantly and measurably”, we mean that there is something beyond measurable that is significant. The guidance would need to say that. I raise this point because, if I were looking for the plain meaning, “materially” helps us a lot because it shows that there must be something where you can literally distinguish between the present situation and the future situation.

On Secretaries of State, I am confused. I always thought that, conventionally, we just put “the Secretary of State” into legislation. As a former civil servant, I remember people who sat in the same office, behind the same desk, working for Secretaries of State whose titles and departmental boundaries regularly changed. Therefore, trying to specify the Secretary of State for anything in legislation is a mistake—you just put in “the Secretary of State” and work out which one it is subsequently.

My Amendment 289 is about the conservation measures that are identified but not expected to be needed. This is quite interesting because, if they have been identified but are not needed to secure the overall improvement test, they wait there, as it were, until we reach the point at which the Secretary of State is making the decision.

If the Secretary of State determines that the overall improvement test has been met but in doing so has had to take into account conservation measures that were not expected to be needed, as referred to in Clause 55(5), my amendment would require that determination to make it clear that those conservation measures have been added, just so there is transparency and clarity. Of course, that flows into what is required in terms of the levy and the obligations that have to be met out of the nature restoration fund.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

245: Clause 55, page 92, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) comply with the principles of the mitigation hierarchy.”

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to kick-start this group, not least after the great discussion we just had on the previous group. Equally, I am delighted and honoured to have the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter, for my amendment.

Amendment 245, which is in my name, seeks to specifically set out the importance of the mitigation hierarchy, which has reared its head on various occasions throughout the entire passage of the Bill. Most should already know what that means but, in short, it is the well-established common principle in development that there are a series of steps to go through on a site when it comes to the environment. These are: first, to avoid, then to minimise, then to restore, and then to offset.

As we just touched on, the problem with EDPs in this Bill is that we simply fast-track to compensation. In effect, developers can ignore the first three stages and pay into some pot to offset whatever it is they are doing. Here, the only obligation is the payment; your role is then done. I am not normally like this, but that is a pretty dystopian view. I know that, with many, that will not happen, and some will seek to follow those steps when working on development, even if the law does not stipulate it, but that would not be enforced and would be down to good will.

Amendment 245 would fix that and insert the mitigation hierarchy as part of the EDP’s conservation measures. Indeed, my amendment would be inserted into the subsection that explicitly states:

“An EDP must set out the measures (‘conservation measures’) that are to be taken by, or on behalf of, Natural England, under the EDP”.


It may be argued that it is not needed because of the mitigation hierarchy. The Minister is not in her place, but she was just saying at the Dispatch Box that the mitigation hierarchy is already implicit and that it is common practice. I have the highest regard for the Minister, who I assume will be responding, and I am sure she will say at the end of this debate that, while the Government support the principle and the arguments behind what I am seeking to do, it is not needed because it is in the NPPF. However, if it is not explicit in the Bill, it leaves the door open to regression legally.

I know that some see the NPPF more as planning guidance than law, and that the NPPF is general rather than specific. An EDP is entirely novel, hence why we are rightly having this huge debate; it creates a new regime and, as a result, it is not in the NPPF yet. Despite what the Minister just said, as it is new, it is right that it should feature in the Bill because it is creating a whole new aspect of planning law. It would ensure that the Bill and the NPPF align coherently. That should be explicit in the Bill.

It is not just me who thinks that the mitigation hierarchy should feature; in the previous group, the Government set out some amendments themselves. If you look at the guidance when these amendments were set out, the Government said:

“These changes underline the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs, ensuring that local conservation measures are preferred unless there is a clearly articulated environmental basis to look further afield”.


I think that is pretty much what the Minister said in concluding the previous group so, when those amendments came down, I was relieved. As I said on the previous group, I am grateful that the Government have put some amendments down. When I kept hearing that the mitigation hierarchy is going to be maintained, I thought that that was great; it is a good step. However, when I look at the list of amendments that we are debating in this group, I am afraid that I cannot find exactly where the Government say that the mitigation hierarchy will take place. This amendment seeks to fix that and to put in what the Government say they support.

It feels like we were debating this only yesterday. It was literally yesterday, at 1 am, when we were talking specifically about species. It may well be that, even if there are no species to be protected on a site, we can all agree that it is right that any development seeks to minimise and avoid as much damage as possible. That in itself is conservation.

There are a number of similar amendments in this group from other noble Lords, all of which seek to address the same issue of putting specific references in, and I support them, especially Amendment 301 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, to which I have added my name. It seeks to ensure that the mitigation hierarchy applies, while allowing flexibility for Natural England. If we take the group as a whole, these amendments do not stop the EDP process and they are not political games, certainly not from me. It does what the Government say they support. I hope that it will feature at some stage as the result of these conversations, because it is not in the Bill at the minute. I hope that the Minister recognises that this improves what the Government seek and makes the EDP a win-win for nature and development. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Willis, for supporting Amendment 256ZA which I have tabled. I support Amendment 245 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. His eloquent promotion of it means that I do not need to explain what the mitigation hierarchy is all about. However, it is an important principle in conservation, and it has come to the fore in the biodiversity net gain policy. In the case of this Bill, it would require a developer or Natural England preparing an EDP to look first at how to avoid damage to natural features, or, if avoidance of damage is not possible, to mitigate—that is, reduce—the impact, or, as a last resort only, to provide compensation habitat for the damage.

Under the draft Bill, Natural England could be, subtly or otherwise, pressurised into writing an EDP that jumps straight to damage and compensation. That might be the lowest-cost option and therefore to be desired by developers and also perhaps by the Government in pursuit of growth, even where it would have been feasible for Natural England or a developer to implement measures to safeguard the original protected habitat. I know that the Minister does not like the Bill’s nickname of “cash to trash” but, if it is not to be portrayed in that way, I believe that it will need to be amended to encourage developers and Natural England to comply with the mitigation hierarchy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for taking part in this debate on the mitigation hierarchy. I have listened carefully and very much recognise the concerns that are being raised. These amendments seek to add provisions that require Natural England and the Secretary of State to apply the mitigation hierarchy when considering whether to produce an EDP, and in its production and implementation. By introducing a more strategic approach to addressing the impact of development, the Bill deliberately provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to Natural England to design conservation measures to deliver improved outcomes for the environmental features that are subject to an EDP. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, when he introduced his amendment, noted that the NPPF includes consideration of the mitigation hierarchy in respect of individual planning applications. I was not going to mention it, but because he did, I thought I had to.

As we have set out, the NRF is a strategic model. While I want to reassure noble Lords that the mitigation hierarchy lives in this model and is integral to the model we are trying to get across, it cannot be considered in the same way as an individual planning application. Again, I stress that the NPPF is a statutory model. You cannot just ignore it. It is part of the application process. So, we would expect Natural England to consider this throughout the process and use tools such as the ability to request planning conditions to avoid and reduce impact as key elements of an EDP. In preparing an EDP, Natural England will always be mindful of the benefits of avoiding impacts before they occur. Taking action locally which benefits the same protected feature that is being impacted by development will be the default under an EDP. This places a kind of ecological lock on the use of network measures, which can be used only in cases where it is clear that taking action elsewhere would be more beneficial to the environmental feature.

In addition, when making the EDP, the Secretary of State will have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, in line with the Environment Act 2021. This will ensure that important principles, such as the precautionary principle and the rectification at source principle, are considered. Ultimately, the overall improvement test will require that each EDP demonstrates how the conservation measures will secure an environmental uplift that goes beyond the offsetting that is achieved under the current system.

Returning to Amendment 245, as I said, the principles are already incorporated into the existing provisions and further reinforced by the amendments we have tabled. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, Natural England can request that planning conditions be imposed on development, ensuring that impacts are minimised. As I have explained, network measures can be implemented only when doing so would lead to greater improvement. The noble Baroness asked for future information. Let us get together before Report; I will get that information for her and share it with noble Lords.

Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP, and the Secretary of State may make one only if it meets the overall improvement test. Therefore, the additional flexibility provided for by the nature restoration fund can be used only to deliver better outcomes for the environment.

I turn to Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 301 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who is not in her place. These amendments would require a developer to demonstrate that they have applied the mitigation hierarchy before Natural England can accept their request to use an EDP. The clear aim of the nature restoration fund is to deliver a win-win for both development and the environment. A fundamental element of delivering this is to reduce the amount of time and money spent on individual environmental assessments and refocus these efforts on strategic action to improve environmental outcomes at scale.

The EDP itself is required to consider the impact of relevant development on the environmental feature and propose appropriate measures to address and materially outweigh this impact. The plans will be underpinned by the best scientific evidence and will include actions to avoid impact, as well conservation measures to address and outweigh impact. As such, requiring developers to undertake individual assessments risks eroding the value of the EDP, adding costs to individual development, which we think would reduce the utility of relying on EDPs. Where an EDP is in place, the overall improvement test ensures that outcomes for the environment will be better than the existing system, so it is vital that we embrace the opportunity to streamline the process in order to deliver this win-win.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, tabled Amendment 275, which seeks to require that Natural England may decide to prepare an EDP for a protected feature only if two conditions are met: first, that Natural England has followed the mitigation hierarchy; and secondly, that the EDP would contribute to a significant environmental improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature at an ecologically appropriate scale. I have just addressed the first condition, so I will focus on the second.

The existing provisions in the Bill already require the Secretary of State to consider whether the overall improvement test is met once a draft EDP has been prepared and presented. Requiring Natural England to consider that same test at an earlier stage would not be possible because neither the detail of the proposed conservation measures nor the environmental impact of the development it is intended to address would be known at that stage. We think that the correct point to apply the overall improvement test will be after the EDP is drafted, not before.

The amendment also proposes a modification to the overall improvement test to require that conservation measures significantly and measurably outweigh the environmental impact of development. This was addressed previously, so I will not repeat it here, except to say that the Bill requires that conservation measures must address the environmental impact of development and, additionally, contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status. We have clarified that with the amendments we have tabled.

Turning to Amendment 256ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government’s amendments to Part 3 make it clear that network measures may be taken forward only when Natural England can set out how the approach will make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than an on-site measure. We are clear that the flexibilities will not come at the expense of action to avoid impact, and the Bill provides powers to address such actions and secure that they are taken through the use of planning conditions. There is also the opportunity to scrutinise the proposed conservation measures, including actions proposed to avoid impact, during the consultation on each EDP. The Secretary of State will also have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, and see that other important principles are considered.

Turning to Amendment 340, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the overall improvement test is central to the nature restoration fund. I have gone into some detail about how that is supposed to work, but the proposed requirement to apply the mitigation hierarchy rigidly would restrict an EDP’s ability to meet the overall improvement test strategically. As I said, an EDP cannot be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it will meet this test. Any flexibility in applying the mitigation hierarchy should be seen through this lens. The nature restoration fund does in limited circumstances allow Natural England to propose conservation measures which benefit the environmental feature in a different location.

Turning to irreplaceable habitats, the Bill does not amend or disapply the NPPF. Therefore, the existing policies remain unchanged. An EDP could be applied to an irreplaceable habitat only where it was also a feature of a protected site. Even then, an EDP could not allow for the loss of irreplaceable habitats, as it would simply not be possible to satisfy the overall improvements test in these circumstances. Finally, it is not clear what the proposed requirement to consider enhancing biodiversity would add, as the Bill is clear that an overall improvement must be achieved in relation to the protected feature to which the EDP relates.

Finally, on Amendment 346DF, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, we have recently concluded a consultation on improving the implementation of BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development. Among the options is a proposal to streamline the BNG metric process. We might be interested to pick this up and discuss it further, because the Government are currently considering their response, and we will be publishing our outcomes in due course. New legislation requiring government to lay a report on this matter is therefore not necessary at this stage, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

This has been a really important debate. It has raised a number of issues which I am aware that noble Lords would like to discuss further, and this is something we should specifically pick up in discussions ahead of Report. With these explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to that group, not least the Minister. I apologise for incorrectly prejudging what I thought she would say—I obviously got it completely wrong, and I apologise.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, got it right when he said that this group and the previous one are the nub of the problems with the EDP Part 3. I am not saying there are other things, but this goes to the heart of how we try and make the Bill a win-win for both development and nature. I do not want to dwell too long. I am grateful that the Minister said that we will come back to that. It is worth our coalescing and having another shot at it, if we may, but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 245 withdrawn.