Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, we return to the substantive consideration of Part 3 of the Bill and the nature restoration fund, with this first grouping considering amendments that relate to the underlying requirements of an environmental delivery plan.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the purpose of Part 3, we know that the status quo is not working. Environmental assessments and case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the condition of our most important habitats and species has declined over a sustained period. By taking a more strategic approach to the restoration of protected sites and species, we can deliver improved environmental outcomes while reducing planning delays for the housing and infrastructure that our communities need.

The noble Lord asked me a question about the number of houses subject to nutrient neutrality that will be unlocked at Royal Assent. We are very clear that such environmental obligations can be discharged only where a robust and scrutinised EDP is in place. This is the right approach to ensure there is a credible plan that will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we need.

Amendment 130, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has captured the sympathy of some in this House who support the strategic approach of the NRF but are concerned about this approach being used where it is not appropriate. However, we have always been clear—and the legislation is explicit—that the Secretary of State can approve an EDP only where it is shown to materially outweigh the negative effect of development. This is not a throwaway judgment of a Secretary of State but must be a judgment based on an ecologically sound and robustly scrutinised EDP, with Natural England providing a statement as to whether they believe the EDP can meet this high bar. As the noble Baroness will know, the scientific basis of the evidence provided to the Secretary of State was clarified in a government amendment. A Secretary of State simply could not sign off an EDP that did not stack up—and if they ever did, then the Bill provides that such a decision could be challenged via a judicial review.

In capturing a range of environmental features that could be addressed through an EDP, the Government are not seeking to suggest that EDPs will come forward covering each of these features but simply that we should be able to bring forward EDPs where science supports the case and the evidence would allow the Secretary of State to approve the EDP in line with the overall improvement test. Where the science does not support it, an EDP could not be made, but to limit EDPs in the way the amendment suggests would be to close off the potential that EDPs offer to deliver more than the current system and help support the recovery of protected sites and species, rather than merely offsetting the impact of development.

I want also to respond to some of the noble Baroness’ questions. First, on the mitigation hierarchy, Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops EDPs. It is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. However, it is not always the case. The flexibility provided by the Bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England’s expert judgment, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to suboptimal outcomes, and only then, and where money could be spent far more effectively to achieve better outcomes for nature.

Secondly, the noble Baroness asked me about process. EDPs will not require additional assessment. Natural England will carry out assessments and surveys, and developers will no longer have to do that for the features in the EDP.

My noble friend Lady Young asked about the European conventions. The Bill does not repeal any existing legislation and will not weaken the UK’s continued support for and implementation of any of our international commitments. We are committed to the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and its provisions which ensure that mutual high standards are protected. EDPs will ensure better environmental outcomes that go further than current legislation, which simply offsets harm. Money from the NRF is ring-fenced for nature under clauses in the Bill.

I am conscious that the NRF has not had the easiest genesis, but the Government have shown that they are listening, and the legislation demonstrates a real commitment to breaking from a status quo that has, at best, overseen the managed decline of our most valued protected sites and species. With this explanation, I hope the noble Baroness feels able not to move her amendment.

Amendment 201, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with broad powers to manage the effects of nutrients in water. This draws on the amendments tabled by the previous Government during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which were rightly defeated by this House.

While we share the noble Lord’s desire to address nutrient neutrality, we cannot simply rely on broad powers and the promise of action. The nature restoration fund creates a clear path to addressing this issue based on credible evidence, a robust and tested EDP and the legal guarantee that funding will be secured to ensure that conservation measures deliver environmental improvement. Granting the Secretary of State such a broad Henry VIII power would raise not only questions but serious risks as to how such a power could be used.

Amendment 122, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP and require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with such guidance. I recognise the importance of the matters the noble Lord raises, including in respect of agricultural businesses, food security and land that communities really value. The Secretary of State is already able to make guidance on any matter relevant to the making of an EDP, which would naturally include the important matters raised in the amendment.

On the issue of compulsory purchase raised by the amendment, as it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to make an EDP and to authorise Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way the EDP has been drafted, they may simply choose not to make the EDP. Similarly, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way Natural England is proposing to exercise its compulsory purchase powers, they may simply choose not to authorise the exercise of the powers.

Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require EDPs to identify all environmental impacts from the development to which the EDP relates, on the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. As we have said throughout these sessions, EDPs are targeted plans to address specific impacts from development on identified environmental features. These are not a replacement for wider assessment or intervention but a way to allow specific impacts to be addressed through a more strategic approach. While Natural England will of course be alive to other impacts, the focus of the EDP must be on the specific impact, as it is only that impact and the associated environmental obligation that are being discharged through the EDP. We have been clear throughout that anything not covered by an EDP will be considered and addressed through the existing system. For that reason, it would simply add burden to an EDP to require Natural England to identify all impacts where the EDP itself is tasked with addressing only specific impacts.

Amendment 128, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require an EDP to identify all environmental impacts that may be expected as a result of the development to which an EDP relates. As I mentioned in Committee and have just repeated, EDPs are targeted plans, and the Government are clear that an EDP will modify existing obligations only for identified impacts and where the EDP itself can demonstrate how the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the specific environmental feature. Any impacts not addressed—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am afraid that the Minister has failed to understand that the amendments I have proposed, following the debate in Committee, are directed towards only the environmental feature, and the negative effects associated with that environmental feature, which is the subject of the EDP. She is suggesting that I am widening it out to other features. I am not; the amendments address only that feature.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry if I misunderstood, but that may be due to confusion around the wording. It seemed that the amendment was trying to widen that out. As I said, any impact not addressed through the EDP is subject to a separate assessment. Therefore, it would not need to form part of the EDP itself.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I have left Clause 55(1)(a) where the Government left it, which means that we are concerned only with the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. Her entire argument against my amendments is around the proposition that I am trying to widen it out to other things; I am not. I am simply saying that, if there is a negative effect associated with the environmental feature derived from that development, it should be identified in the EDP.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The very nature of the EDP would do that anyway, because the action taken by the EDP must materially outweigh the impact of the development. If that is what the noble Lord is trying to say, I can confirm that that is the purpose of the EDP in the first place. I will continue now.

As set out in the Member’s explanatory statement, Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham,

“seeks to encourage debate on the proportionality of conservation measures included in an EDP”.

In doing so, the amendment proposes that EDPs should consider the monetary value of the plants or animals the conservation measures would support, to ensure that conservation measures are proportionate. As the noble Lord will be aware from the debates to date, EDPs will be required to materially outweigh the negative effects that development would have on a relevant environmental feature, be it a feature of a protected site or a protected species. That may include multiple plant species of varying abundance. Similarly for protected species, an EDP would address these impacts at an appropriate population scale.

The scale of conservation measures required will be determined by the scale of impact from the development, with the levy rate being set to ensure that sufficient measures are delivered to meet the overall improvement test. In setting the regulations that will govern the nature restoration levy, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the levy does not render development economically unviable, but the levy must be sufficient to deliver the necessary conservation measures in line with the overall improvement test. That will ensure that the levy is set at a rate that delivers for both nature and development, with developers in all but exceptional circumstances being able to choose whether to use an EDP or whether to address these impacts and secure the necessary measures themselves under the existing system. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Finally, Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require the preparation of a report by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the consolidation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as they relate to planning. I appreciate that the dual systems of the habitats regulations, which cover habitat sites and include the HRA process, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which covers SSSIs, can appear complex. However, in practice, there are integrated processes which address and manage this complexity. These processes are well understood by practitioners, and while the Government will always look for opportunities to improve processes, the amendment risks creating uncertainty that may delay development and presupposes that consolidation is necessary and desirable. At this time, we do not consider that such a report is necessary, but even if it were, it would be a legal rather than ecological exercise, which would fall outside the JNCC’s area of expertise. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, that was great fun. I hope the noble Baroness feels better for her confession of how many Conservative amendments she signed. It is a surprise to us all, I am sure.

I take a slightly different view. I do not know why we did not vote on Amendment 123; I wish we had, because I certainly would have supported it. I support all these attempts to improve the Bill. Why? Because the Government say that we should follow the science. They make great play of the evidence that should be underpinning all these EDPs. The amendments in this group, essentially, are about providing proper evidence, and surely that is not controversial. The best evidence is frequently referred to and proper reporting is required. I cannot understand why anybody would be against any of that.

I agree that Part 3 is a disaster, but we are trying to improve it. I do not know about lipstick on a lamp-post: I think we are just trying to improve it a bit, given what we have been given. I support these amendments, for what they are worth, and I think that castigating the Opposition does not really help greatly. They are trying as hard as they can to improve this.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

May I just say—not least to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that, as it happens, I support the view that it would be wrong to take out Part 3 at this stage? I say that for procedural reasons. If we took out Part 3, in effect, we would send it back to the other place without Part 3 in it and it would reinstate it. I fail to see at what point we would be able to do all the things that we have just been talking about and will go on to talk about, which is to revise Part 3 so that we can do our job, which is to take all the most harmful aspects of Part 3 out and put improvements in.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am so sorry—I do not know whether I am allowed to shout at the noble Lord again. What are they revising? Tell me what they are revising. They are not revising anything: they are intransigent. They refuse to listen, so why are we even trying?

--- Later in debate ---

We raised this in detail in Committee and there was an opportunity to bring it forward at this stage, but it has not been. What assurances can the Minister give us, even at this stage, that those provisions will be introduced by Third Reading so that at least the expectations of the developers, the home owners and the public can be met and acted on, within the context of valuations that work and will stay the course? I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

If I may, I anticipate my noble friend Lord Roborough speaking to his Amendments 166 and 167. Before he does so, however, without reiterating the exchange that the Minister and I had about the way in which Clause 55(1)(a) and (b) should be used, by putting into Schedule 4 that the environmental impacts must be those identified in an environmental delivery plan, my noble friend deals with what would otherwise be a potentially serious problem. The Bill continues in Clause 55 to allow for the possibility of environmental impacts resulting from a development having a “negative effect” on a protected feature, but which are not to be included and identified in the EDP. My noble friend, in his Amendments 166 and 167, would rectify exactly that problem.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for moving his amendment in this group.

These amendments would make technical changes to how EDPs work practically. My Amendments 166 and 167 would ensure that only impacts addressed by the EDP may be disregarded for the purposes of the habitats regulations. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Lansley and am very grateful for his comments. We think that this is in line with the Government’s plans and seek to be constructive with these amendments. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not willing to accept these constructive and specific amendments?

Amendment 134 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller also seeks to strengthen the Government’s measures. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply.

Finally, my Amendment 135 is another that seeks clarity in the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government have not seen the merit of our case and would have preferred to see this clearly set out in law. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller on his questions and comments about the timing of EDPs and how they can be effective within the specified 10-year period. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 134 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which would require conservation measures delivered by a landholding to be secured solely through Section 106 agreements.

The noble Lord’s stated intention is to ensure that conservation measures are secured through a sufficiently enforceable mechanism. While we fully agree with the noble Lord that we need sufficient certainty to ensure that conservation measures are delivered, I hope to reassure him that his amendment is not necessary.

The NRF represents a shift towards a more strategic approach to dealing with the environmental impacts of development. Once an EDP is made, it will be for Natural England to secure the necessary conservation measures and ensure that they are in place, monitored and effective.

Some conservation measures may require Natural England to acquire land, but, where it does so, requiring it unilaterally to enter a Section 106 planning obligation would be inappropriate. Foremost, this would be an odd use of Section 106. Many conservation measures, such as in relation to wetlands, will not require planning permission. It is therefore unlikely that a Section 106 agreement between Natural England and the local planning authority would be needed.

What this amendment suggests is required is more likely to be a species of unilateral undertaking by Natural England—one that would unnecessarily restrict its latitude to deliver conservation measures flexibly. It would reduce the scope for Natural England to modify its approach where doing so would be within what the EDP approved and deliver more effectively for the environmental feature. Similarly, it could stop land being used for overlapping purposes.

Ultimately, it will be important that Natural England can implement whichever conservation measures it considers most effective while still being bound by the need for the measures to be sufficient to meet the overall improvement test—which this approach puts the focus on. In recognising the shift in approach under this model, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 135, which was previously tabled in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, relates to the use of planning conditions as conservation measures. In previous debates, I have been clear on the importance of planning conditions to ensure that developers take appropriate action to avoid impact in advance of other conservation measures being delivered. These conditions will form part of the draft EDP and be consulted on, which will ensure that developers are fully aware of any conditions that may be imposed if they choose to utilise an EDP.

I also re-emphasise that the Bill will allow Natural England to request that a condition be imposed only on a development coming under an EDP. The Bill simply will not allow Natural England to request planning conditions to be imposed on any development other than where that development wishes to rely on an EDP.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 166 and 167, also tabled by the Lord, Lord Roborough. These amendments were also considered in Committee, but I am very happy to further clarify our position. The amendments would amend Schedule 4, which sets out the effects that an EDP has on underlying environmental obligations, establishing that, where a developer has committed to pay the levy, the relevant obligation is suitably discharged.

“Environmental impact” is defined within the Bill as

“one or more ways in which

the negative effect

“is likely to be caused by the development”.

Therefore, the effect of Schedule 4 is already limited to those impacts. If a development has multiple environmental impacts but only one is covered by the EDP, those other impacts are not affected by Schedule 4 and must still be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and features sufficiently protected, while allowing a more strategic approach where it is appropriate. I trust that this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance, and that they will not press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

If “environmental impact” in Clause 55 embraces all the ways in which a development might impact negatively on an environmental feature, why does the clause go on to say:

“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”?


By definition, that means that there may be environmental impacts that are not identified in the EDP but which, under Schedule 4, may come to be disregarded for habitats purposes.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry, I thought that I had clarified that matter. If only one impact is covered by an EDP, the others are not affected by Schedule 4 and have to be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and that features are sufficiently protected while allowing the EDP to cover a more strategic approach.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise; I shall not intervene again. Schedule 4 says that the environmental impacts can be disregarded, but the Minister is telling us that the environmental impacts identified in the EDP can be disregarded. We agree, and that is what my noble friend is seeking to introduce into the Bill.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall not press this amendment to a vote—we have a lot of business to do—but I am not convinced that the noble Baroness and, inter alia, Natural England as the advisers, have really understood the importance of getting this contractualised, of the enforceability and of considering what might happen not just this year or next but in 80 years and in the intervening period, given the changes of ownership, succession, bankruptcy, sale—who knows? Section 106 may not be perfect, and I accept the noble Baroness’s point about the unilateral undertaking —we are on Report and not at Third Reading. However, I think we should come back to this at Third Reading rather than just leaving it to Natural England.

I have been involved in this space for three and a half years as a person with significant interest in Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, the company established by all the planning authorities in Norfolk. We have had to dig deep, take the best advice and try to game all the scenarios to ensure that, ultimately, the promises made by those delivering these conservation measures can and will be delivered for the entirety of the period. The Bill is deficient because it does not seek and frame that enforceability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 141, but will speak only to my Amendment 170A, which is the important amendment of mine in this group. It seeks to ensure that developers are able to use the existing mitigation hierarchy in dealing with the impacts of their developments to the level that is practical, and only deal with the residual liability under the mitigation hierarchy through contributions to the nature restoration fund. This is important for developers and for protecting the nascent biodiversity net-gain market. It gives flexibility and continues to ensure that the private sector plays a role. We will return to that issue in future groups.

The Minister was reassuring at Second Reading, in Committee and in private meetings that this was the intention of the Bill. I wonder whether she can provide that reassurance today and indicate how this might work in practice. I look forward to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lansley introducing their own amendments—both of which are excellent—and I hope the Minister will listen carefully to both. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69 in my name. We discussed the viability assessment processes in Committee, and Amendment 69 is essentially about encouraging early consultation with the development community. I should at this point, since it is relevant, say that I have a registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, but I emphasise again that the comments I make on the Bill are entirely my own views, rather than any developer’s.

Amendment 69 is really about the sequencing. In making an environmental delivery plan, there is a process of establishing not only the impacts to be mitigated, but the charging schedule. It is really important that, at that stage in making an EDP, the development community is included. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to ensure that it takes up the levy, which we will want it to do wherever possible, or indeed that the charging schedules are correctly structured in order to encourage that to happen, and to deliver effectively the objectives of the EDP.

As far as I can see, there are regulations in Clause 67; there is guidance in Clause 75, and the regulations in Clause 67 must be adhered to in the setting of a charging schedule under Clause 53. However, Clause 58 sets out a long list of those who should be consulted on a draft environmental development plan. It consists of a minimum of eight different kinds of public authorities, and then refers to many other public authorities. However, the only consultation that is required on a draft EDP is with public authorities. This is not good enough. The development community is going to undertake the development. The development community is going to pay the levy. The development community should be included in the consultation on a draft EDP.

Since our objective is that it is mostly a voluntary choice whether to go down the route of levy payments and an EDP, I am afraid that we run the risk of invalidating many of the objectives we are trying to achieve through the establishment of an EDP. I certainly do not plan to press Amendment 69, but I hope the Minister can reassure me on the use of the consultation on a draft EDP, and on the charging schedules in particular, by way of consultation with the development community.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 171A to Clause 69 seeks to create an additional methodology open to Natural England when deciding how best to determine charging schedules for contributions to the nature restoration fund—the NRF. Clause 69(5) sets out the methodologies that Natural England can use to determine what a developer would have to pay under a charging schedule towards the nature restoration fund. It has clearly been written by a planner, not by anyone interested in the environment. It provides that charges should be made with reference to the number of units constructed or the floor-space of the development, with reference to the expected values of the development, the planned uses of the building and even the rate of inflation, yet nowhere does it provide for a methodology to be based on the amount of damage being caused to the protected species covered by the EDP to which the charging schedule should actually relate. This makes no sense.

The purpose of Part 3 is essentially to create a mechanism whereby developers can pay financial compensation to the NRF in lieu of the damage their development might be causing to a protected feature or species, yet those features are not even afforded a mention in the long list of possible methods to calculate payments due. A charging schedule that has no correlation to the actual harm caused to a protected species is unlikely to be able to deliver an improved conservation status for that species. Nor is it fair on developers, since those who avoid protected species and cause no harm would still be obliged to make a payment under a charging schedule. My amendment creates the option—and it is no more than that; it adds to the numerous options already available—for the Government to address this weakness and align the payments due under a charging schedule with the protected species and features they are intended to restore. I look forward to the Government’s response.