Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 104, but, first, I must declare my interests, as this is the first time I have spoken formally in Committee on this Bill. I am still a farmer and land manager, or at least my family is; I now farm and manage land from the perspective of a retired farmer.

Amendment 104 is very much a probing amendment. I approve of the proposed delegation of planning decisions to a sub-committee or to officers of a local authority. This will give a degree of reliability and constancy in the decision-making process, possibly even a degree of speed, which in the planning system as we currently know it would be in most welcome. The proposed training of planning committees in this context is also welcome. It will, I hope, avoid decision-makers succumbing to parochial interests or, worse still, the views of their immediate social circle, whom they might not want to upset, which I have come across.

Therefore, I was surprised to find national park authorities excluded from these sensible improvements. In my experience, national park authorities are no exception to some of the parochialism and resistance to change that occur elsewhere. If anything, the resistance is greater. Some national park authorities do not have a planning committee, and all planning decisions come before the whole authority, with the inevitable resultant delays and, worse still, greater opportunity for parochial subjectivism.

I would trust trained national park officers to be able to take certain planning decisions in line with both national and locally set policies. Above all, those chief officers have the necessary vision that perceives the national park as being there to benefit both the lives of those who live and work in the park and those of people who visit it. I have always seen national parks as being like a branding that needs an overall vision, which includes everything from transport facilities to better landscape management et al, in order to enhance the lives of the many both inside and outside the park. Without that overall vision, which I believe not everyone who sits on a national park authority committee necessarily has, those national parks will fail to maximise their potential. I just wondered why our national landscapes were excluded from this section of the Bill.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I intend to speak to Amendment 103ZA in my name and to Amendment 104 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who has just spoken. While I intend to reserve my comments more broadly on Clause 51 until group 4, where we will debate whether it stands part, I am astonished that we are in the situation where national park authorities are in effect the only kind of local government that this would not apply to. I say that because no one is directly elected on to a national park authority.

Some of the board members may indeed be elected councillors but, by and large, they are appointed as a proportion and the majority are appointed by the Secretary of State and central government. A great irony of this wider debate is that we are most likely removing ways for locally elected councillors to make determinations, but where the Government have already appointed people, they can carry on. It seems an odd thing in this whole set-up.

I have tabled Amendment 103ZA—as I say, I will get on to the merits of the clause in the next group—because I am concerned that with the pressure of the increasing housing targets that have been imposed on local councils, the pressure about aspects of five-year supply, it will be too easy for officers to simply say they have to go beyond the plan that has already been agreed. As has been set out regularly by Ministers in this debate, the local plan is agreed by local people. It is not really, but at least there is an opportunity for the public to contribute towards that determination and it is then decided and voted on by locally elected councillors, who are therefore accountable to their constituents.

The issue of going beyond the boundary of the local plan is important. I see this happen quite a lot in parts of rural areas where developers take a bit of a chance on trying to keep extending the boundary, including by making housing go beyond the local plan boundary and then trying to say that for economic reasons this should all be approved, even though it has already been through a process. I am concerned about that, and I think officers would be less hesitant to simply brush it aside.

The other issue I am very concerned about is housing density, and I have put my name to an amendment attached to Clause 52 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which will be debated later on in the Bill. One example is part of a town called Felixstowe, in Suffolk, where the previous councils had agreed a pretty ambitious local plan building on greenfield to expand the town in what they perceived to be a controlled way but still making sure that the town was going to be vibrant and sustainable. Within that, they specified a particular housing density for the building of some 2,000 houses. That was to constrain it within the envelope of what was deemed to be land suitable for development. It was about 150 houses per whatever the geographic dimension was to reach 2,000. An application was made for outline planning permission. Developers had indicated that of course they would stick within this housing density, but the officers in their analysis presented to councillors considering the outline planning application anticipated the housing density would really be only about 50 if they took into account the extra bits such as access to nature, sustainable drainage and all the different things. So, there we go—and, by the way, I am pretty sure the officers recommended that they accept that outline planning application, knowing full well that they would not get anywhere near the 2,000 houses that had been allocated to the fields on the outside of Felixstowe.

The consequence of that would be that considerably more land would be needed to build the other houses that were due to be built in that part of the district. My concern is that by not being very specific about housing density—and we will come on to this later—we will end up with a lot more sprawl and issues connected with not having gaps between villages and towns.

The reason I have tabled this amendment is to make sure that, if these regulation-making powers do go through to the Secretary of State, for determinations of planning applications such as that, it really must be down to the elected councillors to be able to determine it—in effect, to go against their own plan that they, or their predecessors, had already voted on to approve. We are already aware of how many decisions are delegated to officers in a routine way that is right, but on these things, where the application is contrary to what had already been agreed in the overall strategic purpose, that must be done by elected councillors, who will be accountable to the wider electorate.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 105 in this group. We are not debating that Clause 51 stand part in this group, but I intend to speak to it regardless, because it should be grouped with this, and it will save me having to make another speech on the same subject in the next group.

I do not object to Clause 51; indeed, I support it. There should be a national scheme of delegation. It is an important mechanism by which some of the planning reform policies being pursued can be reinforced in practice in the decision-making processes in local government and assist in the process of speeding up planning decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I think the Government recognise this both in the later parts of this Bill and indeed in what they have done with offshore wind. They recognise that offshore wind will kill a number of sea-birds and that compensation must be made for that.

What we need in this country is a lot more nature. That will take a good chunk of money. It is ridiculous to have a system that just spaffs that money away. We ought to be taking the opportunity of bats, which are pretty mobile creatures. In nature, bats live in cracks in trees. Trees fall down all the time and the bats just move home. We are worrying about bats in a completely ridiculous way. We are wasting huge sums of money and we must stop.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 51 may look innocuous, but I am concerned that it is removing the effect of democracy. National democracy is imposing its will against the will of the local people. I was reflecting on when in 2013 I was on the Bill Committee for the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, now Act. The House of Commons Committee sat for seven days on a Bill of 28 clauses. This Bill went through the Commons in seven days, with 97 clauses being considered. That is why it is important that this House takes the appropriate time. Interestingly, back then the Lords sat for only five days on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, with the Commons having done a much more thorough job, and that is something for us to think about.

On Clause 51, I was struck by what the Minister said to me on the previous group when I had specifically singled out issues that went against the local plan. The Government’s guide to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on GOV.UK specifically says that controversial decisions should be done by planning committee and that the best way for councillors and local communities to be involved is in the creation of the local plan—I am paraphrasing slightly. Local plans are not created every four years—sometimes it feels as if they take more than four years to create, although they should not—so I was somewhat surprised when the Minister said that planning applications not in line with the local plan are not necessarily always controversial, so we should not worry about them and allow officers to make that decision. I would love to hear some examples of planning applications that are not consistent with the local plan and have not then been controversial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

Would the noble Baroness accept that even a small number of illegal immigrants in a tiny village can have as much effect as a larger number in an urban area?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

It is reflective of what is proportionate to the local community. My noble friend Lord Framlingham will be aware of the legal judgments of the past few years where some large-scale accommodation sites were deemed unlawful. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough said, the current Government are trying to work this out and balance it as well. It is not a straightforward action, so I will not criticise them for it. However, it is certainly valid to have this debate about whether these hotels need a separate planning class, recognising the decision that was made last week in the Court of Appeal.

Houses in multiple occupation require both planning permission and a licence. I do not want us to get into the situation of having to license hotels. However, HMOs have both because the accommodation is being used in a perhaps non-traditional way compared to its original intention. Therefore, extra conditions are put on by the local council or there is deliberate consideration, recognising the change in impact that the transfer of traditional uses of accommodation to others can have on the local community. Therefore, while I expect that the Government will probably brush this aside, it is important to understand the temperature, but also what we have done in the past to recognise when things have changed significantly, in order to make sure that decisions are made carefully, considerately and competently when addressing this type of situation.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the sheer hypocrisy of those on the Conservative Benches seems to know no bounds. As we have heard, it was in 2020 that this scale and number of hotels being used for asylum seekers began in earnest. It seems that it has taken five years for Members on the Conservative Benches to come to the conclusion that it may have been necessary for the use of these hotels to require planning consent. What on earth has triggered their sudden interest in planning issues for hotels harbouring asylum seekers? I am struggling to think what the issue could be. What I do know—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

112: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Permitted development and demolition: assets of community value(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph B.1 of Part 11 of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (e) insert—“(f) the building is designated as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that buildings which have been designated as assets of community value cannot be demolished through permitted development rights.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 112 regards assets of community value and demolition through permitted development rights. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Carrington of Fulham for signing this amendment. They both informed me that they could not be here at this point but I know that they support the spirit of it. I will also talk to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about assets of cultural value, which is supported by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

This amendment is designed for communities that go to the trouble of putting together an asset of community value. That is a reasonably high bar, by the way. It is not just proving that something has been enjoyed by the community. There is also an element of showing that, if it came up for sale, the community would have the wherewithal to buy that asset. Right now, it is very easy for the original owner, perhaps somewhat frustrated by wanting a change in use for that asset, to demolish it. Suddenly, it evaporates. They do not need any planning permission to get rid of it. There is no protection for the asset of community value.

You may ask, “Would this ever happen?”, but it has happened. I recall a place called Rendlesham in Suffolk, widely known for the story about it having UFOs. It used to be a US airbase and it still has a NATO runway. The US Air Force handed it over to the UK Government, who continued to use it, but over time it was not needed so it was sold to a developer. It is a lovely community and reasonably good for developing more homes and creating a community. The developer put out a wonderful brochure and was selling this vision.

People may be aware that US Air Force facilities, and military facilities generally, tend to have big, ambitious buildings. Even their schools have huge corridors. There was a wonderful sports hall and a wonderful theatre. The selling of this community, right next to the magnificent Rendlesham Forest, although admittedly with a military base still nearby, was part of the mission, and led to it becoming a place where the council thought it was good to grow and, over time, extend its boundary.

I do not know who did the original deal, but the deal was that the developers had to make sure that both the theatre and the sports centre stayed open for at least 10 years. By my recollection, pretty much a day or two after the 10 years were over, the developers closed both facilities. They wanted to get rid of them and convert them into commercial shops and more housing. Understandably, the community was up in arms.

--- Later in debate ---

That said, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I really enjoyed that debate, not only because it was a trip down memory lane for some, but also because of the support for it—dare I say, apart from the Minister. I am hoping that she might agree to potentially meet me and others who have expressed a view of support.

I genuinely appreciate what the Minister says about making it easier to buy. I guess what I am trying to address, and what other Lords have recognised, is that “If it ain’t there, you can’t buy it”. I hope that perhaps the Government will think again, even if it means modifying another Bill rather than this Bill.

I will simply also say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that I recognise his ambition on extending it further, but just trying to achieve something simple and straightforward would go a long way to reflect the intentions of what the Government and your Lordships have shown by their contributions tonight, that they want communities to be able to have assets they really value. I hope the Government will change their mind in due course. With that, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 112 withdrawn.