Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[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?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying and I think Part 3 is so devastating, but I am not going to do a Second Reading speech, because I was pretty critical then. In respect of the amendments here, I particularly like Amendment 174. I also support the amendments on annual reporting.

On the best available scientific evidence, I think it is just worth considering this. I agree entirely that we have to have the scientific evidence, but one of the issues that Natural England has regularly been criticised for in terms of development is, for example, offshore wind farms. The Government are very clear they believe they are absolutely vital in terms of achieving net zero or, indeed, decarbonising electricity by 2030. It is the situation, however, that developers are then asked to do at least two seasons of what impact there will be on birds, and elements like that. One of the key reasons why so many projects get delayed is the extent of the evidence required in order to satisfy the decisions.

Having been a Secretary of State for Defra, and in charge of the R&D budget, I can assure noble Lords the House that every scientist will keep saying, “There’s a gap in the evidence” when they want more money. I am not complaining about that, but we need to make sure that we have appropriate evidence. We should not ignore the science, but to continue to try to say “the best available” means we could be here for a very long time. That may be the benefit that some people wish to achieve, but, while we definitely need proper scientific evidence, we have to balance what is ever going to be the best available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I did say not to trust any more amendments from this side, but this is one I will vote for if the noble Lord puts it to the House. It is worth repeating that there is no downside. Secondly, there are eight species that use these swift bricks, four of which are red-listed. So this is a much bigger issue than swifts—sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. It is for our native birds, and we should keep that in mind when we vote.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 138 tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough. Non-native invasive species are one of the top five pressures on biodiversity. It is extraordinary that despite there being a variety of government strategies under way, there is still, frankly, a lack of stuff really getting done. It is vital that as and when—or if—these EDPs get created, this must be tackled.

I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, speak to the Senior Deputy Speaker. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, when he was a Defra Minister, was obsessed by biosecurity and tackling these invasive species. He used to pull up not the Japanese one but the balsam stuff—

[Noble Lords]

Himalayan balsam.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

So apparently he is a dab hand at that.

I co-signed one of the amendments, tabled by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. I will certainly push for us to test the opinion of the House on that amendment on Monday night. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, but there is a risk of letting perfect be the enemy of good. There is no doubt that the lack of insects is a key factor in what is happening with habitats, but so is the lack of a place where the swifts can land and thrive. As has been pointed out, other species are also affected.

When I was at Defra, there was always a row with MHCLG about this. MHCLG regularly complained—obfuscated, frankly—about how an extra £20 to £30 would absolutely wipe out the housebuilding industry. Honestly, that is complete nonsense. Steve Reed supported swift bricks when he was the Environment Secretary; now that he is the Housing Secretary, I hope he can persuade the Treasury that it is okay to have swift bricks as standard, and I am sure that there are many other measures that people would like. This is simple and straightforward; let us save our swifts.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for tabling Amendment 138. I will be extremely brief and I will explain why in a second. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. We all need to be extremely mindful of invasive non-native species and the pressures they put on our beautiful, natural countryside.

Moving on swiftly—no joke intended—we support Amendment 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Amendments on swift bricks are a bit like buses: you wait ages and then two come along. We have another amendment in the next group. I am almost excited now in anticipation of the critique of Amendment 140 from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.

We will develop our arguments on swift bricks, plus other measures, in the next set of amendments. As a slight precursor to that, I will say that we believe that the right way of doing things is to have a level playing field with developers and ensuring that everyone is asked to put in swift bricks. They cost 30 quid per brick, as I understand it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has already said, this is not going to break the bank of any developers, especially with their net profits. We will support this amendment if it moves to a vote, but we are also very keen to get to the next group. I apologise to the House that we did not manage to get these two sets of amendments in the same group, which would have been much more sensible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, here we are again. The urgency of the nature crisis demands that we stop relying on—in our view—voluntary commitments and shift to mandatory ones or regulation. I am sorry that we are going back to a subject that we have already rehearsed quite a bit, but it is still important. My amendment also expands which kind of species we try to include within building regulations.

I thank the Minister for a meeting we had only yesterday where we tried to work through some of these issues. I have definitely heard, both yesterday and today, the concern she has about embedding some of these issues within building regulations, but I would still argue that making sure there is a level playing field and that developers have clarity of ask is still worth trying for, so I would like to explore it again.

Amendment 140—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for signing it—would require the Secretary of State to introduce building regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity within six months of the Act passing. These regulations should include specific measures such as swift bricks, bat boxes and hedgehog highways. The question asked is why building regulations are the appropriate mechanisms for features such as this, and the answer is clarity, consistency and enforceability. Relying on the fluidity of planning policy or non-statutory commitments leads to systemic failure in delivery. Surveys show that ecological features promised in planning approval, such as bat and bird boxes and hedgehog highways, are often—surprise, surprise—missing post-construction. Mandating their inclusion via building regulations would ensure that every new home contributes to halting the decline in species abundance, aligning with our legal duties under the Environment Act 2021.

Building regulations already incorporate mechanisms for exemptions, including where installation is impractical —this may be something that we could explore—such as near airports, where flexibility is retained. We must ensure that these proven, low-cost features are delivered universally, moving past discretion and local planning controls. It is notable that, for instance, some local authorities mandate this already, including some Labour ones. I am very happy to supply to the Minister the list of the Labour authorities that already do it. It would be great to make this a level playing field across all local authorities. That is what we are trying to achieve here.

I welcome with interest the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Any measure that encourages the creation of water bodies obviously needs to be subject to rigorous standards to ensure environmental gain. I look forward to hearing her words and the response to the amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for putting her name to my amendment. I have in turn put my name to her Amendment 246. It aims to compel the Secretary of State to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to incorporate measures that reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings, alongside issuing relevant guidance. We support this necessary move to strengthen design quality. This amendment addresses an avoidable cause of fatalities and would make a very useful contribution to combating the ongoing decline in bird species, which, as we have already heard on the last group, is so significant at the moment. It is very much aligned with the approach that we on these Benches would like to take of pursuing meaningful, preventive ecological outcomes, rather than allowing damage and scrambling for compensation afterwards, which we fear is a bit of a feature of some of the measures in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 203A, which is about permitted development for ponds. I listened in Committee to concerns that the original proposal I put in, for ponds the size of a hectare, could introduce other uses for something with such a permitted development right. That is why I have returned with a surface area of less than 0.25 hectares.

Your Lordships will know that the only way that Peers can adjust regulations is by putting primary legislation in place. But I encourage the Government to go through the statute book, think about the plan to achieve the Environment Act and how we are going to tackle the national biodiversity strategy plan, and make it as easy as possible for there to be thousands of new ponds around the country. That will help newts, amphibians, mammals, insects and plants—it is not always just about the fauna; the flora matter too. As a consequence, I am keen to hear positive noises from the Government before considering whether to test the opinion of the House next week.

On Amendment 140, there is a lot to be commended in what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said. This is about trying to make it as easy as possible for people, organisations and councils or whoever to do the right thing, because it is critical for the future of our planet.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, we should make our homes and houses and gardens as supportive to the lives of other species as is feasible, especially where the solutions are so low-cost. I was very happy to add my name to Amendment 140, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

I refrained from wading into the swift box debate previously, but I consider this amendment to be swift box-plus, and I support it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Krebs about the behaviour of swifts—I have had the joy of filming them in the tower in Oxford. I also know that these boxes are heavily used by other species. Therefore, I support the use of swift bricks, nest boxes and anything that costs virtually nothing.

I recognise that the Government are not keen to change building regulations. I note that adding spaces is free and does not have to be under the name of nature. Perhaps we could change building regulations to add some spaces without specifically saying that it is for nature —for instance, leaving gaps under fences for hedgehog highways. We do not have to commercialise this; we can just say that leaving a gap is a good thing to do.

My Amendment 246, on bird-safe design, is supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and by the Animal Sentience Committee, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. I have spoken about this in Committee, but I remind noble Lords that an estimated 30 million birds a year are killed by glass windows in the UK, and free or cheap solutions exist which can reduce these collisions by over 90%. Bird-safe design is already legislated for in many other jurisdictions, all based on good research done at major centres in the US and Europe.

I have spoken about bird-safe glass and how its patterned or UV coating can make it visible to birds. I want to make the additional point that these coatings, blinds or louvres, which we see often in glass office blocks, also help with thermal protection, so bird safety can easily be combined with net-zero building requirements, at no extra cost. That is just a little thought: the regulations that deal with one could also deal with the other.

I emphasise that most bird-safe design is free and does not get in the way of house or office building. For example, if a bird hits the office glass and falls into those little ventilation shafts or drainage grilles that you get at the bottom of big glass offices, they fall through the grille if it is too large and then come round in a space that they cannot get out of and can starve to death. Simply mandating that the grille size is smaller than 2 centimetres can stop birds getting stuck in them in the first place. These are the tiny things that can help. They are already specified in guidance in Canada, the US, Singapore and Switzerland. We have no such guidance here.

In Committee and in a helpful meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government said that they were sympathetic to the principles but did not want to change building standards to encompass nature as well as humans. I have changed my amendment to specify an addition to the NPPF instead, as part of its updating. The NPPF already includes things such as swift bricks but does not address bird safety at all. This is a big surprise to people from other countries, where bird-safe building design is much higher profile. We have a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 not to recklessly kill birds. Given that a simple and cheap change to building design could so dramatically reduce the number of birds being killed by our buildings, adding it to the NPPF and issuing a guidance booklet, as is done in so many other countries, is really necessary.

I very much hope to hear something positive from the Minister tonight. If the Government agree with the principles but have a different way that they would want to implement them then I am all ears, but this is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I think that whatever their plans are should be in it. I reserve the right to ask the opinion of House next week if I am not satisfied with her answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. He is right that there is no way that Part 3 could have been crafted by anyone in Defra. It has absolutely been done by the local government department. That shows in almost every square inch of what we read.

I was asked to table Amendment 173A by the CLA. It is about ring-fencing the nature restoration levy. The risk at the moment is that the nature ring-fence applies only to the expenditure of levy income by Natural England. If funds are transferred away from Natural England or if the levy is collected and spent by another department or public body—both scenarios are actively permitted under this Bill—the ring-fence disappears. The overall design of Part 3 therefore allows levy cash to be collected by the Treasury and subsumed into wider government business as well as to be used to fund Natural England’s general functions. As compensation measures envisaged under EDPs are not legally required to be delivered, Part 3 creates a potentially substantial tax revenue stream for central government without any consultation or manifesto mandate if this ring-fence is not fixed.

I expect the Chancellor will not be reading my speech, but I can imagine that Treasury officials will be scrambling anywhere and everywhere to get money for a variety of purposes. It is as important for developers as it is for nature that this ring-fence is watertight and that nature compensation measures are funded and credible. If levy cash is instead appropriated for different purposes, the lack of funding for nature compensation would be a material consideration in planning that would allow the refusal of planning permissions. It is well known that hundreds of millions—billions—of pounds were collected under the apprenticeship levy and never applied to apprenticeships. We have to be mindful of the risks that could happen with this levy and whether nature will truly benefit.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I have spoken about the lifetime of the EDP and the enforceability of measures, but now we get to the price to be charged. I will amplify some of the points in Amendment 141. There are very large sums of money and long periods to be considered here. I do not really care whether MHCLG or Defra has drafted all this stuff as none of them really understands how to discount a cash flow. That is clear. If you are someone who has bought a house from the developer on the basis that the nutrient neutrality obligation has been washed away, hidden in the price of your new home is the market rate for mitigating a new dwelling-house, which in Norfolk is somewhere between £5,000 and £15,000. That is quite a sum.

In Committee, noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, multiplied present prices paid by the number of mitigations in a scheme, got to multi-million pound sums and wondered what would happen to the profit. Well, if only. The profit really depends on the annualised cost of providing the measures, not in one year but over 80 years discounted back to the present value, and none of this understanding is in the Bill.

I know as part of Norfolk Environmental Credits, which I founded on behalf of the local councils, that notwithstanding that we have sold more than £10 million- worth of mitigations, the balance sheet value is zero because of the way that international accounting rules require us to discount the revenues against the costs over the whole period for 80 years. There is no corporation tax to be paid or profit to be booked, only risks and liabilities to be hedged, keeping our fingers crossed that inflation and interest are kept on top of until the last few years, possibly as far away as 75 years’ time, when we will all be dead and the money nearly exhausted unless, of course, the provider has not got his sums right, in which case he would have gone bust years previously. None of this is contemplated by the Bill.

We discussed this in Committee, but there is no more detail here on Report. I think it would be sensible for the Bill to contemplate some benchmark accounting standards to value the upfront cash contributions against the tail liabilities on a consistent basis. The reason is that if we do that and get a level playing field, we will get private operators innovating and competing on the same basis to drive costs down, while still maintaining the obligations. The Bill is silent on all this and, as a result, we will never get the leading private markets in nature mitigation going, which will be a missed economic opportunity for our nation.

What consideration have the Government given to providing a consistency of accounting approach, coupled with the enforceability I spoke of on the previous group? The Bill is long on aspiration but conspicuously silent on the legal, contractual, commercial ways of achieving these objectives. Without commercial contractability, we are never going to get delivery. It is bound to fail unless these things are belatedly considered at Third Reading, but it is very late in the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 148 is an attempt to try and make the much-vaunted win-win for nature and the economy a reality. Kicking off, I thank my co-sponsors for supporting this amendment and indeed the Minister and her team for the various meetings where I have tried to persuade her of the merits of this case.

I would contend that this amendment provides a very pragmatic approach. We are taking the Government at their word; they have said that:

“Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP”.—[Official Report, 17/9/25; col. 2249.]


That in itself is welcome, but it is just words and there is no clarity in the Bill about how the scientific evidence will be assessed, nor how the environmental impacts will be considered. That is why this amendment calls for these important environmental principles to be put in regulations. We are not saying they have to go on the face of the Bill, but we have asked for regulations to give people the confidence about the environmental safeguards that we want to see, and which our dwindling wildlife needs, if we are to meet our own legally binding environmental targets.

The first of those environmental principles, and the most important by some degree, is that of the mitigation hierarchy: in the first instance, one seeks to avoid damage; if that cannot be satisfied, then one reduces; and then, only if all other avenues have been explored, one moves to compensation. The Government have, despite repeated requests, not given any further clarity on the guidance note which said there is a

“continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs”.

As I say, we have not seen anything clearer than that, and we know that a guidance note, in itself, is not sufficient.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said:

“the mitigation hierarchy is expressed through this model, with government amendments underlining the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs”.—[Official Report, 17/9/25; cols. 2239-2240.]

Again, that is all well and good, but it is not on the face of the Bill. We are quite clear that the mitigation hierarchy is so important that how it will be applied needs to be spelled out in regulations. This would not stop the Government going ahead with their new approach for these EDPs; it would just require them to be able to prove that all the steps have been gone through, during the process of drawing up an EDP, to make it absolutely clear that in terms of conservations outcomes this is the best route to go down.

Equally, these regulations would spell out how the precautionary principle would be used in assessing the scientific evidence, because we cannot face the prospect of an EDP that allows damage which could not be repaired by mitigation elsewhere.

As mentioned in our earlier debate on Amendment 130, the regulations would also set out the assessment for the baseline conditions, giving people the confidence that the quality of the information is the best available and not just from impact modelling.

Again, we are taking the Government at their word. In Committee, the Minister said unequivocally that irreplaceable habitats would not be included in an EDP; through these regulations, then, let us put that in the make-up of the EDP. Let us be clear: there are other regulations—including on biodiversity net gain, which were introduced by the previous Government—which spell out that irreplaceable habitats will not be included within the scope of those provisions.

Finally, again taking the Government at their word in Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about how there will be circumstances in which conservation actions must be taken before development can take place—great, but we need that spelled out. The regulations would be the means to do that.

As I say, we are trying to be helpful to the Government, not only because we need those environmental safeguards for the Government to meet their environmental targets but because these EDPs are a completely new process. We have got to give businesses the confidence that, if they say, “Yes, we will go with these EDPs”, there is certainty that they will not be challenged. As it stands at the moment, there is no clarity about the scientific evidence or assessment of the environmental impacts. I am deeply worried that, unless this amendment is accepted, there will be far more challenges to the Government in their approach, which will not deliver the certainty for developers and will not deliver the houses and infrastructure that the country needs. I offer this amendment to the Government as a helpful approach to deliver for the environment and to get us building houses with the certainty we need as soon as possible. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 236A. I need to apologise to the House; the amendment is deficient in its drafting. I did not realise that in time to withdraw it but, as a consequence, I am happy for the Front Benches to completely ignore Amendment 236A. That said, I support Amendment 148 and if the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, puts it to a vote, I will support her.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

I rise briefly, because I spoke already on these matters on Amendment 130. All the concerns that I had about the scientific evidence and its basis are covered very nicely in this amendment. I would support the noble Baroness if she decided to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group. The purpose of the amendments is to impose further discipline on Natural England in the exercise of its CPO powers relating to EDPs and potentially to remove them.

Amendments 153 and 160 seek to impose enhanced Crichel Down rules on Natural England in regard to any land that is acquired by Natural England for an EDP under a CPO or the threat of a CPO. The intention of the amendments is that, if the land is not required for an EDP, or if the EDP is revoked or expires, the land is returned to the previous owner. In practice, I would expect that the previous owner should pay the lower of market value or the net value after expenses and tax that was realised on the initial sale. This is slightly different to the Crichel Down rules, which require the offer of the land back at market value, should the land be about to be offered for sale, and is therefore a greater protection to the original owner. I hope that the Minister can offer encouragement on these points.

Amendment 189A would modify the requirement that Natural England’s compulsory purchase powers be subject to Secretary of State approval. The amendment would have the force of requiring Natural England to share with the Secretary of State all documentation and communication relevant to the decision, as well as allowing the landowner impacted to make a written submission of their own case. The amendment would place on Natural England a greater requirement for diligence in the exercise of these powers and allow private landowners, who may feel the injustice of the compulsory purchase, to state their case.

Amendment 190 seeks to protect gardens and allotments from the compulsory purchase powers available to Natural England. In the Bill, it appears that Natural England explicitly does have the power to CPO such property. In meetings and in Committee, the Minister stated that that would be very unlikely ever to happen. In that case, why does this power need to be included in the Bill?

Should the Minister be minded to adopt these suggestions, our Amendment 191, which removes Natural England’s CPO power for EDPs entirely, may not be necessary. But, if we were not to get satisfaction, we would be very inclined to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I just want to refer to Amendment 190. Often when we are tabling legislation, people say, “Well, that’ll never happen”, but it does in a different way.

I remember a coastal path in parts of Yorkshire where Natural England had a writ for it to go through gardens. Understandably, the homeowners were very upset. Finally, at my insistence, Natural England did change the path, because I said the regulations would never be laid. There is an element here of why I understand why my noble friend Lord Roborough has tabled this amendment, and I hope that the Government will give him sufficient assurance.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to which I have added my name.

Amendment 190 raises an important issue about the use of compulsory purchase orders in relation to environmental delivery plans. It seeks to prevent land that is part of a home or garden from being subject to such an order. This is a reasonable and proportionate safeguard, recognising the sensitivities that come with any proposal to acquire private property and the importance of ensuring that powers of this kind are used only where it is truly necessary for the public good.

This question sits within a much wider context of how we support land management and environmental delivery. Post Brexit and post the CAP, Governments of both colours have tried and often struggled to deliver mechanisms that provide public and private funding for farmers to deliver public goods. The number one priority of the National Farmers’ Union has always been that such schemes should be open to all farmers, allowing them to continue vital environmental projects as part of profitable, resilient businesses.

Moving on to the intentions behind Clause 83 and the desire to ensure that environmental delivery plans can be delivered effectively, there remains a need for greater clarity from the Government on how these compulsory purchase orders would operate in practice. I would particularly welcome assurances on the safeguards that will apply, the circumstances in which such powers might be used and whether the Government believe that there are sufficient limits to prevent their overreach.