Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Wera Hobhouse, Dr Rupa Huq, † Christine Jardine, Derek Twigg

† Amos, Gideon (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)

Caliskan, Nesil (Barking) (Lab)

† Chowns, Ellie (North Herefordshire) (Green)

† Cocking, Lewis (Broxbourne) (Con)

† Dickson, Jim (Dartford) (Lab)

† Ferguson, Mark (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)

† Glover, Olly (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)

Grady, John (Glasgow East) (Lab)

Holmes, Paul (Hamble Valley) (Con)

† Kitchen, Gen (Wellingborough and Rushden) (Lab)

† Martin, Amanda (Portsmouth North) (Lab)

† Murphy, Luke (Basingstoke) (Lab)

† Pennycook, Matthew (Minister for Housing and Planning)

† Pitcher, Lee (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)

† Shanks, Michael (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero)

† Simmonds, David (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)

† Taylor, Rachel (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)

Simon Armitage, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

11:30:00

I ask Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are now allowed during sittings. I remind Members that interventions are taken at the discretion of the Member who has the Floor and that they should be short and relevant. Members may bob to make a speech if they want to speak at more length. The Committee will be considering new clauses today. As a reminder, new clauses will be considered in numerical order, as on the amendment paper and on the selection and grouping paper. They may be grouped with other new clauses for the purposes of debate, and where a new clause has been debated previously, it cannot be debated further when it is reached. Members should let me know if they wish to push it to a vote. The Committee will conclude its consideration of the Bill at 5 pm. I refer Members to the detailed advice circulated to them by the Clerks in advance of the sitting. To recap, however, if the Committee is still considering the Bill at 5 pm, the Chair must interrupt and bring proceedings to a close. After 5 pm, there can be no further debate on any remaining propositions. The Chair will, in accordance with the Standing Order, put the questions on the new clause that was under discussion at 5 pm, on any outstanding Government amendment and on any remaining clause stand part questions before reporting the Bill. I also have discretion to put the question on any non-Government new clauses that have previously been debated. New clauses that have not been debated cannot be considered or voted on. Should any Member wish to request a vote on a previously debated new clause, they should let me know in advance.

On a point of order, Ms Jardine. You said that debate would continue until 5 pm, but I have just been told by the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden that she intends to stop debate at 1 o’clock.

I am sorry. There are two separate things. We will stop at 1 pm and adjourning until the afternoon sitting, unless we are finished at that point, in which case good. The latest that debate can continue to, however, is 5 pm.

Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine. So if we have not got through all the new clauses in this sitting, we will continue this afternoon.

Yes, until 5 pm, but if we can get through the new clauses before then it would be helpful. New Clause 10 New car parks to include solar panels “(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for the building of an above-ground car park which does not make the required provision of solar panels. (2) The required provision of solar panels is an amount equivalent to 50% of the surface area of the car park.”—(Olly Glover.) This new clause would require solar panels to be provided with all new car parks. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss New clause 31—Incentives for installing solar panels— “(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a scheme under which specified parties who install or incorporate fitted solar panels on a specified property, whether as permitted development or following a grant of planning permission, receive financial benefits or rewards. (2) For the purposes of this section— ‘specified parties’ means homeowners and the owners of car parks; ‘specified properties’ means the home of the homeowner or the owner’s car park.” This new clause would create a new scheme to provide financial incentive to homeowners and carpark owners who install solar panels on their properties.

Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I have moved new clause 10 and will speak to new clause 31, both tabled by the Liberal Democrats. New clause 10 would require solar panels to be provided on all new car parks and new clause 31 would create a scheme to provide financial incentives to homeowners and car park owners who install solar panels on their properties. Clearly, the main driver of the new clauses is the climate change challenge that we face but, as I said previously in Committee, it is not just a challenge, but an opportunity: embracing more solar power generation enables us to become more self-sufficient in energy generation, and homeowners and others to reduce their energy bills. That is a good example of something that helps people, planet and economy. New and existing car parks could provide 11.4 GW of solar capacity, which would go a long way towards reaching the Government target of 70 GW of solar by 2035. If land is already being used for a car park, why not make more use of that land and generate renewable energy? Generating energy close to where it is used means fewer energy losses, which is more efficient and makes the energy cheaper to the end user. That is an example of the sort of local electricity grids that we need to move towards in the 21st century of power generation. Existing and new car parks, and non-domestic roofs between 50 kW and 1,000 kW, have costs comparable to solar farms, and so could be similarly economically attractive. Solar farms are predominantly rural and can require extensive planning permission and additional construction costs due to location, such as long-length cables and large transformers. Car parks also provide the opportunity to use the energy generated directly to charge electric vehicles, thereby relieving pressure on the grid and making driving electric vehicles more attractive. The Government have been clear about their aspiration for us to move to electric vehicles as standard. In 2022, France introduced similar legislation to that which we are proposing, and it took effect in 2023. The French Government calculated that the measure will result in a capacity of between 6.75 GW and 11.25 GW. For context, Drax, the UK’s largest power station, has a capacity of between a quarter and a half of that, at just 2.6 GW. If not mandated, incentivising such schemes should be the minimum requirement. We are not using car parking space to its full potential, so I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity to change that by supporting the new clause.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I have missed our Wednesday “Politics Scotland” soirées, so it is nice to be with you again. I will begin by speaking to new clause 10. I was going to speak to new clause 31 as well, but I do not know whether anyone intends to move it. New clause 10, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would require the provision of solar panels on at least 50% of the surface area of above-ground car parks. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, and we share his ambition. Indeed, in the “Clean Power 2030 Action Plan”, which we published just before Christmas, we outlined the pathway to achieving a clean power system. Solar photovoltaic deployment is a key component of that, and through the plan we hope to increase solar output from 18 GW to between 45 GW and 47 GW by 2030. We were very clear in the plan that we saw solar PV as a real opportunity, but we also stated our intention to gather evidence on the potential of putting solar canopies on car parks. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out, although that principle seems entirely sensible and something that I would entirely agree with, there are some details that we would want to work out on how it could be delivered and the economics of it. That is why we are consulting right now. Our call for evidence is open on the potential for mandatory installation of solar canopies on new car parks, and indeed on increasing the potential for solar on current car parks. It is important that we properly engage with industry on this question, particularly on the economics of how it could be delivered because we want to be really clear on the impact that it could have on car parks and of course on the users of car parks if costs are passed on. I assure both hon. Members that we are in favour of the idea. Fundamentally, we want solar to be part of our pathway to clean power. If it can be deployed on the rooftops of industrial buildings, car parks, warehouses or any rooftop we can use, that clearly is the best and easiest way to do it, but we want an adequate evidence base before we do that. For that reason, we will not support the new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage appreciates that we broadly agree with the general direction that he is proposing.

I thank the Minister for his thoughtful comments. We understand that there will be some technical details to look into, although of course that is the case for many aspects of the Bill overall. We wish to press the new clause to a vote, because we think this is a very important topic and that this is an opportunity to be progressed. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

34|0|3|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 12

Right to appeal against approved applications

“In section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission which—

(a) does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated, or

(b) is a major application,

the parties specified in subsection (2B) may appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision to approve the application.

(2B) The parties are—

(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the application in writing to the relevant planning authority;

(b) any other persons that a person appointed by the Secretary of State uses their discretion to permit to appeal.

(2C) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to—

(a) define “major application” for the purposes of subsection (2A)(b);

(b) consider parties to be permitted to appeal against a decision to approve an application under subsection (2B)(b).’”—(Ellie Chowns.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Dismissal of appeal or referral— “In section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of appeals), after subsection (6A) insert— ‘(6B) The Secretary of State may dismiss an appeal or referral where, having considered the appeal or referral, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the appeal or referral is— (a) vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or (b) made with the sole intention of— (i) delaying the development, or (ii) securing the payment of money, gifts or other inducement by any person.’” This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to dismiss appeals or referrals in certain circumstances.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. New clauses 12 and 13 relate to the introduction of a community right of appeal against planning applications that are approved contrary to the local development plan. That includes policy in local and neighbourhood plans. New clause 12 reflects the wider need to rebuild public trust in a system that is perceived to be dominated by the power of private sector development interests. It has additional importance in the context of the provisions in the Bill to restrict democratic oversight of planning decisions by locally elected members, which would mean that planning officers and not councillors would decide on the final outcomes of major planning applications. New clause 12 would address the unfairness in our planning system, whereby only applicants have a right to appeal planning decisions. It would create a strictly limited community right of appeal that applies only when decisions are approved contrary to local planning policy; it would balance things up by creating a reciprocal right of appeal, essentially. That reflects the minimal opportunities that are currently available to the public in the taking of development management decisions and the frustration caused when decisions are made that go against local and neighbourhood plans that have been agreed by communities. New clause 13 is an additional safeguard to give the Secretary of State powers to intervene if the community appeal is considered to be vexatious. Taken together, the new clauses are proportionate and limited measures that could begin to rebuild public trust in the planning system. Creating such a qualified right was an important recommendation of the Raynsford review of planning in 2018, which was produced by the Town and Country Planning Association. I warmly commend the new clauses to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, and I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to the two new clauses, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). We have a long-established and much-valued right of appeal in the planning system. It recognises that the system acts as a control on how an individual may use their land. That existing right of appeal compensates for the removal of the individual’s right to develop. The planning system already enables community involvement through the preparation of local development plans and neighbourhood plans, and through consultation on individual planning applications. Given that these opportunities already exist, the Government do not believe that it is either necessary or helpful to introduce a right of appeal for interested parties. New clause 12 would serve only to discourage early involvement in the planning process or lead to repeated consideration of issues that have already been raised and addressed during the planning application process. In our view, adding a new appeal process to the planning system would create more delay, costs, complexity and unpredictability, undermining confidence in the system and ultimately delaying the delivery of new housing and economic development at a time when we need to get Britain building again, which we have been very clear about. For that reason, we will not be able to accept new clause 12. I turn to new clause 13. We do not believe that we should extend appeal rights to third parties, which again would serve only to delay the planning process and hinder the development of new housing and economic development. Although I welcome the sentiment behind the new clause—namely, to deter appeals submitted for spurious or non-planning reasons—in our view there are already appropriate measures in place to respond to such appeals through the awards of cost regime. The appeal system in the awards of cost regime helps to stop unmeritorious appeals by making those who submit them pay costs, thereby discouraging vexatious or frivolous cases. For those reasons, the Government will not be able to accept either new clause.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 16 Refusal of planning permission for countryside development close to large electricity pylons “(1) If an application is made for planning permission or permission in principle relating to large scale housing development in the countryside which— (a) may lead to affordable housing being built within 100m of the centreline of any high voltage overhead electrical transmission system; or (b) may lead to any new residential dwelling or new residential garden being within 50m of the centreline of any high voltage overhead electrical transmission system the local planning authority must refuse the application. (2) This section applies to any planning permission for large scale housing development in the countryside for which a decision notice has been issued by a local planning authority since 11 May 2022. (3) If planning permission has been granted for development to which this section applies which contravenes subsection (1), that planning permission shall be revoked. (4) The revocation of planning permission for the carrying out of building or other operations shall not affect so much of those operations as has been previously carried out. (5) In this section— ‘large scale housing development’ means any development which includes more than 500 houses; ‘countryside’ includes any predominantly agricultural, rural or greenfield land; ‘may lead to’ includes plans for housing shown in any outline or illustrative masterplan; ‘high voltage overhead electrical transmission system’ means any overhead electrical transmission system at or over 275kV.”—(Gideon Amos.) Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 29—Inclusion of wildbelt in planning considerations— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act— (a) create a category of protection for wildbelt areas in England for the purpose of permanently protecting such areas from or during development, and (b) issue guidance for local planning authorities and other relevant parties on how wildbelt land is to be protected. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), ‘permanently protecting’ areas means protecting or restoring the natural environment in a wildbelt area, and in ecosystems functionally connected to a wildbelt area. (3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) must— (a) provide assistance to local planning authorities and others on the identification of wildbelt sites; (b) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the development of spatial development strategies regarding— (i) the use of Local Nature Recovery Strategies to protect and enhance wildbelt; (ii) the reporting of progress towards the development of wildbelt sites; and (iii) the reporting of progress towards the use of wildbelt designation to increase public access to nature. (4) For the purposes of this section, ‘wildbelt’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify in guidance, but must include— (a) areas of land; (b) bodies of water and adjacent land; (c) wetlands.” This new clause would enable the creation of new wildbelt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding the use of provisions of the bill to protect wildbelt areas. New clause 47—Prohibition of solar development on higher-quality agricultural land— “No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve— (a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and (b) building or installation at ground-level.” This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher quality agricultural land. New clause 74—Conditions for installation of solar panels on productive land— “Where an application for permission proposes the installation of solar panels on land used or suitable for agricultural production, it must be a condition of any grant of consent that such panels are installed at a minimum height of one metre from the ground.”

11:45:00

I rise to speak to new clause 29, which would enable the creation of new wild belt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding them. In January, the Office for Environmental Protection reported that the Government are off track for meeting the nature recovery target set out in the Environment Act 2024 and the related commitment to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030—the 30 by 30 target, which was really important. Getting nature recovery back on track will require the restoration of hundreds of thousands of natural habitats. A new claim designation will be needed to achieve that upgrading and uprating of habitat protection land. For example, sites where habitats are in recovery are not yet at the point where they could qualify for existing protections, such as sites of special scientific interest. Put simply, there is no mechanism to safeguard the next generation of nature sites. We desperately need these new sites for nature to emerge if we are going to achieve the doubling of nature that the Liberal Democrats had in our manifesto. That includes the doubling of protected areas and/or meeting the 30 by 30 target. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to create the new wild belt designation within six months of the passing of the Act, and to limit development in those areas. It would also require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on implementing the new wild belt sites. The new wild belt would be protection for the next generation of nature sites, and would ensure that early habitat restoration is not upended by a change in land use or by new development proposals. As well as turbocharging efforts to meet nature recovery targets, the increase in habitat recovery provided by wild belts could also help with the climate, by protecting land and reducing carbon emissions. Finally, wild belt sites could create a new space that people can use to connect with nature. The guidance required by the new clause would require local authorities to increase public access to nature through wild belt designations and to report on progress towards this objective. Increased access to nature is associated with improved health outcomes and life satisfaction, as well. New wild belt sites could be assets for local communities. Community use of wild belts can include space for outdoor education, shared wildlife-friendly gardening spaces, and new river walks to help people of all ages enjoy the benefits of access to nature. Similarly, wild belt designation would not cause undue problems for development or landowners. Many landowners would welcome the designation as a way of securing the protection and nature management of their land, which could be aligned with schemes such as environmental land management schemes. The Government could give extra weighting to ELMS applications where landowners are applying for wild belt areas. In summary, the wild belt clause would significantly increase the contribution the Bill makes to achieving nature recovery targets, while also helping net zero efforts and ensuring that new homes are progressed alongside flourishing wild spaces that local communities can enjoy. Wild belt would be a win-win for nature, climate and people, and we urge the Committee to support it.

It is a pleasure to continue with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to new clause 16, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). The new clause goes some of the way to address what I spoke about on Second Reading, about how we must create communities. When we are designing new large-scale housing in the countryside, community and design must be at the forefront. I want the Government to look at what more they can do, because we do not want affordable homes to be put next to large electricity transmission systems. In the interests of time, I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to write to me on this issue, setting out the Government’s position and explaining what they are doing, when we have large-scale development in the countryside, to stop the social housing element of the development being placed in these locations.

I will respond briefly to new clauses 16 and 29, but I am more than happy to expand on what I say in writing to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. New clause 16 relates to the refusal of planning permission for large-scale housing developments where they are close to large electricity pylons in the countryside. The new clause seeks to require local planning authorities to refuse applications for planning permission, or permission in principle, for large-scale residential development in the countryside that falls within specific distances of overhead electricity lines. It would also require any planning permission granted since 11 May 2022—a specific date—to be revoked where the development meets the criteria set out in the new clause. There is nothing in current planning legislation that prohibits development near to overhead electricity lines. However, there are mechanisms within the existing system that ensure decision makers are aware of and—to the extent that they are material—take into account potential safety or other issues of siting development near overhead lines. When developing sites that are close to overhead lines, in practical terms, developers are more likely to position less sensitive elements of their development under these, such as roads rather than homes, which can further minimise any impact. In the Government’s view, including a clause within legislation that requires the refusal of certain large-scale residential developments together with the revocation of existing permissions would be a major departure from the current approach in planning legislation. It would have a significant impact and would therefore need to be supported by strong justification. That is particularly the case given that other types of safety risk, such as residential development near oil pipes, are deal with adequately under the current framework. I would also highlight that in the case where an existing planning permission is revoked, which happens very rarely at present, it can be subject to compensation payable to the developer in particular circumstances. That could be significant in the context of large-scale housing development. National Grid has published guidance relevant for development near overhead lines, which ensures that decision makers are aware of safety and amenity issues that may arise from development within close proximity of electricity pylons and overhead lines, citing statutory safety clearances. It also encourages early and proactive engagement with National Grid on plans and individual schemes, which are brought forward within proximity of its infrastructure. That is precisely so that matters can be considered and addressed at the outset. Given the mechanisms already in place to address impacts on development near high-voltage lines, the new clause would place unnecessary restrictions on the decision-making powers of local planning authorities. For those reasons, we cannot accept it, but, as I said, I am more than happy to set out some further detail to hopefully reassure the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for South Leicestershire. I turn to new clause 29, as tabled by and spoken to by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. The Government are committed to ensuring that our goal of building 1.5 million homes does not come at the expense of nature. We have had several debates where the Government have reinforced our position in that respect. We are taking steps towards achieving our commitment of protecting 30% of our land for nature by 2030. I again highlight, as I have in previous debates, local nature recovery strategies, which were introduced under the Environment Act 2021 and are being rolled out across England. They are vehicles to agree priorities for nature’s recovery, to map the most valuable existing areas for nature and to identify proposals for creating or improving habitats for nature and wider environmental goals. They will provide a basis for local decision makers to take informed decisions about where to protect and restore areas that are of importance for nature recovery. They will be able to identify the best opportunities to create or improve habitats, while enabling the development that is needed in their area. It is important that local areas have flexibility in how they do that. We are not convinced that we need a new category of designated area in law to achieve that end. Development plans at both the local and strategic level will be required to take account of local nature recovery strategies under provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and this Bill when brought into force, and will be able to identify area for environmental improvement. The Government published guidance setting out the role of local nature recovery strategies in the planning system in February this year. We are considering how the creation of a national set of policies for decision making can further support the goal of protecting and restoring land, which will become of importance to nature’s recovery, using those strategies. I hope that in the light of that information, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing his new clause.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. We believe that wild belts could be a significant new designation and would add something of real value to help to restore the species that I discussed—those that are in recovery and need their habitats to be developed and further protected, such that they reach protected status. When we reach that point, we will be pressing new clause 29 to a vote.

I am happy with the Government’s considered approach to new clause 16, and I am happy that the Minister will write to me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 20 Swift bricks and boxes “(1) It must be a condition of any grant of planning permission that there must be a minimum of one swift brick or nest box per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height. (2) Swift bricks integrated into walls are to be installed in preference to external swift nest boxes wherever practicable, following best practice. (3) A planning authority may grant planning permission with exceptions or modifications to the condition specified in subsection (1) in exceptional circumstances, where possible following best practice. (4) Where a planning authority grants exceptions or modifications, it must publish the exceptional circumstances in which the exceptions or modifications were granted. (5) For the purposes of this section— ‘swift brick’ means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the Common Swift; ‘swift nest box’ means an external nest box suitable for the nesting of the Common Swift and ‘best practice guidance’ means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”—(Ellie Chowns.) This new clause would make planning permission for buildings greater than 5 metres high conditional on the provision of a minimum number of swift bricks. Swift bricks and boxes provide nesting habitat for small urban birds reliant on cavity nesting habitat in buildings to breed. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 22—Building regulations: biodiversity— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purposes of— (a) protecting and enhancing biodiversity, and (b) contributing to the achievement of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out under the Environment Act 2021. (2) Regulations under this section must include provision— (a) for the appropriate installation and maintenance of measures including— (i) bird boxes, (ii) bat boxes, (iii) swift bricks, (iv) hedgehog highways, (v) splash-free pavements, and (vi) biodiverse roofs and walls, (b) limiting the use of artificial grass in a garden or in or on land associated with a dwelling or building covered by the regulations.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require new developments to include design features that will contribute to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the achievement of Environment Act targets. New clause 23—Biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects— “(1) In Schedule 15 of the Environment Act 2021 (biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects), in paragraph 5 omit ‘10%’ and insert ‘20% for all terrestrial and intertidal development.’ (2) The Secretary of State must, within 1 year of the passing of this Act, bring into force section 99 of the Environment Act 2021 (biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects).” This amendment increases the biodiversity net gain requirement and includes intertidal development. New clause 27—Environmental infrastructure in new developments— “(1) Within six months of to the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity. (2) Regulations made under this section must— (a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021; (b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of— (i) bird boxes; (ii) bat boxes; (iii) swift bricks; (iv) hedgehog highways; and (v) biodiverse roofs and walls.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.

I rise to speak in defence of the swift. I have tabled a private Member’s Bill to achieve essentially what this proposed new clause would achieve, but what an opportunity we have in this Bill to take a fantastic step that would make a crucial difference to the future of a species that is under threat. I will start with an extract from a parliamentary speech made in 2023 by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, of Labour. She said “We believe that specifically including swift bricks as a measure in the Bill, to be incorporated in planning law, is justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habits… If there is anything we can do to either halt that decline or hopefully turn it around, we should certainly do so. There is definitely a clear and present threat to these species. We hope the Government”— the Tory Government of the time— “will accept this relatively a small step, which could make a world of difference to protecting our swift population”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 September 2023; Vol. 832, c. 541.] Baroness Taylor spoke on behalf of Labour, when it was in Opposition, to support the exact swift brick provisions we now discuss. The need for this measure is now two years more urgent. Labour’s former words present the case perfectly, so I urge the Government to embrace their own sentiments and safeguard the future of these iconic birds. Cavity nesting birds, as a category, are reliant on cavities in buildings to breed. House martins and swifts are 100% dependent on buildings. That breeding dependence means that not only are swift bricks different in character from other types of supplementary biodiversity measures, but the mechanism to make them operable is already in place. That is a key point: there is a specific British standard that makes this new clause feasible. That is why there is a national campaign solely for swift bricks, and a specific swift brick new clause. Swift bricks would secure cavity nesting habitat by indirectly mitigating the national-scale loss of nesting habitats in our existing buildings. That loss of nesting habitat is inadvertent, due to renovation, demolition and changes to the character of housing. Without legislative protection of their nesting sites or mitigation of loss, it is not surprising that four cavity nesting birds are redlisted, a term defined by the need for urgent action. If these birds cannot breed here, they have no future here. Swift bricks are therefore a critical nesting habitat measure. They are not merely supplementary. They require zero maintenance, are fully sustainable and are effective, providing eight species of bird with nesting habitat. The new clause poses no risk of delaying or blocking development since swift bricks, first, are bricks and secondly, can be laid alongside all the other bricks without any additional expertise. Actually, this measure would, uniquely for a nature-protection measure, contribute to development and building. Natural England has urged the Government to embrace this proposal, as has the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Non-compliance of developers in installing bird boxes, as per conditions stated by their local planning authorities, is 75%. Swift bricks are not included in biodiversity net gain or the Environment Act, and the national planning policy framework guidance is not enough for a critical nesting habitat measure. The swift brick campaign is supported by the nature sector, including Wildlife and Countryside Link, and has seen sustained media interest, showing just how much public concern there is to support these birds. We have had a number of public petitions with over 100,000 signatures. The latest one has 80,000—I just checked it this morning. Without swift bricks, we lose out too, because our new buildings will never accommodate these urban birds, so our connection with them will also be lost. This measure is a giant, tangible legacy for the public. Even if we live in inner cities, or are unable to get to green spaces easily, we can access these birds—but that will not be true in new homes without swift bricks. Swifts have been dubbed “our icons of summer”. They are on the brink after 50 million years and they just need a brick with a hole in it. The Bill will enable millions of brick walls to be built. In urging the Committee to include this lifeline for our urban birds, I represent the almost half a million people, in total, who have signed swift brick petitions, including the fastest growing Government petition in 2023. Our homes are, quite literally, these birds’ homes. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

00:00:00

It is once again a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. We broadly support the aim of this new clause. I know my colleague the noble Lord Goldsmith proposed a similar amendment in the House of Lords, which Baroness Taylor and the Secretary of State at DEFRA have indicated they are supportive of. However, there are some flaws in the new clause. It is clear that rather than just habitats for swifts, there are creatures—insects in particular—that would also benefit from similar arrangements within the building industry. Creatures such as starlings, which are something of an iconic British bird and also nest in buildings, would require an alternative design provision. I am not inclined to seek a vote, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister that there will be consideration given to ensuring that new buildings—both homes and, where possible, commercial buildings—incorporate features designed to support the nesting of birds and other creatures that may use those habitats in a way that is sympathetic to the use of the building.

I rise to speak to new clause 26, which would increase biodiversity net gain to 20% for nationally significant infrastructure projects, and new clause 27 on swift bricks. The Committee will be relieved to know that I will not repeat all the points that have been made on this. It is worth saying that the swift bricks proposal has widespread public support and would be a very small and limited change to introduce to building practices. Swifts fly thousands of miles from the Congo basin and back across the Sahara desert twice. When they get here, quite often they find that their nesting places have gone, have been sealed up or are not available. This new clause would make a significant contribution to providing better habitats for swifts and other bird species. We are in support of this new clause.

I take from that that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is not seeking a debate on new clause 27. Is that right?

I did refer to new clauses 26 and 27.

Sorry—and 23 as well? I could also address that, if we come on to debate it, but let me first respond to new clauses 20 and 27 relating to swift bricks. I am well aware of the serious population decline of swifts in the UK. There are numerous reasons behind that decline. It is not just the loss of nesting sites; there are other factors, such as the decline of insect food, but nesting sites are a certainly a contributory factor and the Government recognise that. The objective of increasing the coverage of swift bricks is one that we absolutely share. However, there are different ways of advancing that aim and this is where a fruitful debate can take place. We are not convinced that legislating to mandate the use of specific wildlife features is the right approach, whether that is done through building regulations or a freestanding legal requirement. If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire wants a good summary of my own views, which I have been very clear on over many years, she can find it in a 10 July 2023 Westminster Hall debate we had on the subject, where I expressed similar reservations about the approach that the new clause dictates. Measures such as swift bricks and hedgehog highways are beneficial in many cases, but they will not be feasible or effective for every single development across the country. The way that new clause 20 tries to provide for exceptions demonstrates that, so there is obviously an awareness of the issue, but it also shows the complexity which arises from a blanket approach. I have real concerns that it would be difficult to operate in practice and risks more legal challenges seeking to block development, rather than securing better uptake of the right features in the right places. Progress is already being made in expanding the use of wildlife features in homes across the country. The Future Homes Hub, representing 29 home builders who have a large share of the market, operates a voluntary commitment to install a bird nesting brick or box for every new home built. There are factories across the country producing large numbers of swift bricks, so they—and similarly hedgehog highways—are being rolled out as a standard on every new development. That action is welcome, but we absolutely accept that more can be done. That is why our revisions to the national planning policy framework, published last December, make clear that developments should incorporate features that support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs. That is supported by both the national model design code and Natural England’s green infrastructure framework, which set out how developers can do this.

It is good to hear the support for this measure. It is a very standard practice that could be expanded. Would the Minister be willing to meet with the hon. Members who support this new clause, including the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), myself and others, to discuss how the use of swift bricks and related features could be encouraged further across the development industry?

I am always happy to have conversations with hon. Members about the Government’s thinking in this area and other areas, although a particular spin on recent conversations I have had with hon. Members found its way into The Guardian, which is a warning to Ministers. We are trying, as a Government, to feel our way to the most appropriate way to boost the coverage of swift bricks. As I have said, that is an objective that we absolutely share. In that regard in particular, I point once again to the fact that we are committed to producing a set of national policies for decision making to set out policy requirements in a variety of areas in a more explicit manner. As part of that, we will assess how existing policy is operating, and whether there are any changes to wording in that area that would be beneficial to that objective. Although I fully support the aim of securing both an increase in swift brick coverage and more nature-friendly features in new developments more generally, I cannot support these new clauses, for the reasons I have given. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will be content to withdraw them. Given that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington has not spoken to new clause 23, which relates to biodiversity net gain, I will—

I am grateful to the Minister for correcting the numbering. When I referred to new clause 26, I meant to refer to new clause 23. I spoke only briefly on that, so I understand why the Minister is not responding to that detail.

I welcome the Minister’s warm words regarding the protection of swifts—I am glad to hear them. I do not, however, feel that he has made a strong case against this new clause. If the Government are serious about protecting swifts, why not vote for it? It contains the ability to make exceptions and is an opportunity to drive forward this agenda. As the Minister has recognised, swifts are still in terrible decline. Although I acknowledge that this measure alone will not in itself magically resolve the full issue, as well as the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner that there are also other necessary measures and required species, there is something unique about swifts because they are dependent on these breeding sites. It is true that they need food, but without breeding sites they are completely stuck, and those sites must be in our buildings. I will be pressing this new clause to a vote, and if the Government vote against it I hope they will come back with an amendment in their own words at Report to achieve exactly the same outcome, if the Minister is genuinely committed to saving and safeguarding the future of these iconic birds. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

35|0|3|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 21

Support for small businesses and charities affected by roadworks

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) any building or development works require or involve works to or on the road network, or otherwise result in road closures,

(b) such roadworks or closures have lasted, or are expected to last, for a period of six months or more, and

(c) any small business or charitable organisation suffers a material financial, access or other detriment resulting from the roadworks or closures.

(2) The Secretary of State must make provision for any affected small business or charitable organisation to receive financial compensation or other equivalent support to recover or mitigate the detriment suffered.”—(Gideon Amos.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 21 would introduce a mechanism compensating small businesses and organisations that incur operational losses due to significant roadworks. This is an important measure for us. I am disappointed that it appears that the Government may be foreclosing a whole half day of debate of this Bill Committee. None the less, I will proceed as rapidly as I can. It will be very disappointing if that does indeed occur, Ms Jardine, but they are the powers that be. The purpose of this measure is to ensure a fairer distribution of impact when infrastructure projects take place. At present, the law is such that the Land Compensation Act 1973 covers only property damage and loss of land value. There is a clear legislative gap when it comes to consequential non-property-based losses. Small businesses in Wellington, in my own constituency, are experiencing this at first hand. This summer’s unavoidable closure of the M5’s junction 26 and link road to Wellington, for reconstruction, has huge implications for the local economy. Several small businesses on the Foxmoor business park in particular, which depend on daily access to the M5 corridor, will see that closed off for up to three months. A scaffolding company showed me its estimates; it expects to lose around £14,000 over that three-month period. This is not speculative; those are real impacts. A whole series of other companies will be affected: Adler & Allan, Moss Joinery, Apple Campers, Weston Recovery Services and TLC Garage Services and Recovery. Many of those have emergency services contracts with the police, the RAC and the AA. They are required by the police to be on-site, on the motorway, in 30 minutes. They will lose that business because they will no longer be able to get on to the motorway, because the motorway junction they are situated on will be closed. They are eligible for no compensation at all, despite those significant losses. That situation is mirrored in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), in whose name the new clause was tabled, where redevelopment of the M25’s junction 10 has already run beyond its original deadline. By the time it is complete, it will have taken four years, causing serious disruption to both large and small organisations. RHS Wisley is projected to lose £11 million, and Ockham Bites, a small local café, is losing £600 per day. Those are real impacts on small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, and they need support when they are experiencing massive losses due to roadworks. We believe that infrastructure investment must balance public benefit with the private burden that they often incur. This is a targeted measure that would introduce pragmatic, proportionate reform, and means to support businesses that are being hardest hit during the delivery of major projects.

I note and appreciate the case that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but successive Governments have taken the view that businesses should not have the right in law to any particular given level of passing trade, and that traders, or other organisations, must take the risk of loss due to temporary disruption of traffic flows along with all of the other various risks of running a business or organisation. The same businesses or organisations may also profit from new developments once works have been completed. If planning permission is needed, affected organisations can express concerns as part of that process if they are worried about how works will affect them. Temporary traffic regulation orders are needed for some road closures, and affected organisations can also express concerns as part of that process to the relevant local planning authority.

Does the Minister not appreciate that lots of utility companies dig up roads under emergency procedures, so do not have to let the local authority know? As it is an emergency, one would expect someone to be working, maybe not around the clock, but for a long period of the day over multiple days to get it fixed. When people drive past roadworks in those scenarios, and they do not see anyone working on them, they get incredibly frustrated. Could he just outline what the Government are doing to make sure that roadworks are finished as quickly as possible, in a timely manner?

Well, I do not begrudge the hon. Gentleman for asking, but he tempts me to move into areas far beyond my ministerial remit and, I would argue, outside the scope of the Bill. In the interests of time, and of ensuring that all of the other worthy new clauses that I see before me on the selection list are debated, I will write to him on that particular point. On this new clause, following on from what I have just said, we must bear in mind that local planning and highway authorities can take concerns into account when approving planning permission or road closures. They can also amend the timings of road closures and make other arrangements to ensure that access to properties and businesses is maintained. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.

12:15:00

I have nothing further to add, but we will press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

36|0|3|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 29

Inclusion of wildbelt in planning considerations

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—

(a) create a category of protection for wildbelt areas in England for the purpose of permanently protecting such areas from or during development, and

(b) issue guidance for local planning authorities and other relevant parties on how wildbelt land is to be protected.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), ‘permanently protecting’ areas means protecting or restoring the natural environment in a wildbelt area, and in ecosystems functionally connected to a wildbelt area.

(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) must—

(a) provide assistance to local planning authorities and others on the identification of wildbelt sites;

(b) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the development of spatial development strategies regarding—

(i) the use of Local Nature Recovery Strategies to protect and enhance wildbelt;

(ii) the reporting of progress towards the development of wildbelt sites; and

(iii) the reporting of progress towards the use of wildbelt designation to increase public access to nature.

(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘wildbelt’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify in guidance, but must include—

(a) areas of land;

(b) bodies of water and adjacent land;

(c) wetlands.”—(Gideon Amos.)

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

37|0|3|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 30

Review of capacity of local planning authorities

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, conduct a review of the capacity of local planning authorities.

(2) A review under this section must consider–

(a) whether local planning authorities have sufficient resources to meet current and predicted future demand;

(b) whether or how issues in the construction sector or supply chains are impacting local planning authorities, including in relation to—

(i) the manufacturing of materials, equipment, plant and technology;

(ii) warehousing and transportation; and

(iii) workforce, skills, apprenticeships and training.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report outlining the findings and recommendations of the review before Parliament within one year of the conclusion of a review.”—(Olly Glover.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to conduct an annual review of the capacity of local planning authorities. The Bill’s passage appears likely, given the size of the Government’s majority, but it will impose a number of additional duties and responsibilities on local planning authorities, and meeting the proposals for housing growth will also stretch their capacity. Our new clause would require a review of their capacity and resources, as well as the impact of issues, such as lack of capacity in the construction sector or supply chains, on achieving some of the housing goals that are being put forward. While this Government have an ambition to build lots of homes, it is important that we pay attention to how that happens. We know that local authorities are already under-resourced. I am sure that the Government appreciate the need to support local authorities in delivering housing and all the accompanying infrastructure, and we feel that this new clause would go some way towards doing that. At the risk of anticipating that the Minister is unlikely to support the new clause, we look forward to hearing what alternative solutions he may have to these challenges in planning capacity.

I briefly draw the Committee’s attention to the Planning Advisory Service. As a result of a long-standing arrangement with the Local Government Association, through a funding set-up whereby local authorities and Government provide resources, both peer-support services and these activities are already provided in partnership with local authorities. For that reason, I would be reluctant to seek a legislative method of delivering something that is already, in practice, working well on a voluntary basis. There will always be a debate about whether local authorities feel that their resources are sufficient, but in supporting them to undertake the capacity assessment and build their capacity by working with their peers, that arrangement has been in place and working well for several decades.

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for—

On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I should declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which I referred to in my contribution.

I welcome that clarification from the shadow Minister and thank him for his comments. He highlighted the important role that the Planning Advisory Service plays. Skilled planners are essential to delivering efficient, proactive planning services and ensuring that new development supports growth and high-quality design of places and homes. The Government recognise the mounting pressures on local planning authorities as they adapt to significant reforms, both in how we want to reform the house building system and in boosting housing supply. That is why we have legislated in the Bill to allow all local planning authorities to set their own planning fees in order to increase resources in a way that responds to the individual needs of each authority and, as we have debated at length on previous clauses, ensure those fees are ringfenced. Furthermore, the Chancellor announced—I have said this before, but it is worth my pointing to the Government’s good efforts in this area at every opportunity—a £46 million investment for 2025–26 at the Budget last year, supporting planning capacity and capability, including the recruitment and training of at least 300 graduate and apprentice planners. Funding is also being used to support implementation of the revised national planning policy framework. For example, we allocated substantial funds to local planning authorities to assist them with green belt reviews. Alongside that, our planning capacity and capability programme works with sector partners to build long-term skills, modernise local plans and speed up decision making, using innovation and digital tools. Importantly, we are closely tracking the impact of those interventions through an embedded research and evaluation team. A national survey conducted in 2023 informs our approach; a further survey, now concluding, will build on that baseline. Given the robust programme of support and evaluation already in place, we are of the view that the new clause is not necessary, and I hope that with those reassurances he might be minded to withdraw it.

I thank the Minister for his comments, and I welcome his overview of the Government’s endeavours in tackling the issue of local planning authority capacity. I also note the comments from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I understand his point, but nevertheless, there are still considerable challenges in this area that need to be tackled. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 32 Register of planning applications from political donors “(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where— (a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and (b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made. (2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”—(Gideon Amos.) This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 32 would require local planning authorities to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where the Secretary of State had received a donation from the applicant. We are fortunate to live in a country where the planning system is, generally, free of corruption. The United Kingdom is ranked by the Corruption Perceptions Index as among the least corrupt countries in the world. It is in the top 20 alongside Japan and other countries, but perceptions, as in that perceptions index, matter. It is important that justice is not only done, but seen to be done. We believe there is a need for better control of situations where donations have been made to Ministers, and those Ministers have themselves then made decisions. I will not name any individual, but there has been a well-known scheme involving the Isle of Dogs in which that occurred. I do not allege any corruption in that instance, but, as I say, it is important that justice is not only done but seen to be done. The new clause would be an important contribution to ensuring that our planning system remains as free of undue influence as possible.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving new clause 32. In short, we think it is unnecessary, but I take on board his points and I share his concerns about the particular case that he raised. Local planning register authorities are already required to maintain and publish a register of every application for planning permission that relates to their area. The register must include details on application decisions, including where the Secretary of State has made the decision either via a called-in application or a recovered appeal. That is set out in article 40 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Secretary of State decisions on planning casework are also published on gov.uk in order to provide additional transparency. That includes the decision letters that set out the reasons for the decision in question. When determining applications for planning permission, the Secretary of State operates—obviously—within the ministerial code and planning propriety guidance. The planning propriety guidance makes it clear that decisions on planning proposals should be made with an open mind, based on the facts before them at that time. Any conflicts of interest between the decision-making role of Ministers and their other interests should be avoided. To that end, planning Ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the ministerial code. The ministerial code makes specific provision for the declaration of gifts given to Ministers in their ministerial capacity, and gifts given to Ministers in their capacity as constituency MPs or members of a political party fall within the rules relating to the Registers of Members’ and Lords’ Financial Interests. In addition, before any planning Minister takes decisions, the planning propriety guidance reiterates that they are required to declare anything that could give rise to a conflict of interest, or—this is equally important—the appearance of a conflict of interest. The planning casework unit within my Department uses that information to ensure that planning Ministers do not deal with decisions that could give rise to an appearance of impropriety. For example, if the Minister in question has declared that the applicant of the proposal is a political donor, they would be recused from making the decision. We therefore feel that there is sufficient transparency on planning casework decisions made by the Secretary of State, and the Ministers, including myself, who act on her behalf, and it is not necessary to impose an additional administrative burden on local planning authorities. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will withdraw his amendment.

I have nothing further to add. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 35 Prohibition of development on functional floodplains “(1) No local planning authority may grant planning permission for any development which is to take place on a functional floodplain. (2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, issue new guidance, or update existing guidance where such guidance exists, relating to development in flood zones and the management of flood risk.”—(Ellie Chowns.) This new clause would prevent local planning authorities from allowing developments on functional floodplains. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 85—Regard to flood risk guidance when considering development on flood plains— “(1) When preparing a local plan for an area which includes a flood plain or considering an application for development on a flood plain, a local planning authority must have regard to— (a) the sequential and exception tests; (b) the most up to date guidance on flood risk produced by the Government. (2) For the purposes of this section— ‘sequential test’ means steering new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding, taking all sources of flood risk and climate change into account. Where it is not possible to locate development in low-risk areas, reasonably available sites within medium risk areas should be considered, with sites within high-risk areas only considered where there are no reasonably available sites in low and medium risk areas; ‘exception test’ means that it has been demonstrated that the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.” This new clause would require local planning authorities to have regard to the sequential and exception tests on managing flood risk when considering applications for development on flood plains. New clause 86—Requirement for installation of flood resilience measures— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, amend relevant Approved Documents to require the installation of flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding. (2) Flood resilience measures must be specified and installed in accordance with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice for property flood resilience.” This new clause would require Approved Documents to require the installation, to CIRIA’s code of practice, of property flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.

These new clauses relate to flood resilience. New clause 85 would ensure that local planning authorities have regard to the sequential and exception tests on managing flood risk when considering applications for development on flood plains. New clause 86 would ensure that there is a requirement for the installation of flood resilience measures. When we considered the topic of sustainable drainage systems, I spoke about the importance of ensuring that we bear flood resilience in mind. It bears repeating that flooding—already a huge problem in our country—will become even more of a challenge as we continue to wrestle with the effects of climate change. I refer colleagues to the work of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, which is currently conducting an inquiry into flood resilience. We heard evidence from a number of witnesses earlier this week about the importance of property flood resilience measures, which new clause 86 concerns.

12:30:00

Clearly, we have a problem with flood resilience. New developments are built and people are having to move out of them within months of having moved in because they have been subjected to flooding, so the existing measures are not working. It is vital that we do everything we can to ensure that the Bill helps us address those risks.

The Association of British Insurers tells us:

“Managing surface water flooding needs increased focus”

due to the increased risk of severe flooding. It calls for large-scale planning reform as per the Bill to be done

“with an adequate consideration of the risks”.

That is what these new clauses are designed to address.

Aviva—a major insurer—points out that by 2050, a quarter of all homes in the UK will be at risk of flooding. If the current trends continue, 115,000 of the planned 1.5 million homes that the Government hope to build over the next five years will be in areas at high risk of flooding. These new clauses respond to those dangers and seek to ensure the Bill does everything possible to enable local planning authorities to tackle the problem.

I was very concerned to read in the DEFRA and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s “Review of policy for development in areas of flood risk”, published relatively recently, that only 3% of local planning authorities always inspect new developments for compliance with flood-related planning conditions. Another 3% say that they often inspect for those conditions. That is clearly nowhere near enough, so the new clauses would tighten things up and provide the guidance that planning authorities need to ensure we tackle as much as possible the very real challenge of ensuring flood resilience for any new development.

I will speak to new clauses 85 and 86, for which the hon. Lady has just made the case. The Government are committed to building the homes that the country needs while ensuring that they are safe from flooding. The national planning policy framework contains strong policies on flood risk, which, along with associated guidance, must be considered when local plans are made. They are also an important material consideration when planning applications are being determined. The framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas of flood risk should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. That means that new housing and most other forms of development are not appropriate in a functional flood plain. Where the strict tests set out in national policy for flood risk are not met, it is clear that new development should not be allowed. I believe we share the same ambition to protect development from the risk of flooding. To that end, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, local planning authorities are already required to follow the sequential and exception tests through the NPPF, associated planning guidance and the underpinning legislation that requires them to be taken into account. New clause 86 seeks to require the installation of flood resilience measures in new build homes in areas at risk of flooding through an amendment to approved documents to the building regulations. I assure hon. Members that I agree with the intent of the new clause. As I said, the Government are committed to building the homes the country needs while ensuring that they are safe from flooding. Building regulations set a minimum standard to protect people’s safety, health and welfare. They are supported by approved documents that provide guidance in common building situations towards meeting outcome-based standards. Specifically, approved document C promotes the use of flood resilient and resistant construction in flood-prone areas, while avoiding placing undue costs on any properties that do not require further flood resilience measures. Those designing homes can choose to use the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice if they so wish, while ensuring that the building is compliant with the building regulations. However, to establish that as a minimum standard for all new dwellings would be, in our view, disproportionate. The revised national planning policy framework, published in December 2024, is clear that development should be directed to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Where no alternative sites are available, permission should be granted only where it can be demonstrated that it will be safe for the building’s lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Where possible, it should reduce flood risk overall. The use of property-level flood protections, as recommended through the proposed Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice, such as flood doors, flood barriers and automatic air bricks, should only be considered as part of a wider package of measures to ensure that the development would be safe for its lifetime. Where they are used, they must be in compliance with the requirements of the building regulations. In addition, there are well-established means for ensuring that developments are not approved where there is unacceptable flood risk, with the Environment Agency and local authority bodies overseeing the maintenance of existing mitigation methods. The Environment Agency has also commissioned an independent review of property flood resilience, which is due to report in the autumn, and we would not like to pre-empt its recommendations with any action that might be contradictory. Although I agree with the intent of the new clause, introducing additional building-level requirements through the approved documents to the building regulations is not a proportionate measure in the context of our wider policy framework. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady might withdraw it.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 36 Internal Drainage Boards to be statutory consultees “In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

“(zg) Any development in an area covered by an Internal Drainage Board.

The relevant Internal Drainage Board.””

Brought up, and read the First time .

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 62—Water companies to be statutory consultees for planning applications — “In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

“(zg) Development likely to affect a water company

The relevant water company””.

This new clause would make water companies statutory consultees on planning applications. New clause 63—Association of British Insurers to be a statutory consultee — “In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

“(zg) Development involving a building or property for which insurance will be required

The Association of British Insurers””.

New clause 64—National Landscape Partnerships to be statutory consultees for planning applications — “In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

(zg) Development likely to affect an area covered by a National Landscape Partnership

The relevant National Landscape Partnership””.

New clause 87—Fire authorities to be statutory consultees for applications relating to Battery Energy Storage Solutions — “In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

“(zg) Development involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions

The relevant fire authority””.

This new clause would ensure that fire authorities are included as statutory consultees in planning applications involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions (BESS’s). New clause 90—Gardens Trust to be statutory consultees for planning applications — “In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

“(zg) Development likely to affect historic parks or gardens

The Gardens Trust””.

New clause 97—Removal of statutory consultees — “(1) A party may only be removed from the list of consultees— (a) in or under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, or (b) in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, once Parliamentary approval for the removal has been signified. (2) Parliamentary approval may be signified by— (a) the approval of a relevant statutory instrument; (b) the agreement of a relevant motion.” New clause 100—Pre-application consultation of emergency services — “In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—

“(zg) Development which is likely to affect operations of ambulance services	The ambulance trust concerned
(zh)Development which is likely to affect operations of fire and rescue services	The fire and rescue service concerned””.

This group of new clauses relates to statutory consultees. We are concerned that the Government are reducing the number of statutory consultees. We do not believe that reducing consultation with expert bodies is the right approach. Some of the new clauses in this group relate to introducing certain organisations as statutory consultees into the system. Our new clause 62 would require water companies to be consulted. At present they are not consulted, but they are also obliged to provide connections. They are unable to state whether there is capacity to provide water supply for new development. New clause 63 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) would introduce the Association of British Insurers into the statutory consultation list, which would mean that insurance companies would be able to indicate whether they would be able to insure properties, particularly those vulnerable to flood risk. At present they have no role in the planning process to do that. New clause 64 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) refers to national landscape partnerships being involved. Areas of outstanding natural beauty are now called national landscapes. The partnerships that oversee them are incredibly important and do not have any statutory voice in the planning system at present. New clause 87 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) would require fire authorities to be consulted, and new clause 90, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), would require historic parks and gardens to be consulted. New clause 97 is also included in this group. We believe Parliament should be required to agree when statutory consultees are removed from the list. With regard to national landscape partnerships, in my constituency the Blackdown Hills national landscape partnership covers a wide number of local authorities that are unable to provide a single voice in the planning system. The partnership covers probably tens of different parishes and certainly three council areas. It has asked us to put forward the case for it to have a single voice, a seat at the table. If our national landscapes are of importance, they should have a seat at the table in the planning process. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester points out that national landscapes such as Chichester harbour are just asking for a seat at the table in the same way that other organisations do. Chichester harbour national landscape currently responds to 300 planning applications a year, so there would be no increase in resource or funding required to become a statutory consultee. The pressures on Chichester harbour, with the loss of 58% of its salt marsh in 80 years—two and a half hectares a year—mean that it is under considerable stress and needs its voice to be heard in the planning process.

I will respond to this large group of new clauses by taking seven of them together and then responding separately to new clause 97. New clauses 36, 62 to 64, 87, 90 and 100 seek to introduce internal drainage boards, water companies, the Association of British Insurers, landscape partnerships, fire authorities, the Gardens Trust and emergency services as statutory consultees in the planning application process. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will be aware, on 26 January my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a moratorium on any new statutory consultees in the planning application process and a review of existing arrangements for statutory consultees to ensure that they align with the Government’s ambitions for growth. I set out the Government’s concern in this area in more detail in the written ministerial statement that I made on 10 March. It responds to concerns—I think this is an important point to get on the record—not only from developers about the operation of the statutory consultee system at present, but from local planning authorities. In that written ministerial statement, I outlined a package of measures to reform statutory consultees in the planning system, so that they meet their goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making. The Government have committed to reviewing the system of statutory consultees and will soon be consulting on proposals. At that point, I will expect and welcome a more extensive dialogue with the hon. Gentleman and others about the changes that we might have in mind. Decisions about the long-term operation of the system will be taken as part of the review, with any changes to statutory consultees being taken forward through changes to secondary legislation at a later date. The new clauses are broadly framed and would result in the various bodies being consulted on a wide range of applications, including for small-scale housing and householder development. That could result, in our view, in many tens of thousands of applications requiring to be consulted on, which would be likely to have severe resourcing implications for the bodies in question—we have spoken about the resource pressures and challenges placed on local planning authorities, and hon. Members might like to have that in mind when drafting amendments that would increase pressure on them—and slow down the planning process. That would be especially acute in relation to application consultations for any building or property requiring insurance or any building that needs connecting to the water mains, and for fire and emergency services. The Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities are statutory consultees in relation to flood risk issues. Internal drainage boards are not statutory consultees, but they do work proactively with local authorities, which are represented on their management boards, and they can comment on proposals within the statutory public consultation period. Where an internal drainage board raises issues that are material to the determination of the application in question, local authorities must take those into account in reaching a decision. I should note that the Gardens Trust is currently a statutory consultee for development likely to affect any registered battlefields, gardens or parks. We have committed to consulting on the impact of removing its statutory consultee status, as part of the review. Any decision will obviously be taken in the light of the evidence provided through the consultation. This Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel that making fire authorities statutory consultees for planning applications involving battery energy storage solutions is necessary or proportionate. BESS grid-scale batteries are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive within a robust framework that mandates battery designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. Developers of BESS sites are already expected, under guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council, to engage with the local fire and rescue services prior to the submission of their planning application. The Government are considering further measures to enhance the regulation of environmental and safety risks from BESS. DEFRA intends to consult by June 2025 on incorporating BESS in the environmental permitting regulations. That will provide further oversight to safeguard both people and the environment. We must also consider at what stage in the planning process engagement is most effective. For instance, where particular emergency service concerns exist, such as in relation to high-growth areas, new settlements or developments with complex infrastructure needs, we believe that these are more appropriately addressed through local plan policies and strategic infrastructure planning. It is important to note that local planning authorities have the discretion to consult emergency services where that is relevant to a specific application. Lastly on this large grouping of new clauses, I note that many organisations can meaningfully contribute to planning decisions through their responses within the statutory public consultation period. That includes charities that promote particular interests, as well as bodies performing public functions. However, the role of statutory consultee creates an obligation not just on the part of the planning authority to consult, but on the part of the consultee to respond within statutory timelines. I set out in my written ministerial statement the ways in which the system, in various respects, is not performing in the way we believe is most conducive to the outcomes we seek. The burden is substantial, and existing statutory consultees, in some cases, can struggle to deliver. Under a streamlined and effective planning system, the bar for becoming a statutory consultee, in our view, must necessarily be high.

12:45:00

New clause 97, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, seeks to add a new parliamentary approval process for the removal of prescribed statutory consultees for pre-application consultation on proposed nationally significant infrastructure projects—specifically, those listed in section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 or in schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009.

This Committee has already agreed to new clause 44, which removes section 42 of the Planning Act. New clause 97 therefore seeks to amend a provision that the Committee has already agreed should be omitted. For that very simple reason—notwithstanding others—I suggest the hon. Member might not wish to press his new clause.

I will be brief. I know the Committee wants to move on to the remaining new clauses, and I will facilitate that—we will not push this new clause to a vote. I simply observe that, historically, there was not an issue of local authorities saying that they could not cope with statutory consultees and bodies. What we have now is a system that is not well enough funded, and consulting important bodies should not be seen as a cause of unnecessary delay in the planning process. We think the case is made for the bodies I set out, but we will not press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 47 Prohibition of solar development on higher-quality agricultural land “No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve— (a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and (b) building or installation at ground-level.”—(David Simmonds.) This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher quality agricultural land. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

38|0|4|10|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 51

Fees for applications for planning permission by householders

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance on the fees to be charged on applications for planning permission.

(2) Guidance issued under subsection (1) must provide for reduced fees where applications are made by a householder in relation to works to take place on their home property or on the land which is occupied by their home property.”—(David Simmonds.)

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

39|0|4|10|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 58

Local planning authority duty: Environment Act 2021

“In the exercise of any of its planning or development functions, a local planning authority must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—

(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021;

(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008; and

(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”—(Olly Glover.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute to targets set out in the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008. The Environment Act is the UK’s framework for environmental protection. It was particularly important after the UK left the European Union to maintain rules on nature protection, water quality, clean air and other environmental protections that were at risk. The Climate Change Act established a legally binding framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, making the UK the first country to do so. It set a target of net zero emissions by 2050 and established the Climate Change Committee. The activities of local authorities inherently have an impact on carbon emissions, and UK100 has estimated that it amounts to between 4% and 9% of the UK’s total carbon emissions, which is of course a non-trivial impact. As we know, and as I believe we largely agree on this Committee, climate change is one of the biggest issues facing us today and has wide-reaching consequences. It is right that any organisation should take reasonable steps to reduce its carbon footprint, and local authorities are no exception. New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps in relation to Environment Act and Climate Change Act targets, as they do not have such a statutory duty today. As the Committee has discussed, that presents opportunities as well as challenges for councils and our communities.

As the hon. Gentleman has just made clear, new clause 58 would place a statutory duty on local planning authorities to contribute to targets set under the Environment Act, the Climate Change Act and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act. Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, including air quality. In our view, it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. Local authorities already have statutory duties to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local and central Government, air quality in the UK is improving, although we accept that there is more to do. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to reduce air pollution and its harmful effects. Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies, which we have discussed, and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which was strengthened by the Environment Act 2021. The latter requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy and any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England. On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, a number of which are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched the local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services. The Government also provide a range of net zero support to local authorities. This includes funding five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net zero projects and attract commercial investment, and funding the local net zero accelerator pilot programme to test how to support local places to leverage commercial investment at scale to accelerate the move to net zero. Given such existing support, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling the combined issues of environmental decline and climate change impacts, we do not think a statutory duty for local authorities to contribute to environmental, net zero or air quality targets, or towards the Climate Change Act’s programme for climate adaptation, is necessary. For that reason, I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause.

I thank the Minister for his response, and we note his comments. Yes, many local authorities are making significant contributions, but I am sure he would agree that it is patchy and inconsistent at the moment. Nevertheless, we will not press the new clause to a Division, but we will observe local authority progress and Government support in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 75 Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development. (2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”—(David Simmonds.) Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

40|0|2|10|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

12:57:00