Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth 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)

Dominic Stockbridge, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Wera Hobhouse in the Chair]

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

14:00:00

New Clause 77

Conditions to mitigate overheating risk

“In section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1ZA) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission for residential development, the authority may impose conditions which require the implementation of measures to mitigate the risk of overheating where local climatic data indicates elevated risk.’”—(Ellie Chowns.)

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 78—Cooling hierarchy guidance— “The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities which— (a) outlines a cooling hierarchy; and (b) provides guidance on the application of the cooling hierarchy in the exercise of a local planning authority’s planning and development functions.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance for local planning authorities on applying the "cooling hierarchy"—a structured approach to reducing overheating risk in buildings, prioritising passive and sustainable design measures. New clause 79—Overheating risk assessments— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, require all applications for planning permission for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment. (2) An overheating risk assessment must be conducted in accordance with— (a) the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ design methodology for the assessment of overheating risk in homes, or (b) any successor standard designated by the Secretary of State.” This new clause would require all planning applications for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment, conducted in line with the latest recognised technical standard, such as those of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). New clause 80—Incorporation of features to mitigate overheating risk— “(1) When preparing any plan or strategy relating to the development of housing under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a local planning authority must have regard to the need for residential developments to incorporate passive design features that mitigate the risk of overheating. (2) Passive design features may include— (a) cross-ventilation, (b) external shading, (c) solar control glazing, and (d) thermal mass.” This new clause would require local planning authorities, when preparing housing-related plans or strategies, to have regard to the need for residential developments to include passive design features that reduce the risk of overheating, such as cross-ventilation, external shading, solar control glazing, and thermal mass. New clause 81—Access to data on overheating risk— “(1) For the purposes of supporting the making of local plans, spatial development strategies and planning decisions, the Secretary of State must make provision for local planning authorities to have access to relevant data relating to overheating risk. (2) The Secretary of State must ensure that data on overheating risk made available to local planning authorities is updated at intervals not exceeding five years.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local planning authorities have access to up-to-date data on overheating risk, to support the making of local plans, spatial development strategies, and planning decisions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once more, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak in strong support of a group of new clauses that address a clear and growing risk to public health, quality of life and economic productivity: domestic overheating. It may surprise some—hopefully no one in this room—to know that the risk of overheating in homes is now one of the most severe climate-related threats in the UK. The Climate Change Committee’s independent climate risk assessment identifies overheating in homes as one of the most severe climate risks, requiring urgent action. Over half of UK homes are already at risk of overheating, and that is projected to increase to 90% homes under a 2°C global warming scenario, which unfortunately is a possibility. This is not some distant hypothetical; the Met Office recorded the UK’s first ever 40°C day in 2022. Already around 2,000 deaths per year in England are attributed to heat waves, a number that is projected to more than triple by the 2050s under even a medium-emissions scenario. This is not just a health issue but an economic one. Evidence shows that overheating in buildings could cost the UK economy £60 billion a year—the equivalent of 1.5% to 2% of GDP—through lost productivity. That is on top of the economic costs of heat-related mortality, estimated to already be £6.4 billion per year in England, which is likely to increase to £14.7 billion per year by the 2050s. These are huge figures. As highlighted by the Climate Change Committee, “early adaptation investments deliver high value for money”, with every £1 invested in adaptation delivering £10 in net economic benefits. That is a huge rate of return and a huge benefit-cost ratio. As heard by the Environmental Audit Committee, passive measures supported through planning, such as installing external shutters, can reduce incidence of heat mortality by around 40%. Given the urgency, I draw the Committee’s attention to a regrettable decision made more than a decade ago. In 2012, the coalition Government removed references to “overheating” from the national planning policy framework. This left a significant gap in our planning system’s ability to deal with overheating risks—one that has not been adequately addressed since. That is precisely why we need the new clauses. There are five in the group, each of which deals with a particular element that needs addressing, and I will go through them now. New clause 77 would empower local authorities to impose conditions on planning permissions where there is demonstrable overheating risk, such as single-aspect flatted developments with no cross-ventilation. It is a targeted, proportionate provision that would allow planning authorities to respond to local climatic data with appropriate preventive conditions, and it would undo the short-sighted change introduced by the previous Government. New clause 78 would introduce statutory guidance on the cooling hierarchy, an approach that is already familiar in London planning policy. The hierarchy prioritises passive design strategies, such as shading and ventilation, before resorting to energy-intensive cooling. This aligns with our net zero goals and ensures resilience, without placing undue burden on developers and the grid. Why would we not ensure that our buildings can effectively cool themselves before going to measures such as installing air conditioning? New clause 79 would address a significant gap by requiring all full planning applications for residential developments to include an overheating risk assessment, using the established TM59 standard, or its successor, from the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers. At present, many new homes are being designed with large, south-facing windows, poor ventilation and inadequate shading. Building regulations alone do not capture this risk at the early design stage, so the planning system must intervene. Overheating is a planning issue, not just a building regulations issue. Building regulations govern how buildings are constructed; planning dictates what gets built and where.

It is a long-standing norm that building regulations deal not just with the construction of buildings but their thermal efficiency and performance. That is why energy performance certificates were introduced, and there are regulations on windows, glazing and glass roofs all found within the building regulations. Surely these provisions on overheating need to go hand in hand with those provisions on thermal efficiency in housing, and therefore sit far better within building regulations than in this Bill.

I do not at all dispute that there is potential to go further and faster within the framework of building regulations to address the risks that I am outlining. However, there is also potential within the planning framework to do it, which is exactly the point that I have made. The removal of “overheating” from the planning framework in 2022 meant that things have got worse. We have an opportunity in the Bill to ensure that we tackle overheating through the planning framework, as well as the building regulations framework. It really is not an either/or. There is scope and need within both those frameworks to address the risks that I am outlining. New clause 80 would ensure that local plans must consider passive design in residential development, from cross-ventilation to thermal mass. These are well-established strategies that can drastically reduce indoor temperatures during extreme heat events without energy use. Finally, new clause 81 would ensure that local authorities have access to up-to-date, localised overheating risk data. Evidence-based planning is possible only when planners are equipped with timely, spatially accurate information. Datasets such as these have already been pioneered in places like Bristol, with its Keep Bristol Cool map and local plan policies. Likewise, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs has been developing national data on overheating, and that could form the basis of rolling out such support nationally. We really must not miss this opportunity. Climate adaptation cannot be an afterthought; it needs to be embedded in our planning framework and how we plan our communities, protect our citizens and shape the homes of tomorrow. These five new clauses offer a clear, practical and urgently needed framework to ensure that our planning system is fit for a warmer world. I urge the Committee to support them.

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for tabling the new clauses and raising the very real social and economic issue of overheating in our homes. I absolutely agree with her aims to ensure that homes being built do not give rise to the health and lifestyle risks that come with overheating. In 2021, a new part of the building regulations—part O —was introduced, which was designed specifically to ensure that new homes are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. As the hon. Lady will know, compliance with building regulations is mandatory. Given the transitional arrangements that accompany new building regulations, it is only relatively recently that we have seen new homes built specifically to mitigate the risk of overheating, so we are seeing that effect come through the planning system. As part of the future homes and buildings standards consultation, which ran from December 2023 to March 2024, my Department ran a call for evidence on part O. This was to investigate how industry was finding part O, how it was being implemented and whether further improvements could be made. The Government response to that call for evidence, with details of next steps, will be issued later this year. Different regulatory regimes exist for different purposes, and aspects of building construction concerned with heating and cooling are best addressed through these regulations. The planning system absolutely has a role in mitigating the risks of overheating, but in the Government’s view, that is more in the overall layout and form of development—matters that are covered in national planning policy. Notwithstanding the comments that the hon. Lady made about changes introduced by the coalition Government, paragraph 161 of the national planning policy framework sets out that concern must be given to “taking into account the long-term implications” of a range of matters, including overheating. I reassure the hon. Lady that there is specific reference to overheating in the NPPF as it stands. As we have discussed several times, the framework was partially revised in December last year, but we have again committed to consult on clearer policies for development purposes, which is how decisions on applications are made. These will cover the full range of planning considerations, including how the planning system can address the risks posed by climate change. This is a really important topic, but we think that we are addressing it through our work to strengthen building regulations and planning policy in the future. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is somewhat reassured and will withdraw the motion.

I am somewhat reassured that the Minister recognises the severity of the problem. None the less, I maintain that there is need and scope to go further in ensuring that the planning system specifically enables us to address this issue. In the interests of gently encouraging the Minister further in the direction of tackling overheating, I will press this new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

41|0|3|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 88

Use of compulsory purchase powers for active travel routes

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance on what is to be considered a compelling case in the public interest in relation to the use of compulsory purchase powers.

(2) The guidance must make clear that—

(a) the use of compulsory purchase powers for the purposes of developing or facilitating active travel routes are to be considered in the public interest;

(b) when proposing the use of compulsory purchase powers for the purposes of developing or facilitating active travel routes, local planning authorities are—

(i) required to demonstrate that best efforts have been made to consider alternative route options, but

(ii) are not required to demonstrate that the proposed route is the only or best route.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘active travel’ means modes of travel which involve a level of activity on the part of the traveller.”—(Olly Glover.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, in the final hour of this Bill Committee—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—metaphorically speaking, of course. I rise to speak to new clause 88 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). The new clause is intended to update the guidance on the use of compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes. One of the reasons the Liberal Democrats tabled the new clause is because, not unlike many other forms of infrastructure, building active travel routes seems to take a disproportionately long time and involve a huge amount of legal complexity. This is one idea to help make it a little easier. The new clause calls on the Secretary of State to review existing guidance and remove barriers to using compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes—I have previously pledged not to use that term—by which I mean walking, cycling and wheeling routes. Such orders can be used to acquire land for a project or development that is in the public interest, but local authorities seem currently reluctant to use them, although they regularly do so for road projects. To give an example, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame, the Thame to Haddenham greenway is a cycleway that will connect Thame to the village Haddenham, just three miles away, which would also help to improve connectivity between Thame itself and the Haddenham and Thame Parkway station on the Chiltern main line. Currently, reaching one from the other requires a cycle down the very busy A418. It is an important link, as it would provide safer pedestrian and cycle routes for tourism, for visiting friends and family in the area, and for commuting to and from London. I could bore the Committee with many similar examples in my own constituency, but I shall restrain myself on this occasion. The delay is being caused by a variety of issues, but the biggest in this case is trying to acquire the land. Because of the number of owners, it is often the case that one may refuse, even if many others are willing, making the whole route or project impossible. Using a compulsory purchase order would allow the local authority to bypass such obstacles to build the project, as it would be seen as delivering a public good. While there are a few cases of CPOs being used successfully for active travel, it is difficult because local authorities are reluctant, and the new clause would improve that situation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

14:15:00

I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking to new clause 88, tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame. The new clause would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish guidance within 12 months of the Bill becoming law on what is considered a compelling case in the public interest for the use of compulsory purchase powers, and to clarify that active travel schemes are in the public interest. The Government already publish guidance on the compulsory purchase process, including advice on how local authorities can demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest for the use of their CPO powers in general terms. It also provides more detailed guidance on the most commonly used local authority powers. The Government are keen to support local authorities to use their CPO powers in the public interest, and we published updated guidance in October last year. We also intend to publish updated guidance to reflect the reforms being implemented through the Bill. In addition, CPO powers can already be used for active travel routes and can be executed by local authorities as part of their wider statutory functions. To assist authorities in deploying the powers more effectively, Active Travel England is developing guidance to support local authorities in the design and delivery of active travel routes. The guidance will be published in consultation with local authorities in due course. Given that the guidance that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has requested on the CPO process already exists, and further guidance is set to be published by Active Travel England, we believe the new clause is unnecessary, and I am afraid I cannot accept it for those reasons.

I thank the Minister for his comments. I was very pleased to hear him reference Active Travel England; as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, I have been very impressed by the leadership of Chris Boardman, and it is good to hear the Minister making encouraging noises in that direction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 91 Embodied carbon assessments “(1) Local planning authorities must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act— (a) require applications for permission for developments which exceed a specified gross internal area and number of dwellings to include an embodied carbon assessment; (b) consider a relevant embodied carbon assessment as a material factor when considering whether to grant permission for the development. (2) The Secretary of State must— (a) approve a methodology for calculating embodied carbon emissions; (b) provide guidance on how the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings must be expressed; and (c) establish a centralised reporting platform to which embodied carbon and whole life carbon assessments must be submitted. (3) For the purposes of this section— ‘embodied carbon’ means the total emissions associated with materials and construction processes involved in the full life cycle of a project; ‘whole life carbon’ means the combination of embodied and operational emissions across the full life cycle of a project; ‘operational emissions’ means the carbon emissions from the energy used once a project is operational, including from heating, lighting and cooling.”—(Ellie Chowns.) This new clause would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning application and consideration of these by local planning authorities. The Secretary of State will be required to approve a methodology, issue guidance, and establish a centralised reporting platform for whole-life carbon emissions. 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 108—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961— “In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”

New clause 91 would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning process. It is a practical, forward-looking measure that I think will make a significant difference. It has been called for widely by industry, and indeed by parliamentarians, for some years, and it relates to a critical and currently unregulated area of the UK’s built environment emissions. The new clause would require planning applications for development only over a certain size to include an embodied carbon assessment, and it would provide for the Secretary of State to approve a methodology, issue guidance on how the assessments should be carried out, and establish a centralised reporting platform. Crucially, it would require that local planning authorities consider these assessments as a material factor when reviewing an application. Embodied carbon refers to the emissions associated with materials and construction processes throughout the whole life cycle of a building or of infrastructure. This is typically from any processes, materials or products used to construct, maintain, repair, refurbish or repurpose a building. The UK Green Building Council estimates that the UK releases around 60 million tonnes of embodied carbon per year. That is more than aviation and shipping combined, and it accounts for over 10% of UK emissions. This is really significant. As I mentioned on a previous day, as we become more efficient in the operational carbon in our buildings, the embodied carbon in them becomes an increasingly significant part of the carbon reduction challenge in the building sector. Embodied carbon has not substantially reduced over the last 30 years, unlike operational carbon, despite initiatives to decarbonise material manufacturing. Unlike operational carbon, which can be regulated through building performance standards, embodied carbon remains unaddressed by policy. As a result, decisions with very significant long-term climate implications are being made every day without a consistent framework for assessing their carbon impact. It is a huge unregulated problem. The new clause seeks to close that gap in a measured and industry-ready way. It would not impose a burden on small-scale development—only major schemes, where carbon savings from early design choices are both most impactful and most achievable. It would buils on existing tools and industry momentum, and industry actually really wants this. There are already widely used standards and guidance available, including the whole life carbon assessment guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the UK net zero carbon buildings standard and the embodied carbon primer from the London Energy Transformation Initiative. Many local authorities, such as the Greater London Authority, Bristol and Manchester, have begun requiring whole life carbon assessment as part of planning. Embedding this requirement in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would provide clarity and consistency, saving time and minimising potential legal challenge by ensuring that planning authorities are demonstrably committing to the fulfilment of statutory climate duties. It would empower local planning authorities to make more informed, balanced decisions that take account of our legally binding net zero commitments and provide a consistent policy environment in which developers can operate. This next bit is really important: there is strong consensus from industry that there is a need for this requirement to be widespread. Over 140 organisations have signed up to Part Z, a proposal developed by industry that calls for embodied carbon regulation. The industry is ahead of the politicians on this, and they are calling for it. This new clause requires a central database and consistent measurement framework to streamline and simplify the current diversity of approaches. Standardisation of embodied carbon measurement is a major priority, with leading industry organisations—such as UKGBC, the Royal Institute of British Architects, CIBSE, the Institution of Structural Engineers and RICS—calling for a national framework to ensure consistency between planning authorities. Importantly—this is my final paragraph—this new clause aligns with the Bill’s aim to accelerate the delivery of housing and infrastructure while ensuring that the system is fit for future needs. The decisions that we make today about what we build and how we build it will lock in emissions for decades. This new clause is not a barrier to development: it is a tool to build better, more responsibly, more efficiently and more sustainably. It enables early intervention, supports innovation and ensures that the carbon cost of our buildings is not ignored in the rush to meet targets. It is pragmatic, proportionate and backed by industry. If the Minister is not inclined to accept the new clause, I would very much welcome a meeting with him to discuss how we can ensure that embodied carbon is taken forward and we use Government policy to address this important issue.

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this new clause, and I very much recognise the challenge that she has outlined. The Government are committed to the 2050 net zero carbon emissions target, and we recognise that embodied carbon can account for a significant proportion of a building’s whole life carbon emissions. Climate change is obviously one of the greatest challenges facing the world today, and managing carbon emissions and carbon storage is vital to mitigating the speed and impact of climate change. The national planning policy framework is clear that the planning system should contribute to and support the transition to a low-carbon future. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. Our consultation in the summer of last year on changes to the NPPF deliberately sought views on whether carbon can be accurately measured and accounted for in plan-making and planning decisions to establish industry readiness and identify any challenges to widespread use of carbon assessments in planning. We received a wide range of views on this topic, and based on the responses received, we do not consider it appropriate to make carbon assessments a mandatory requirement using a standardised methodology at this stage. However, we consider that both local authorities and developers could benefit from clearer guidance on the use of appropriate tools to assist in reducing the use of embodied carbon and operational carbon in the built environment, and we have committed to updating the relevant planning policy guidance to support this. Addressing embodied carbon is a challenge across the built environment and construction supply chains, not just in buildings. As other policies take effect, and industries that supply construction decarbonise, the embodied carbon emissions of buildings will fall in turn. I am happy to give the matter further thought, and I am more than happy to have the hon. Member for North Herefordshire take one of my Tea Room surgery appointment slots.

I thank the Minister, and look forward to discussing this with him further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 94 Considerations when deciding an application for development consent “In section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (acceptance of applications), after subsection (4) insert— ‘(4A) When deciding whether to accept an application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which consultation with affected communities has— (a) identified and resolved issues at the earliest opportunity; (b) enabled interested parties to understand and influence the proposed project, provided feedback on potential options, and encouraged the community to help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits and minimise any disbenefits; (c) enabled applicants to obtain relevant information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of the project; and (d) enabled appropriate mitigation measures to be identified, considered and, if appropriate, embedded into the proposed application before the application was submitted.’”—(Gideon Amos.) This amendment to the Planning Act 2008 would require the Secretary of State to consider the content and adequacy of consultation undertaken with affected communities when deciding an application for development consent. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I will be brief, Mrs Hobhouse. Earlier in the progression of the Bill, we debated the removal of the pre-application requirement—all the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation under the Planning Act 2008. It may be wishful thinking, but it seemed to me that it was a generally held view that a qualitative test of some sort was needed for the consultation carried out by applicants before a DCO NSIP application is accepted for examination. That is certainly the opinion among the Liberal Democrats. We therefore drafted the new clause, which repeats the four key paragraphs on the requirements for good consultations, which are in Government guidance, and places them on the face of the Bill as something to which the Secretary of State should have regard when considering whether to accept an application for development. In other words, in simple terms, when an application comes in, the Secretary of State and the inspector should consider the extent to which the applicant has consulted people and how well they have consulted people. That seems to be a basic, straightforward and simple requirement. I am sure the Government will have many complicated reasons for why this cannot be done, but to my mind it seems a straightforward way of dealing with it: introducing a qualitative test for Government to apply, given that they are removing all the pre-application consultation requirements from the primary legislation. I have a quotation from Suffolk county council. As many will know, Suffolk has had more than its fair share of nationally significant infrastructure projects, far more than anywhere else in the country, starting with the Ipswich rail chord a number of years ago, with which I had some involvement. Suffolk is the site of numerous offshore wind farms, solar farms, Sizewell and huge numbers of cable routes and substations so, as the council describes it: “Suffolk County Council has been involved with the delivery of projects under the Planning Act…since 2010”. It states: “The proposed replacement of a statutory requirement, by statutory guidance alone, is therefore, neither sufficient nor robust.” I will not continue the quotation in the interests of time. I am sure that the Committee gets the gist. We offer the new clause as a way of securing sensible test, so that there is proper pre-application consultation, and that that continues to occur despite the removal of all the requirements under the Act.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the new clause. Without testing the patience of the Committee too far, I will speak fairly briefly to set out the Government’s position, because I recognise the concerns that were expressed in previous debates. As he described, the new clause would result in the Secretary of State having to take into account how community consultation has taken place in the determination of whether an NSIP application should be accepted for examination. Specifically, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to consider whether the application has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during early phases, obtained relevant information about the locality, and enabled appropriate mitigation through community consultation. We recognise the crucial role that communities’ engagement and consultation can play in building infra-structure that mitigates impacts and increases benefits for communities, but the Government do not agree that a statutory test is the right way to achieve that objective. Evidence shows that the statutory consultation requirements —as debated at length in an earlier part of the Bill—which are unique to the NSIP regime, are creating perverse alternatives. Risk-averse developers end up producing lengthy documentation that is aimed at lawyers and not communities. Moreover, developers are disincentivised to change their schemes in light of responses to those consultations for fear that they would have to go out to consultation again. Let us be clear; this slows down delivery and increases cost to all our detriment. As we discussed with the pre-application stage, the times have nearly doubled since 2013 to over two years, and we estimate that our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. For this reason, as we have already debated, the Government have tabled amendments to remove all statutory consultation requirements during pre-application. This includes amending the acceptance test in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 to remove the adequacy of consultation test.

14:30:00

The new acceptance test will enable the Secretary of State to reach a more balanced judgment on the quality of the application, rather than focusing on whether statutory requirements have been met. Importantly, applications will be assessed on their suitability to proceed to complete the examination stage within statutory timeframes. The Government have made it clear that, without adequate engagement and consultation, applications are unlikely to proceed to examination. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we will produce guidance to make that clear and help applicants demonstrate that their applications are of a satisfactory standard. The applicants’ adherence to advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate will now be taken into account during the acceptance test, as per PIB introduction.

This advice and the pre-application services provided to applicants will continue to emphasise the importance of resolving issues, front-loading applications and building and obtaining relevant local information and relationships with the community. Reintroducing statutory tests related to community consultation and acceptance would again, in our view, reinstate the risk-averse behaviours currently at play that ultimately negatively impact communities.

Although amendments have removed the need to undertake consultation in line with the requirements in the Planning Act or consider the approach to consultation and acceptance, the Government remain clear and committed to guiding developers to engage with communities, as doing so remains vital to delivering successful infrastructure projects that are suitable to proceed to examination. With those reassurances, although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may take a different view in principle, I hope that he might consider withdrawing the new clause.

It continues to be a privilege to serve the Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and a pleasure to serve under my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I am very grateful for the opportunity to respond to what the Minister has said on this new clause. It is worth pointing out that the new clause would not reintroduce all the procedural requirements that are being removed from the Planning Act 2008. It would place a test in the Bill that, as the Minister has just said, will already be applied, because it is in the guidance. If it is already being applied under guidance, I am not sure why the Government feel that it will be so detrimental and delay applications to such a great extent. Including this provision in the Bill would give the Secretary of State the clear ability to refuse an application where that consultation has been wholly and completely inadequate. Take, for example, an applicant who comes forward after completely refusing to consult anybody on anything. There would be nothing in the Bill that expressly allows the Minister to take that into account when deciding whether to accept the application for examination. I know that the Committee would like to make progress, so I will not press the new clause to a vote. I think the point has been made, and I hope the Government will consider it further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 95 Repeal of requirement for agreement to removal of consent in DCOs “In the Planning Act 2008, omit section 150 (removal of consent requirements).”—(Gideon Amos.) This amendment to the Planning Act 2008 would remove the existing requirement that development consent orders can only remove a requirement for consent or authorisation with the agreement of the relevant consenting body. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would remove section 150 from the Planning Act 2008, which would restore the ability to elected Ministers, when making decisions on NSIPs, to make decisions on other consents, which is currently reserved to executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. In other aspects of the Planning Act, these big development consent order projects are intended to follow a single-consenting regime, which works reasonably well. As we discussed earlier today, it includes a listed building consent, conservation area consent and a whole range of other matters. Certain consents are reserved to other executive agencies—or quangos, we might say. That is time consuming, as it obstructs the principle of a single, one-stop shop for these big projects. It is also less democratic even than the Secretary of State taking the decision. Industry is keen on this new clause. Another reason to table it was to show the Minister that we also have proposals to speed up the process, where that does not remove people’s democratic say. The new clause would enhance that democratic say, because it would restore to elected Ministers some of the decisions that are currently reserved to unelected arm’s length bodies. The new clause is offered in the spirit of improving the Planning Act 2008 regime.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the new clause. As he says, it seeks to repeal section 150 of the Planning Act 2008. I recognise the issue touched on, and it is one that the Government have considered but ultimately decided not to make the changes that he seeks, for reasons that I will outline. In addition to the planning permit granted through the DCO, NSIPs have to secure a range of other, secondary consents. Those can be temporary permits if only needed for construction, or permanent permits if needed for operating the development. Section 150 enables applicants to include those secondary consents in the DCO, instead of having to seek them separately. That speeds up the consenting process, but it is subject to the agreement of a relevant consenting authority, such as the Environment Agency. The Government agree that the consenting and permitting process for NSIPs needs to be streamlined, and work is ongoing to achieve that. Seeking permits after the DCO has been granted causes unnecessary delays to the construction of significant infrastructure schemes. As the hon. Gentleman referenced, section 150 was intended to support the one-stop shop ambition of the NSIP regime, but in practice is rarely used. Consenting bodies require a large amount of information to decide on a permit application, but applicants rarely have such information this early in the planning application process. As we said in the planning reform working paper, the Government want to deliver the one-stop shop vision for the NSIP regime. We considered potential reforms, such as a deemed consent framework, or indeed to repeal section 150, to reduce barriers and increase uptake. However, after speaking extensively with stakeholders, we think that those are not viable options. The new clause repealing section 150 would allow applicants to include consents and permits in their draft DCO application without the agreement of the consenting body. The secondary consents would then be included in the DCO under section 120, which does not require permission from the relevant consenting authority. That risks, however, lessening the robustness of the permitting process for the following reasons. As the draft DCO is submitted at an early stage, most applicants do not have enough information about their project to underpin a permitting decision, and consenting bodies would need to evaluate applications based on incomplete information. The Secretary of State making the decision on the DCO would likely have insufficient information to make a robust and legally sound decision. In particular for environmental permits, there is a risk of regression on environmental standards. Some consents are also not suitable to be included in the DCO, because they relate to ongoing activities that a regulating body needs to monitor, and where permits may need to be amended or revoked. I therefore disagree—the Government took this view on the balance of serious consideration, after engaging with a wide range of stakeholders—that repealing section 150 would be beneficial. Instead, we will reduce the permitting burden by reforming the permitting system. Many NSIPs need environmental permits for low-risk temporary construction activities. Our wide-ranging reforms will modernise, accelerate and simplify decisions to get projects and developments moving, while upholding protections for the environment and local communities. The reforms by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will further empower regulators to make risk-based decisions on which activities should be exempt from needing environmental permits. Easing permitting requirements for low-risk activities will help to speed up consenting and construction, as well as incentivise more investment in infrastructure. Further operational and service improvements to the Environment Agency’s permitting service will enable permits to be issued faster. Additionally, we will provide clearer guidance to applicants and consenting authorities to improve the usage of section 150 in its current form. I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington accepts that we recognise the problem, but think that there is a different way to address the challenges he has highlighted that does not involve a full repeal of section 150. We agree that change is needed, but we are focusing on alternative and what we consider more effective solutions. On that basis, I hope that he is reassured, although I recognise the point he makes.

I am concerned that this smacks of certain parts of Government reserving to themselves decisions that could easily come under one Secretary of State, and would be the one-stop shop that we would all like to see. In the interests of time, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 96 Review of land value capture “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of land value capture. (2) A review under this section must consider— (a) the benefits of different methods of land value capture; (b) international best practice; (c) how changes to existing practice could assist in the meeting of housing targets and the delivery of critical infrastructure and public services; and (d) how any changes to existing practice could be incorporated into UK planning law. (e) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the conclusion of the review, lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review.”—(Olly Glover.) This new clause would require a review into methods of land value capture, to ensure the public benefit from instances where land value rises sharply, and for this to be considered to be incorporated into UK planning legislation. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require a review into methods of land value capture, for reasons that I shall explain. As the Minister will be aware, currently the primary mechanisms to capture land value uplifts in England are developer contributions, in the form of section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy. While those mechanisms bring some benefits, they are not without their challenges. Earlier this year, the Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee launched an inquiry to examine how land value capture policies can contribute to the delivery of the Government’s house building plans and, crucially, help to fund affordable housing and public infrastructure. The Committee gathered valuable insights from experts, and one finding was that in high- value locations such as the greater south-east, to put it in affordable housing terms, only 19.6% is being achieved on average at the moment, whereas one could achieve 40% to 50%. Land value capture is not unknown in this country—indeed, it is being used to finance the ongoing operational costs of the newly reopened Northumberland line between Newcastle, Blyth and Ashington in the north-east of England—but we need a land value capture system more widely that is fair and delivers what communities need: genuinely affordable housing, and public infrastructure and services that people can rely on. Moving to more mechanisms for local authorities to use land value capture methods other than section 106 and CIL might enable them to fund some more expensive elements of infrastructure, such as new railway stations or lines, that are currently neglected. The new clause would require a review into land value capture methods, building on the work of the Select Committee inquiry. National Government should consult with local government. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of land value capture. As he says, local planning authorities can use developer contributions secured through section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy to capture a proportion of the increases in land value that occur as a result of planning permission being granted. Developer contributions play a vital role in the planning system: nearly half of affordable homes delivered in England each year are through section 106 planning obligations, and contributions from developers fund essential infrastructure to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why, as I made clear previously in relation to earlier amendments and clauses, the Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide the necessary affordable homes and local infrastructure. To that end, we chose not to implement the alternative proposal for land value capture provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—namely, a mandatory infrastructure levy, which the previous Government would have had replace section 106 and CIL—given the concerns raised by many involved in the planning system. I remember extensive debates on that point in Committee; if hon. Members think that some of the debates that we have had lasted a long time, I refer them back to the Hansard reports of the debates on that infrastructure levy. There were real risks that it would, overall, have led to our receiving less affordable housing than under the present system, so we are not taking it forward. We have already made progress through the revised national planning policy framework published on 12 December last year in other areas—for example, the new golden rules for green belt development, which are designed to capture more of the land value uplift to fund central infrastructure and high levels of affordable housing—and we will legislate to give mayors of strategic authorities the power to raise a mayoral CIL, alongside the requirement to have a spatial development strategy in place, enabling them to raise revenue for strategic growth-supporting infrastructure where that is balanced with viability. We welcome an ongoing discussion about how we improve the system of developer contributions—I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the hon. Gentleman’s when we bring the Government’s proposals forward in due course—and I personally look forward to engaging with the findings of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s important inquiry into this subject. However, we believe that the Government’s focus is better directed on delivery at this stage, reporting to Parliament through the usual procedures. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member is content to withdraw the motion.

14:45:00

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments; the Committee will be delighted to learn that I will not rise to his challenge to debate at inordinate length. It is good to hear that the Government are taking forward some proposals in this area and, given that there is an ongoing Select Committee inquiry, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 98 Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to— (a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables; (b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations; (c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment; (d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment. (2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”—(Gideon Amos.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land. 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 99—Extension of permitted development— “The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act— (a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development— (i) upgrading of existing lines from single to three phase; (ii) alteration of conductor type; (iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002; (iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line; (v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights; (vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV; (vii) installation of additional stays supporting wood poles; (viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002; (ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years. (b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”

New clauses 98 and 99 would require the Government to review permitted development rights and land acquisition rights for the electricity distribution network. The electricity distribution network is about 200,000 kilometres of bending overhead lines. If we are going to deliver net zero and economic growth, the anomalies now appearing in the system need to be addressed. There is a massive challenge for us in delivering more local renewable energy installations, as more farmers want batteries and more people want solar panels on their roofs. The stress on the distribution network is significant—the Minister will know a lot more about this than I do—and we need to upgrade our distribution network as rapidly as possible. That reminds me of a seminar I once organised, when someone from National Grid said, “You can tell the road with all the solar panels on the roofs by the substation on fire at the end of it.” We really need to find a way to resolve the overloading of the distribution network, which can pose risks—though hopefully not fires—and challenges to those trying to upgrade their local network. I have a couple of examples. Where there is a row of poles with two cables on them going across a field, just to put a third cable on there requires a planning application. When we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of kilometres of electricity line, that seems overly rigorous and constrained. Similarly, if someone wishes to increase the height of the poles by more than 10%—let us say they want to increase them by 12%—that would require a full planning application process. We hope these new clauses are self-explanatory in their aim of to moving us closer and faster towards delivering on communities’ net zero ambitions. I have growing confidence that the Government will accept these new clauses without any further debate—but I have always been an optimist. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

I hate to let the hon. Gentleman down at this hour of the Committee, but I will outline why we cannot accept his new clauses. I think he will, however, be pleased with the Government’s position on this. I will turn first to new clause 98, which requires the Government to consult on the implementation of measures to give distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land. First, we completely agree with the case that the hon. Gentleman outlined. The distribution network does the vast majority of the heavy lifting to get electricity to all our homes and businesses, and it plays a critical role. It will require significant upgrading over the coming years, not least with the increase in demand that we expect. We agree that the current regime for infrastructure is not fit for purpose, as do developers and landowners. We are all in agreement, which is fantastic at this hour of the Committee. The reason I cannot support this new clause is that we want to propose—if I may say so—a more ambitious set of reforms to land rights and consenting processes later this year. While we agree with the principle of many of the proposed changes, it is important that we get their detail right and ensure that they are developed with particular consideration of the rights of landowners. We will consult on reforms in this area, and following that consultation, we will look at including appropriate measures in future legislation, where necessary.

I wonder whether the Minister could be a little more definite. He referred to future legislation and some time this year, but I cannot help but think that I have heard those phrases before on some other topics. Is there a concrete proposal to bring forward legislation in this area?

A working group, involving people from across the Department and all those involved in this area, has been working on these proposals, and a consultation will be brought forward shortly. In the King’s Speech, we committed to a Bill that addresses a number of different areas in the energy space, and we hope that this area could be included. However, it is necessary to complete the consultation process in order to know what those measures might look like. On new clause 99, I broadly agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has raised. Reform is necessary for us to meet the increasing demand for clean energy, and upgrading the distribution network will play a crucial role, particularly in connecting small-scale renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind, as well as the widespread adoption on the demand side, which we do not often speak about, with the roll-out of electric vehicles and heat pumps. Without upgrades in this space, we risk falling short of our climate goals and hindering progress towards our sustainable future. While we are in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman on the need for change, we do not support this particular new clause because it is possible for us to complete many of these changes through secondary legislation. As with new clause 98, it is also crucial that landowners’ views are heard and understood before any of these changes are implemented. We may wish to consider other reforms as part of this process or to discount certain proposals based on the evidence from those relevant stakeholders. That is why the Government have committed to consult on these and other reforms in the summer. That is the most appropriate way forward, rather than the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw new clause 98.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 101 Preservation of playing fields and pitches “(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches. (2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to— (a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development; or (b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘playing fields’ and ‘playing pitches’ have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”—(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 New clause 111—Protection of villages— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages. (2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to— (a) preventing villages from merging into one another, (b) preventing villages merging into towns, and (c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”

New clause 101 concerns the protection of playing fields, which are vital to people’s health and wellbeing by creating important opportunities for physical activity, with multiple benefits for mental health and physical health. Following the Government’s decision to withdraw Fields in Trust from the list of statutory consultees, there is widespread concern about the loss of playing fields and the under-provision of play and green spaces—[Interruption.]

Order. I hear the Division bell; I suspend the Committee for 15 minutes.

14:53:00

15:08:00

On resuming—

I will be brief as we come to the last couple of new clauses that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to speak to today. I was speaking to new clause 101, which relates to playing fields. Fields in Trust is a charity that helps to protect playing fields and green spaces. Its public green space index is a way to track change over time, and it consistently finds inequality of access: one in three children do not have a playground close to home and 6.3 million people live more than 10 minutes away in walking time from a green space. The new clause would place a duty on local planning authorities to protect playing fields and pitches from development. In March this year—a couple of months ago—the Government announced that some organisations, including Sport England, will no longer be statutory consultees on planning decisions, in order to speed up development. The press release states: “The NPPF is clear that existing open spaces, sports, recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless an assessment has shown the space to be surplus to requirements or it will be replaced by equivalent or better provision.” The Government argued that such protections were sufficient, but Sport England states that: “from 2022-23 alone it protected more than 1,000 playing fields across the country.” That was in a Guardian article where it was reported that thousands of playing fields may be lost. The protections in the NPPF are therefore not sufficient. The effect of removing Sport England as a statutory consultee can only be to speed up development on playing fields. Sport England has also stated that “it responds to over 98% of applications within 21 days and that in 70% of statutory applications it does not object.” There is not a source of unnecessary delay as a result of Sport England being involved in the process. If those provisions are being removed, then the Government need to put in place more robust legal provisions for playing fields. The new clause would do that so that important community assets are not lost.

I will be brief: the issues in new clause 111, which it is my privilege to speak to, have already been extensively debated. We have just heard about protections in respect of playing fields; new clause 111 is about protections in respect of villages. Those are relevant to places such as Harefield in my constituency—pretty much the last village in London—and to the concerns highlighted by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), about some recent decisions on infilling, which puts the separation of villages from nearby towns at some degree of risk. We are keen to preserve it. We will press the new clause to a vote in due course.

I rise in support of the important new clause 111, in the name of the shadow Minister. I have six villages in my patch—Goffs Oak, Hertford Heath, Brickendon, Great Amwell, St Margarets and Stanstead Abbotts—all of which have a unique character. We need to protect village life; villages are all unique and different. The new clause is not saying that we do not want any development in villages—of course, to make progress, there has to be developmentbut people in villages in my constituency, and probably across the country, are fearful of having loads of development so that villages all get connected up together and lose their rural identity, village community and spirit. I would like the Government to really consider the new changes they have made to the national planning policy framework, particularly on villages. As I said, when we drive throughout the country, probably through hundreds of villages, we know they are all unique and have a different character. We should try to maintain that, rather than having an urban sprawl, with no green spaces left and developments that all link together. I fully support the new clause in the shadow Minister’s name.

I will start with new clause 101. I gently say to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that I do not agree with his interpretation of the reforms that we set out for the statutory consultee system or our minded reforms; as I have said, we will consult on those in fairly short order. We want to look at both the scope of statutory consultees and the specific application types on which they provide advice. We know that there are lots of applications where statutory consultees are required to be consulted but do not even engage with the issues for which they have responsibility. We think there is a sensible reform there. But I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s claim that the in-principle decision to look to consult on the removal of Sport England means that the Government are determined to develop on every playing field across the country. The Government agree that access to recreational spaces, including playing fields and pitches, is vital for the health and wellbeing of communities. Those spaces play an important role in supporting physical activity, social cohesion and opportunities for young people. The national planning policy framework already includes strong protections for playing fields and pitches. It sets out clear and robust tests that must be met before any development affecting such space can be approved. The policies ensure that playing fields can be lost only where the facility is no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative, such as equivalent or better provision elsewhere. Given those existing safeguards, we do not believe it is necessary to duplicate them in primary legislation. The risk is that doing so could lead to an overly rigid framework that limits the ability of local planning authorities. We have had a number of debates where in a sense we are trying to restrict the ability of local planning decisions—I do not think advertently, but perhaps inadvertently. We think local planning authorities are best placed to make some of these decisions. We do not want to overly restrict their ability to respond to the specific needs and circumstances of their communities. We need some of that flexibility to be left in the system.

15:15:00

I turn to new clause 111, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. As hon. Members will be aware, we recently published guidance on the green belt that supported the implementation of our modernised, more strategic and more targeted approach to green-belt land designation and release. That new approach in our revised NPPF reflects the contribution that low quality grey belt land can make to delivering the homes that our country desperately needs, while still protecting the overall purposes of the green belt.

To be clear, neither our green belt reforms nor the green belt guidance make any changes to the long-standing green belt purposes, which include preventing the merging of towns and safeguarding the setting and special character of historic towns. The guidance that we recently updated and released is clear that, when identifying grey belt, it is the contribution that land makes to those purposes that should be considered.

Our guidance reflects that the fundamental aim of green belt policy is, rightly, to prevent urban sprawl, with an explicit focus on larger built-up areas and towns. It does not remove appropriate and relevant green belt protections from land around villages. Any green belt land, including land in or near villages, that contributes strongly to the relevant purposes should not be identified as grey belt—the guidance is very clear on that point.

Authorities are also able to utilise other tools to restrict development in villages when that is necessary for a variety of other reasons, which we have set out. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for Broxbourne is reassured. He is a diligent member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, so he has probably read the guidance; the protections that it provides to the overall coherence of the green belt are clear and it does not undermine the contributions that the green belt makes. Safeguards are in place in policy and that guidance to ensure that the concerns that he outlines are unfounded. On that basis, I humbly ask him not to push proposed new clause 111.

We do not agree with the Government’s approach in removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. We are concerned that that will only lead to more development on playing fields. I will not detain the Committee with a vote, but I think that our position is clear. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 103 Local Area Energy Plans “(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan. (2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘Local Area Energy Plan’ means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to Net Zero.”—(Olly Glover.) This new clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would make the adoption of local area energy plans compulsory in England. Local area energy plans are now recognised as the leading method for turning national net zero targets into real, on-the-ground action. They offer a path that is not only strategic and data driven but collaborative and cost-effective. The plans are driven by local government, working hand in hand with key stakeholders from across the community. The result is a fully costed spatial plan that lays out exactly the changes needed to the local energy system and the built environment. Critically, it includes not just what needs to happen but where, when and by whom it should be delivered. Moreover, local area energy plans break down the big picture into manageable steps. They map out the costs, shifts in energy use and reductions in emissions over time. Such plans can be prepared to align with our national climate goals, including ultimately reaching net zero by 2050. I am proud to say that in Oxfordshire, where my constituency is, a local area energy plan is under development. However, despite their importance to our planning process and net zero target, such plans are not compulsory in England. That has not stopped many local authorities from preparing them, and I hope that the Government will note that many of those local authorities are controlled by the Labour party. In Greater Manchester, 10 boroughs have a local area energy plan in place. Plans are also in place in York and North Yorkshire, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Peterborough and the borough in which we are holding this debate: Westminster. In Wales, all 22 authorities have produced a local area energy plan because in Wales that is compulsory. If hon. Members do not believe me, I quote Shaun Gibbons, the head of carbon reduction at York city council: “The York Local Area Energy Plan has served an important role in articulating the scale of the net zero challenge and setting specific targets against some of our most pressing actions. It has provided a robust evidence base for external funding applications and has resulted in the Council accessing funding several times greater than the original cost of the plan.” The new clause would require local authorities to prepare local area energy plans and would be a key component in getting to net zero. In the final stages of this Committee, I have hope that the Minister will view the measure favourably, given that there is so much good practice from Labour-run councils.

I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling the new clause, and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for speaking to it—and for his praise of Labour councils, which we are always happy to hear from colleagues across the House. I recognise the important work and example of local area energy plans where they are working. Local authorities are taking a number of other actions right across the country to deliver net zero, many having drafted strategies in different ways and forms to achieve their own local aims, goals and ambitions alongside other strategies that local authorities might have. These are helpful documents to be able to refer to when planning for forthcoming energy projects and investment. We support the idea that local authorities may wish to look at these kinds of plans as part of the wider context around, for example, local growth plans. However, our view on the new clause is that now is not the right time to place an additional burden on all local authorities to have to develop local area energy plans—during a period of local government reorganisation, and crucially, as we are taking forward the regional energy strategic plans process, which is under way at the moment. A top-down requirement for a local area energy plan would risk duplicating local and regional energy system planning that the National Energy System Operator is carrying out in line with Ofgem’s recent decision to introduce regional energy strategic plans. Ofgem has set out that regional energy strategic plans will plan how local energy systems need to be developed to reach net zero, considering the national targets set by central Government, and, as part of the strategic planning of our energy system more generally, the local needs and most appropriate approach in each area. They will set out the energy requirements for each region presented spatially. They will also set the foundation for determining capacity required and strategic investment needs on a regional basis. Ofgem has stated that the National Energy System Operator will set up regional strategic boards, which will be responsible for providing oversight of regional energy plans, and it is anticipated that local government will be properly represented on those boards. We want local government to play an active role in the development of the regional energy plans. I understand that the work that many of them have been doing already, the evidence they have gathered and the experiences that they have had will be hugely helpful in supporting this process. The exact format of how each local government will contribute is still to be decided. Given that that process is ongoing and the huge amount of work as part of the strategic spatial energy plan and the regional plans, now is not the right time to place a new burden on local government to provide a uniform product across the country. Finally, given that many areas have multiple tiers of local government, the new clause risks a number of different duplicative plans covering the same geographical area. For those reasons, although I completely support the premise of the point about the importance of local participation in planning the energy system, we will not support the new clause.

I thank the Minister for his comments. It is good to know from him that the topic is being looked at with a geographical scope greater than single local authorities. We shall observe with interest how that goes. In the interests of having time to speak to other new clauses, I will not press this one to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 105 Extension of use classes C5 and C6 to England “In article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2022, after “Wales” insert “, except in relation to articles 2(e) and 2(f), which apply in relation to England and Wales”.”—(Gideon Amos.) This amendment of existing regulations would extend use classes C5 (Dwellinghouses, used otherwise than as sole or main residences) and C6 (Short-term lets), which currently only to apply to Wales, to England. 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 106—Change of certain use classes to require permission— “In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB). (1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C5 or Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land. (1AB) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C5, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.”” This amendment would require planning permission to be obtained to change the use of a dwelling to a second home or to a short term let use class and for changes of use between those classes.

I rise to speak on new clauses 105 and 106, which are the final new clauses in these debates—I know how disappointed Government Members will be to hear that news. They are a couple of important new clauses, and I will spend a couple of minutes on them. There are, of course, well discussed and rehearsed arguments about second homes and short-term lets and their effect on existing communities. New clause 105 would take the position in Wales, where there are separate use classes for short-term lets and second homes to enable them to be regulated, and extend that across to England. New clause 106 would ensure that planning permission was required to change a dwelling house to a second home or a short-term let. The previous Government indicated that they would legislate on short-term lets and allow planning authorities, local councils, to determine their extent, and that is what this is really about. Of course, second homes can be great for the local economy by bringing people to the area to spend money, but when they become a huge proportion of that local town or community, they can lead to businesses being closed and trade going away if the homes are left empty for too long. The same can apply to short-term lets. In Cornwall, there are 13,000 second homes. In Somerset, my own county, there are 4,200 second homes. In recent years, there has been a staggering 30% increase. The whole point of the two new clauses is that they would give local planning authorities the ability to plan and to say what the appropriate level of short-term lets and second homes in their communities was. It would give them the ability to set those policies themselves and to grant or refuse planning permissions in accordance with the policies, so that they could do what is right for their areas to ensure that they do not suffer from too many short-term lets and second homes, which are pulling resources out of their communities. We believe that the new clauses are vital and needed by councils around the country, and we urge the Government, at least on short-term lets, to make good on the previous commitment to introduce planning controls, not just taxation controls. Planning controls are needed because they shape the community in which people live and over which councils have a say.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling and speaking to these two new clauses and highlighting this really important issue, which does affect a large number of rural, coastal and, it is important to say, urban communities across the country. I have had a number of extremely fruitful meetings with colleagues on both sides of the House about it—most recently with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is from the same party as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and whose constituency typifies the problems that can occur from incredibly excessive concentrations of both short-term lets and second homes. Short-term lets and second homes can benefit local economies. They can be incredibly important for tourism in particular parts of the country. But we are also very aware of the concern that excessive concentrations can affect the affordability and availability of housing to buy and to rent, impact on the sustainability of local services and reduce the sense of local community. There is clearly a balance to be struck. As things stand, it has not been struck correctly. We think that change is needed in this area. To take action on short-term lets, we still intend to introduce a registration scheme for them to ensure the quality and safety of tourist accommodation, provide better data to local authorities and protect the spirit of our communities. In addition, from April 2025 the furnished holiday lettings tax regime was abolished, eliminating the tax advantages that short-term let owners had over private rented sector landlords. Furnished holiday let owners are now subject to the same income, corporation and capital gains tax rules as other landlords.

15:30:00

Also since April this year, councils have been able to charge a council tax premium of up to 100% on second homes. That is a discretionary power: councils can decide whether to charge a premium, at what level and how to use the funding to best support their communities. Lots of local authorities are using the power and are benefiting from what it provides.

I have heard calls for the introduction of use classes to address the problem of concentrations of short-term lets and second homes. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned, the previous Government’s proposed planning use class for short-term lets raised concerns that, if the proposals were accompanied by provision making clear that changes of use to and from short-term lets required planning permission, existing short-term lets would be locked in. Concerns were also expressed about the ability of local planning authorities to apply and enforce the changes.

Would the Minister not agree that the problem of locking-in could be countered by giving a lead-in time of six or 12 months? After that time, there would be a need for planning permission to continue with a short-term let, for example.

I note and accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, and there are a variety of considerations at play in this area. Locking in was one concern raised; enforcement was another. In response to feedback, we are considering the issue more generally. I make those points simply to say that this needs to be thought through carefully. I have made this point in the House a number of times, and I am happy to do so again: we recognise the case for further action on short-term lets and second homes. We are very carefully considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures they are facing, but this is a complex area, and we have to think carefully about introducing these types of restrictions. We need to explore various potential levers that could help better strike that balance between housing and the tourism economy before moving forward. We do not consider the planning changes set out in the new clause to be the most effective route to achieving that aim, but I once again reassure Members that we are taking concerns in this area very seriously and that I am more than happy to continue the dialogue with the hon. Gentleman and other Members who are affected. I know it is an extremely pressing issue in many constituencies. On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel content not to push the new clause to a vote.

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Gideon Amos for the final time in this Bill Committee.

I hope you and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) have not been discussing that this is to be my final time as the spokesperson, Mrs Hobhouse, but I am grateful for your introduction. It is the final time in this Committee—I definitely agree with you there. We believe this is a crucial issue and that the argument is well made for legislating for planning controls. I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for committing to taking further action, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches remain absolutely resolute that this needs legislation, so we will push the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

42|0|3|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 111

Protection of villages

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.

(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—

(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,

(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and

(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”—(David Simmonds.)

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

43|0|2|10|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 94

The Crown

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 101 and 102. Clause 95 stand part. Government amendments 68 to 71. Government amendments 55 and 56. Clause 96 stand part. Clause 97 stand part.

I rise to speak to the final group of clauses and amendments. Clause 94 simply sets out the Crown application of Bill measures. Government amendments 101 and 102 make minor technical changes to reflect the fact that the amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in schedule 6 extend only to England and Wales, because there are different versions of those Acts for England and Wales and for Scotland. I hope that the Committee accepts the amendments. Clause 95 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions in the Bill and whether each part of the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The devolution position has been debated in relation to each part during the discussion of that part. Government amendments 68 to 71 make minor consequential changes related to new clauses 44 and 45. To summarise, new clause 44 removes statutory consultation from pre-application, and new clause 45 makes subsequent changes to sections of the Planning Act 2008 and clauses as introduced by the Bill to reflect the changes made in new clause 44, and to remove reference to statutory requirements for consultation and associated documentation. The original clauses were to come into force six months after Royal Assent. These Government amendments now mean that new clauses 44 and 45 will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. In my written ministerial statement accompanying the tabling of the amendments, I made it clear that the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. As we have discussed, this will be an important component of how we implement the removal of statutory consultation requirements for NSIP projects. We will work with stakeholders to design the guidance and will launch a public consultation to seek input on how the guidance, regulations and transitional arrangements should be implemented. We are also aware that consequential changes to secondary legislation need to occur, so that associated legislation aligns with those changes. Therefore, the changes to the commencement of new clauses 44 and 45 allow the Government to adhere to commitments, ensure that guidance is in place to support changes and make the necessary changes to associated secondary legislation before the removal of statutory consultation requirements takes effect. Government amendment 55 relates to new clause 42 and the amendments that the Government are introducing to improve the process for accessing land when needing to survey it in connection with an application or proposed application for development consent, or the implementation of a development consent order. Under new clause 42, the Government will later be introducing regulations associated with the notices that will need to be served on landowners before an applicant, or proposed applicant, enters the land in question. Government amendment 55 will ensure that the amendments under new clause 42 will come into force only when the Secretary of State introduces regulations associated with that new clause. Government amendment 56 is a consequential change related to new clause 43. The merits of new clause 43 have already been debated. A proportionate and unified process for making changes to development consent orders post consent will be developed following appropriate consultation and engagement with consenting Departments and stakeholders and set out in revised regulations. Transitional provisions will be included in the revised regulations to ensure an efficient transition to the new system. The amendment will permit the clause introduced by new clause 43 to be introduced by regulations at the appropriate time. Clause 96 sets out how different provisions in the Bill will be commenced, and clause 97 reaffirms that the short title of the Act will be the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. I commend the clauses and amendments to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 95 Extent Amendments made: 101, in clause 95, page 134, line 11, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1A),”. This amendment, and Amendments 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108, are technical amendments reflecting the fact that there are different versions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 for England and Wales and for Scotland, and making it clear that the amendments to those Acts in Schedule 6 only extend to England and Wales. Amendment 102, in clause 95, page 134, line 12, at end insert— “(1A) Paragraphs 37 and 41 of Schedule 6 extend to England and Wales only.”—(Matthew Pennycook.) See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101. Clause 95, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 96 Commencement and transition provision Amendments made: 68, in clause 96, page 134, line 28, leave out “1, 2 and 3” and insert “1 to 4”. This amendment has the effect that the changes made by the new clauses inserted by NC44 and NC45, and current clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill, are to come into force by regulations. Amendment 69, in clause 96, page 134, line 30, leave out paragraph (b). This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68. Amendment 70, in clause 96, page 134, line 32, leave out paragraph (c). This amendment is consequential on Amendment 60. Amendment 71, in clause 96, page 134, line 34, leave out paragraph (d). This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68. Amendment 55, in clause 96, page 135, line 2, at end insert— “(ea) section (Planning Act 2008: right to enter and survey land) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”. This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by NC42 comes into force by regulations. Amendment 56, in clause 96, page 135, line 3, leave out “section 8 comes” and insert— “sections (Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders) and 8 come”.—(Matthew Pennycook.) This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by NC43 comes into force by regulations. Clause 96, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

On a point of order, Mrs Hobhouse. Briefly, I want to take the opportunity to put on the record my thanks to you and the other Chairs of the Committee. I also thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings. I thank my officials and private office team who have supported me and worked tirelessly to bring forward the ambitions of the complex piece of legislation that we have debated over recent weeks. Finally, I thank my fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, for his support on the relevant parts of the Bill that pertained to his Department; my other hon. Friends, whose valuable insights have benefited our deliberations; and the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington, for Didcot and Wantage, and for North Herefordshire for the spirited and constructive dialogue that we have had. I value all the contributions and challenges that have been made. I know we are all united in wanting to deliver the best piece of legislation that we can for our constituents and the country. I very much look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.

I thank the Minister for his point of order. I understand that it has been a marathon of a Bill. I thank all members of the Committee for their attendance, their great contributions and the respectful tone of the debate. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

15:43:00

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

PIB134 British Beer and Pub Association

PIB135 Humanist Climate Action

PIB136 District Councils’ Network (supplementary)

PIB137 Keswick Town Council

PIB138 Nuclear Industry Association (NIA)

PIB139 Nationwide Foundation