Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Committee (1st Day)

Amendment 1

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Purpose of this ActThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure,(b) improve the planning and consenting processes,(c) support nature recovery through more effective development and restoration, and(d) increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development.”

My Lords, on the opening day in Committee it is always good to start with a discussion about the basis of the Bill—the principles that form the fundamentals of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The reason for this amendment is just that. The policy drivers for the Bill are described in the preamble to the Explanatory Notes, which says that critical infrastructure must have “faster and more certain” consenting orders; that local planning committees are to be modernised to provide more certainty; that nature recovery requires “a more strategic approach”; and, finally, that the Bill

“intends to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and … infrastructure”.

It is accepted—certainly by those of us on these Benches—that our country has failed to build vital infrastructure in a timely and cost-effective way. All accept the urgent need for more housing, especially for housing with a social rent. However, what is seen as “streamlining” by the Government may be seen as “steamrolling” by communities. What are seen as modernising planning committees may well be seen as the removal of democratic decision-making and accountability. What is seen as a strategic approach to nature recovery may well be seen as the unacceptable relegation of the value and importance of nature to our community. Hence this amendment in my name, which seeks to clarify the purpose of the Bill by careful definition of the language used.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has tabled amendments to the original amendment, seeking to use the present participles, which, at least on the surface, would enhance the purpose of the amendment by emphasising its practical application. I look forward to the noble Lord’s explanation of his various amendments.

The first purpose in the proposed new clause in the amendment is to accelerate delivery. It is how that is achieved that requires careful consideration. The detailed arguments will be rehearsed in later groups, but acceleration should not, and must not, be achieved by the exclusion of the voices of communities. It would be a false economy, as the communities affected are able to mobilise quickly and demand that their voices be heard.

On the second purpose, the pre-application process is essential in enabling those affected to have the details openly shared and questions answered before the legal process of planning begins. The argument for continuing to engage and consult at the pre-application stage is the subject of later amendments and can be discussed in detail at that point. Equally, improving the planning process should enable democratic decision-making for those applications which are of a considerable size or impact, generate a large number of objections, or are not completely in line with the council’s local plan. These parameters should be decided by each individual council and not subject to a centralising diktat. There are already standards for completion of planning applications, and democratic decision-making is not the problem that it is made out to be.

The third purpose is to support nature recovery. The Bill refers to a strategic approach. However, what it means is potentially denuding an area of biodiversity for development, with nature recovery occurring some considerable distance away from the site and communities. That is not being strategic; that is deciding that the balance must always favour development at the cost of nature.

This proposed new clause is about seeking a better balance between development and nature; between accelerating decision-making and community involvement; and between having little trust in local democracy and giving councillors the responsibility to be part of the solution to the needs of the country. The contention in this amendment is that it is both possible and necessary to create a better balance between the competing ambitions of infrastructure provision, housebuilding and economic development on the one hand, and community involvement, democratic decision-making, and nature protection and enhancement on the other. Changes need to be made. There is an urgent need for more houses, especially social housing. Our country’s infrastructure is in desperate need of modernisation in a sustainable way that has the objective of minimising harm to nature and communities, but it must take place with people and not despite them. I beg to move.

Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1)

2: In the subsection, after “The purpose of this Act is to” insert “accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure by”

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her amendment. Although I am seeking to amend her amendment, I echo the point she raised; it is very useful to have a debate about the principles. As the noble Baroness inferred, the scope of the Bill, which is set out at the beginning, is very dry. It does not give the sense of what this is all about. I commend her perseverance in tabling this amendment and allowing us to debate this. I know that the House seems to frown on these “in principle” debates at the beginning of Committee, as I found in trying to amend her amendment.

The noble Baroness is right to identify that there are a lot of tensions and challenges in taking forward this agenda. They are not easily solved, and sometimes we have to accept that there are going to be some trade-offs. My main concern is to speed up energy infrastructure to get us to clean power and, as rapidly as possible, to net zero. I agree that balancing the need for new homes and critical infrastructure with a planning consent process that commands public confidence and supports nature recovery is absolutely right. One of the big problems is that many well-meaning agencies, regulators, planning committees and campaigners have made it almost impossible to get the kind of investment we need in our energy infrastructure. Clearly, it would be perverse for me to say we should disregard the whole issue of nature preservation and environmental issues in the charge for net zero. Equally, many of those organisations concerned about the environment have impeded our real efforts to achieve net zero. Somehow, we have to find a way through.

My noble friend the Minister will be aware of media speculation that her department is about to announce some concessions in relation to Part 3. There are many Labour MPs committed to the growth agenda who would be concerned if Part 3 is watered down and so impedes progress on the growth agenda. Whatever agreement may have been reached with some of the environmental organisations about the actions they are going to take as a result of what the media are certainly talking about as an agreement, it is my experience of the Lords that it will always pocket concessions given at an early stage and come back for more. Discussion of Part 3 is going to be very important. Many Labour MPs will be taking a close interest in the Government’s continued commitment to the growth agenda.

Moved by