Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Committee (5th Day)

Amendment 115

115: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause— “Rainwater harvesting and recycling(1) A local planning authority may not grant planning permission for a development of houses that does not incorporate rainwater harvesting in its design.(2) For the purposes of this section, rainwater harvesting includes—(a) rain collected from roofs and other surfaces above ground level, and(b) rain collected via a system of above ground pipes and tanks,and cannot include any rainwater harvesting which interferes with normal groundwater flow.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment seeks to ensure that rainwater harvesting systems are a compulsory part of a new developments, so as to ‘future proof’ housing in the light of climate change.

My Lords, Amendments 115, 116 and 117 in my name address additions that, if included when a house was built, would help a home to be future-proofed and cheaper to run, and would address the challenges of climate change.

Amendment 115 would insert a new clause after Clause 51 to ensure that rainwater harvesting systems were a compulsory part of new developments, and would prevent a local authority from granting planning permission unless those were included in the design. Unlike many other countries around the world, the UK has very little regulation around the collection and use of rainwater. This year we saw a wetter spring, increasing storms and flooding, followed once again by a hotter, drier summer, drought and hosepipe bans. Taking water from the main supply has a financial cost and an environmental one too.

Rainwater harvesting cuts reliance on mains water, relieving pressure on available supplies from water companies and increasing resilience. The World Bank reports that rainwater harvesting can also reduce the carbon footprint associated with water treatment and distribution. Harvested rainwater can be used to water the garden or flush the loo, or it can be used in a washing machine. It is often soft water, reducing the need for softeners in hard water areas. Subject to how it is managed and how large the systems are, there is also a potential reduction in localised flood risk.

Obviously the financial and environmental savings would be higher for commercial and industrial buildings, farms and schools, but that does not mean we should overlook the long-term environmental and financial benefit to individual households or community and co-operative models. In fact, statistics from the US suggest that households can reduce water usage by 40% to 50% by using harvesting. The UN has said that, with urban populations expected to reach 68% by 2050, it is clear that, with climate change, pressure as well as rainwater harvesting will play a critical role in sustainable urban water management here as well as abroad.

Amendment 116 would insert a new clause after Clause 51 to require local planning authorities to grant planning only where developments of five or more houses include a communal ground source heat pump. I know that this is not a perfect clause, but my thinking is that this is also an opportunity to make our housing stock more sustainable and resilient. After all, the Environment Agency reported last September that it has an ambitious target to increase the number of heat pumps installed from 55,000 to 600,000 per year by 2028. Indeed, the same report stated:

“Much of this demand—

for ground source heat pumps—

would be for new-build dwellings; a proportion could be met by networks of individual domestic heat pumps on shared ground heat exchange loops”.

I therefore propose, via this amendment, that in developments of five or more properties, where new infrastructure is often part and parcel of the plan, developers should install communal ground source heat pumps under those new roads, driveways and shared community spaces between the houses in the development, the tarmac only serving to increase and insulate the heat in the pipes below. Individual heat pumps can be expensive to install, and houses might not have sufficient garden space to have their own ground source heat pumps, so this seems like a logical step that helps diversify their energy supply.

Amendment 117 would insert a new clause after Clause 51 to prevent planning authorities granting planning permission unless it incorporates roof-mounted solar panels on each dwelling. We touched on this last week in regard to Amendment 89 and the importance of putting solar on rooftops and not on agricultural land. It makes eminent sense to me that we ensure that all new builds incorporate solar technology. It not only makes sense in regard to climate change, but government research suggests average households can make savings of £500 on their energy bills from solar panels. They can help protect households from changes in energy prices, as the households will not completely rely on the grid or foreign supplies for electricity, providing some independence and a buffer against fuel poverty, while helping our national energy security in the wider context.

The Energy Saving Trust highlights that urban areas have the lowest density of domestic solar panels. London ranks in the bottom, with five council areas having the fewest solar panels in the UK. The EST argues that local authorities regulate the installation of solar panels differently and that these regulations can sometimes be a barrier to domestic installations. This clause would override any of these obstructions. Putting on solar panels when a house is built ensures rollout, as some may argue that solar panels are too expensive to install later.

This amendment also builds on the consultation started by the Conservative Government into the future homes standard. Indeed, I note that there has been a PMB on this issue in the other place. I was very heartened to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 89 last week:

“Deploying rooftop solar remains a key priority for the Government and we will publish the future homes standard this autumn. The new standard will ensure that solar panels are installed on the vast majority of new-build homes once it comes into force””.—[Official Report, 1/9/25; col. 623.]

But why wait for this to be done? Why not include this in the Bill now?

Climate change is not going to go away. Any new housing that is going to be built should be good quality, well-designed and aesthetically pleasing and, with relevance to these three amendments, it needs to be future-proofed to ensure resilience going forward. I beg to move.