Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Committee (8th Day)

My Lords, we have a large number of groups to get through today to complete Committee. I remind noble Lords of some important points of guidance in the Companion that might help us with that aim. Paragraph 8.81 on speeches at amending stages on Bills states that:

“Members taking part in debate at an amending stage should not use their speech simply to summarise or repeat at length points made by others. They should not make ‘second reading’ speeches or make discursive interventions which are not relevant to the amendment(s) under discussion”.

While there have been many important contributions from all sides of the House, parts of our debates on previous days have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments being debated. To make progress on the remaining groups, I therefore ask all noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are relevant to the topic under discussion and brief.

Paragraph 8.82 on custom when withdrawing an amendment states that:

“Members (other than the Minister) pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.

While many noble Lords have adhered to this, at times long speeches have been made when withdrawing amendments. I urge all noble Lords to keep remarks brief to keep us on track. The Ministers responding will continue to keep speeches as confined as possible while providing a proper response to questions raised in the debate.

Clause 55: Environmental features, environmental impacts and conservation measures

Amendment 242B

242B: Clause 55, page 92, line 1, at end insert— “(2A) In the five years following the coming into force of this section, EDPs may only apply to nutrient neutrality, and other matters which the Secretary of State determines are appropriately dealt with at the scale of an EDP. (2B) After the period of five years following the coming into force of this section, provisions may be made that concern wildlife and other more local concerns, but the Secretary of State may not make more than five such EDPs in any year.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment seeks to ensure that the EDP process has time to bed in in uncontroversial areas, and that its further development is not rushed.

My Lords, responding to the noble Lord opposite, I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 4.31 of the Companion. Committee stage is a conversation; it is a free for all. Members may speak when they want and as often as they want. The point is to get to the root of the issues that we are discussing. We are here to do a job, not to stick to a timetable. If that takes us again past midnight, that is what we are here for. The point is to get through it, so that we conclude the arguments and can be much briefer and more formal on Report. This phrase “before the Minister sits down” is not a Committee phrase. We have the right to speak at any time. We must hold to that right, because that is the core of us doing our job well in this place.

The amendment proposes that we take the question of environmental delivery plans at a gentler pace, and that we start by applying them in circumstances where the concept obviously works. Things that operate on a large scale, nutrient neutrality, water problems and other such issues are landscape-scale problems that need landscape-scale solutions. However, as we heard on the last day of debate, matters such as species are much more difficult to deal with.

We have a huge amount of uncertainty at the moment. From talking to the developer community and listening to them, I know that they see the Bill as paralysing development for the next five years. The Bill is meant to accelerate development, but as we have it at the moment it does the exact opposite. It creates so much uncertainty on how Part 3 will work, what it will feel like and how it will develop. Natural England has huge powers, and there are lots of big sums of money going this way and the other, but no one knows how it will happen. No one really understands how Natural England has the capacity to manage something of this scale—or even of this type—and what sets of behaviours to expect from it. We are setting ourselves up for five years of stasis, five years of not getting anywhere, because it will take that long for the system to settle in.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 271 and 272. In response to the Minister, one way of quickening these procedures, and getting rid of the risk of a Member speaking for a long time while withdrawing an amendment, is actually for the Government to accept a few of the amendments. Altogether, I think we have probably tabled some 400 amendments, many of which seem to be common sense. However, we seem to have had ministerial resistance to absolutely everything so far, which I do not think is a particularly good sign. However, I shall give the Government a chance because my amendments should obviously be accepted.

Even more seriously, Clause 58(2) starts quite promisingly. It says:

“In preparing an EDP, Natural England must have regard to”,

and then lists

“the development plan for the development area … the current environmental improvement plan … any Environment Act strategies”—

which, I am pleased to say, would include local nature recovery strategies. However, at the end of the subsection, it says

“so far as Natural England considers them to be relevant”.

My amendment seeks to say that, no, Natural England cannot ignore those three areas of plan and strategy; it has to have regard to them. I agree that Natural England should be able to consider whether

“any other strategies or plans”,

as paragraph (d) says, are relevant, but it is crucial that Natural England, when preparing EDPs, has regard to development plans, current environmental improvement plans and any strategies under the Environment Act. It seems obvious to me that it should be that way. The amendment is very simple. It would be delightful if the Government agreed to at least one of the 400 amendments we have looked at over these eight days.

On the assumption that the Minister is not going to speak to her amendments in the group at this point, I would like to speak to my Amendment 344.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was talking about Clause 58 as it is in the Bill at present, but the effect of two amendments in this group—government Amendments 278A and 346E—is to delete the current Clause 58 and replace it with the new clause proposed in Amendment 346E, which will come before Clause 88. Just so that noble Lords are aware, that new clause more or less reproduces Clause 58, but extends it. The Minister will want to explain why that is the case. However, the point made by the noble Lord is exactly the same for the replacement text.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who tabled Amendment 275A in this group, is unable to be with us this morning. The purpose of the amendment is very straightforward and it will, I hope, be agreed on all sides of the House: when making an environmental delivery plan, regard should be had to small house- builders—indeed, so far as possible, account should be given and possibilities exercised to enable small housebuilders to conduct their business. The most important thing when the Government publish viability assessment guidance is that, as the Minister said in an earlier debate, the objective of the EDP is not to make development economically unviable. That being the case, this is an issue for smaller housebuilders, which find it most difficult to bear the burden of regulation and cost when preparing development. I hope that the Minister will be able to give reassurance on the point about small housebuilders made in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that the viability assessment guidance will specifically mention them and make allowance for them.

My Amendment 344, which is also about making an environmental delivery plan, makes a very simple point: at some point, Natural England needs to know in which potential developments it needs to consider making an environmental delivery plan. I do not see that in the Bill at the moment. The purpose of my amendment is to say that when local planning authorities are ready to put sites forward in, for example, a submission to the Secretary of State for the adoption of a local plan—not when they call for sites or are considering sites; this can be in guidance—they should notify Natural England of sites which have protected features, with protected sites or protected species involved. We know those sites are going to be pretty evident, so they should identify those themselves and notify Natural England.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 242B tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I strongly support the part of his amendment that inserts proposed new subsection (2A), but I am not so sure about proposed new subsection (2B)—(2B) or not (2B), that is the question he is proposing. Nevertheless, my suggestion to him is that I do not think anybody concerned about nature should then also try to limit growth; the two can be done hand in hand.

If Natural England or the Secretary of State for Housing need more resources or decide to subcontract to any designated person, that could be a private developer, which could come up with an EDP under the laws proposed by the Government. I am not saying that would be right, but people should be aware of the scope of where we are going. I would not support my noble friend if he re-tabled this amendment on Report to the full extent.

I think proposed new subsection (2A) is a very sensible approach on nutrient neutrality, the consideration of which is one of the issues that is particularly holding up aspects of development. This is the reason the Government have given more broadly. Of course, they have also latched on to a variety of things like jumping spiders and even ancient woodland, while still expressing concern for irreplaceable habitat. Nevertheless, we should have that very specific focus on what has been holding up the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised to deliver by the end of this Parliament. We should keep focused on where these potential EDPs need to be, and that will keep Natural England focused as well.

My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendment 346E in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 275A in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

I approached this group with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, ringing in my ears from yesterday’s Oral Questions. He boasted how the Government’s planning reforms would cut away the bureaucracy to get Britain building. Perhaps he was thinking about that other planning Bill announced by the Chancellor in August. He could not have been thinking about the one before us today, because given the combination of Part 3 of this Bill, the involvement of Natural England, and the astonishingly long preparation process for EDPs, starting in Clause 58 but going on as far as Clause 61, it is difficult to see how any mitigation proposal envisaged by Part 3 can be completed in the three and a half years from now —and that for a Government who have only three and three-quarter years to run.

Even if Part 3 stands part of the Bill at the point of assent, it will take until the next Parliament before someone gets the keys to a new home that has been subject to an EDP. Perhaps someone should tell the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, that Part 3 does not work, and it will not get Britain building or the economy growing. I should know, because I have been in this space for the last three and a half years as the instigator and a person of significant control in Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, a company established and owned by all the planning authorities in Norfolk for the benefit of the local councils, taxpayers and economy. I know what I am talking about—this is another one of my specialist subjects.

I observe that government amendment 346E is a long one. I suppose we should be grateful that it recognises that the Bill as introduced was deficient, but it is incomplete. It articulates the problem and identifies the EDP participants, but it does not contemplate the earliest formative stages—the commercial, legal and contractual practicalities to put it into effect.

There is also the question of when multiple EDPs, each at a different stage of stage of development, will apply to a proposal. We heard earlier this week that a single planning proposal could be subject to a layering of EDPs. The clock—or should I say planning blight?—will start ticking the moment Natural England postulates the proposal, but there may be serial clocks running at the same time. This is particularly benighting for small builders, which is why I heartily endorse Amendment 275A in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. We were told last week that developers will have a choice, that there will be no compulsion to purchase an EDP and that they may purchase other private options. That has been reiterated today in the letter from the Ministers. They make the point that it will be voluntary to buy an EDP from the state—unless it is compulsory, in which case there will be no choice. There are powers in the Bill to force a developer to use an EDP in certain circumstances, no matter how expensive it is, no matter how far away it is, and however long it takes to produce. There will be a choice for these small developers: it is Hobson’s choice, and that is no good. I am concerned for what is becoming a dynamic and well-developed private industry that is innovating and being creative in the provision of mitigations.

Previously, the Minister smirked when I said that the Bill, with all its monopoly regulator and supplier functions, means that Natural England has effectively nationalised nature. I do not see anybody laughing now, because that is what we are sleepwalking into. A developer may need to pay twice for his mitigation—once for a private scheme close at hand that is acceptable to local people and the planning authority, and again because it is compulsory to purchase another one miles away. Whichever option is chosen, the very act of triggering the EDP process effectively sterilises that proposal and makes it harder to get Britain building.

Time is limited, but there are many more fundamental design questions and processes I could ask about before we even get to the start line, and it would have been much more helpful, in my view. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his detailed diagram, which has been circulated this morning. That diagram would have been much better had there been a timeline before then, because it assumes the EDP exists. As my noble friend Lord Lucas said, it is probably at least three and a half, possibly as many as five years until we get to that start line. Noble Lords need to understand that.

On Monday, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why we are doing this and what the purpose is. It seems to me that the purpose of Part 3 is not to clean up nature or to get Britain building; it is simply to puff up an anti-growth quango, giving it a super-veto over developments in a significant proportion of our nation, for no other purpose than to build a bureaucracy that gets in the way of growth, makes it harder to generate taxes for public services, and is so expensive to the developer that the pursuance of other important infra- structure such as social housing is crowded out.