Baroness Pinnock:

Moved by Baroness Pinnock

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.