Baroness Pinnock:

Moved by Baroness Pinnock

24: Clause 4, page 8, line 22, leave out paragraph (a)

My Lords, Amendments 24 and 25, in my name, relate to Clause 4, in which the Government seek to remove certain pre-application requirements. I am concerned about two of these. The first omits the duty to consult and the second omits the duty to consult the local community. These are very significant changes to pre-application requirements that were introduced in the Planning Act 2008. In my experience, pre-application is an extremely helpful part of the process, as it enables information to be shared and discussed by the communities that will be affected and their elected representatives—councillors and Members of Parliament.

The value of a pre-application duty to consult seems to me to be vital, particularly in relation to infrastructure schemes. The opportunity for communities that are affected to understand the proposals and their impact is much reduced by the process that is followed for large-scale infrastructure applications. For example, the process for large-scale infrastructure is set out very well in the Explanatory Notes, which talks about the pre-application process followed by the submission and acceptance of the application, then the pre-examination stage where members of the public can register as interested parties—although that is subject to some change—and then the examination in public. The opportunities for the general public, as opposed to those who feel they are able to take part in an examination in public, are extremely limited. Therefore, the pre-application stage becomes even more important in relation to large-scale infrastructure applications.

In my experience, the importance of the pre-application process is that it can be invaluable to both the developer and the local community. I will refer to an example not of a large-scale infrastructure application but for 400 homes on a site near where I live. There was a pre-application consultation stage with members of the public. The application was for a site that was known to have been used for coal workings, and the official coal board documents did not identify precisely where all the mine shafts were—they actually did not even know how many there were. However, residents whose families had lived in the area for a long time knew where the mine shafts were and shared that local knowledge with the developer. They were also able to share information, which did not seem to exist formally at all, of the shallow tunnelling on the site.

In this instance, the housing developer gained considerably from the pre-application process in knowing where the mine shafts were that would have to be capped off, and knowing where the shallow tunnels for the coal workings were, which could require attention during the construction phase. The local residents benefited because it enabled them to understand and be provided with factual information by the applicant.

In my view, the changes proposed in the Bill to remove the duty to consult with the local community would be totally counterproductive. Members of the community will get information about the proposals which may not be accurate if there is not a pre-application opportunity. I know from experience that, once inaccurate information is shared on social media sites, it is very difficult to counter and to get the actual situation accepted. The climate in which development takes place these days is for the public to believe that the worst is going to happen.

If the pre-application stage for large-scale infrastructure is believed to be too lengthy with too many parts to it, it seems to me that the best way forward would be to retain the principle of pre-application but to reform the process so that it was not so time-consuming and did not delay the construction processes. That is why the pre-application process is absolutely vital. Removing the duty will simply make the process more challenging for the developer and resentment and frustration will grow, both against the development and at the failure of the democratic process. Living in a democracy involves making time for debate and challenge; it is the price we on these Benches are willing to pay. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering degrouped some of her amendments. Because I signed some of them, there is a risk that I might end up duplicating my words in the next debate, but that is not my intention.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, very eloquently explained why a pre-application consultation really matters. I have already shared with the Committee my experience with NSIPs, and I can honestly say that, too often, a lot of the initial ideas about what happens with some of these developments is literally a desktop exercise. Then, at the village halls that the developers go to, the communities get really frustrated. They ask, “Have you even been there? Do you not know about this particular issue? Who on earth have you spoken to before looking at this?” We cannot swear in this Committee, but they say things like, “What is actually going on?” That is why I think this is genuinely dangerous. Other things may happen later with judicial reviews, but this sort of activity starts to cause resentment.

I am also very conscious that, for some reason, it feels as though the pre-application process can go on for ever—but it should not. For something as big as, say, Sizewell C, I gave huge credit to EDF—which was investing in it at the time—for being there with the community. EDF was in it for the long haul; it was already in the community and was trying to explain a variety of things. Candidly, a lot of the community there wanted Sizewell C because it was going to bring brilliant jobs and real value to the people living in that area. With some of the other projects that I have experience of, there ain’t going to be any jobs; there is just going to be big sheds. I do not think they will get pylons, but there will be cables and all the disruption that goes with that for the local farmers and the local communities more generally. Those developers are the ones that seem to do a lot of desktop exercises; they just genuinely look like they do not have a clue. So that is why I encourage the Government to think again about the wider process for these elements.

We all know that, usually, the developers will get their way, but it is better to be informed. With water levels, for example, energy companies did not have a clue that, in one of the most water-deprived parts of the country, farmers decades ago enhanced their water processes by going underground and having a very sophisticated irrigation network. The energy companies’ plan would have absolutely ripped through all that and destroyed farming in that part of that county for ever. They did not have a clue because they did not properly do the work in the pre-application consultation—they did not even get ready for it. I recognise that all that can be sorted out in the planning application process, but by then the local community has lost faith and trust. The community then assumes that it is just a done deal, and asks, “What on earth is going on?”—and then the JRs start.

From my perspective of genuine local experience, I encourage the Government to consider how this will help. Yes, a developer can just bulldoze through and be confident that they will get the applications that they do, but I suggest that the Government reconsider.

Going further into Clause 5, I would suggest that on the other aspects of Section 4 we should look quite carefully at why some of this takes as long as it does. There are opportunities to help streamline it, but I am concerned about, all of a sudden, people really impacted, in effect, being ignored and screened out of the process. I have always found it odd in this country that anyone can make a planning application in respect of land they do not own. They can make a planning application to build a house in somebody’s garden. They might not get it, it might not be consented, but they can certainly apply. When we get into a situation where the public benefit is determined—later on, when we discuss compulsory purchase or in respect of the existing powers before us today—it is only right that people affected, local authorities and local councillors can be involved in understanding how that knits together. That is why I am concerned and have tabled so many amendments to Clause 5.

Most of my amendments are quite technical in trying to undo what the Government are doing. The Minister might be relieved to hear that I do not expect a comprehensive response to every Amendment I have tabled, but, again, it is this thread of what we are trying to achieve. As a consequence, I am hopeful that the Government will reconsider. I will speak again on the next group.

My Lords, as it is Committee stage, I have some simple questions about pre-application with a view to trying to move this important conversation forward. First, are the pre-application arrangements different if a use is already in the local plan? On the coal mine example and water extraction, those should be in the local plan. We have a big problem, because more than half of local plans are not up to date, which was certainly a big concern of mine when I was sitting on the committee.

Secondly, presumably, a developer can do a voluntary pre-application process, or is that not practical? A lot of my experience was in large retail developments. We did a lot of this sort of stuff because we wanted to get local consent. It is a question of what you can do which is voluntary and what is required.

Thirdly, what are the biggest delay factors in the pre-application process? Is it transport objections, heritage, environment features—such as nutrient neutrality or bats—or lawyers going around in circles? Have the Government had a look at what the problem is?

Fourthly, is there an alternative route where you have a much shorter process, perhaps with a deadline and only for the big schemes and not for a small house? This is an important area in local communities, but we want to get the delays down.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment. Pre-application consultation, as she correctly said, not only gives communities a chance to shape proposals but can speed up things further down the line. It is not necessarily a delaying factor.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just raised an interesting issue in that we do not know what the delaying factor is. Is it the statutory consultees, far more than the communities, for example, that are part of the delaying factor? Given the scale of the Government’s ambition, quite rightly, to develop housing and the accompanying infrastructure, and to make master plans to do that, it is much better to take the community along with you. If the community already feels left behind because it is cut out at the very first stage, which is what the Bill does, then however many nice words may be said later by the development corporations or so on, that is not really going to cut much ice. Therefore, the amendments tabled by my noble friend are particularly important.

I also really do not like the fact that, even if communities and the public have made some responses, there is no requirement for the people doing the development to take that into account. Again, that is a very disempowering issue, which undermines the whole democratic basis of our planning system.

My Lords, I offer my strong support for the entire presentation from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and her amendments. I cannot top her example of unknown mines underground, but the example that I was thinking of is on a much smaller scale, and it addresses the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. She said that those mines, et cetera—the physical infrastructure—should be on the record; I think we all know that very often they are not.

However, there is also the question of the local community and how it works, which is never going to be written down. The example that I was thinking of comes from central London, from Camden borough. I was at a meeting where the council came along very excitedly with the idea that it was going to knock down a community centre, build housing, and build a new community centre on what most people from the outside thought were some pretty unpleasant, small, raggedy corner shops—a little row of shops which you get typically in suburban areas. The council officers and the local councillors were visibly astonished when local people, mostly elderly, were up in arms and horrified about the idea of those shops being demolished. They said, “We’re not mobile enough to get to Camden High Street and we’re scared of the traffic on Camden High Street and the speed at which it goes. Even though these shops are probably both very expensive and don’t have a great range of goods, et cetera, we hugely value them”. That is just a small-scale example of how only communities themselves know the way in which they work. If they had had input earlier on, there would not have been lots of very angry pensioners at that meeting, as we saw.

Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is really important and picks up the use of technology, and potentially its positive use, and sets out rules for it. Again, I am afraid that my next example is also from Camden, because that is where lots of my planning stories come from. The Crick centre was imposed on the local community—I declare a retrospective interest in that I was the chair of the St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action committee that opposed it, a long time ago. When it was finally built, people said, “But that doesn’t look anything like what the pictures looked like”. I think that is something that we are all extremely familiar with. The idea of creating some standards and rules—they already exist, but we should put them into statute—seems an extremely good one.

My Lords, first, my apologies: I should have mentioned my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire earlier in the debate.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her leadership on this important group of amendments. Clause 4 systematically removes several pre-application requirements. I will focus first on Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. This amendment seeks to retain Section 47 of the Planning Act: the duty to consult the local community. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Ministers have previously stated that the Bill does not in any way reduce local democratic input. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the duty to consult communities is being removed? How did the Government arrive at the decision to remove Section 47 of the Planning Act, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised, and what are the specific problems they are trying to resolve in doing so?

We know from experience that when local communities are given genuine influence over planning through mechanisms such as neighbourhood plans, they are often more supportive of new housing and infrastructure—we have heard cases from the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, where the local input added significant value—especially when it reflects local needs such as affordable housing, safeguards green space or comes with vital local infrastructure improvements. Indeed, neighbourhood plans introduced under the Localism Act 2011 have in many cases led to more housing being approved rather than less. This suggests that working with communities delivers better outcomes.

Amendment 24 relates to the duty to consult under the Planning Act. This section of the Act is highly significant. It contains seven important subsections, one of which clearly states:

“Before preparing the statement, the applicant must consult each local authority that is within section 43(1) about what is to be in the statement”.

This consultation requirement provides a crucial safeguard, a backstop, to ensure that developers engage meaningfully with communities and local authorities. Again, what is the Government’s precise objection to retaining this part of the Act? What problem has been identified that justifies its removal? Local engagement and democratic participation are not obstacles but key ingredients of sustainable, inclusive development. If the Bill is to command public confidence, it must not weaken those foundations without reason.

Amendment 36 is of particular importance to us. It seeks to probe whether the Government intend to replace Clause 4 with guidance, which could reduce regulatory burdens on applicants while preserving flexibility for local authorities to set advisory expectations. Those who wish to consult may still choose to do so.

Amendments 29 to 31 tabled by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook seek to probe the hierarchy of considerations, an issue raised in the debate on the first group by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. What else could be included in the provision for

“such further information as may be prescribed”?

In what form should this further information be provided? Will its scope be set out later in regulation? I also wish to consider the importance of clarity in this hierarchy. If a particular requirement is intended to take precedence over another, will that be set out in guidance? Can the Minister please sharpen the focus on what specifically the applicant must include in their application? This allows for greater clarity and precision in the requirements. Understanding the hierarchy of requirements is essential as it enables clear prioritisation. When obligations are structured transparently, it becomes easier to distinguish what is mandatory from what is discretionary. This in turn helps applicants and administrators to navigate the process more effectively and ensures that the system is robust, fair and focused. We will come back to hierarchy later in Committee.

Amendment 33 seeks to probe whether the provisions in the Bill will remain applicable and effective in the event of English council reorganisation. As local government structures evolve—whether through mergers, boundary changes or the creation of new unitary authorities or new combined mayoral authorities—it is vital that legislation keeps pace. The effectiveness of the Bill depends heavily on the clarity and stability of the administrative bodies tasked with delivering its aims. Without foresight and flexibility built into the Bill, there is a real risk that its provisions could become outdated, misaligned or practically unenforceable in areas where governance structures have been changed. For example, responsibilities for infrastructure planning and delivery could be transferred to a newly formed authority that may not be explicitly recognised or empowered by the current wording of the legislation. This could create legal ambiguity, administrative inefficiency and unintended delays in infrastructure delivery. It is crucial that the Government clarify whether they have considered these eventualities and, if not, whether they are open to revising the Bill to future-proof it, ensuring that legislative coherence in the face of council reorganisation is maintained.

Amendment 37 seeks to probe the intended contents of the regulations accompanying guidance concerning pre-application steps set out in the Bill. Our intention is to ensure that these regulations remain lean, proportionate and time limited. What specific pre-application requirements do the Government envisage setting out in regulation? How will the Government ensure that such requirements do not place disproportionate burdens on applicants or local authorities?

Amendment 40 seeks to probe the Government on technical reasons for the proposed repeal of certain sections of the Localism Act 2011 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The Localism Act was designed to turn government upside-down, putting decision-making into the hands of those closest to the local issues. Pre-application consultation with local authorities, the publication of community consultation statements and provisions for claimants of compensation for the effects of development are all important. What are the arguments for replacing or removing these? As for the Marine and Coastal Access Act, before its introduction there was no unified system for managing different maritime activities, whether fishing, energy, shipping or conservation. We need to be cautious about repealing large sections of this Act without a clear replacement framework or a basic understanding of why. Can the Minister help on these issues?

Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for also raising these concerns and for bringing forward her Amendments 41, 43 and 44. I am sure we will work closely on this issue as we proceed through Committee.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Pinnock, Lady Scott of Bybrook—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, spoke to her amendments—and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their amendments to Clauses 4 and 5. I am also grateful to Members across the Committee for the way in which they have engaged with these amendments and what we in government recognise as a significant evolution to the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.

I am sure we all have experiences of the best in consultation—with a developer that not only consults but truly engages with communities over a period of time to get a better development—and those at the opposite end that carry out a half-hearted tick-box exercise and then crack on without changing anything, keeping a laser focus on their bottom line. We want to encourage the former, not the latter.

All the amendments in this group seek, in one way or another, to reverse changes made by the Government in the other place. Those changes will remove the statutory duty for applicants to consult during the preparation of an application for a development consent order. These are significant reforms to the NSIP regime and therefore deserve our attention. It may be helpful to revisit the rationale behind the Government’s decision to amend the Planning Act in this way.

As I outlined in my Written Ministerial Statement on 23 April, the Government are committed to driving economic growth and taking decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects before the end of the Parliament. The level of ambition here is high, as indeed it should be. The UK suffers from outdated and inadequate infrastructure, which is holding us back, not only in economic but in social terms. To deliver new roads, low-carbon energy infrastructure and reservoirs, the UK and its communities need to prosper. We must be open to change, and we are willing to do things differently. I sense a change in public perception on this as well. I think people are beginning to realise that if we want cheaper electricity, and if we want water available for housing and general use, we need to move more quickly to develop the infrastructure we need.

The Government will meet our critical infrastructure commitments only if we take this opportunity to address the inefficiencies that have crept into the NSIP regime over time. One of the most pressing issues is the growing duration of the pre-application phase for projects. In 2021, the average time to secure consent had risen to 4.2 years—up from 2.6 years in 2012. Over this same period, average pre-application timescales doubled. We all recognise that that trend is just not sustainable.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, over the past year, the Government have listened to feedback from the bodies and stakeholders most familiar with the development consent order process. That includes developers and practitioners, legal experts, local authorities, statutory bodies and a range of other interested bodies that play very important roles in the process. Through those discussions, it has become clear that the statutory consultation requirements under the Planning Act, though well intended, are now driving perverse outcomes and unintended consequences.

To answer the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, there are a number of reasons why that is the case, including those that she stated and others. The legislative requirements are too prescriptive; rather than fostering the meaningful dialogue that we all want to see, the process has become overly procedural, encouraging risk aversion, excessive documentation—we have already heard about this—and a reluctance on the part of applicants even to adapt proposals for fear of triggering further rounds of consultation. That has led to confusion for communities and delays for developers.

In responding to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, where there is consultation, an application would normally include key elements of that consultation in the report to the planning body. Although developers have to state their responses to that, even now they do not need to do anything about what the consultation said; they just have to say why they are not doing whatever they have been asked to do. There will often be mitigations in place, but there do not have to be.

Given all these concerns, it is clear that the statutory consultation requirements—uncommon in other planning regimes—are now acting as an absolute brake on progress. The Bill therefore proposes to align the NSIP regime more closely with other planning frameworks by removing these statutory obligations at the pre-application stage. This change is expected to reduce the average time taken to submit applications by around a year and deliver savings of more than £1 billion across the current project pipeline. In the long term, faster delivery will also help reduce household Bills.

As set out in my Statement of 23 April, the Government remain firmly committed to a planning system that supports high-quality applications and delivers benefits for both the nation and local communities. We all recognise that the best applications are those shaped through early and constructive engagement. As the Housing Minister emphasised in the other place, we still expect the NSIP regime to operate on a front-loaded basis, with well-developed proposals entering the system and progressing to predictable timescales. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I do not think there is any objection to voluntary pre-consultation if that is what developers choose to do.

Experience from other planning regimes shows that meaningful engagement can and does take place without statutory compulsion, and that developers are best placed to judge how to take a proportionate approach to consult on their applications, which vary in relation to their scale, location and circumstances.

The development consent order process also incentivises high-quality submissions. In order to proceed through examination within statutory timescales, we are confident that developers will continue to engage proactively so that they are well prepared. As well as any consultation and engagement during the early stages of an application’s development, interested parties will still have the opportunity to raise objections, contribute views and present evidence through participation in the examination process.

To support and inform the implementation of these changes, the Government will launch a consultation about guidance later this summer, which will set out that best practice involves developers undertaking consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. This will help to ensure that applications remain robust and responsive to local concerns.

The NSIP regime relies on developers bringing projects forward to deliver national policy and meet the UK need for infrastructure. We know that the industry has responded positively to the removal of the statutory requirement, with many major developers reaffirming their commitment to meaningful engagement. They are committed to exploring new and better ways to engage with communities.

If these amendments were accepted, we would risk undermining the very purpose of the Bill and the will of Members in the other place, who requested this change to deliver lasting and transformative improvements to the NSIP regime. The current system would remain burdened by unnecessary delays, risk-averse behaviours and a lack of clarity for communities. For these reasons, I respectfully urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.

I turn to Clause 5 and the amendments tabled to it. However, given the importance of Clause 5, I hope noble Lords will allow me briefly to set out the intended impact of the clause before turning to the amendments in question. The clause contains important changes which will enable the Government to deliver on the policy intent of the changes through Clause 4, which, as we have discussed today, removes statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage.

The streamlining of the NSIP process is central to the objective of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to bring forward and consent the major infrastructure this country needs. The changes set out in Clauses 4 and 5 underpin our commitment to driving a step change in behaviours and approaches across the system, so that consultation and engagement on applications is meaningful and proportionate, rather than undertaken only to follow an overly prescriptive statutory process. It is essential, therefore, that these changes are subject to proper scrutiny, and I welcome the opportunity to consider these amendments today.

While I know that noble Lords have proposed these amendments with the intention of supporting the overall policy intent of the Bill, the amendments risk undermining these key reforms to the NSIP consenting regime. Clause 5 strengthens the duty on applicants to notify the Secretary of State of proposed applications, extending this to include host local authorities. It allows for additional information to be prescribed in legislation and introduces a requirement for guidance to be published on the best practice steps to be taken in preparing an application.

I turn to the main issues presented by the amendments: how the notification duty will work, and the scope of the guidance to support applicants in preparing applications. On the first, as noble Lords will be aware, the Bill amends the duty on applicants to notify the Planning Inspectorate of their applications to now include host local authorities. Local authorities of course play an important role in assessing the likely local impacts of projects and representing the interests of their communities through the DCO process. Early knowledge of applications is fundamental to enable local authorities to prepare for, resource and engage constructively with applications while these are at the formative stage. Moreover, meaningful engagement with local authorities is in the interest of applicants, given the role they play in the examination process and through the provision of local impact reports. That is why the Government have extended the current duty to include them.

The Government recognise the importance of creating certainty for applicants about what is required through legislation and what should rightly be a matter of discretion for applicants. Clause 5 contains a clear definition of a host local authority, to provide clarity to applicants about who should be notified. Removing this definition would create confusion and result in unnecessary notifications.

I know the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is rightly concerned that the Government take into consideration wider changes to local government taking place at the moment, as we know. As we pursue these reforms, I reassure the House that we are confident the current definition is comprehensive, including post-local government reorganisation authorities. We are giving thought to transition arrangements, and I will refer to that later on.

As part of our changes to the duty to notify the Planning Inspectorate and host local authorities of an impending application, we have also introduced the ability to specify in regulations what other information applicants must provide. Removing the power to prescribe further information as part of the notification process, as proposed, limits discretion for government to prescribe further information which may in future be required to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate and host local authorities are adequately prepared for the submission of applications. We will, of course, ensure that any additional information prescribed through regulations is appropriate and that the Government take a proportionate approach.

Secondly, Clause 5 currently requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to applicants to assist them in complying with requirements under Section 48 and best-practice guidance covering all aspects of pre-application preparation. This reflects the Government’s overarching objective to ensure that robust applications are prepared in a proportionate way. Amendment 36 would remove the provision relating to Section 48 guidance and seeks to narrow the scope of guidance to engagement alone, while including a list of suggestions for the guidance itself. This would be a step backwards. Introducing guidance solely on how to engage with stakeholders risks reintroducing the concerns regarding applicants gold-plating—something the Government are seeking to address. Instead, guidance should focus on the Government’s overall objectives, which are how to prepare robust applications in a proportionate way. That of course includes engagement, and its importance has been outlined by the Government. However, this guidance should not be restricted and risk the repeat of behaviours we are keen to avoid and the lack of flexibility within the system.

As the House knows, maintaining up-to-date national policy and guidance is essential to delivering on our priorities for planning and delivering major infrastructure and the growth this country needs. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, the Government have committed to making the necessary updates to policy, legislation and guidance in good time, and that is demonstrated through the progress already made towards delivering reviews and updates to the national policy statements. Amendment 40 would mandate a fixed review period for guidance to support the preparation of applications. That is unnecessary. Government guidance is already updated flexibly and responsively as needed.

I turn now to the technical amendments tabled relating to the Localism Act and the Marine and Coastal Access Act. The technical provisions in Clause 5 are consequential to the removal of the requirement to consult in Clause 4. If passed, the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses would mean that the statute book would reference parts of the Planning Act that no longer exist. I thank noble Baronesses for their amendments. I hope that the information provided is helpful where amendments were probing. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Lastly, Amendment 107, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but it might be useful for the Committee to know that I had asked for my Amendment to be degrouped. I am not sure what has happened here, but it is my intention to move the amendment in its place after Clause 51.

Okay, I will not go into the detail on that Amendment now but come back to it. It was originally listed as being in this group. I apologise for the misunderstanding. I would just say to the noble Baroness that I am a big fan of digital twinning, so I look forward to the debate on that subject.

I ask noble Lords who have amendments in this group not to press them and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, first of all, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Bennett, my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their supportive words on my amendments. My noble friend Lady Miller summed it up when she said that it is very important to take the community with you. That is the message to developers. The Minister’s response was: it will be the developers’ decision as to whether they will engage in pre-application consultation. I do not know about other people’s experience of developers, but mine is that if you give them an inch, they will take at least a mile. Not requiring a statutory pre-application consultation will mean that communities do not understand or know the detail or broad-brush approach of a development that, for better or for worse, will have an impact on them.

If the issues that the Minister spelled out very clearly about the delays and costs of pre-application consultations are the problem, as she has stated, then surely the approach should be to reform what is required in a pre-application. I have just had experience of a pre-application process that involved a change to a major highways route of about 15 miles long through the area in which I live. We have had three or possibly four levels of public consultation, and in the end nobody was satisfied because nothing had substantially changed from the first one in which changes were made. The pre-application process should be reformed so that people’s voices are heard, changes are made where appropriate and then there are tweaks as the process goes on.

There is no legitimate reason for not allowing people’s voices to be heard. I feel very strongly about this and no doubt the Minister will hear from me again on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Amendment 25 not moved.