Lord Banner:

Moved by Lord Banner

105: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—“Relationship between overlapping permissionsAfter section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission for development already carried out), insert—“73AA Relationship between overlapping permissions(1) Where there is more than one planning permission which relates to some or all of the same land, the lawfulness of both past and future development carried out pursuant to one of those planning permissions shall be unaffected by the carrying out of development pursuant to another of those planning permissions, except to the extent expressly stated in any of those permissions or in any obligation under section 106 of this Act (planning obligations) related to any of those permissions.(2) Subsection (1) applies only where one of the relevant planning permissions was granted after the day on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.(3) In this section “planning permission” means—(a) a planning permission under Part 3 of this Act, and(b) a planning permission granted by article 3 (permitted development) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596).””Member's explanatory statementThis Amendment addresses the potentially deleterious implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case.

My Lords, as I said in Committee, there is a compelling and universally acknowledged need for a legislative solution to address the difficulties that large, multi-phase development projects face in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case. This is a technical issue of such fundamental importance that—dare I say it?—it should not be being debated at this time of the evening. The Supreme Court held in Hillside that where there were one or more overlapping permissions relating to the same site, the implementation of the later permission could jeopardise the ability to rely on the earlier permission, even when the later permission was designed and granted on the basis that it would operate in conjunction with the earlier permission. I make no criticism of the Supreme Court’s analysis of the existing legal position, but it is a deeply unsatisfactory position that is recognised as such by everybody in the development sector.

Large multi-stage developments almost always evolve during their build-out, which typically takes several years and sometimes decades. For example, in a large urban regeneration scheme the site-wide permission might envisage offices coming forward on one of the later phases, only for there to be no demand for new offices by the time we get to that phase because of a change in working patterns due, say, to Covid. Reapplying for planning permission for the whole development is impractical for a variety of reasons, such as the need to re-appraise the whole scheme—even the bits that are already built and the bits that are not proposed to be changed—new ecological surveys, new environmental assessment, reassessment of Section 106 contributions, et cetera. This is all incredibly cumbersome and can take years.

It has therefore long been industry practice for developers in this situation to make a localised application, typically called a standalone or drop-in planning permission, seeking the local planning authority’s consent to change one aspect of development—for example, in the illustration that I gave, swapping out the offices for a hotel. The hotel would then come forward under the drop-in permission and the rest of the development would continue to be built out under the original site-wide permission.

The effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment is to introduce very considerable risk and uncertainty in such circumstances because it can mean that implementing the drop-in on the focused area where it is intended to take effect can invalidate the site-wide permission, even though the drop-in has been granted on the basis that it would operate as an Amendment to the original scheme. As I explained in Committee, this issue affects huge numbers of developments across the country. While there are sometimes workarounds, they are incomplete, risky, costly, time-consuming and cumbersome.

I know from what was said in Committee and from discussions that the Government accept the principle of a legislative solution to Hillside. It is a no-brainer. They have indicated that officials have expressed some concern with the wording of my original Amendment 105, although they have not articulated what that concern is. This is despite the amendment being drafted largely by Catherine Howard, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer who is now the Chancellor’s planning adviser. As a result, I tabled a new amendment, Amendment 113, which seeks to confer an enabling power on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to deal with this issue. The regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure to avoid any concerns about lack of parliamentary scrutiny over the final form of words. It would enshrine the principle, which everybody accepts, and leave the wording to be worked out later with parliamentary scrutiny. What is not to like about that? The two have been packaged together, so one vote will resolve the two.

There has been ongoing engagement with the Minister and her colleagues on this issue, but the Government’s stance has been to say that they will work towards a future legislative solution and in the meantime bring into effect Section 73B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 under the last Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. That is simply not good enough. Addressing Hillside is the single most pressing unresolved issue that the development sector would like to see resolved by this Bill. Speaking as somebody who works day to day in the planning and development sector, this is the amendment everybody is watching. There are people here in this Chamber tonight watching, and people watching online. This is the one that matters.

Section 73B is no panacea; it is far from that. It would allow only quite limited amendments to planning permissions. Its scope is narrow, and it would assist in no more than a third of cases currently affected by Hillside. More is needed. In saying that it will be looked at in a future legislative solution—whenever that would be—beyond Section 73B, the Government clearly accept that further legislation beyond Section 73B is required; otherwise, they would stop at that. No, we are told that it will be looked at in the future—but just not now. An enabling provision would allow for the detailed drafting to be worked up. Therefore, any concerns about the drafting of Amendment 105 do not affect the principle of these amendments.

This is the second piece of planning legislation since the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2022. There was LURA in 2023, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose name is also on this amendment, sought to persuade the House on that occasion that a fuller amendment to deal with Hillside should be brought forward. The industry expects Parliament to step up on this second time of asking and not kick the can down the road again. The industry also expects proper consideration of this amendment. It is a late hour, and about 15% of the House is here right now. I respectfully invite the Minister to provide an assurance that we can bring this back at Third Reading as an alternative to a Division at this late hour, when many people who have a legitimate interest in this matter are not able to be here. Mañana is not an option: we need to do much better than that. Unless I have the assurance that I request, I am inclined to test the opinion of the House, despite this late hour.

I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this, because the Hillside case arose in Merioneth in 1967, where I happened to be the parliamentary candidate in the 1970 election. I remember the considerable controversy there was about the application for 400 houses to be built in the vicinity of Aberdyfi, a scheme that was totally out of proportion to the nature of the community and the village there. It is not surprising that the thing did not go ahead, and it should not have gone ahead.

I assume that what the noble Lord who moved this Amendment is seeking is clarity for the sake of the development industry for the future, not any revisiting of the Hillside case itself. In fact, what happened there was that some 41 houses were built, but the rest of the 400 houses were not pursued. The 41 houses that were built were built to planning specifications different to those that had been in the original case. In other words, there were all sorts of complications arising in the Hillside case.

There is also the fact that the Welsh Senedd has powers over planning and has its own rules in the 2015 legislation that it brought through, which brings another dimension in. Therefore, all I seek tonight is to know that, in moving this amendment, the intention is not to be revisiting the Aberdyfi case, which would cause an outrage, but rather to get clarity in the light of the court case, which, of course, I perfectly well understand.

My Lords, in the early 1970s when I was a very young barrister practising from chambers in Chester, I had the good fortune to do a lot of planning cases around north Wales and Cheshire. I have not done anything like the number of planning cases done by the very distinguished noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I remember them well and I would have been with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, personally, in being totally opposed to the Hillside development. However, these amendments are not about the Hillside development; they are about a legal principle that emerged in connection with the Hillside development.

In his speech in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, enjoyed a moment of self-sacrifice characteristic of his profession and mine when he revealed that, if these amendments were passed, they would actually remove a very large amount of work from him. He is very distinguished, but he is not the only planning Silk in the country by any means, and he told your Lordships that, between 2022 and 2025, he had written between 200 and 300 opinions on this principle. Many barristers do not write such a number of opinions in the whole of their careers on a whole range of subjects. So it illustrates, because there are many other planning Silks, that this has become an enormously difficult and challenging issue. The noble Lord gave the example of what could have been extremely disruptive to the Liverpool Waters development, which is where the new Everton football stadium is.

I must say that I am very surprised that the Government have not come forward at this stage with an Amendment of their own to deal with this situation, because if they do not deal with this now, then they are looking a gift horse in the mouth in the form of, particularly, the second of these amendments, which was drafted to meet whatever objections there were—not very well explained—in relation to Amendment 105.

Hillside has to be dealt with as soon as possible because it is reducing the pace of growth, it is resulting in fewer homes, it is reducing urban quality and it is diminishing neighbourhoods. To refuse to accept these amendments or give an undertaking before the end of Report to produce their own amendment to deal with this issue seems to me to fly in the face of government policy for growth, and I do not begin to understand why. For reasons that were given just now by the noble Lord, using other and existing legislation just will not do the trick.

The Government having accepted the principle of a legislative solution to Hillside, and having been given one that is an improvement even upon Amendment 105, the original version, that the noble Lord said was drafted by the Chancellor’s own planning adviser, it seems to me that this is a total no-brainer. We should not have to vote on this. We should not be here at 11 o’clock discussing this; it should be resolved, and it could be resolved with the assent of the whole House.

My Lords, I have signed my noble friend’s Amendments 105 and 113, and he very kindly referred to the previous debates, before he joined your Lordships’ House, on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill when we looked at the issue and the consequences of Hillside and did so, I think, on the basis of amendments that I tabled at that time. The Government responded to my amendments then by bringing forward their own Amendment, which is now Section 73B—Section 73 was inserted by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—as inserted by Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which is about material variations in planning permission.

My original amendment that I tabled—back in 2022, I think—tried to resolve Hillside and say, effectively, that subsequent applications for planning permission would not invalidate an existing planning permission, even though they related to the same area of land, so long as the subsequent planning permission, if permitted, would not make the original permission physically incapable. This is done by reference to what is known as the Pilkington judgment.

My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook may well recall these debates, and the advice that she received was to try to tackle what I would describe as the least of the problems emerging from Hillside, which is that you arrive at a position where you have got an existing planning permission for a site of the kind my noble friend was describing and you want to vary it but not in a way which is significantly different from the existing permission. That is what Section 73B in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act says: the local planning authority can do this so long as it is not significantly different.

As it happens, that has not been brought into force. On the basis of the helpful discussions I have had with the Minister, it is my expectation that the Government will bring Section 73B into force. If I am incorrect in that, I am sure the Minister would tell me, but I am hoping I am not incorrect about that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, Amendment 105 sets out to deal with all the problems that emerged and, if I may say so, it is ambitious; I have signed it and agree with it, but it is ambitious. It is ambitious to be able to say that, if a local planning authority accepts this new permission in relation to the same area of land as an existing permission, subject to Section 106 obligations et cetera, that is all well and good; they can make that decision, and it does not invalidate the existing permission. If there are difficulties with the wording of Amendment 105, Amendment 113 is a basis for the Government to make further regulations to deal with any of the remaining issues that might emerge from it.

I have to say it is ambitious because it goes beyond Pilkington. Technically, there is an issue, in my view, about a new permission which would make the existing permission no longer physically able to be implemented. However, Amendment 105 seems to me none the less to be right, and we should proceed with it because it deals with a later problem than the Hillside judgment, which is about whether existing planning permissions are severable in relation to a new application for planning permission.

Amendment 105 would put beyond doubt that planning permissions would be severable for this purpose, because the existing planning permission would not be invalidated by the new planning permission, which, clearly, even if it made the original one physically impossible, would do so in relation only to part of the existing permission.

When I first discussed this with Ministers some weeks back, I was told, “It’s not so urgent because they are many workarounds”. I am afraid that the workarounds are deeply costly and difficult. They are such things as breaking down a master plan into a whole series of phases, each phase having to secure planning permission in its own right, without any certainty as to later planning permissions. One needs a master plan with outline planning permission that gives one assurance and certainty about the nature of the overall development. Even if one has to make what are, in effect, material changes to that, at least one has the existing permission. My noble friend’s Amendment 105 would enable developers under those circumstances to have that degree of assurance about the sustainability of the planning permission that they have received, so I strongly support it.

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will respond to this interesting Amendment by saying that there are some technical issues that the Government need to reflect upon, and that there will be a future vehicle. I just ask her to be sympathetic to having a look at this, perhaps between now and Third Reading. I do not think there is any doubt that the Hillside judgment will inevitably have an impact on the objectives of the Bill, which, despite the many amendments we have been debating, is about planning and infrastructure and getting the process through much more quickly than we have in the past.

Clearly, there has been a lot of discussion about a second planning Bill, and no doubt the Hillside judgment could be dealt with in it. I would have thought that, if the Government could deal with it now and in the next few weeks, and between Report and Third Reading, it would benefit the ultimate objectives of what we are seeking to do here.

My Lords, I have now sat through four discussions about the Hillside judgment. I am not sure that I am any the wiser for having done so, except to acknowledge that there is an issue of significant proportions, that it needs to be resolved and that those who have put forward solutions, who know the planning law considerably better than I do, suggest that it needs to be resolved.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about a master plan for a big site—I thought that everybody did master plans for big sites, but maybe not—and that that would be part of a solution to this discussion. My plea to the Minister is that we have a final resolution for the Hillside issue, so that those of us who have sat through it four times already do not have to sit through it again.

Noble Lords:

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I had a lot to say but I do not think I need to say it. My noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Lansley, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hunt, have said everything that can be said about this.

The amendments just seek to restore clarity and flexibility, ensuring that large schemes are not paralysed by legal technicalities. They would allow practical adjustments to be made, while fully preserving the principle of proper planning control. Surely that is what we want to deliver. We are not wedded to a precise drafting at this time—the Government are free to bring forward their own version—but I urge the Minister to please get on with it.

Without a clear mechanism to adapt site-wide permissions, investment is stalling and will continue to stall, projects will be abandoned, as they are being abandoned now, and the planning system itself will be discredited by outcomes that make very little sense on the ground. Down on the ground is where they are building houses—there will be fewer houses built, and more houses are needed. We need to get on with it. I urge the Government to commit to a good solution in this Bill and not to push it down the road.

My Lords, I hesitate to step into this very knotty lawyer’s wrangle, but it is necessary to do so because our common aim across the House is to sort out Hillside. We all know why we need to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, said, it is symbolic of all the issues that we are trying to get out of the way so that we can get on with the development that this country needs.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling Amendment 105—a repeat of his amendment from Committee that seeks to overturn the Hillside judgment—and for his new Amendment 113, which responds to some very constructive discussions we have had since Committee.

As I said in Committee, we recognise that the Hillside judgment, which confirmed long-established planning case law, has caused real issues with the development industry. In particular, it has cast doubt on the informal practice of using “drop in” permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments that could build out over quite long periods—10 to 20 years.

We have listened carefully to views across the House on this matter, and I appreciate the thoughts of all noble Lords who have spoken in this useful debate. One seasoned planning law commentator—I do not think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banner, or the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—called Hillside a “gnarly issue”, and it has attracted a lot of legal attention. It is very important that we tread carefully but also that we move as quickly as we can on this.

Therefore, in response to the concerns, the Government propose a two-step approach to dealing with Hillside. First, we will implement the provisions from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for a new, more comprehensive route to vary planning permissions—Section 73B. In practice, we want this new route to replace Section 73 as the key means for varying permissions, given that Section 73 has its own limitations, which case law has also highlighted. The use of Section 73B will provide an alternative mechanism to drop-in permissions for many large-scale developments—although we recognise not all.

Secondly, we will explore with the sector the merits of putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing to provide a further alternative. This approach will enable provision to be made to make lawful the continued carrying out of development under the original permission for the large development, addressing the Hillside issue. It will also enable some of the other legal issues with drop-in permissions to be resolved.

In implementing Section 73B and exploring a statutory role for drop-in permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments, I emphasise that we do not want these routes to be used to water down important public benefits from large-scale development, such as the level of affordable housing agreed at the time of the original planning permission. They are about dealing with legitimate variations in a pragmatic way in response to changing circumstances over time.

Amendment 113 seeks to provide an enabling power to address Hillside through affirmative secondary legislation. I recognise that this provision is intended to enable the Government to have continued discussions with the sector and then work up a feasible legislative solution through the regulations. As with all enabling powers, the key issue is whether the provisions are broad enough to deal with the issues likely to emerge from these discussions, as hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

Based on the current drafting, this enabling power would not do that. For instance, there have been calls to deal with Hillside in relation to NSIP projects. That would require a wider scope, so we cannot accept the amendment without significant modifications. That is why we think it is best to explore putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing first and then drawing up the legislation. This will give Parliament time to scrutinise.

To conclude, I hope that the approach I have set out addresses many of the concerns expressed in this debate. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

My Lords, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Carlile, I will start by clarifying that this is not about the facts of Hillside. That case is dead; fought and lost. This is about the principle.

I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate the point that it is the common aim of the Government and those of us on this side of the House to resolve Hillside. However, in light of that common aim, I find it baffling that the Government do not take what, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile indicated, is on the silver tray: the enabling power to deal with this.

Dealing with the two-step approach, Section 73B is extremely limited. It is not going to resolve anything like the lion’s share of cases that have Hillside issues. In relation to the suggestion that future statutory provision may be brought forward to deal with Hillside, well, by which Bill? There are all sorts of briefings and counter-rumours and rumours about a second planning Bill. One even suggested that I was going to write it. If I were, Hillside would be in it, but I have not been commissioned to write it. Clearly, in the absence of any certainty on the timescale, once again we are kicking the can down the road. The kinds of detailed legal points, such as whether NSIPs should apply, are precisely the kind of things that could be resolved between now and Third Reading. The Prime Minister said that the Government’s aim was to back the builders and not the blockers. I would like to see which Members of this House back the builders and which back the blockers, so I would like to test the opinion of this House.

Ayes 49, Noes 110.

Amendment 105 disagreed.