Baroness Taylor of Stevenage:

Moved by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.

33A: Because the Commons consider that requiring these regulations to be made by affirmative procedure would not be an appropriate use of Parliamentary time.

My Lords, as well as moving Motion F, I will also speak to Motions G, J and J1, with the permission of the House.

I will begin with Amendment 33, which was from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which sought to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on this very important issue. Having reflected on our useful discussions in previous debates and subsequent correspondence and having heard the strength of feeling in the House on this point, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that the Government agree with the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will therefore use the next opportunity in the other place to bring forward an amendment which will seek to give effect to the intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation are subject to the affirmative procedure. This, alongside the further safeguard built into the legislation which places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before they come into effect, should ensure an appropriate amount of scrutiny and engagement ahead of the implementation of the national scheme of delegation. I very much saw the noble Lord’s point about the first set of regulations coming forward, and I hope he is reassured on that point.

Amendment 37, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, exempted assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her very constructive engagement on this issue. We agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them though the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently under consideration by this House—we have not had its First Reading yet, but it will be imminent. If we agree where someone wants to demolish an asset of community value, it is only right they should have to submit a planning application so that the full planning merits can be considered. That is why the Government committed in the other place to consult on this proposal at the earliest opportunity. As mentioned in the debate in the other place, Parliament has granted the Secretary of State powers to make permitted development rights through secondary legislation. As such, the Government feel we should follow the proper route to amending these through important consultation. We hope these commitments reassure the noble Baroness, and we look forward to a consultation on the matter shortly. I hope the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to look at the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. There are significantly greater powers over community assets in that Bill than currently exist, and I hope that will reassure her of our intent in this matter.

Amendment 39 was on brownfield land and sustainable development. I completely agree with Peers on the need to prioritise and fully utilise brownfield land. I want to be explicit and assure Peers that the Government already have a brownfield-first approach to development—a principle that successive Governments have adhered to. That is why the Government updated the National Planning Policy Framework last year to further strengthen policy support for development on brownfield land. It currently states:

“Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.

We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include “large areas of hardstanding”, bringing more brownfield land into scope and limiting the need to look at other types of land. Of course, it is also the case that, as well as prioritising brownfield development, the existing NPPF already provides protections for non-brownfield land—such as protected landscapes, green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty—alongside guiding developments away from, for example, using the best and most versatile agricultural land where possible—I know that was a matter of great concern to noble Lords.

Last year, the Government published a Brownfield Passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. This included exploring the role of national policy in setting minimum density expectations for certain types of locations to support intensification in the right places. But we are committed to going even further to embed the brownfield-first policy into our planning system, which is why I can commit to consulting on a revised framework later this year that will set out a more rules-based approach to planning, including ensuring that brownfield land is the first port of call for development. In that consultation, we will put forward proposals that help prioritise brownfield land for development, set clear expectations for where development can take place and make best use of existing infrastructure to grow and densify our towns and cities and to support sustainable development. Our proposals will explicitly encourage mayors and local authorities to accommodate more development on brownfield land and specifically relate this to spatial development strategies.

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned that policy changes alone are not strong enough. I make it clear that the NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework—and all the points I have made previously on the priority use of brownfield land—is a material consideration in planning decisions. All strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, this is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.

Our newly revised NPPF, which we will consult on before the end of the year, will provide even clearer policies to drive more certain decision-making, including on brownfield development. Our changes will signal a step change and make clear our ambitions to drive forward brownfield development. We expect changes to meet the objectives of the brownfield-first principle. Our proposals will provide a crucial opportunity to test our approach and consider evidence from the sector to ensure that policies are robust and impactful.

We also know that policies can take time to feed through the planning system, and we will continue to keep policy and associated guidance under review. As such, legislative changes are not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that may not support effective delivery, or that sometimes may not allow for local circumstances to be taken into account.

I fear that the amendment would have become a charter for those who may seek to thwart development and the preparation of SDSs. First, the amendment would bite into SDSs. These are higher-level frameworks with the key aim of planning for medium-term to long-term housing and other development needs, aligning infrastructure provision to support that development. SDSs should of course take a brownfield-first approach, which, as I have mentioned, is already enshrined in a national policy framework that will go even further to prioritise brownfield land.

The other aspects of this amendment would create a legislative requirement for increasing densities and reducing travel distances. These are problematic in not allowing for the consideration of local issues—for example, the character of an area, the settlement patterns or the presence of important heritage assets. Consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at local level. As noble Lords know, brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable for development. A policy approach allows us to trust local planning authorities to arrive at appropriate judgments on the suitability of brownfield sites, having weighed up a balance of considerations. I am afraid that having such legislation, alongside creating overly rigid requirements, would serve only to open up SDSs to the increased risk of legal challenges on potentially very local issues that are not the aim or purpose of strategic development strategies. This may slow them down in providing the homes and infrastructure that our communities need.

Therefore, with the strong assurances I have made and the commitments to further strengthen the approach to brownfield land, I hope noble Lords will see the Government’s clear commitment on this and agree with the Motion not to insist. I beg to move.

My Lords, first, I remind noble Lords of my registered interest as chair of the development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank the Minister warmly for her engagement and that of her officials with Amendment 33 and for the Government’s support for it, giving this House the opportunity to examine on an affirmative procedure the first use of the national scheme of delegation. I shall not reiterate, as noble Lords have heard it in Committee and on Report, my view of the importance of the national scheme of delegation and, indeed, some issues about how it is to be used and structured. It is not simply a case of how important it is; there are still outstanding issues on the structure of the national scheme of delegation.

I am immensely grateful to the Minister that the Government are going to look that we insist on Amendment 33. I apologise for my poor drafting. Noble Lords know that I try hard on these matters, but I neglected to note that, if it became an affirmative resolution, the structure of the Town and Country Planning Act already provides that other regulations beyond the first use are automatically regarded as negative procedure. There will be further amendment to remedy that when the other place finishes its examination.

While I am standing up, I want to say that I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lady Scott about the scrutiny that we have afforded to this legislation. She and I—and, indeed, the Minister—went all the way through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. We spent 23 days in examination of that Bill, and we have spent only 16 days on this one, so to that extent we have rushed it through. I thoroughly support Motion F.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments on Motion G and assets of community value. I am conscious of the new Bill that will arrive here. I am also very grateful for the remarks of Minister Matthew Pennycook, as they recognise that this is an issue. I was elated when your Lordships voted for the Amendment at the time, but I am conscious that some of these things can be done through secondary regulations. As a consequence, I shall not try to test anything further, but I look forward to the consultation coming forward shortly—genuinely shortly—as well, I hope, as some draft regulations at the same time. They are so easy that I have written them for the Government already through my first amendment. I hope that we can make progress so that I do not have to revisit this with a further amendment to the Bill that we will look forward to examining.

My Lords, I, too, endorse Motion F. The national scheme of delegation has to strike the right balance between going far enough and not too far, which is not without difficulty. I urge the Minister and her officials to bear in mind the imperative of avoiding a proliferation of different thresholds. We have the national scheme of delegation thresholds; we have the 150 dwelling threshold announced a few days ago in relation to the exercise of potential haul-in powers to prevent refusals; and we also have coming down the line potential thresholds in relation to standardised Section 106. What I have been hearing from developers in the last few days is that the potential range and proliferation of thresholds—because we also have the EIA thresholds—make decision-making quite difficult in how to calibrate their developments, so the simpler it is, the better.

The Minister also mentioned the forthcoming NPPF consultation. Is she able to indicate when the final version of the new NPPF will be published? I appreciate that she cannot give a precise indication. There is anecdotal evidence that during the consultation on the last NPPF some applications were put on hold because applicants wanted to wait to see the final version. Indeed, there is some evidence that during the passage of this Bill some infrastructure projects have been put on hold so as to benefit from some of the streamlining, so the greater the clarity that can be provided as to how long—we hope that it will be fairly quickly—the post-consultation process will take to produce the new NPPF, the better.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the positive engagement we have had during the Bill, where compromise has been reached on a number of very important issues. It shows that all the hours we have spent discussing and scrutinising the Bill have not been in vain. I am particularly grateful that the Government have seen the light over the requirement of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for an affirmative procedure on the national scheme of delegation. It is an issue on which we on these Benches supported the noble Lord, but we also tabled our own amendments, because we thought it was very important that the first iteration of the national scheme of delegation should be properly and fully scrutinised. We are really pleased that the Government have conceded on that issue.

On assets of community value, we Liberal Democrats supported the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who made an excellent case on Report for having some protection for those assets from instant demolition by those who want to make it easier to develop a site. Again, the Government have come back with some promise of change in that direction that will come through in later legislation. So, we have seen two moves which I think reflect the enormous value of the way in which scrutiny of legislation is approached in this House.

Moving to brownfield sites, I hear what the Minister said about the importance of making those, in her words, the “first port of call” for development, as well as what she said about agreeing a minimum intensification of sites. She knows that I have raised in this House using sites to their full potential, because that protects other land, particularly green-belt land, from developers eyeing it up as their next area for building, so I was really pleased with that. I understand what the Minister said about strategic development schemes, because we cannot be too specific at that level, which is basically what she was saying.

I want to raise just one concern, which is about severely contaminated sites. Those of us who live in pre-industrial areas are only too aware of the great cost of remediation and I have some concern that when the Minister was talking about brownfield sites, she mentioned that some may be too difficult or too contaminated to deal with. I want to press her on that, because it would imply that some severely contaminated sites will never be remediated, and that cannot be right. I may have misheard or misunderstood, so perhaps the Minister will explain further on that point.

Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, raised it, I am appalled that, having been through however many days of deliberation on this Bill, just as we were coming to the end, the Secretary of State issued these directions that if a site of 150 near a railway station is going to be refused—which it may be, for very good reason—it will be called in. Now then, that is really not acceptable, especially as we have been debating a planning Bill, and immediately a new issue comes up, we have a directions call. Perhaps the Minister will remark further on that.

We will listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has to say and see whether any of these issues will be put to a further vote.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Motion F to agree with Lords Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. This was a really important amendment, and I am very glad that it has been dealt with in this way, as has Motion G and Amendment 37 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey on the important issue of assets of community value. I look forward to seeing them put in place in future.

We have felt compelled to bring Motion J1 back to the attention of your Lordships’ House. Although we will not press the matter further, it is important that the concerns are placed clearly on record. We do so because the Government’s previous response did not engage with the substance of the issues at stake.

First, the Government have sidestepped the statutory issue entirely. This amendment would place a clear, unambiguous duty on spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield development and urban densification. That duty matters. Yet the Minister’s response relied almost exclusively on guidance, prospective consultations and future proposals. None of that explains why this responsibility should not sit in primary legislation. As we all know, the system is failing precisely because guidance can be overlooked and too often is. Brownfield opportunities are not ignored because they do not exist; they are ignored because the framework does not require public bodies or developers to pursue them.

Secondly, the Government’s response failed to address the sustainability dimension. This amendment is not simply about land categories. It is about shaping the behaviour of the built environment, supporting mixed, walkable communities, reducing travel distances and aligning development patterns with our environmental and economic goals. None of this featured in the Government’s reply, which focused solely on whether brownfield land is being sufficiently identified rather than on how our planning system directs the form, character and quality of the development. Without statutory underpinning, these wider sustainability objectives will continue to be treated as optional—desirable, certainly, but dispensable when inconvenient.

Let me finally address the Minister’s suggestion that our amendment would heighten the risk of legal challenge and that clarity in the NPPF makes such a duty unnecessary. In effect, the Minister defended the status quo, but legal challenge is a feature of any meaningful statutory change—indeed, of any planning decision. The possibility of challenge is not an argument for inaction; it is inherent in the evolution of any policy. A clearer statutory duty would, over time, reduce conflict by giving decision-makers firmer parameters and greater certainty.

I acknowledge that the Minister wrote over the weekend outlining the Government’s intention. Her letter stated that,

“the revised NPPF will provide even clearer policies to drive decision-making, including on brownfield land”.

We accept the Government saying again today that national policy is the most appropriate route for setting planning decisions, that the proposed changes will mark a step change and that they expect these reforms to meet the objectives of the “brownfield first” principle.

However, if Ministers truly believe that these revisions will drive brownfield development, then they must be willing and able to show evidence of success. The proportion of brownfield used must rise meaningfully as a direct result of these changes. Warm words about future consultations are not enough; they must turn into action. This House must be able to see the data and interrogate it, track progress and hold the Government firmly to account. If Ministers are confident in their claims, they should have no hesitation in committing to return to the House with clear, measurable evidence that these reforms are genuinely delivering a brownfield first approach in practice, not just in rhetoric. Until that proof is forthcoming, our concerns remain.

We live on a small island. Food security is critical in the world we live in. This Bill has taken our agricultural land for energy use and housing. Greenfields produce food for our nation; wheat and potatoes cannot be produced on urban brownfield sites.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate; I will address the points that have been raised during our discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Banner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their endorsement of our position on Motion F. I always hope that when a good idea comes forward, we will not hesitate to accept it; that was a good idea, and we will be moving forward with it.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I very much look forward to the debates we will have on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It is a different approach to assets of community value. It expands the definitions of assets of community value, including sporting and recreational assets, it gives longer for communities to do the work needed to enact this right, and it gives a right to buy approach, which I hope we will have good debates on.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, made a very important point about avoiding the proliferation of thresholds, and I will take that back. I hope he will continue to work with us on that, as he does on other issues.

In relation to the NPPF consultation, I appreciate that delay causes uncertainty. We are hoping to do it by the end of the year. Planning is a dynamic process. When we were having debates with the Housing Minister and some developers, he said that they cannot always be waiting for the next thing to come along. This is the planning Bill at the moment. The NPPF is the NPPF. We want people to get on and build the infrastructure and housing we need. There may be changes in the future, but planning is always going to be dynamic and will have to change as other things change. However, it is important we make sure the NPPF is fit for purpose, and we get this planning Bill through so we can get on and deliver what we need to.

I hope I picked up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on assets of community value in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

On the important point about brownfield sites and contaminated sites made by the noble Baroness, the viability PPG already factors in potential brownfield challenges. The guidance on defining costs notes that brownfield sites may have abnormal costs associated with them. We are continuing to look at this as we go through because there are some sites with high levels of contamination. The noble Baroness may be aware that I visited Stoke-on-Trent recently, which has some sites on former mining areas. They are an issue, and we continue to keep it under review, as she would expect.

Her points about the Minister’s announcement on railways stations make the point that we have been arguing around brownfield sites. For the most part, the land around railway stations can be considered brownfield sites. We want to make sure that we make the most of those sites, which have good transport links and are often essential to the economy of an area. This is why the Minister felt that it was appropriate, in that case, to make that a consideration—that is, where it looked like applications there might be refused, they could be called in. Of course, communities still get the opportunity to have their say in that process.

I took the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, of showing the outcomes here; I am sure that she will return to those with me in future. If we are going to make some progress with brownfield sites, we need to take some action that will enable those sites to be built on. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments on what is being done in relation to brownfield sites. We will consult on a revised framework this year; it will make consideration of brownfield a material consideration in the planning process. I hope that this and the instigation of the brownfield passport, which we will come on to imminently, reassure the noble Baroness that we do not intend to park this or ignore it.

I absolutely take the noble Baroness’s point about the protection of best agricultural land. It is really important; my colleagues in Defra are working on their land use framework as we speak. We want to ensure that we make the most of brownfield sites, as I set out earlier. We are making that the priority before we look at other types of land for developing either infrastructure or housing.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

Motion F agreed.