The Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill has nearly finished its journey through the parliamentary process. Monday's debate in the House of Lord saw should send the last stage of “ping-pong”. happen. The Government has been defeated on amendments to the Bill over 11 times so far.
The Bill is long and complex but two things stand out. The most controversial bit is the proposed “nature restoration levy”, whereby building developers can get out of their legal obligations to safeguard nature if they pay a levy, which will then be used for environmental protection elsewhere. There is even a provision (in Clause 69) whereby the amount of the levy can be kept deliberately low in order to ensure the developers’ scheme is financially viable for them.
There are aspects of current nature protection laws that can be reformed and fine-tuned, such as the boundaries of the green belts around cities. But simply to allow developers to buy their way out of their current obligations is going to be hugely destructive. The Lords have passed an amendment (number 130) which would provide a compromise. Where damage would be local in nature, the levy wouldn’t operate and existing protections would stay. Where damage would have a more diffused general effect, the levy could validly be used to counteract the damage done through funding applied elsewhere.
There is of course no guarantee that if they get planning permission building developers will build affordable housing, or that it will be linked with transport infrastructure, schools, GP surgeries, etc. Essentially in this country we have outsourced housing policy to developers in business to make a profit. There are many cases where planning permission increases the value of a piece of land but the building permitted still doesn’t take place. A nice country location far from public transport and beyond the budgets of most people can turn a good profit, but is that worth destroying the countryside for? Any suggestions that the levy scheme can only be applied for developments above a certain percentage of affordability have been swept aside by the Government. Instead, at Labour Party Conference they distributed MAGA-style hats saying “Build, baby, build!”
The Bill is also a missed opportunity. What are they planning for? If there is anything that is predictable about the future, it is that climate change is going to continue. Any forward-looking planning legislation would, above all, be about that. Are we prepared for droughts, floods, the damage heat can cause to railway lines, threats to the growing of food? How can a Planning Bill in 2025 be silent on these issues?
Politically, the damage to Labour may be immense. The Bill is a gift to the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, and even in some cases to local Tories. Most people are not usually interested in legislation, but they will notice the effects when it is implemented. Green spaces where people walk or children play are important to them, especially to people without gardens, as we clearly saw during the covid lockdowns.
Far from paying attention, the Starmer leadership has instead been cracking down on those backbenchers who have ventured beyond the Government’s line. Chris Hinchliff, a Labour MP who was on the Commons committee for the Bill, proposed a series of amendments (that’s what these committees are there for) and to punish him he had the whip withdrawn and a question mark put over his re-selection as a Labour candidate. Neil Duncan-Jordan was a teller for the Ayes voting for an amendment to the Bill to give a bigger role to Natural England, one of the offences which led to him having the whip withdrawn the following month. The same threat hangs over any Labour backbenchers who dare to support any of the amendments coming from the Lords in the next few weeks.
Out of the arguments about the Bill, the outlines of an alternative Labour policy emerge pretty clearly:
---
Victor Anderson was an inaugural member of the London Assembly between 2000-03. He has also been a member of the Compass Management Committee, worked in Whitehall at the Sustainable Development Commission, and in the House of Commons as a parliamentary researcher. More recently, he took part in an academic research project on 'Debating Nature's Value'. He is currently a Council member of Global Justice Now and Chair of the Unitarian Social Justice Network.
All blog posts represent the views of the author alone and not necessarily those of Mainstream.
