Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Viscount Hanworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I start by speaking in support of Amendments 129 and 130 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and, indeed, of his Amendment 135D, which would extrapolate those amendments to the hazardous substances Act.

The background, in brief, is that Clause 12 of the Bill, following the recommendations of my independent review on legal challenges to NSIPs, removes the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to judicial review permission applications which are totally without merit. My independent review did not opine on whether that should be rolled out to other kinds of planning proceedings, as that was outside the remit of my review, but it is, of course, within the remit of this House and this Bill. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said in relation to rolling it out to other kinds of planning proceedings. To my mind, there is no meaningful distinction of context between a nationally significant infrastructure project and, for example, the granting of planning permission for 2,000 homes. Both are of fundamental importance to the objectives of the planning system.

So I firmly support those amendments. I also support the other amendments associated with those two. The one exception, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has foreshadowed, is Amendment 128. I thought long and hard in the independent review about whether the time limits for judicial review should be shortened. My starting point was that they should be, but, on reflection, having taken soundings from a wide range of stakeholders, I concluded that that may end up being counterproductive. If there is too little time, claimants and their advisers might feel that it is better as a precaution to bring a judicial review claim and then review it and repent at leisure. In this context, I felt that the old adage, “I would have said less, but I did not have the time”, was applicable. It was a finely balanced conclusion, however. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, it would indeed be interesting to hear the Government’s view.

I next speak to Amendment 168 in my name. That amendment would stop the clock on the deadline for implementing a planning permission while a judicial review was under way. Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act have the effect that, for a full planning permission, one ordinarily has three years to commence development from the date of permission; for outline, it is the same period—three years—to bring forward an application for reserved matters.

Currently, however, it can take the best part of three years for a judicial review to run its course in cases that go to the Supreme Court, certainly, and even to the Court of Appeal. The delays in the planning court are such that even to get a permission decision in judicial review can take the best part of half a year. During that time, no rational developer, funder or land promoter would spend money, when a planning permission was at risk. That has real consequences for the status of planning permissions. I am aware of a number of planning permissions which have been put at risk because they have, in essence, been timed out. There was one well-known Supreme Court planning case a few years ago where the land promoter had to do a dummy reserved matters application just to keep the permission alive. Such applications can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and sometimes more—wasted money which could be better used; for example, in providing a high amount of affordable housing contributions.

It is also an incentive to claimants to bring a judicial review, because claimants and their well-honed lawyers know that you can cause stress and distress to commercial parties by bringing a judicial review, threatening to tire them out and then seeking to extract undue concessions. I urge the Government seriously to consider this amendment. I do not understand what political capital, or any kind of capital, could be lost by accepting it. There are not really any downsides and there are an awful lot of upsides.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to speak in support of Amendment 128. I am uncertain of the provenance of this amendment, but it is certainly well aligned with the Government’s agenda. It seeks to extend the provisions of Clause 12 of the Bill, which apply to nationally important infrastructure projects and other projects, notably those sponsored by local authorities. It seeks to limit the time available to make pleas against planning orders, reducing it from six weeks or 42 days to 21 days. I support this part of the amendment, which is entirely reasonable. More significantly, it proposes that an appeal to the High Court under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may not be made without leave of the court.

At an earlier stage of Committee, I spoke in favour of Amendment 52, which sought to limit the scope of judicial reviews that are liable to frustrate nationally important infrastructure projects. The proposal of that amendment is to bring the development orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects into Parliament. After a proposal has passed parliamentary scrutiny, then, by dint of an Act of Parliament, it should become legally incontestable and therefore it should not be subject to the hazards of a judicial review. Parliament must not be overburdened by such legislation; nevertheless, local development orders require greater protection against frivolous legal challenges.

I described the chicanery that obstructed the plans to eliminate a bottleneck on a major trunk road, the A303, where it passes close to Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain. The legal wrangling seemed almost interminable. The first grant of development consent for the bypass in 2020 was quashed by the High Court in July 2021. Then it was given a green light again by the DfT, which reissued the development consent two years later, in July 2023. The project was put on hold again because of another series of judicial reviews which were dismissed by the High Court in February 2024 and by the Court of Appeal in October 2024.

Undeterred by these two defeats, the claimants asked the Supreme Court whether they could appeal again, but on 29 January this year the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on the grounds that the challenge did not raise any arguable points of law. However, this decision was immaterial, since within weeks of taking office last July, the Labour Government scrapped the plans for a two-mile tunnel which would bypass the monument on the grounds that the cost of the project had become unaffordable. The decision to cancel the project was made three and a half years after the development consent had been given and after a very full and detailed examination of all the issues. In this case, it might be said that the campaigners had won not by virtue of the strength of their cause but by dint of legal chicanery and delay. Moreover, the same recourse is available to many other parties who, for various reasons, wish to stand in the way of important development projects.

It is worth noting the circumstances that made the project unaffordable. They were attributable largely to the delays that had been caused by the appeals. Major work was being undertaken to improve the A303 but, by the time the legal issues had been settled, that work had been completed and the contractors had moved on. To call them back in order to complete the project would have entailed inordinate costs in re-establishing the project. Amendment 128 is wholly reasonable and, I think, long overdue, and I strongly commend it to your Lordships.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am really concerned about Amendment 128. The reason why I say that is that in this Bill, at the hands of the Government, we have already had an attack on democracy in terms of substantial decisions being removed from democratically elected councillors, and now it feels as if we are having an attack on communities. The reason why I say that is that six weeks from a determination to bringing about putting in a challenge when you believe that something may have been done unlawfully is already pretty short.

There are a number of factors. A judicial review probably costs between £100,000 and £150,000 just to get the process going, and it can be quite substantial in itself for a community to get that funding together. Normally you would do a pre-action protocol letter that the courts expect the Government—indeed, both sides—to comply with. Quite a lot of that will involve significant extractions of information from the Government. As a consequence, three weeks would end up timing out the opportunity for communities, which are concerned that something is being rammed through, to have a genuine opportunity to challenge it. This and previous Administrations will know that quite often—I will not say all the time, but there have been significant times—the courts have found the Government’s proceedings to be unlawful. That might be frustrating for the Government, but nevertheless there is still an opportunity for communities to do that.

So I am very concerned about halving the time for communities to consider how they might challenge a particular decision. We have seen that in a variety of ways, whether it is about housing, aspects of energy infrastructure or transport. I will not pretend that the Government will not often get frustrated, but nevertheless I think Amendment 128 in particular would still be an unnecessary adjustment. Frankly, although my noble friend Lord Banner is sympathetic to Amendment 128, as he said in his speech, I am delighted that he did not actually put his name to it.

Building on that, we then get into other considerations about going to the Court of Appeal. I have a lot more sympathy with the other amendments that have been put in this group in order not to have never-ending regulatory challenges through the courts. I used to represent Suffolk Coastal, and I know that Sizewell C in particular has had a lot of challenges that seem never ending and somewhat ridiculous, so I have some sympathy for that. However, I also have experience as a Secretary of State, not necessarily on infrastructure but on other judicial matters, where a judge in the High Court has ruled against the Government—despite, by the way, it having been through both Houses of Parliament in determining a particular aspect of legislation—and then initially said, “And you can’t appeal to the Court of Appeal”. There is a process that allows the Government, or indeed anyone, currently to go around that and just say, “That’s a bit ridiculous. You found against us and now, funnily enough, you’re actually accepting that you do not want your decision to be challenged”. That is where I have a bit of concern on where that particular aspect may go.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, happened to refer to the A303. I used to live quite near the A303 and while I am not trying to do a Second Reading speech—I am conscious of the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield—I just want to remind noble Lords of some of the amendments that have already been put to this Bill trying to limit the number of different reasons why a judicial review can be brought on infrastructure project.

--- Later in debate ---

Going back to this particular group, I am very concerned about the three weeks versus six weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will know that—let me put it this way—not all of government is quite so efficient in responding to these pre-action protocol letters and the like. I think it would be unfair, if not unsafe, to try and insist on this change.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

The supposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seems to be that the consideration of a project by those that might oppose it is subsequent to the admission of a development order. In fact, usually the opposition long predates that, and so the limitation that we are proposing is not a denial of the opportunity to consider and to oppose a project.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

What is being proposed is drastically reducing the amount of time if anyone wants to bring a judicial review. I have already mentioned the barriers of raising money, assuming you can raise that. Perhaps this will be a change, but the High Court will not like this. It will absolutely kick off. Right now, Governments really struggle to not do the whole amount of—forgive me, I have forgotten quite the phrase, it is disclosure but there is a particular phrase that goes with candour. But if that is the way and we are going to go with three weeks, then honestly the delays will get worse. Be careful what one wishes for in regard to three weeks versus six weeks. I think this is an unnecessary amendment, whereas I am somewhat supportive of the other amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has tabled.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Viscount Hanworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 107, I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I am not personally someone who naturally embraces the cutting edge of technology, and I am very glad that those two noble Lords have put their names to this, because I think they will know far more about it than me, but I was truly excited by the potential of the subject of these amendments, and that is digital twins. I will now attempt to explain what digital twins are.

I am excited because I know from my experience of years chairing a planning committee that explaining proposals and different options, examining different possibilities and translating them into plans is very hard. Doing a planning-for-real exercise with maps cannot really take on board all the changes that embracing various options can bring. The digital twin is a very positive evolution from static models to dynamic digital replicas of what is proposed.

These amendments are deliberately framed around the consultation elements of the various parts of planning law that we are seeking here to alter. That is because digital twins are not just about better project planning and delivery; they are also about winning public confidence and consent—an issue that my noble friend Lady Pinnock spoke about earlier—given the importance of taking a community with you when you are trying to deliver change. In the case of new towns, to which Amendments 195, 196, 198 and 199 relate, this is going to be incredibly important.

I am certain that the Government want to deliver on their housing target in a way that communities can buy into and will support, whether with new towns or extensions of existing developments. There will always be disagreements, but proper modelling of the kind advocated by these amendments would be a critical tool for engaging with those who will be affected by the developments and demonstrate the pros and cons of the various options.

For example, such modelling can take on board demographics when it comes to planning, from schools right through to care homes. It will model what is likely to happen with the population and whether that will be relevant to what is proposed. It would also be a critical tool when various transport options were being designed, as it can model traffic flow, taking into account the changing model of the working week, for example. That is a very dynamic issue—the changing way in which we work. We do not want to design transport systems that are rooted in something that happened 10 years ago. That is the part that I find the most exciting: the community engagement for a digital age and a digitally literate generation.

The other advantage is the one that should excite the Government and the Treasury more. As we know, this country’s record on delivering major infrastructure projects on time and on budget is sadly woeful. We need only look at the recent past. HS2 began life with an estimated cost of £37.5 billion. The latest figure is £80 billion, and that is with the northern leg cancelled altogether. Half the infrastructure has been gained for double the cost. There are lots of other examples, which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, with their experience, will cite. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, will talk about Hinkley Point C, which was meant to be operational by 2023 at a cost of £18 billion but is now not expected to be online until the 2030s, with the price tag having more than doubled to £40 billion.

The Government are well aware that the public will oppose necessary infrastructure when they see inefficiencies, costs and overruns, no benefit to them and a big price tag. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid by tabling the amendments with this digital model. As a country, we must find a way to deliver more infrastructure, more quickly, on time and, crucially, on budget.

A digital twin is a virtual replica of assets that can be tested, stress-modelled and monitored in real time, and it offers precisely that capability. If advanced digital twins of the kind now available had been mandated from the start of projects such as HS2, Ministers and engineers alike would have had the data to foresee overruns and mitigate the risks. That is what I am hoping that we can achieve if we can bring this technology into common use.

In 2016, there was a digital technology known as building information modelling level 2. That was mandated for use in government projects in 2016. Level 2 is, in essence, about collaboration on static models. These amendments propose that projects requiring development consent—that is, nationally significant infrastructure projects and new towns and extensions—should be required to deploy building information modelling level 3. Meeting that standard would see construction use genuinely advance in a dynamic, integrated model of the asset that is continually updated. That is the important point: it is continually updated with real-time data and capable of simulating scenarios, predicting performance and informing decisions throughout the life of the project. The Government’s plans are in some cases decades long, so these projects have a long time.

Building information modelling level 2 allowed us to design better, but level 3 will allow us to build better. The good news is that we in Britain are leading the way on this digital twin technology. I have had conversations with the only British company—as far as I know—that is involved in building such simulations. It is called Skyral. Its models can be built in a matter of weeks, and they can simulate how populations of whole countries function and might be made better by new infrastructure.

In winding, I invite the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, to indicate whether she is willing to meet Skyral alongside me, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for a demonstration of these issues. It is exciting that this cutting-edge technology has been developed here, in Britain, by an independent British company.

Although we keenly feel the failures of cost and time overruns, they are far from a uniquely British problem. Research from the University of Oxford shows that more than 90% of big infrastructure projects worldwide go over budget and are delivered late. There is a huge opportunity here for us both in the Government’s plans for infrastructure and development and to export this technology. I hope the Government seize that. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 107 might appear to be of a technical and specialised nature, but I insist that it is fundamental to the modern methodology of infrastructure planning. I will talk briefly about the problems in planning before dealing specifically with the topic of digital twins.

The cost of making detailed plans is cheap relative to the costs of delivery. Good planning increases the likelihood of rapid delivery. With a speedy delivery, the chances are reduced of a project being thrown off course by unexpected events. Overruns of cost and time can be limited by careful planning. One is liable to imagine that recent infrastructure projects in the UK have been uncommonly affected by rising costs and delays, but, as has been mentioned, international comparisons have shown that such experiences are common to many countries.

Nevertheless, many of the dysfunctions of project management in the UK can be attributed to the economic nostrums that arose in the years of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Governments. During the period in question, the doctrine of outsourcing was widely propagated. It proposed that organisations should concentrate on their core activities, which are the things that they do best, and that functions that had hitherto been performed in-house should be assigned to external providers possessed of specialised expertise. It was proposed that this recommendation should be followed equally by the public and the private sectors.

The doctrine of outsourcing has been responsible for many of the problems that have beset the HS2 rail project. It was supposed that specialised contractors could be relied on to undertake both the planning and the delivery of the project. Frequent revisions of the master plan created confusion and delay. The overall direction and co-ordination of the project was the responsibility of a weak and ill-equipped company that was HS2 Ltd.

What is required in a major infrastructure project is a firm and detailed plan and the active co-operation of the contractors involved in its delivery. An example of how this can be achieved has been provided by the projects to build the Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations. One can extol the arrangements at Hinkley C despite the delays and cost overruns that have affected the project. Some of those are attributable to political indecisiveness and some to the misfortune of the Covid pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, managed in less than a minute and a half to explain, in a much more down to earth way, what it took me probably eight minutes to explain. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, very much for his kind remarks, and for lending support to this. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his explanation of some of the other issues surrounding this. I was encouraged by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I am glad that we had a better sense of unity breaking out in the Chamber. If my amendments serve no other purpose, at least they have brought us back together in a certain way.

I thank the Minister for his positive reply. I am interested that the powers are there for the Secretary of State to require this technology. I think it is going to be necessary for the Secretary of State to really push this and use those powers. Very often it takes a long time for people to grasp the use of technology—whether because of the cost of investing in it or simply because of lack of vision. I hope those powers will be pushed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

May I interject? The Minister seemed to imply that adopting digital twins would impose extra time and cost on planning. I contend that in fact it expedites planning and reduces the costs. I hope the Minister will consider that assertion.

Amendment 107 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Viscount Hanworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we come to another interesting clause. In essence, I am trying to find ways to identify those infrastructure developments that are of critical national importance to see whether there is a way in which we can streamline the process of approvals that they have to go through. Also, in picking up the points from the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock, about the need for democratic legitimacy, I am seeing whether we can use parliamentary processes to help.

I am moving Amendment 47 and speaking to Amendments 48, 49, 52, 53 and 65. The two substantive amendments are Amendments 52 and 65. I have two on judicial review which, because of the mystique of groupings for the first day, should really be grouped with a number of other JR amendments that we will come to later, so I will be brief in speaking on those.

My Amendment 52, in essence, creates a short, abridged parliamentary process to confirm Ministers’ decisions to give development consent for infrastructure projects as a critical national priority. Apparently, until the late 1990s, we had a system of provisional order confirmation Bills, whereby Parliament could confirm orders made by UK Ministers for various proposals, including infrastructure projects. There are many of these on the statute book so it is, in fact, a tried and tested approach that we could use for some projects where we need to speed up delivery but we need to have parliamentary approval as well.

This kind of approach, using a development consent order confirmation Bill, could take only four to six months to go through Parliament, which is nothing like the complexity of the hybrid Bill. We have seen that with HS2, which ultimately failed to satisfy anybody and built in huge delays. We are where we are with HS2. Having said that, the station being built in Birmingham looks pretty good; we can only hope that, one day, a train is actually able to arrive there.

The point about this amendment is to give Parliament a vote. I have very much accepted this point about the need for Parliament to have a say in some of these matters. In a sense, this is another trade-off; I am saying that some projects need to be dealt with in a special way—nationally, by being taken by Ministers, by going through the necessary procedures to ensure that they are appropriate and in being given legitimacy by parliamentary vote. It would give businesses and developers much greater certainty about investment decisions and, as I have said, ensure that we have a proper democratic say in these very important decisions.

Amendment 53 is related to Amendment 52 and would repeal Section 150 of the Planning Act 2008. I well recall our debates on that regime, because I was a Minister involved in it. The NSIP regime was designed with the intention of being a one-stop shop for major infrastructure projects, in terms of the consents required. However, the effect of Section 150 of the 2008 Act has been to stop development consent orders from being as much of a one-stop shop as they could be, because certain regulators have a veto on whether a DCO can roll consents into it that would otherwise have to be obtained separately from regulators. We have already debated the problem of having multiple regulators involved; they do not seem to be able to work together and co-ordinate their response.

I know that there was a debate on a similarly worded amendment that was proposed in the other place. The Government had some concerns about it but promised guidance on how to wrap up other consents in a DCO. However, the problem with that is that the regulators’ veto remains, which is why I argue that it should be moved.

My Amendment 65 can be seen in parallel: I seek to enable the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as critical national developments; establish an expert critical national developments task force to advise on each application; and provide that planning permission and any other regulatory consent for such development is deemed to be granted six months after the application is made, unless the Secretary of State issues a written objection within that period or extends the period. Of course, here, I am anticipating the response of my noble friend, because I noted that she was not very keen on my earlier amendment on timelines because different infrastructure developments have different requirements and probably different timelines. This amendment allows the Government to be able to sort of flex the timeline according to circumstances.

I would argue that, at the moment, Ministers lack a coherent mechanism to prioritise and accelerate delivery of critical infrastructure projects. The DCO regime has not really, in the end, delivered what we hoped it would when we took it through Parliament. I hesitate again to mention Sizewell C, but eight years from application to consent is just hopeless, and I must say that on Heathrow too. I support the third runway at Heathrow, because I think that, as the Government have said, this will take place within carbon budgets, but it is just an example of how decisions here can be stuck for decades, and we really have to move on from that.

The amendment I am proposing here would centralise accountability with the Secretary of State. I would align it to my earlier amendment in relation to parliamentary consent. It would bring consents under a single process, introduce a statutory determination deadline and de-risk major investments.

There is international precedent for it. The Canadian Government have also faced great delays in major national infrastructure from fragmented approval systems, environmental litigation and federal/provincial conflicts. Recently, the Parliament of Canada has produced a law with very much the same principles as my amendment, which allows the Canadian Cabinet to designate nation-building projects, as they are called, via Orders in Council.

I refer to my other three amendments. Amendment 47 seeks to remove the requirement for any planning appeals to be considered at an actual hearing. That, in my view, is a streamlining process.

Amendments 48 and 49 are around judicial reviews. I really welcome Clause 12(1), which would restrict judicial review appeals to the Court of Appeal where the High Court decides the application for permission to apply for judicial review is totally without merit. Now, I have already paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his review; this clause follows that review. We received a very helpful letter from my noble friend the Minister this morning, which gives details about how the Government are going to follow up; that is very welcome indeed, but I just want to probe whether we can go further.

Amendment 48 relates to the reviews of NPSs at least every five years, which I warmly welcome. I take my noble friend’s point about the issue with NPSs that have not been subject to a review and therefore could be considered to be out of date. I just want to make sure that judicial reviews are not used in a way which unreasonably might block progress, so my amendment would remove the possibility of JR in two circumstances: in between the five-yearly reviews, by repealing Section 13(2) of the Planning Act 2008, and in relation to any revisions to NPSs that are solely non-material or are reflective changes—in other words, reflective of published government policy change legislation or court judgments which the Bill is providing for.

I am a strong believer in the judicial review process. My background is mainly in the health service, and the fact is that NHS bodies are sometimes fast and loose with legislation and guidance, particularly when it comes to the outsourcing of services, changes of use, closures of hospitals and the like. There is no doubt that the judicial review process has been necessary to ensure proper transparency. My problem with judicial review is when it is used, essentially, to try to block progress—hence the amendment.

Amendment 49 would bring legal consistency to the Planning Act so that it is the High Court where applications for JR would be made. It is not a substantive change but it would make sure that, in any future event, civil procedure rules cannot be made to divert planning appeals to any court other than the High Court. There is already precedent in Section 63 of the listed buildings Act, which makes it clear that appeals are to be made to the High Court. I think that could flow across the Planning Act.

I hesitate to talk about judicial review when the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is present, but it would be good to have at least some debate as to whether, in the light of his review, we could go further. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 52 is of prime importance. Our planning system has become sclerotic. According to the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill, the time that it takes on average to secure a development consent order, or DCO, for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. The development consent system is beset by objections and pleas and by judicial reviews, with several judicial reviews sometimes besetting the same project. The effects of the delay may be to cause an otherwise viable project to become uneconomic or unaffordable. Nowadays, such delays are often envisaged as a means of defeating a project. The conjunction of lawyers and protesters, which has given rise to a veritable industry, is a modern and unprecedented phenomenon.

Recently, I had good cause to consider such developments. I made a trip by car from London to Ilfracombe in Devon. I had intended to travel on the M4 motorway, which is a major arterial route. However, in consequence of its blockage, I was diverted, on the advice of the Google satnav system, on to the A303. In doing so, I remembered that 303 is the calibre of a rifle bullet. I had hoped to travel at the maximum legal speed, if not at the speed of a bullet. I was pleased to be able to do so until I was brought to a halt. I was then constrained to travel at a snail’s pace for a prolonged period, while passing an ancient stone monument on a single-lane road. I saw the ancient megaliths of Stonehenge on the brow of a hill, which were surrounded by a gathering of druids. I was reminded of their campaign, which has prevented the building of the Stonehenge bypass. They regret the presence of the road and resist the building of a bypass that would encroach upon Salisbury Plain. Some might regard their campaign as a worthy attempt to preserve the dignity of an ancient monument. However, there is another side to the story, which concerns the objections of residents in the neighbouring villages to the diversion of traffic on to their streets. They contend that their villages have an equal claim to preservation.

The legal wrangling has been interminable. The first grant of development consent for a bypass, in 2020, was quashed by the High Court in July 2021. It was then given the green light again, by the Department for Transport, which reissued a development consent two years later, in July 2023. The project was put on hold again, because of another series of judicial reviews, which were dismissed by the High Court in February 2024 and by the Court of Appeal in October 2024. Undeterred by those two defeats, the claimants asked the Supreme Court if they could appeal to it. On 29 January this year, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal, on the grounds that the challenge did not raise an arguable point of law.

However, this decision was immaterial since, within weeks of taking office last July, the Labour Government had scrapped the plans for a two-mile tunnel that would bypass the monument on the grounds that the cost of the project had become unaffordable. The decision to cancel the project was taken some three and a half years after the development consent order had been issued and after a full and detailed examination of all the issues. In this case, it might be said that the campaigners had won not by virtue of the strength of their case but by dint of endless legal chicanery and delay. However, the same recourse is available to many other parties who, for various reasons, wish to stand in the way of important development projects.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Viscount Hanworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill marks a turning point. An intention has been declared by the Government to pursue a major reconstruction of the UK economy. This intention is conveyed by the Bill.

Many years ago, a Labour Government were faced with a similar task of post-war reconstruction. An austere and purposive Government, under the unassuming leadership of Clement Attlee, faced a task of which the difficulties were widely acknowledged. The Government were supported by an able Civil Service. Its skills had been honed by the wartime exigencies. The Ministry of Supply, which had overseen the procurement of wartime matériel, was replete with technicians and staff who had managed a complex supply chain. The ministry oversaw some leading post-war technological projects, including those of the newly established nuclear industry. It also oversaw the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry.

Equal competence was demonstrated by the Ministry of Transport, which oversaw the nationalisation of the rail network, albeit that little credit was given on this account. Thereafter, the Civil Service was rapidly de-skilled. Its traditional amateurism was reasserted by means of its selection board. By the mid-1960s, critics were complaining of the lack of scientific, commercial and manufacturing skills in the Civil Service.

Current circumstances are very different from those of the early post-war years. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which is charged with overseeing our energy policy, has a dearth of technical expertise. One might expect the department to be dominated by scientists and engineers, but there are few of these. Those in charge of the nuclear policy are graduates with degrees in archaeology, history and the social sciences. Although they can be credited with supporting a nuclear renaissance, there is little understanding of the technological imperatives.

In pursuit of net-zero emissions, it will be necessary for small nuclear plants to become close-up and personal to industrial applications and to clusters of population. Reactors are required that embody fourth-generation nuclear technologies that possess inherent safety. Instead, we are developing pressurised water reactors, both on a massive scale and as small modular reactors. Both pose stringent safety requirements, which must keep them at a distance from the consumers of heat and electricity. We have allowed projects that have been pursuing fourth-generation nuclear technologies in the UK to close or to expatriate themselves to more welcoming countries. A ministry staffed by technical enthusiasts would never have allowed this to happen.

The dearth of commercial experience in the Civil Service is as striking as its technological limitations. This deficiency has been gruesomely illustrated by the experience of the HS2 rail project. It seems that successive Governments who were willing to support the project were content to issue vague outline plans and to rely on the contractors to determine the detailed specifications. Governments were inclined to make changes to the plans without regard to the costs of the resulting disorganisation. The HS2 project has been affected by a planning system that is beset by local objections and demands for judicial review. This has severely impeded its progress. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposes to reform a sclerotic system.

There is a tendency to envy nations that have a more forceful regime that can override local objections. If we are not prepared to act likewise, then we must resolve to adequately compensate the affected parties. However, in pursuing the construction of new towns, if that is what we intend, we must make provision for the compulsory purchase of land in a way that will allow its enhanced value to accrue largely to the public authorities or to the development corporations. Otherwise, it will accrue to lucky but undeserving landowners.

I will make one final comparison between the past and present. After the war, the nation was fully aware of the parlous state of the economy and the physical environment. Nowadays, the electorate are less aware of the hazards we face. Our leaders should have alerted them to the realities sooner. The consequence is that we will be blamed for each emerging problem. We will be blamed for the failures in the provision of healthcare and social care, for the bankruptcies of local authorities, universities and institutions of higher education, and for much else besides.

We have been willing to listen to the nostrums of pollsters, spin doctors and political strategists, who were responsible for convincing our leadership that it was dangerous, at an election time, to admit that taxes needed to be raised to finance the reconstruction. That was surely a misreading of popular opinion that made no allowance for the possibilities of political persuasion. The consequence is that we have lost time before embarking on the project, and we have lost some credibility.

High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Viscount Hanworth Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I too served on the committee while this report was being compiled. I also commend our chairman and our secretariat.

The report testifies to the decline of Britain’s high streets. They have been suffering from the current economic troubles of the nation, which tend to be described as a cost of living crisis, but there are other enduring factors that have contributed to their decline. Among the recent difficulties affecting high streets have been the impact of the Covid pandemic and the rising proportion of online shopping. A less immediate problem has been the development of large shopping centres that have attracted customers away from high streets. This phenomenon has been seen in neighbouring countries, such as France, where large so-called hypermarkets have been built in out-of-town locations. It seems that the detriment of such developments has now been recognised in the UK and that measures are being taken to restrain them.

However, there are other pathologies that have had an enduring effect in the UK. Not the least of these is what might be described as the financialisation of the commercial property market. This process accelerated rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s. The result has been that the ownership of commercial properties is now preponderantly in the hands of financial institutions. These include real estate investment trusts, property companies large and small, pension funds, banks, foreign sovereign wealth funds and many other remote owners.

The assets within the commercial property market are conventionally classified as prime assets and subprime assets. The former include large office buildings and department stores and the latter comprise the majority of the buildings to be found on Britain’s high streets. The salient fact is that the majority of the properties in both categories are not owned by their current occupants. They are owned by parties who are remote from the locations in question and have no day-to-day involvement. The structure of ownership affecting large retail chains and department stores has been revealed in recent years by their financial collapse.

A prime example has been the Arcadia empire of Philip Green, which was created by the leveraged acquisitions of numerous businesses. Existing assets served as collateral for borrowings that were used to finance further acquisitions. In the process, Philip Green accumulated a personal wealth almost unprecedented in Britain. The sources of this wealth were the assets of the businesses that he had acquired. Many of these businesses had owned their own premises. They were sold by Green to the institutional investors of the property market. The consequence was that, when major trading losses arose, the property owners were able to call time on his businesses. There were no resources, other than Green’s personal wealth, available to sustain the businesses during the economic downturn. The truth of the matter was revealed when Green was able to sell British Home Stores for £1, without personal loss to himself, until he was constrained to supplement the pension fund.

The other side of the story concerns much smaller high street businesses that have suffered closure. The committee’s report reveals a startling fact about the landlords and property owners in the high street. A survey of 22 British high streets conducted in 2019 found that only 5.3% of retail and leisure units were owned by their current occupiers. As with much larger businesses, the retailers lacked the capital to sustain the temporary losses occasioned by an economic downturn and the businesses were forced to close.

The properties in question are liable to feature as entries on spreadsheets of large institutional investors, which have little incentive and little ability to quickly find occupants to replace those who are departing. Occupants might be found more quickly if property owners were inclined to reduce their rents; doing so would reduce the number or value of their assets and they would prefer to leave their properties empty for longer.

A further detriment arises from the remote ownership of commercial bodies, which affects their upkeep. Neither the owners nor the current occupants have a sufficient incentive to enhance the properties since any investment undertaken by one of the parties will be to the substantial benefit of the other party. The division of responsibilities for the upkeep of properties is typically determined by clauses in the lease, and these vary widely from case to case.

In Britain, there is a small and diminishing residue of municipal ownership within high streets. If a landlord is a local authority and if they have access to funds, then favourable opportunities for enhancement or the regeneration of a property or the wider environment can arise. However, this is an uncommon circumstance. It is notable that the circumstances are very different in neighbouring European countries. In Holland, for example, large proportions of town centre properties are under municipal ownership, and this is outwardly reflected in the superior upkeep of these locations.

A question to be faced is: what can the Government do to alleviate the distress of our high streets? The answer is that very little can be done, unless local authorities, development corporations and other relevant bodies are given the funds to enable them to undertake significant developments of high street environments. The high streets must be made more attractive, and they must cater to developing circumstances. Amenities must be brought to the high streets to replace the retail outlets that are closing. We have heard suggestions that doctors’ surgeries, libraries, restaurants and leisure activities should be attracted to the high streets. If the high streets and adjacent streets have been cleared of motorised traffic, then adequate public transport must be provided and parking facilities in adjacent areas must be established.

However, the question of funding is paramount. The report criticises the chaotic system of special funds that are available to local authorities, which are invited to compete for them. In many cases, it is too time-consuming for a local authority to make a bid when there is little chance of succeeding. Attempts to reform the system are, I hope, under way. The principal source of funds for local authorities is local taxation, which consists of domestic rates and business rates. We are led to understand that, in the future, 70% of a local authority’s income will be raised locally. A large proportion of this income will come from business rates, of which the councils will keep 50%. This will give them, so it has been said, a real incentive to go for growth and encourage enterprise and job creation.

The problem with rates being raised on properties is that they bear only a tenuous relationship to the income of the householder or to the turnover of a business, and they are often subject to angry resentments. However, it must be a priority to reform the system of local taxation and, in the process, to make it more productive of revenue. This will require the replacement of the rates by local income taxes and local turnover taxes.

Housing: Modern Methods of Construction

Viscount Hanworth Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, the recently elected Labour Government have proposed that there should be mandatory targets for housebuilding that local authorities must adhere to. The ambition is for 1.5 million houses to be built in the current Parliament, with annual targets of 370,000 units.

This target, which far exceeds recent levels of housebuilding, is comparable to what was achieved in the early post-war years. A large proportion of those houses were council houses, and they were subject to direct procurement, financed by local authorities. They were built mainly by small local building firms, which typically employed their labour on a permanent basis. Nowadays, a few large firms build most of the residential accommodation. They hire their labour on a temporary basis. However, the supply of such skilled labour has shrunk drastically. Moreover, the big firms do not undertake to train their workforce.

It has been widely proposed that, in order to accomplish a revolution in housebuilding and to meet the targets, it will be necessary for builders to adopt modern methods of construction. These will involve a substantial proportion of off-site construction in factories with assembly lines. Contemporary methods of housebuilding are slow and wasteful of materials. They also make inordinate demands on a scarce labour force. It is doubtful whether, if such methods were used preponderantly, any of the targets could be met.

The houses that are so urgently needed must be subject mainly to direct public procurements. Much of the new housing stock would therefore remain in public ownership, albeit that the right of the occupants to buy their houses should be preserved. It was an ideological aversion to public ownership that inspired the Thatcher Governments to promote the right to buy, while preventing councils from investing the proceeds from the sales in replacement buildings. This has been a major factor in creating the current housing crisis.

Leaseholders: Management Companies

Viscount Hanworth Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are looking more closely at this issue, because the noble Lord is right—sometimes it can be more difficult. We have also recognised the participation rates, which can be affected by foreign owners. We have listened to the arguments raised in Committee and by MPs in the other place, and we will continue to consider the issues raised.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extent of a stratagem whereby companies have acquired freeholds with the intention of removing the leaseholder occupants by undertaking works on the properties that the leaseholders cannot possibly afford to pay for? By these means the freeholder expects to compel the occupants to sell up. What redress is there against this stratagem?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not aware of this strategy on the part of freeholders, but I will look into it and come back to the noble Viscount.

High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill

Viscount Hanworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I should begin by mentioning that I am a current member of the Built Environment Committee, which is engaged in considering the state of Britain’s high streets.

The Bill that we are discussing today has excellent intentions and I strongly support it. It proposes that local authorities should have a watching brief over the health and development of a high street in their area and that they should have a development plan that should be reviewed at least every five years. At the best of times, this requirement should serve to reaffirm the good practices that one would expect well-run local authorities to be adopting as a matter of course. However, nowadays is not the best of times, and the authorities will struggle to fulfil the injunctions of the Bill in meaningful ways. Many of them lack the personnel to conduct proper appraisals of local problems and to formulate plans to address them.

There was a time when local authorities could be expected to react with enthusiasm to this Bill. They were endowed with planning departments that typically contained a full complement of architects, surveyors, town planners and other professionals, and they were responsible for, among other concerns, overseeing the stock of council housing and adding to it. Such housing provided shelter for a large proportion of the population.

The policy that gave the right to buy to council tenants was initiated in 1982 during the Thatcher era. It divested the authorities of much of this housing stock, and they were prevented from replenishing it. The planning departments lost much of their personnel and their sense of initiative.

The present Government have aimed numerous poorly funded initiatives at addressing the decline of the town centres and high streets. Many of these fall under the so-called levelling-up agenda. The current web page of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is from July 2023, lists a bewildering variety of funds aimed at urban regeneration. I have counted 15 of them. The overview on the web page states:

“In the Levelling Up White Paper, the government committed to setting out a plan for simplifying and streamlining the funding landscape and to help local stakeholders navigate funding opportunities”.


This testifies to the difficulties and expenses incurred by local authorities in making applications for funding.

A common testimony of local authorities is that insufficient resources are available for developing a bid, which may be accompanied by a judgment that it is not worth their while to do so. Even if these impediments were overcome and if the money for regeneration were amply available, a more fundamental impediment could block the progress. Local authorities lack sufficient influence over the activities in high streets to address the problems of urban regeneration.

Few occupants of commercial town centre properties are also their owners. A figure of 12.8% has been cited for the proportion of private individual landlords and owner-occupiers. The ownership of the majority of properties resides in the portfolios of real estate investment trusts and other private interest companies, such as insurance and pension funds, where individual properties feature as lines on a spreadsheet.

The rent payable to owners places a heavy burden on the retailers. The burden is heaviest in times of economic recession when the income from trading is reduced; it may force the retailers into bankruptcy. There is little direct engagement of the property owners with the tenants. Although both parties are charged with the upkeep of the properties, there is little incentive to enhance them since much of the benefit from doing so will accrue to the other party. When properties fall vacant, there seems to be little urgency on the part of owners to find new occupants, and there may be good reason for this. The principal characteristic of a property from the point of view of an investment fund is its capital value, which is tied to its rent. To reduce the rent in an attempt quickly to attract a tenant will destroy that value.

Short-term letting to independent retailers may be unprofitable. Among the inducements to a new tenant there are liable to be deferments of rent and contributions to fitting-out costs, which cannot be afforded easily by small independent retailers. Whereas, in the past, retail leases could be for as long as 20 years, they are now expected to be of a limited duration. Moreover, the high rates of failure among small start-up enterprises deters property owners from accepting such tenants.

The planning departments of local authorities face an intractable problem in motivating a collection of remote and disengaged agents to co-operate in any plans they might have for urban renewal and regeneration. Matters were quite different in the early post-war years, when urban reconstruction was an urgent priority. Much of our modern environment was created in that era. One can conjure up an image of a post-war architect or planning officer airily waving their hand over a tabletop model corresponding to a large derelict area that was set for redevelopment. The tabletop would be covered with small, white rectilinear boxes representing buildings in the modernist style. The person demonstrating the plan might have been dressed in an imitation of the sartorial style of the Swiss-French architect Charles-Édouard Jeanneret, known commonly by the pseudonym Le Corbusier.

We have come to regret the depredations of the cheap modern architecture that accompanied this post-war redevelopment; we should remember its vigour and ambition, which we might wish to recapture. We look for contemporary examples of such enterprise, but they are rare. Some of them are the result of private sector initiatives. The Built Environment Committee has witnessed one such example recently, which is from a firm that began working on town centre redevelopment some 30 years ago. The firm is based in the Sheffield area of South Yorkshire. A typical example of what the firm has achieved has been the redevelopment of an extensive site of a derelict steelworks. This degree of enterprise is rare and it cannot be relied upon to achieve the reconstruction that is called for. Only by engendering the same spirit of enterprise within many local authorities can a major transformation be achieved. It is appropriate to remember that once, in the not-so-distant past, they did embody such a spirit.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House that it is an advisory five minutes.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

It is advisory, presumably, but not mandatory.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

It is advisory, which means you do not need to go to five minutes; you can go shorter than that. Every one of the previous speakers was below five minutes. It is not mandatory but I remind the House that we have speakers who will speak later on this afternoon, when other Members who have already spoken will be at home.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Viscount Hanworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, rent is income derived from the ownership of land or other property. It is an income derived without effort on the part of the owner. The owner would have acquired a title to the property at some time in the past. This may have been achieved by means of their labours or by inheritance, or the title may have been acquired by nefarious means that are nominally legitimate. The British economy is in decline; it offers diminishing opportunities for gainful employment. Therefore, there is, nowadays, a heightened incentive to acquire an income through rent. However, since such acquisitions are often at the expense of another party, rent-seeking requires to be restrained if it is not to damage the social fabric.

In recent years, the market for residential property and accommodation in the UK has been severely affected by the activities of rent seekers. The Bill seeks to place some restraint on these activities. It is appropriate briefly to describe what has been happening in recent times. The problems arising have two aspects. They affect both newly built and pre-existing properties. Newly built properties have been sold to new occupiers under leasehold clauses that allow the housebuilder to retain the ultimate ownership. They are often built in estates and the housebuilders will propose that payments are due for the upkeep of the estate.

There has been nothing to prevent the housebuilders which retain the freehold increasing these so-called service charges to an exorbitant level that far exceeds the cost of maintaining the estate—an income derived without effort on the part of the recipient. It is remarkable that many housebuilders have managed to sell the properties under leasehold clauses without the new occupants realising that they are not the full owners of the houses. The Bill addresses this abuse by partially banning the sale of new houses under leasehold clauses. However, it also contains provisions for a category of permitted leases in respect of new houses.

It is notable that the provisions of the Bill that restrain the sale of new houses under leasehold relate only to future ownership. They do nothing to redress the abuses of the past. Admittedly, freeholders and their agents must now guard their behaviour for fear of a legal redress that the leaseholders will be empowered to seek, but this seems to alter the balance of power between the two parties in only a minor way. Hitherto, the powers of the freeholder have been exorbitant. They have been able to set the service charges and insurance fees at whatever levels they choose. They have also been able to impose upon the tenants any legal costs that might arise out of their defence of a case brought against them in a tribunal or a court, regardless of the outcome. They still have unlimited powers of repossession in cases where tenants have refused or have been unable to pay the service charges.

The second major concern is that leasehold arrangements are to the disadvantage of the inhabitants of flats. It should be recorded at the outset that of the dwellings in England, 70% are flats and 30% are houses. Flats may be located in tower blocks or in small terraced houses. Other speakers have described how tenants in tower blocks have been affected by shoddy workmanship and inflammable cladding. Many have had no legal redress and are facing financial ruin. I shall concentrate on flats in modest houses and, for an illustration, I shall consider a small estuarine town on the mouth of the River Thames at a commuting distance from London.

The attractive terraced houses are at increasing elevations as one moves away from the water’s edge towards the high street at the centre of the town. Most of the houses are divided into two or three flats, typically occupied by elderly people or impecunious families. Like many seaside towns, this one has not been prospering of late, but there are clear signs that this is changing through the influx of wealthier Londoners. A prescient property company has been buying up the freeholds of these properties, which have remained mainly in the hands of previous owners who have moved away. They may have sold the leaseholds in respect of two or three of the flats that the houses now comprise.

The property company is a conglomerate—or, at least, a federation of agencies. A search of the companies register reveals that the constituent parts have directors in common. They comprise a property company, a managing and letting agency, a firm of solicitors and an insurance broker. There is also a shadowy affiliated company, Capital Recoveries. The property company has purchased the freeholds at what might seem to their owners to be attractive prices, but they are unlikely to have recognised in full the prospective values of their properties.

Some of the existing freehold owners acquired their titles in an era of low interest rates that encouraged them to buy to let. The current high interest rates, and, in the case of leasehold purchasers, the additional burden of increasing service charges, are encouraging many of them to sell up. The remaining problem for the property company is how to expel the tenants from the properties that are now in their control. This is not difficult to do in an era of no-fault evictions. In the meantime, it might be prepared to bide its time by deriving rents from the tenants.

The only anxiety of the property companies is that they may have to face an incoming Government intent on providing greater protection to tenants. The present Bill will require the property companies to smarten up some of their practices. After the Covid pandemic, the lists of service charges both for small houses divided into flats and for blocks of many flats contained an item described as “charges for the deep cleaning of communal areas”. There were no such communal areas in the small houses, and the testimony of the tenants was that no one from the management and letting agencies had ever paid a visit. Such spurious charges may no longer be sustainable under the prospective legislation, but it will continue to permit many other abuses.

Leasehold Properties: Managing Agents

Viscount Hanworth Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are well aware of the significant issue concerning leaseholder protections where leases are extended or varied. A change to primary legislation is necessary to ensure the continuation of protection. We are looking to bring forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. Obviously, compensation will be part of that discussion, I am sure.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

Is the Minister not aware that freeholders are frequently motivated to consolidate the ownership of their properties by driving the leaseholders into unsustainable debt, by dint of exorbitant service charges?