Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 222 and 224 in my name. Both refer to regeneration: supporting brownfield sites and repurposing buildings in preference to the use of new sites in the green belt, cutting into our countryside. Amendment 222 inserts a news clause after Clause 106 to ensure that a full brownfield review is commissioned within six months of the day the Bill is passed. Proposed new subsection (1) sets out the power for the Secretary of State to commission the review within this timeframe. Proposed new subsection (2) specifies what the review is to investigate. Meanwhile, Amendment 224 introduces a new clause that will enable a VAT exemption scheme for building materials used for repurposing and redeveloping an existing building to provide housing. Surely, it should be obvious that focusing on brownfield and repurposing sites first is a double environmental win: saving our countryside and green spaces that are rich in nature and play a crucial role in responding to the climate emergency. This approach also clears up environmental issues on brownfield sites that, so far, have been ignored or put on hold rather than grasped. What could be more sustainable than that? Surely, sustainability, which has been used as an argument throughout this debate on planning and infrastructure, should be at heart of our planning system. The CPRE reported in 2022 that there were a record-breaking number of brownfield sites, identified for redevelopment, lying dormant—enough for 1.2 million homes on 23,000 sites adding up to 27,000 hectares. The CPRE highlights that the majority of brownfield sites are in town and city centres, where there is both the most need and the scope for new homes and regeneration. As I said earlier in the debate, it is not simply a question of more homes; we need the right homes in the right places. Much of the current urban brownfield land is known to blight the communities where it exists, leading to poorer socioeconomic indicators. It is much better to reuse already developed urban land and buildings as the carbon emissions are lower per capita than greenfield development. Urban areas also have existing infrastructure and services in place or, when new infrastructure is needed, it can more easily provided, unlike in remote rural areas. It also has the benefit of saving our green fields to be used for food security, preserving rural character and environment benefits. Too often, when I ask why more brownfield sites are not being used, I am told that the cost of cleaning them up, before they can be built on, eats into profits and makes the housing less viable. We need to break this cycle, so we do not unnecessarily destroy more green fields, and are not left with derelict sites in urban places. Amendment 224 would help to provide a tax break to those companies willing to refurbish empty homes and repurpose buildings to provide housing. Not only is this cheaper but, as mentioned, it is much better than tearing down buildings and replacing them, which comes at huge carbon cost. The high street is changing; there are often empty buildings, no longer used. Surely, it is much more beneficial to repurpose them for housing. We need the priority of brownfield first and to bring existing empty homes and buildings back into use, and we need to make it more attractive for companies to do so. I commend my amendments to the Committee.