Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)

First, I echo the sentiments about the effort the staff, the clerks and everybody else have put into staying up tonight until 3.30 am. As the noble Baroness said, it will be probably beyond 4 am before people leave. I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in this debate and tabled amendments. I appreciate the intentions of Amendment 143, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It seeks to allow strategic planning authorities to specify or describe a specific density of housing development. As I have set out, SDSs will be high-level documents that will set out broad locations for growth. This amendment would not be practical because SDSs cannot allocate specific sites for development and so would not be able to set specific densities for precise locations. New Section 12D(1) already allows for policies in relation to the development and use of land, provided they are of strategic importance to the area covered by the strategy. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 148, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require spatial development strategies to promote the use of brownfield land and to reduce the need to travel. I agree with the intent behind this amendment; however, it is already comprehensively covered in the National Planning Policy Framework, with the promotion and reuse of brownfield land being a central part of chapter 11 of the NPPF, on making effective use of land. The Bill sets out that strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to be consistent with national policy when preparing their spatial development strategies. As this issue is already addressed in national policy, this amendment is not necessary and I hope the noble Lord will not press it. Amendment 159, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposes the power for the Secretary of State to introduce urban land readjustment schemes. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the important issue of how to unlock regeneration and higher-density development on fragmented urban sites and for proposing a means to do so. While there is potential benefit to such schemes, we need more time to come to an informed view, given the importance of the human rights of those with an interest in the affected land. That is why the Government will be rejecting this amendment but committing to looking at the issues more fully. We would like to work with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to do so. Amendment 160 provided a further opportunity to debate the important issue of a national spatial plan and seeks to ensure better co-ordination of development and infrastructure between national and local policy. While I recognise that there is interest in a national spatial framework as a possible solution, I assure noble Lords that we are progressing a number of initiatives to achieve this outcome. The Bill as drafted introduces a new national system of strategic plans to replace the current piecemeal approach. England- wide coverage of spatial development strategies will provide a more effective way to plan across local authority boundaries and co-ordinate development and infrastructure delivery. The Government’s 10-year infrastructure strategy describes how SDSs fit within a broader approach to improved spatial planning. They will be complemented by a set of spatial plans for key infrastructure sectors, such as the strategic spatial energy plan, a land use framework to promote better decision-making on land, to be published later this year, and the establishment of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. NISTA will play a key role in providing strategic and spatial direction and supporting co- ordination between departments, regulators, arm’s-length bodies and local delivery partners. It will lead the development of the Government’s new national infrastructure spatial tools. In addition, the land use framework will provide a long-term view of land use change to support climate change mitigation and adaptation, economic growth, housing delivery, food production, clean energy, and meeting statutory targets for nature recovery. It will lay out how the Government intend to align the different incentives on land, promote joined-up decisions at national and local levels, and make accessible and high-quality data available. Together, these reforms will provide the necessary co-ordination between policies, plans and decisions that is needed to drive delivery. In the light of this work, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will not press his amendment. Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, seeks to require the commissioning of a review of brownfield sites. The Government are clear that the first port of call for development should be brownfield land. This includes, for example, bringing derelict sites back into use and making better use of existing land and buildings. That is why the Government have strengthened national planning policy to incentivise brownfield development. In December 2024, the revised National Planning Policy Framework set out that proposals for brownfield development should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. The NPPF therefore provides strong support for making as much use as possible of brownfield land and sets a high bar for refusal. Last year, the Government proposed options for a “brownfield passport”, to ensure that the default answer to suitable proposals is yes. We are now considering the views received to decide what further action could be taken to support development of brownfield land. In addition, the Government already provide funding to unlock suitable brownfield sites for housing where this provides good value for money. The Government’s new national housing delivery fund will make around £5 billion of capital grant funding available over the next spending review period to unlock new housing and regeneration, much of it on brownfield land. In addition to that funding, the department is making available over £1.8 billion this financial year. We intend to establish a new, permanent national housing bank to act as the Government’s investment arm and which may be used to support the development of brownfield land. As a result, the Government are already advanced in their thinking and actions on how best to incentivise brownfield development. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured and will not press her amendment. Amendment 224, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, proposes an exemption on VAT for materials used in repurposing existing buildings. The Government recognise the importance of reusing existing buildings and already encourage this through the VAT system. That is why residential renovations are subject to a reduced rate of VAT of 5%, if they meet certain conditions. Any reduction in VAT rates must represent value for money for the taxpayer. Ultimately, the Chancellor is responsible for making decisions on tax policy and these decisions are taken at fiscal events. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.