My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for the introduction to his amendments. We fully support these extremely sensible additions to this part of the Bill. We have a number of amendments in this group, so if noble Lords will bear with me, I shall go through them.
Amendment 226 requires references to climate change mitigation and adaptation, to which the noble Lord referred. It ensures that plan making is interpreted in line with the Climate Change Act 2008. My Amendment 270 further defines and prioritises adaptation and resilience in order to have greater action to deal with flood risk and overheating. One of the reasons for tabling these amendments is that we do not believe that climate change is given sufficient attention in the Bill. We need to ensure that it is taken into account, particularly within planning. People talk about mitigation, but there is not enough talk about adaptation. Particularly when it comes to planning, it is something that we need to start looking at very seriously for the long term. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for his support for Amendment 270.
Looking in more detail at Amendment 270, obviously I live in an area that is highly affected by flood risk. We know that at least one in six people in England is at risk from flooding from rivers and the sea, with many more at risk from surface water flooding. I am concerned that not enough attention has been given to flooding in the Bill. The Environment Agency estimates that the number of at-risk homes will double by 2050 due to the impact of climate change because of more volatile weather patterns, more intense rainfall and, therefore, more floods.
The Government are failing to build the efficient homes, strengthened flood defences and resilient natural habitats that are necessary to adapt to rising temperatures and flood risk. We need to do much more to ensure that the planning system effectively contributes to the delivery of our emission reduction targets and that any new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places. My Amendment 226 seeks to achieve that aim by ensuring that the process of plan making is fully aligned with the commitments set out in the Climate Change Act, and also in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. It would do so by clarifying the meaning of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Bill in such a way that they are directly tied to those Acts, thereby strengthening the duty placed on plan making via a 2008 amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that ensured that all plans contribute to the mitigation and adaptation of climate change. It is important that we ensure that all existing legislation is tied together effectively when we look at the challenges of climate change.
By ensuring that there is genuine coherence between the country’s planning system and its climate commitments, the amendment would also provide the foundation for more detailed national policy on how planning can actually contribute to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and mitigate climate change as fully as possible in the forthcoming NPPF review. Is the Minister able to provide us with an update on when we might see this issue addressed in that NPPF review?
My Amendment 270 is needed to reflect the fact that the climate crisis and, in particular, the impact of flooding is having a major impact on the social and economic viability of places and the mental and physical health of individuals. As a result, securing climate resilience should be central to the levelling-up agenda. The amendment seeks to give much greater specific legal weight to climate adaptation, which has become a Cinderella issue in planning decision-making.
There are a number of gaps in the current planning and legal framework that need to be addressed. While there is general duty to have regard to climate adaptation, this applies only to plan making and not to the actual decisions that are taken on individual planning applications. The fact that decisions can be taken contrary to planning policy weakens the connection between climate objectives and climate-proofed decisions. The absence of any definition in the Planning Act of the precise meaning of adaptation and resilience is also problematic. The absence in any part of planning legislation of a link to the vital provisions of the Climate Change Act also needs to be resolved. This amendment would both define and prioritise adaptation and resilience in a way that enables greater action to deal with flood risk and overheating.
3.30 pm
On overheating, I will just comment on the two amendments to my amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which add wildfires to the matters which the local planning authority must consider. I thank the noble Earl for adding his extremely important amendments to mine. We know that the escalating climate crisis has driven an increase in extreme wildfires. The UN report says that there could be a 30% increase in wildfires by 2050, and that there should be a radical change in public spending on wildfires and that Governments are putting their money in the wrong place by focusing on emergency services when preventing fires in the first place would be a much more effective way to approach this. Clearly, in the UK we do not suffer in the same way as Australia or California, for example, but we have seen an increase in wildfires in this country and we need to address mitigation and adaptation for the future. Again, I thank the noble Earl for drawing our attention to this.
Our Amendment 312C in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and my Amendment 504D are about a strategy for planning reform with the aim of net zero emissions but also asking the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on when decisions have been taken against the advice of the Environment Agency. Our concerns here are about the lack of attention in the Bill to the environment. If we are to have any hope of meeting our net zero targets, all future legislation which impacts the environment should include a strategy on how it will contribute to reducing our emissions. Planning is clearly a crucial area if we are to address this.
We support Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I have put down an amendment to her amendment which looks at the fact that we should not look just at opportunities for reclamation, reuse and recycling from demolition processes but should do an assessment of
the viability of the proposed development and the demolition in the first place before we look at how we reuse and recycle. That was the point that we were looking at there; viability should be the first thing to be considered in any decision-making.
Finally—there are a few more amendments but I do not want to take up any more time—I would like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on Amendment 272 that of course we all love hedgehogs. They have had an alarming decline, and if there is anything small that can be done to help, why do we not do it?