Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 7 July 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Localism Bill.


Localism Bill

I am answering the question directly. I think the noble Lord wants to know what the Government’s position is. The rationale behind it, I expect—I am only deducing this—is that the Government want flexibility in the mechanisms that they use in national policy frameworks in future and in any replacement device that they might consider necessary. Not enshrining the NPPF in primary legislation makes it easier to change the arrangements. None the less, there is determination at the moment to use the NPPF as the main device. I have some advice on this matter which may help. The law already requires a local planning authority, when making plans, to have regard to policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State. As we know, the NPPF is a replacement for that guidance and advice. Therefore, this applies to the NPPF. The NPPF’s authority derives not from this Bill but from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and the Town and Country Planning Act. In the absence of an NPPF, the Secretary of State would still be obliged to issue guidance under those Acts. That is where the NPPF fits into the equation.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c457 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Community development Assets Buildings Land Infrastructure Local government Property transfer Planning Property Public houses Post offices Local plans Transport Sustainable development Sportsgrounds Rural areas Regional spatial strategies Local development frameworks National policy statements
Legislation
Localism Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk