Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 July 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Localism Bill.


Localism Bill

I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness. In due course I shall invite her to make her own observations. We are told by ministerial sources that the national planning policy framework will soon be available in draft form and that it may be in hand for later stages of this Bill. But that does not help the present situation. It has been suggested in news reports that the national planning policy for the historic environment, PPS5, and in particular the requirement for pre-application archaeological assessment, will no longer apply to local planning decisions. It would be helpful to have an explicit ministerial assurance that the policy will remain in force and have statutory effect. This amendment would go part of the way towards reinforcing that. Great unease has been caused in the heritage community by a recent speech by a local council leader, Councillor Alan Melton of Fenland District Council, who was reported in the Cambs Times on 22 June. The article stated: "““Regulations governing new developments including the need for archaeological surveys are to be swept aside from July 1 in a purge designed to get Fenland building again””." I think he may have gone too far and perhaps may have realised that, but this is exactly the point. What are the safeguards which are not on the face of this Bill, and why are they not here? The amendment, along with Amendment 149A, seeks to ensure that the local planning authority makes a determination as to whether a proposed development might harm a heritage asset of national importance. That it will normally do by referring to the local heritage environment record. The amendment places the onus on the developer to seek such a determination from the local planning authority before proceeding. The matter is perfectly simple, and the issue is real. If the Minister can give explicit assurance that the amendment is not needed since legislation currently in place continues to have effect and will not be impaired by the passage of the Bill, and if she will kindly specify exactly what provisions are being cited, it will give great reassurance. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c1246 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Community development Advertising Conservation Infrastructure Electric cables Local government Planning permission Planning Public consultation Referendums Railways Property development Parish and town councils National parks Local plans Travellers Urban areas Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Community infrastructure levy
Legislation
Localism Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk