---

Localism Bill

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and the noble Lord, Lord True. I am grateful, too, to the Minister for her clarification. The distinction that we have been drawing out in the course of our discussions today is between the local authority saying, ““The neighbourhood plan is in conformity with the local plan””, and the local authority saying, ““Although the neighbourhood plan makes some embellishments and has some bright ideas that the people within the locality wish to see which may change the local plan, nevertheless the local authority is happy with those changes and will issue a local development order that will embrace that neighbourhood plan””. There is a slight distinction between accepting what the neighbourhood plan says and accepting simply that it is in conformity with the local plan. We have gone a little bit further. The local authority may say, ““Okay, you didn’t want to use those sites over there that were in our local plan. We fully understand. We are still going to have the housing or whatever it is that is required in the area. They will be in a slightly different place but that is what you have all negotiated and worked through. You have spent 18 months on this hard work and we are prepared to accept that as a local authority””. We have got to the point where that change to the local authority’s original intentions triggered by the neighbourhood plan will be something that does not require a referendum. The local authority accepts it at the neighbourhood level. It is, of course, approved by the parish council neighbourhood forum. I think that we are more or less there, but I would like to be part of the further negotiations as the Minister considers these matters in detail between now and Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 207 withdrawn. Amendments 208 to 210 not moved. Amendment 210A Moved by