Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hanham (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Localism Bill.


Localism Bill

My Lords, Amendment 210A would give new rights for qualifying bodies—neighbourhood forums and parish councils—to negotiate with landowners on infrastructure contributions and to promote proposals for parishing at the same time as they are preparing a neighbourhood plan. We discussed the issue of parishing earlier on. The first part of Amendment 210A would allow a qualifying body—the neighbourhood forum or the parish—to negotiate with landowners for contributions to be paid to the community. The expectation is that the landowners would subsequently agree the contributions with the local authority through formal agreements—for example, Section 106 agreements. There is nothing to stop local communities talking to landowners about how their land may be used in a way which benefits the landowner and community, but the responsibility for confirming what conditions or agreements are necessary to make the proposed development acceptable must remain with the local planning authority. In determining a planning application, the authority will have regard to the provisions of the development plan, including any neighbourhood plans in force. The amendment would cause significant confusion about when such contributions would be paid by the landowner, how they would meet the strict legal tests for planning obligations and how any of the community’s negotiations could be secured by legal agreements between the landowner and the local authority. I want to make it clear that whatever negotiations and agreements take place, what land is allocated in a plan should never be simply a case of which landowner is prepared to share the biggest proportion of land value uplift with the community. That was the point that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was making. I accept the broad approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to this. However, I must reassert that it is the local planning authorities which must determine what obligations are necessary to mitigate development impacts, and that will include financial ones. The second part of Amendment 210A seeks to empower qualifying bodies to promote referendums or proposals on parishing alongside referendums on neighbourhood planning. In my recent letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which he has quoted extensively and which I have placed in the House Library, I repeated our commitment in the public services White Paper to consider how to make it easier for local people, including neighbourhood forums, to take advantage of existing legislation which allows for the establishment of parish or community councils. Nothing would legally prevent the joint holding of referendums into a neighbourhood plan and into proposals for creating a new parish council. With these reassurances—on the commitment from landowners and on parishing—I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c75-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Appeals Compulsory purchase Advertising Construction Equality Housing Finance Land Infrastructure Green belt Local government Planning permission Nuisance Planning Natural gas Public consultation Public expenditure Referendums Railways Property development Parish and town councils Local plans Sustainable development Travellers Regional spatial strategies Affordable housing Infrastructure Planning Commission Community infrastructure levy Village greens
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk