Proceeding contribution from Lord Greaves (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Localism Bill.
Localism Bill
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that reply from my noble friend the Minister, who I think went as far as she could—in fact, I think she pushed the limits a little further than some of her more cautious advisers might have liked. I hope that what she said turns out to be satisfactory in the long run. I just want to say another couple of quick things about sustainable development. Going back to what Greg Clark said in the House of Commons debate on the NPPF, which I think is extremely important, this is not just about balance. Balance is very important indeed, but really good planning can enhance all the three legs, or pillars, or whatever they may be called, of sustainable development. That is possible with good planning. Clearly individual decisions may be balanced one way or another, but overall there has to be balance and enhancement, particularly of the environment. Again, I hope that the issue of environmental limits that you cannot go beyond will be addressed in the NPPF. Listening to this debate, I was musing that we have not only had the four debates on sustainable development in this Bill and the two NPPF debates; the debate seems to have gone on over the years. I was thinking back to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning Act 2008, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, when there was a willingness of the then Labour Ministers to think about what they could do about putting this into the Bill. In the end, however, they said, ““No, it cannot be done, for all the reasons that have been put forward””, and all the legal reasons put forward by their advisers. Having struggled against a Labour Government on four of these Bills and trying to find our way through this one under the coalition Government, we are where we are. Will the outcomes be satisfactory? Will we look back on these debates and say, ““Yes, the NPPF is okay, despite the inauspicious way in which it was launched upon the world and despite a lot of the unfortunate wording within it””? Will that all be sorted? Will we get a document that will work? All I can say is that I hope we will. We have a lot of good intentions from the Government and from Ministers, not least my noble friend the Minister here. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will certainly be keeping up the pressure, and we simply ask them not to let us down. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment 50 withdrawn. Amendment 51 not moved. Amendment 52 Moved by
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 731 c1081-2
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Compulsory purchase Councillors Conduct Council tax Fees and charges Land Greater London EU law Fines Infrastructure Increases Fire and rescue services Local government Motor vehicles Litter Planning Business rates Referendums Parish and town councils Local plans Mayoral development corporations Standards Sustainable development Social rented housing Tenants Rescue services Homes and Communities Agency Infrastructure Planning Commission Tenant Services Authority Petitions
- Legislation
- Localism Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-22 18:40:02 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_779731
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_779731
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_779731