Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Clive Betts (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 26 April 2012. It occurred during Debate on National Planning Policy Framework.


National Planning Policy Framework

I stand corrected on that point. The fact that some of the wording is open to interpretation may cause real problems. It may mean that, ultimately, that the wishes of local communities are not adhered to. Most of the complaints made in evidence to the Select Committee about the planning system were not about guidance and policy, but about process relating to individual applications. I do, however, have a lot of sympathy with the Government in regard to the slow pace at which local plans have been put in place. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 resulted from the fact that local authorities were not adopting unitary development plans quickly enough. We now know that local plans are not in place in about half the authorities concerned. How can we change that for the future? The Minister has gone some way towards accepting our proposal. We have talked about the ““light touch review””. If local plans are to be at the heart of the process, it is ridiculous that we should be dealing with plans many of which are 20 years old. That is not acceptable. We must find a way of bringing those plans up to date more rapidly. I do not know whether the system of local development frameworks, strategies and site allocation plans is too complicated to provide the necessary flexibility, but the Select Committee may wish to return to the issue, and the Government may wish to work along with us in exploring the technical issues further. Everyone is in favour of neighbourhood plans, but I am worried about the resource implications. Such plans will not feature in poorer areas with fewer resources. It also worries me slightly that people see them as a way of stopping development. Apparently they must be consistent and"““conform to the strategic priorities within the Local Plan.””" What exactly does that mean? I think that it provides more room for legal argument. In the end, what is important is not what the NPPF actually says, but how that is interpreted and what happens on the ground. At some point the Government will have to explain, in their terms, what a successful planning system will achieve, and how they will monitor it in order to display that success in the future.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
543 c1189-90 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Appeals Construction Housing Environment protection Local government Planning permission Powers Regional planning and development Sustainable development Affordable housing
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk