Petitions

Monday 18th October 2021

(3 years, 2 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Monday 18 October 2021

Post Office counter services in North East Fife

Monday 18th October 2021

(3 years, 2 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of residents of the constituency of North East Fife,
Declares that accessible local Post Office counter services are incredibly important; notes that many people rely on these services, particularly older residents; further that the closures of such services would cut off residents from public services; declares that Spar should engage with local and national governments and Post Office Ltd in preserving these services and ultimately reverse the proposal to close the Post Office counter services in Newport-on-Tay, Balmullo, Ladybank and Tom Morris Drive St Andrews.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with Spar and advise them to reverse the proposal to close Post Office counter services in North East Fife.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Wendy Chamberlain, Official Report, 21 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1099.]
[P002678]
Observations from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully):
Government recognise how important post offices are to their communities, which is why Government protects both the branch network by setting minimum access criteria, as well as services by setting minimum services to be provided at post offices across the country. Through the Post Office network of 11,500 branches, these criteria ensure that 90% of the population are within one mile of the nearest post office branch and that 99% of the population are within three miles of the nearest post office branch.
While the Government set the strategic direction for the Post Office, the management of the branch network is an operational responsibility for Post Office Ltd. It would therefore not be appropriate for Government to intervene in this situation. Post Office continues to make significant progress in identifying solutions to mitigate customer impact in the areas affected by CJ Lang & Son’s commercial decision to resign from operating 31 post offices. Government will continue to monitor the situation closely to ensure the access criteria continue to be met in the affected areas.

Proposed Heath Common development

Monday 18th October 2021

(3 years, 2 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of residents of Arundel and South Downs,
Declares that the proposed site of Heath Common by Clarion Housing Group is inappropriate for the development of residential housing; further that this site was not designated in the democratically mandated Storrington and Sullington and Washington joint-neighbourhood plan; further that original permissions granted for the land were indicative only of tree-felling.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to offer support to residents against the proposed development at Heath Common, Storrington, by Clarion Housing Group and formally acknowledge its inappropriateness for a residential development.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Andrew Griffith, Official Report, 15 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 1090.]
[P002687]
Observations from The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher):
Due to the role of the Secretary of State in the planning system, the Government are unable to comment on specific development proposals.
Neighbourhood plans continue to have real statutory weight in planning decisions. Once passed at referendum, neighbourhood plans form part of the development plan alongside the local plan. Decisions on planning applications must be taken in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which is a material consideration, is clear that where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date neighbourhood plan as part of the development plan, permission should not usually be granted. The NPPF also includes important protections for neighbourhood plans where speculative applications are submitted that conflict with the plan.

Proposed loss of Deangate Ridge

Monday 18th October 2021

(3 years, 2 months ago)

Petitions
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom
Declares that the proposals outlined in Medway Council’s housing infrastructure fund project to build a relief road and community-destructive flyover should be rejected due to their unsuitability and potential for the plans to damage the environment by destroying a key “asset of community value”, Deangate Ridge Golf and Sports Complex and Lodge Hill SSSI.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that plans to build a relief road from A228 Peninsula Way to A289 Hasted Road via a flyover at Higham Road, through the former Deangate Ridge Golf and Sports Complex and Lodge Hill SSSI be rejected and the former Deangate Ridge Golf and Sports complex be developed as an asset that would further the social wellbeing and social interests of the local community, such as a country park.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Kelly Tolhurst, Official Report, 21 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1101.]
[P002684]
Observations from The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher):
The Government are determined to level up opportunities across the country. This means building the homes this country needs, closing the opportunity gap and helping millions of young people into home ownership.
The Government have committed to deliver 1 million new homes by the end of this Parliament and increase building output to 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s. To deliver these homes, the right infrastructure must be in place first. The housing infrastructure fund enables local authorities to deliver such infrastructure—including new roads, leisure and healthcare services, digital and power networks, and schools—to encourage more housebuilding without overstretching facilities.
I regret that due to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial functions in the planning system, we are unable to comment on the details of a specific local plan or planning application. However, I can make the following general comments.
Projects funded through the housing infrastructure fund must go through the standard planning process. Planning applications submitted to a local planning authority, irrespective of whether the development proposal is or is not in receipt of funding secured through the housing infrastructure fund, must be determined in accordance with the local development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. All planning applications will be subject to statutory requirements around publicity and consultation, including with relevant statutory consultees, before a decision is made. Any representations which raise material planning considerations must be taken into account by the local planning authority.