Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

7. Whether his Department plans to review change-of-use planning regulations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

We have recently announced a significant package of improvements to support economic growth and the free school movement. We will continue to keep the use classes system under review.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the Minister for that answer, although I was more after details on the regulations for changing a pub into a supermarket, a process for which there is absolutely no need for change-of-use planning permission. Does he have any plans to introduce planning permission for that, so that local people have a say in a change of use that significantly alters the communities in which they live?

[Nick Boles]

All local authorities have the possibility of resorting to an article 4 direction to restrict the application of a change-of-use permitted development right in their area, and they can do so if they are concerned about the loss of pubs in the way that the hon. Lady describes.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend ensure that very clear planning guidelines are introduced for five-year housing supply, housing numbers and, above all, deliverability, because on the ground at the moment the methodology is arbitrarily decided on appeal? It is very unsatisfactory when local people and local authorities cannot make decisions that benefit their areas.

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend rightly says that it is important that local authorities take an objective approach to the assessment of their housing needs and of the five-year supply. Lord Taylor of Goss Moor is conducting a review of the complete set of planning guidance, and high on his list of priorities is producing new guidance on exactly that question, certainly before the end of July.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Local authorities that refuse permission for yet another betting shop in their high street find that at the moment the refusal is often overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. Is the Minister examining the possibility of a separate use class for betting shops?

[Nick Boles]

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the whole situation for betting shops, but we have no specific plans to do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests at this time.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Minister is right to say that local authorities can, and indeed should, introduce local planning policies to deal with the kind of problems that we have heard about. Will he therefore join my condemnation and that of the all-party save the pub group of the extraordinary decision taken by the British Beer and Pub Association to seek to overturn Cambridge city council’s elected policy for pubs, given that that is what the council wants to do and the people want it as well?

[Nick Boles]

If the policy of the city of Cambridge is properly arrived at as an expression of local feeling, I am sure that it will be able to defend it from any challenge from whatever quarter.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the local government finance settlement; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell the House how many additional affordable homes he expects communities to approve for a share of community infrastructure levy receipts? How many affordable homes are likely to be lost as a result of the changes that the Growth and Infrastructure Bill will make to section 106 agreements? Will the Minister produce figures to show the net impact of these totally contradictory policies?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

The hon. Lady asked three questions, so I will not necessarily answer all of them in full. First, she will be well aware that the measures in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill tackle those affordable housing developments that will never happen in current market conditions. We believe that some homes are better than an unrealistic target of homes that will never come through. Secondly, she will also be aware that, as well as the Bill’s measures, we announced an additional £300 million to support further affordable housing. There is no question but that the combination of those measures will produce a net increase, both in market homes and affordable homes.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

T2. Last week Warwickshire county council unveiled Operation Footfall, an initiative that will give local business groups the opportunity to bid for up to £30,000 to develop ideas to encourage people to shop in our town centres. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the county council, and will he detail what support the Government are giving to improve our town centres?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain to me and the communities of south Worcestershire why the Planning Inspectorate measures the existence of a five-year supply of land for housing not on the basis of planning permissions granted, but on completions achieved?

[Nick Boles]

Planning permissions that have been granted and are still viable will count towards any local authority’s five-year housing supply. They are withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances when it is clear that they can never be fulfilled.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last month at the Come Together conference in Liverpool, political and faith leaders from across the country called on the Government to think again about the unfair distribution of local government cuts. Places such as Liverpool will lose £252 per head while the Prime Minister’s local authority of West Oxfordshire will lose just £34 per head. Will the Secretary of State listen to the message of the Come Together conference and look again at how the cuts can be redistributed fairly?