Localism in Planning

Debate between Robert Neill and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). He serves a beautiful constituency and he spoke passionately and in an informed way on behalf of his constituents. I agree with much of what he said, and I do not know whether that is a greater worry for him or for me—we shall see. I almost feel guilty for intruding on the Minister’s misery, because his own side appears to be doing a very effective job in opposing his policies. Nevertheless, I want to share with him my concerns about the move away from localism and echo some of the points made eloquently by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Everyone spoke strongly and powerfully on behalf of their communities.

As we heard from hon. Members, localism was a key Conservative pledge during the 2010 election, and that was apparent in the early months of the coalition Government. When the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government introduced the Localism Bill in 2010, he claimed to be

“getting out of the way and letting councils and communities run their own affairs”

in order to

“restore civic pride, democratic accountability and economic growth—and build a stronger, fairer Britain.”

Nowhere was the commitment to localism more fervent than in planning policy. The Conservative pre-election green paper, “Open Source Planning”, exemplified the localist approach, but three years, on a gigantic U-turn has taken place. The NPPF and the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, along with reams of secondary legislation and vicious local authority cuts, have completely torn apart the Government’s promise to instil localism in the planning system. Almost a year and a half on from the introduction of the NPPF, the full consequences of the Government’s approach are starting to become clear.

In March, a Local Government Information Unit research paper concluded that, far from putting people at the centre of planning, the NPPF is at

“risk of undermining localism in planning”.

The latest planning application statistics, released by the Department for Communities and Local Government, show barely any change in the number of approvals or the speed of decision making since the implementation of the NPPF.

[Robert Neill]

May I remind the hon. Lady that when the NPPF was introduced, her party criticised it and she advocated the retention of regional spatial strategies and targets? Is that still Opposition policy?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We did not oppose the NPPF and I certainly did not argue for the retention of the regional spatial strategies. I must put that on the record.

In many places, planning criteria have worsened.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I agree with my hon. Friend. To that end, the Government have been cutting unnecessary procurement red tape—for example, by removing the pre-qualification questionnaires for procurements below £100,000, as I know those requirements have considerably discouraged small businesses from tendering. I hope that councils will follow that lead and will continue to look to other sizes of contracts to improve procurement.

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

I was recently reading ConservativeHome, as one does. I noticed that the Secretary of State uses it to advise councils to make the best use of taxpayers’ money, so what assessment has his Department made of the amount by which council tax payers could benefit from increased local procurement, which could create local jobs and support local businesses?

[Robert Neill]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her reading—I was about to say bedtime reading, but I do not know what time she looked at ConservativeHome, although I am sure that the experience was encouraging and enjoyable.

As I have said, we are working on a raft of schemes. We have introduced a new code of recommended practice on data transparency, we are introducing new checks and balances on procurement cards, we are working with the local government sector to encourage initiatives such as the Welland procurement unit in the east midlands, and our Spend Pro analysis can identify areas of comparative spend and areas for efficiencies and savings.

Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill (Money)

Debate between Robert Neill and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I do not want to detain the House unduly. We do not wish to vote against the motion, although I should say that the Bill is being proposed at rather an interesting time. Both Houses of Parliament spent an enormous amount of time debating the Localism Bill, to which many amendments were tabled but were rejected by the Government on the grounds that they would impose additional burdens and costs on local authorities. It seems odd, to say the least, to find that the Government support a Bill that will definitely place additional responsibilities and costs on local authorities. I also believe that, in this age of localism, the Government are displaying some extraordinarily centralising tendencies, on which the Minister may or may not wish to comment.

[Robert Neill]

At risk of prolonging proceedings, may I say that the hon. Lady will understand that the Government can support the Bill because the amendments, effectively mean that a local authority will be obliged in stating its reasons to put in writing the product of a process that it must have gone through in any event? We are simply asking authorities to record and set out what they will already be doing as a matter of good governance, so the costs and burdens are rather negligible.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Well, that remains to be seen. I do not think it is a good idea to legislate on the basis of chance and hope.

It is important, however, that the Bill proceeds to be debated properly in Committee. There are an enormous number of health and safety issues, and Opposition Members are concerned to ensure that citizens are adequately protected. We are also concerned to ensure that extra burdens are not placed on local authorities, especially at a time when they are the subject of such stringent cuts from central Government. We think that is a most unfair approach.

We will not oppose the motion. We want the Bill to go into Committee for thorough discussion, but I must make it clear that that does not mean that we support its provisions in any way.