Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—Funding for local authority planning functions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult local planning authorities prior to the commencement of any new statutory duties to ensure that they are—

(a) adequately resourced; and

(b) adequately funded

so that they are able to undertake the additional work.

(2) In any instance where that is not the case, an independent review of additional cost must be conducted to set out the level of resource required to allow planning authorities to fulfil any new statutory duties.”

This new clause would ensure that the costs of new planning duties are calculated and adequately funded.

New clause 11—Planning obligations—

“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) of section 106 (planning obligations) after paragraph (d) insert—

“(e) requiring that information submitted as part of, and in support of, a viability assessment be made available to the public.””

This new clause would ensure that viability assessments are public documents with no commercial confidentiality restrictions, except in cases where disclosure would not be in the public interest.

Amendment 14, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 12.

This amendment would remove from the Bill completely the changes to planning conditions.

Amendment 11, in clause 12, page 11, line 18, leave out subsection (2)(a).

This amendment would ensure that “acceptable in planning terms” does not mean that conditions can be overlooked because they are unacceptable for other reasons.

Amendment 12, page 11, line 27, leave out subsections (4) to (7).

This amendment would ensure that local authorities are still able to make necessary pre-commencement conditions on developers.

Amendment 13, page 11, line 34, at end insert—

“(6A) The Secretary of State should provide guidance for appeal routes where an agreement cannot be reached on pre-commencement conditions, along guidance on pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.”

This amendment ensures that there is clarity on appeal routes, pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.

Amendment 15, in clause 13, page 12, line 32, at end insert—

“(e) information on the number of permitted demolition of offices for residential use to a similar scale including—

(i) the impact on a local plan;

(ii) an estimate as to how many homes the development will deliver; and

(iii) a consultation with the local authority regarding the effect of the change of use on any urban regeneration plans.”

This amendment would ensure monitoring of the impact of permitted right of demolition on offices on urban regeneration that requires office space and on the provision of housing.

Government amendment 20.

Amendment 16, page 13, line 21, at end insert—

“(9) The cost of compiling a register and gathering the information to underpin it should be met by the Secretary of State.”

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will speak to new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), because I have added my name to it. It would require the demolition or change of use of pubs to be subject to planning permission. That seems very sensible. It is something that I feel very strongly about. As a shadow Minister, I was at the forefront of the fight against the changes to permitted development rights that the Government started to force through two years ago. I have spoken on pubs and permitted development many times. It is very important, as a pub can often be a real central point for a local community, and so it is right that local residents are given the chance to have their say over what happens to it.

Although pubs can be protected if they are designated an asset of community value, the process for that can be very cumbersome. I believe it is much more appropriate to return the decision on whether a pub can be demolished or converted to the local community, where it belongs, rather than dealing with it through permitted development.

I will move straight on to—

Immigration Bill

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that there is a danger that, by placing yet more strictures on potential international students, the Bill will send a signal that they are not welcome in the UK? This is such an important export industry for the UK, if I can put it like that, and it is important that the mood music—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

High Streets

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to what is happening to changes in use class resulting in more gambling outlets on his high street.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Obviously, I did not agree either.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Government’s approach is entirely the wrong one and profoundly anti-localist. It is therefore strange that they seek to badge the changes as indicating that they are absolutely committed to enabling individuals and community groups to have a greater say over every aspect of their area, including their high streets. I can only conclude that that is some sort of Orwellian misspeak.

What would Labour do? First, it would allow local authorities to put some types of businesses into a separate use class or use classes to prevent over-saturation of a particular use type in a given area—betting shops, for example. We know that some in the Government agree. At the Liberal Democrat conference this year, the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the then Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, moved a motion saying that local councillors should be

“empowered to decide whether or not to give approval to additional gambling venues in their community”,

and he called on Liberal Democrats in the Government to push for betting shops to be put in a new separate planning use class

“allowing local authority planning committees to control them”.

The motion was passed, so no wonder he was reshuffled. The Government have done exactly the opposite.

Local councils also agree with the Opposition. A recent report from all 32 London boroughs said that town centres and high streets were at risk of not meeting the needs of local residents because planning regulations restrict the powers of local councils to encourage balanced local economies, including a lack of control on the spread of shops such as pawnbrokers and bookmakers. The councils recommended that such shops should be removed from use class A2 to a sui generis class of their own. The House should note that local authorities did not ask for further deregulation of that use class, which the Government propose to give them.

Secondly, Labour would give local authorities powers to determine permitted development locally in keeping with local needs and aspirations. Thirdly, Labour would strengthen neighbourhood planning and consider retail diversity schemes to allow communities to shape their high street. Fourthly, as announced at conference by the Labour leader, a Labour Government would cut business rates for small businesses if elected in 2015 and freeze them the year after, helping 1.5 million small businesses, many of which are on our high streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady favour exercising specific discretion for business rates for retail property, as opposed to small businesses in general?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The debate has been going for nearly 30 minutes and I am concerned about the number of speakers.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I will move on as quickly as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.

In response to the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), the announcement was to cut business rates if elected in 2015 and freeze them for the year after that. In the context of that announcement, the Government’s plans to fiddle with red tape and postpone the business rate re-evaluation just do not cut it. We will start discussions with local authorities to see which of the Grimsey proposals can be taken forward to begin to deliver real change on the high street.

Finally, we want to put local communities at the centre of decision making with regard to what happens in their high street, so they can determine a vision for it and deliver to local needs and aspirations.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 50, page 45, in schedule 4, leave out lines 21 to 27.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 51, page 45, leave out lines 38 to 47.

Amendment 52, page 46, leave out lines 27 to 34.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

In Committee, we discussed at length the process of registering town and village greens, and the value of such spaces. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) reminded the Minister of the speech by a previous Conservative Prime Minister, who spoke about warm beer, swallows overhead and cricket on the village green. We were led to think how odd it was, and how much coalition must have changed the Conservative party, that Opposition Members were having to protect precious town and village greens. Clearly, hon. Members on both sides have open spaces in their constituencies that they and their communities want to preserve. Unfortunately, it was made clear to the Committee that there are instances of vexatious applications for town and village green registration that are intended to stymie development, rather than to protect open space. Although such instances are relatively few in the grand scheme of things, they do delay much-needed development. That is why the Local Government Association and other organisations that, like us, want to encourage sustainable development are in favour of placing some limits on the registration of town and village greens, but we think that schedule 4, in particular, goes much too far along that road.

The Open Spaces Society has helpfully provided us with a long list of cherished greens that would not have been registered had the Bill been in place. I urge Members to think about land that might be lost if the schedule is passed unamended, before they vote in support of it. Some of the triggers in schedule 4 are reasonable. For instance, trigger 6 states that, if a neighbourhood development plan identifies a piece of land for development, it cannot be registered. If a neighbourhood plan is in place, it will have been drawn up by residents, published, consulted on and agreed by local people, and land that they have democratically identified for development should be kept as such, but some of the triggers go too far, and it is these that the amendments would delete to ensure that local people can still protect land that is important to them.