Localism Bill — New Clause 29 — Retail Diversity Scheme — 17 May 2011 at 22:00

Jo Swinson MP, East Dunbartonshire voted against enabling councils to protect retail diversity.

The majority of MPs voted against adding a new clause to the localism bill intended to enable all local councils to protect retail diversity.

The rejected motion (included the text of clause which was not adopted):

  • (1) In Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 after section 15 insert :
  • 15A (1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a scheme to be known as their retail diversity scheme.
  • (2) The retail diversity scheme must form part of the Local Development Scheme within two years of the Local Development Scheme being published or within two years of this Act being passed, whichever is later.
  • (3) The scheme must-
  • (a) define a network and hierarchy of retail centres in the local authority area,
  • (b) assess the need for development in retail centres,
  • (c) identify sites for development based on the sequential approach, and
  • (d) promote retail diversity.
  • (4) In this section-
  • (a) ‘retail diversity’ means a mix of retail provision that meets the requirements of the local catchment area in terms of range and quality of comparison and convenience retail businesses;
  • (b) ‘sequential approach’ means that local planning authorities must identify sites that are suitable, available and viable for development in the following order-
  • (i) locations in appropriate existing centres;
  • (ii) edge of centre locations, with preference given to sites that are or will be well connected to existing retail centres;
  • (iii) out of centre sites with preference given to sites well served by a choice of transport and are closest to an existing centre.
  • (5) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the scheme as he thinks appropriate.
  • (6) Such a direction must contain the Secretary of State’s reasons for giving it.
  • (7) The local planning authority must consult with the local community in developing the scheme.
  • (8) The local community as defined under subsection (7) must include-
  • (a) a parish council or parish councils authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area or areas to which the retail diversity scheme relates subject to section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
  • (b) a ‘qualifying body’ authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area or areas to which the retail diversity scheme relates subject to section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and
  • (c) any other local person at the discretion of the local planning authority.
  • (9) Where a retail planning application is submitted and there is no retail diversity scheme in place the applicant must provide a statement to the local planning authority that sets out how the development impacts on the criteria identified in subsection (3); and the local planning authority must consult the local community as defined in subsection (8) before coming to a decision on the application.

The new clause was proposed by Labour MP Jack Dromey. Mr Dromey spoke during the debate to say:

  • The new clause establishes a vital goal: the promotion of retail diversity, striking the right balance between large and small businesses and, in particular, focusing on establishing and growing small and specialist retail businesses.
  • Healthy and diverse high streets are the heart of local communities. High streets and neighbourhood shopping parades are the engine room of thriving communities and local economies. Hon. Members will be all too aware that our high streets have suffered in the downturn. The new clause is not anti-supermarket but we must ensure that the supermarkets do not succeed at the expense of the high street. We must harness their power to better the community as a whole.

Cambridge MP Julian Huppert did not speak during the debate, and voted against the clause, this is notable as on the 19th of July he spoke in favour of a similar clause which would introduce a:

  • "requirement to assess the vitality & diversity of the shopping areas"

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con261 (+1 tell) 1085.9%
DUP7 10100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 213 (+2 tell)083.7%
LDem40 (+1 tell) 4078.9%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 1033.3%
Total:308 224084.4%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Zac GoldsmithRichmond ParkConaye
Jim ShannonStrangfordDUPaye
Andrew GeorgeSt IvesLDemaye
Martin HorwoodCheltenhamLDemaye
Greg MulhollandLeeds North WestLDemaye
Adrian SandersTorbayLDemaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive