Localism Bill — Clause 94 — Abolition of Regional Strategies — 7 Nov 2011 at 21:45

Heather Wheeler MP, South Derbyshire voted against requiring transitional arrangements where regional planning policies called regional strategies are abolished.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring transitional arrangements where regional planning policies called regional strategies are abolished.

Regional strategies set out policies in relation to sustainable economic growth, development and the use of land within the region. The strategies included policies to contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.[1]

Applications for planning permission had to be determined in accordance with the regional strategies and and other elements of the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise).[1]

MPs were considering the Localism Bill[2]

This vote was on:

  • Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 154 .
  • The amendment (a) in question[3] was:
  • Line 13, at end add—
  • ‘(3D) An order under subsection (3) or subsection (3B) must include transitional arrangements for all affected local authorities, including provision relating to national policy statements and local development plan documents.’.

Amendment 154 had stated[4]:

  • Page 71, line 40, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
  • “(3) The Secretary of State may by order revoke the whole or any part of a regional strategy under Part 5 of that Act.
  • (3A) An order under subsection (3) may, in particular, revoke all of the regional strategies (or all of the remaining regional strategies) under Part 5 of that Act.
  • (3B) The Secretary of State may by order revoke the whole or any part of a direction under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (directions preserving development plan policies) if and so far as it relates to a policy contained in a structure plan.
  • (3C) An order under subsection (3B) may, in particular, revoke all directions (or all remaining directions) under paragraph 1(3) of that Schedule so far as they relate to policies contained in structure plans.”

This amendment would have affected clause 94 of the Bill[5] titled "Abolition of regional strategies". Prior to the amendment the clause stated:

==

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
Con256 (+1 tell) 0084.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 202 (+2 tell)079.1%
LDem49 (+1 tell) 0087.7%
PC0 2066.7%
Total:305 205082.2%

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
no rebellions

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