Growth and Infrastructure Bill — Development orders: development within the curtilage of a dwelling house — 16 Apr 2013 at 14:47

The majority of MPs voted against giving local councils the power to remove householders' permitted development rights.

MPs were considering the Growth and Infrastructure Bill[1]. The motion passed in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.

Lords Amendment 7[2] would have introduced the following new clause:

  • “Development orders: development within the curtilage of a dwelling house
  • (1) Section 61 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (development orders: supplementary provisions) is amended as follows.
  • (2) After subsection (3) insert—
  • “(4) Any development order or amendment to an existing development order made after 1 January 2013 that grants planning permission for development within the curtilage of a dwelling house shall not apply within the jurisdiction of a local planning authority if that authority has resolved that it shall not.””

A development order is the means by which the relevant Secretary of State can grant planning permission. One such order is the The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 which, as amended, provides for various types of "permitted development". Under "permitted development" householders can, within limits, carry out work such as adding extensions without requiring permission from their local planning authorities.

Speaking in opposition to the amendment Secretary of State Eric Pickles stated[3]:

  • The amendment would introduce a wholly new principle allowing local planning authorities to view national householder permitted development rights as completely optional, which would constitute a significant extension of state power over private property rights.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con248 (+1 tell) 18087.5%
DUP0 3037.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 222 (+2 tell)087.2%
LDem37 (+1 tell) 9184.2%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
Total:285 259186.5%

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
John BaronBasildon and BillericayConno
Andrew BinghamHigh PeakConno
Bob BlackmanHarrow EastConno
Conor BurnsBournemouth WestConno
Tracey CrouchChatham and AylesfordConno
Nick de BoisEnfield NorthConno
Nadine DorriesMid BedfordshireConno
Zac GoldsmithRichmond ParkConno
Philip HolloboneKetteringConno
Stewart JacksonPeterboroughConno
Julian LewisNew Forest EastConno
Anne MainSt AlbansConno
Jason McCartneyColne ValleyConno
Caroline NokesRomsey and Southampton NorthConno
Matthew OffordHendonConno
Mark PawseyRugbyConno
John StanleyTonbridge and MallingConno
Chris WhiteWarwick and LeamingtonConno
Annette BrookeMid Dorset and North PooleLDemno
Paul BurstowSutton and CheamLDemno
Andrew GeorgeSt IvesLDemno
Martin HorwoodCheltenhamLDemno
Greg MulhollandLeeds North WestLDemno
John PughSouthportLDemno
Adrian SandersTorbayLDemno
Mike ThorntonEastleighLDemno
David WardBradford EastLDemno
John HemmingBirmingham, YardleyLDemboth

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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive