Planning Decisions: Local Involvement — 21 Jun 2021 at 19:19

That this House believes planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver necessary new homes; and therefore calls on the Government to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.
“We need to ensure that that planning system sees the right number of homes being built in the right places. But we will not do that by removing local democracy, cutting the number of affordable homes that are built and building over rural areas. Yet that is exactly what these reforms will lead to.”-[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1051.]
“Increasingly, it looks like the Government are not interested in what local people think at all. I urge the Minister to think about the impact of showing contempt for local democracy.”-[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1063.]
“instead of taking away local powers, the Government should be looking at the number of planning permissions given that do not result in houses being built.”-[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1066.]
“I can see that people are proud of what they have achieved,”
“63% said they were not satisfied with their experience. 61% said they did not think that the planning process was fair.”
“unlawful by reason of apparent bias.”
“All of these reforms have a common theme of removing local voices from the process.”
“previous studies suggest that only a small proportion of the public tend to engage in local plan consultations.”
“Home is a name, a word, it is a strong one; stronger than magician ever spoke, or spirit ever answered to, in the strongest conjuration.”
“This in itself is further evidence that housing for people like my son should not be subject to these vagaries and upheavals. I can only reiterate the need for a clear pathway for families so that these situations at the whim of the marketplace are avoided. Appropriate housing stock should be provided for vulnerable adults. For example a plot should be allocated on each of the new housing developments. Not just a care home for the elderly or a couple of flats bought up as social housing by housing associations, but properly designed units. Yes there would be a tiny reduction in the property of the big developers as the footprint of, for example, a 2 storey unit with 4 flats and a staff office would probably take up that of 1 large detached home. But I’m sure the good PR as a result would more than make up for that. Far preferable to being moved to out of county specialist provisions which can cost more than double that of an appropriate and more suitable ISL.”
“systematically disadvantages poorer parts of the country, particularly in the North and Midlands”.
“All individuals must still be able to comment and influence upon all individual planning proposals.”
“The Planning Bill looks set to prioritise developers’ needs over local communities”.
“There is a severe shortage of homes in the South Gloucestershire area. Most applicants on the Housing Register will have to wait a long time for re-housing and many will not be re-housed at all.”
“lead to the creation of the next generation of slum housing.”
“meeting housing need is never a reason to cause unacceptable harm to such”
“We can plan for well designed, beautiful homes, with access to the right infrastructure in the places where people need and want to live while also protecting the environment and green spaces communities most value.”
“planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver necessary new homes; and…calls on the Government to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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
Alliance1 00100.0%
Con2 000.5%
Green1 00100.0%
Lab194 (+2 tell) 0 (+2 tell)098.0%
LDem11 00100.0%
SNP2 004.2%
Total:211 0034.3%

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
Mark TamiAlyn and DeesideLab (minister)tellno
Liz TwistBlaydonLab (minister)tellno

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive