Localism Bill (ways and means)

It is a pleasure to be debating planning issues again. I am sorry that that is occasioning an exodus from the Chamber, as I think it is one of the most fascinating parts of the Bill. I cannot promise to emulate the winding-up speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) who, in 30 seconds, gave the finest speech that I have ever heard him give, but I will endeavour to reach those high standards. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) in his place to respond. Those of us who served on the Bill Committee have missed our daily dose of historical education and elucidation, and I dare say that Members who were not on the Committee are in for a treat tonight. We have a large group of amendments to discuss and so as to avoid the fate of my hon. Friend, I will try to say something about as many as possible of them in my opening remarks so that it may not be necessary to expand at length later in the debate. We made good progress in Committee on this part of the Bill. There was a shared understanding that there were problems with the planning system that have grown up over time, which the Bill provides an opportunity to address. It is not a matter of party political contention that the persistently observed problems with the planning system centre around the fact that over recent years it has been too top-down. People have felt that planning is something that has been done to them, rather than something in which they have had a say or which they have had a chance to influence. There is something about the British people which means that if they feel imposed upon, bullied and hustled, they will kick out against that and use every means at their disposal to frustrate it. That has led to what all of us as Members of Parliament have seen over recent years—a rising sense of antipathy to the planning process, often leading to quite emotional exchanges and people feeling very bruised about the system under which they operate. The purpose of the Bill is to remove some of that top-down imposition and provide greater opportunities for communities to have their say. The second observation that most people share is that too often when developments take place in communities, there is inadequate provision for infrastructure and inadequate attention to accommodating the development that takes place. Again, that leads local people to be more inclined to oppose a development because they are fearful that their community will not have the capacity to resolve some of the difficulties that development will bring. The Bill attempts to address both those concerns. Among its headline measures, it replaces the regional arrangements that have been in place for some years and introduces instead a duty to co-operate that brings local authorities together in a more natural way. Rather than giving an administrative solution to some of the problems, it allows people to collaborate, discuss and come to resolutions of larger than local issues. It strengthens the requirements for pre-application scrutiny, introduces neighbourhood planning, abolishes the Infrastructure Planning Commission and returns powers ultimately to Ministers through a major infrastructure planning unit.