I am answering the question directly. I think the noble Lord wants to know what the Government’s position is. The rationale behind it, I expect—I am only deducing this—is that the Government want flexibility in the mechanisms that they use in national policy frameworks in future and in any replacement device that they might consider necessary. Not enshrining the NPPF in primary legislation makes it easier to change the arrangements. None the less, there is determination at the moment to use the NPPF as the main device. I have some advice on this matter which may help. The law already requires a local planning authority, when making plans, to have regard to policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State. As we know, the NPPF is a replacement for that guidance and advice. Therefore, this applies to the NPPF. The NPPF’s authority derives not from this Bill but from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and the Town and Country Planning Act. In the absence of an NPPF, the Secretary of State would still be obliged to issue guidance under those Acts. That is where the NPPF fits into the equation.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 7 July 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c457 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:47:28 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_758283
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_758283
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_758283