Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

76709

registered interest
date	09/07/2014
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Planning Permission
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many local authorities have introduced an Article Four Direction within all or part of their geographic boundary.
tabling member constituency	Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport
tabling member printed	Oliver Colvile
uin	204956
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/07/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>My Department is aware of 168 local authorities who have issued an Article 4 direction which apples to either all or part of their geographic boundary.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Grantham and Stamford answering member printed Nick Boles question first answered 14/07/2014 15:55:49 answering member 3995 label Biography information for Nick Boles
tabling member	4022 label Biography information for Oliver Colvile

76289

registered interest
date	08/07/2014
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Community Infrastructure Levy: Leeds
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of the Leeds City Council Community Levy.
tabling member constituency	Pudsey
tabling member printed	Stuart Andrew
uin	204538
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/07/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>Leeds City Council are not yet charging the Community Infrastructure Levy. Their proposed levy rates underwent independent examination in June and they now await issue of the Examiner's Report, which is expected in due course.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Grantham and Stamford answering member printed Nick Boles question first answered 14/07/2014 15:56:35 answering member 3995 label Biography information for Nick Boles
tabling member	4032 label Biography information for Stuart Andrew

65660

registered interest
date	03/07/2014
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Housing: Construction
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will (a) review and (b) amend or provide an exemption to the five-year housing land availability test for councils who have land on the proposed High Speed 2 rail route.
tabling member constituency	North East Derbyshire
tabling member printed	Natascha Engel
uin	203897
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/07/2014 answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>High Speed 2 provides the opportunity to be a significant catalyst for locally-led growth and regeneration at proposed station locations, with the potential to support new homes and new jobs, benefiting from the new high-speed connections. This is illustrated by how High Speed 1 has helped extend regeneration and growth across East London and Kent. The Government will in due course be responding to the High Speed 2 Growth Taskforce Report on how best to work with local councils and Local Enterprise Partnerships to seize the regeneration opportunities from the new line.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>This Government is a strong advocate of locally-led development. The Local Plan process helps councils shape where new development should and should not go. In that context, it does not make sense to exempt councils along the route from having an up to date Local Plan; councils should be in the driving seat to determine what it best for their local communities.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Grantham and Stamford answering member printed Nick Boles question first answered 10/07/2014 16:20:31 answering member 3995 label Biography information for Nick Boles
tabling member	1507 label Biography information for Natascha Engel

65416

registered interest
date	02/07/2014
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Housing: Construction
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what recent estimate he has made of the number of (a) sites and (b) homes where building is yet to start which have full planning permission.
tabling member constituency	Leeds Central
tabling member printed	Hilary Benn
uin	203668
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/07/2014 answer text <p> </p><p><em>[Holding Reply: Monday 7 July 2014]</em></p><p> </p><p><em> </em></p><p> </p><p>In my answers to the rt. hon. Member of 10 December 2013, <em>Official Report</em>, Column 158W and 16 January 2014, <em>Official Report,</em> Column 611W, I outlined the myths being propagated on land-banking and observed how these were disproved by hard, empirical evidence from experts. I also noted the inaccurate claims being punted around by HM Opposition, remarked how their policy proposals would actually reduce house building; and explained the steps that the Coalition Government has taken to help kick-start stalled sites, from development finance, to Section 106 reform, to increasing the incentive for developers to start on site before permission expires.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The latest figures from Glenigan estimate that the number of dwellings with planning permission that are classified as “on hold or shelved” has steadily fallen thanks to the action we are taking. Conversely, the number of dwellings with planning permission that are moving towards a start has steadily increased, both due to the action we have taken to tackle stalled sites, but also due to the increase in the number of homes being granted planning permission. Indeed, a total of 216,000 permissions were given for new homes in 2013-14.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A rising number of homes progressing towards a start is a positive indicator of increasing housing construction. The Leader of the Opposition, the rt. hon. Member for Doncaster North, on 15 January 2014, <em>Official Report</em>, Column 846, incorrectly described them as “houses where nothing is happening”. This is incorrect description of the Glenigan statistics and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of rising planning approvals. It is the ‘on hold/shelved' indicator where nothing is happening.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The table below illustrates our progress:</p><p> </p><table><thead><tr><td><p><em>Snapshot as of</em></p></td><td><p><strong><em>On hold/shelved</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Progressing towards start</em></strong></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>31/01/2011</p></td><td><p>79,604</p></td><td><p>113,566</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>31/07/2011</p></td><td><p>82,557</p></td><td><p>153,379</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>30/09/2011</p></td><td><p>90,331</p></td><td><p>153,543</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>31/12/2011</p></td><td><p>87,081</p></td><td><p>132,633</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>31/03/2012</p></td><td><p>81,502</p></td><td><p>136,686</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>30/06/2012</p></td><td><p>75,534</p></td><td><p>141,044</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>30/09/2012</p></td><td><p>70,495</p></td><td><p>166,105</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>31/01/2013</p></td><td><p>64,394</p></td><td><p>176,246</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>02/04/2013</p></td><td><p>61,476</p></td><td><p>184,987</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>02/06/2013</p></td><td><p>60,493</p></td><td><p>189,882</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>01/10/2013</p></td><td><p>59,249</p></td><td><p>183,650</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>01/01/2014</p></td><td><p>55,847</p></td><td><p>202,912</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>01/02/2014</p></td><td><p>54,086</p></td><td><p>194,681</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>01/03/2014</p></td><td><p>53,376</p></td><td><p>203,098</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>01/04/2014</p></td><td><p>51,284</p></td><td><p>197,288</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>01/06/2014</p></td><td><p>50,050</p></td><td><p>226,328</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><sup>Note: dwellings on sites with 10 units or more; excludes sites which have been sold, were due to be sold, or else information not available.</sup></p><p> </p><p>Taken together, these two indicators show that the Government's long-term economic plan is working and turning around the mess and recession left by the Labour Government. Moth-balled sites are springing into action; more homes are being planned; and more homes are being built out.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Of course, there is more to do – and the measures in the Infrastructure Bill on planning conditions will further cut the time it takes for sites with planning permission to start on site. We also have a series of schemes to increase development finance to both small and large builders, to boost local authority capacity to unlocked stalled sites, and (as outlined in the answer of 7 July 2014, <em>Official Report</em>, Column 117W) to support ongoing housing starts.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Grantham and Stamford answering member printed Nick Boles question first answered 14/07/2014 12:34:16 answering member 3995 label Biography information for Nick Boles previous answer version 8502 answering member constituency Grantham and Stamford answering member printed Nick Boles answering member 3995 label Biography information for Nick Boles
tabling member	413 label Biography information for Hilary Benn

64903

registered interest
date	01/07/2014
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Planning Permission: Gateshead
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, for what reasons he reversed the appeal decision in Gateshead Borough, ref 2193211.
tabling member constituency	Blaydon
tabling member printed	Mr David Anderson
uin	203360
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/07/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>When appeal 2193211 was first received by the Planning Inspectorate in February 2013, the agent, acting for the appellant, indicated in the appeal form the hearing method as the preferred choice of procedure. They felt this was appropriate as consideration should be given to complex matters requiring technical expert evidence. The Planning Inspectorate wrote to the local planning authority who indicated they felt written representations would suffice.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>After considering the information provided and applying the published criteria for determining the procedure the Planning Inspectorate applied Section 319a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and determined the written representations method was proportionate in the circumstances. No further correspondence regarding the choice of procedure was received and the appeal proceeded according to the timetable set out in the start letter which also explained the choice of procedure. The agent and the local planning authority submitted, as part of the appeal evidence, a statement of common ground which included agreement that the relevant requirements of paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework were satisfied.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Upon receipt of the decision, dated 29 August 2013, the appellant lodged an appeal with the High Court as he felt the requirements of paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework were satisfied, whereas the Inspector had found they were not, and that this information could have been examined verbally had the procedure been a Hearing.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>To allow for procedural fairness, it was agreed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that the appeal would be re-determined by a different Inspector and would follow a Hearing or Public Inquiry once representations and considerations had been sought from the principal parties. A date for the Hearing event has been fixed for 23 July 2014.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p> answering member constituency Grantham and Stamford answering member printed Nick Boles question first answered 08/07/2014 16:10:34 answering member 3995 label Biography information for Nick Boles
tabling member	1486 label Biography information for Mr David Anderson