{"id":5281,"date":"2013-01-11T18:33:40","date_gmt":"2013-01-11T18:33:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=5281"},"modified":"2013-01-11T18:33:40","modified_gmt":"2013-01-11T18:33:40","slug":"clg-parliamentary-committee-urgent-inquiry-on-planning-guidance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=5281","title":{"rendered":"CLG Parliamentary Committee: Urgent inquiry on planning guidance"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee has launched a new inquiry on the proposals arising from the England’s Taylor Review of Planning Practice Guidance, and, with related consultation due on 15 February, has launched an urgent call for written submissions to be received by 4pm on 18 January.<\/span><\/p>\n

The CLG Committee writes<\/span>:
\nThe Committee has been scrutinising the Government\u2019s reforms of the planning system since the start of the parliament and will shortly be taking oral evidence from Nick Boles MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Planning, on the Government\u2019s Review of Planning Practice Guidance: Consultation. The Committee invites short written submissions (maximum 1,500 words) on the Review and the Government\u2019s consultation proposals by 4pm on Friday, 18 January.<\/p>\n

The Committee intends to draw on the submissions it receives when it puts questions to the minister. The Committee is therefore looking for submissions covering two matters. First, questions and issues (with background information to explain the context) to put to the Minister. Second, views are invited on the following matters which the Committee expects to put to the Minister.<\/p>\n

\u00b7 Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?<\/p>\n

\u00b7 Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?<\/p>\n

\u00b7 Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?<\/p>\n

\u00b7 Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?<\/p>\n

\u00b7 Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?<\/p>\n

\u00b7 Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?<\/p>\n

\u00b7 How will a \u2018rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be \u2018live\u2019 with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?<\/p>\n

Background<\/span>
\nThe Review of Planning Practice Guidance: Consultation was published on 21 December and the Government invited responses to the consultation exercise by 15 February 2013. The 21 December exercise follows an announcement by the Government on 16 October 2012 that Lord Matthew Taylor of Goss Moor would lead and chair an External Group conducting a review of the planning practice guidance which supports the implementation of national planning policy. The External Group reported in December 2012.<\/p>\n

For the Taylor review see<\/span>: LINK<\/a><\/p>\n

For the interim note on the review by English Heritage see<\/span>: LINK<\/a><\/p>\n

UK Parliament Business<\/span>: LINK<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee has launched a new inquiry on the proposals arising from the England’s Taylor Review of Planning Practice Guidance, and, with related consultation due on 15 February, has launched an urgent call for written … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sector-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5281"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5281\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5282,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5281\/revisions\/5282"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}