division_name: Orders of the Day &#8212; Planning Bill
motion: <p class="" pid="c.25.4/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="c.25.4/2" pwmotiontext="yes">The Bill will reform the planning system to make it fairer, more efficient and ready to equip Britain for the challenges of the 21st century. It will speed up decisions on major projects that are vital to our economic future. Together with the Climate Change Bill and energy Bill, it will accelerate our transition to a low-carbon economy. At every stage it will reinforce the democratic principle that everyone should have a fair say on the future of their neighbourhood.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="c.38.1/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and add instead thereof:</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c.38.1/2" pwmotiontext="yes">that this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Planning Bill because, whilst there is a need to speed up the planning system and undo the extra bureaucracy introduced in the 2004 Act, the Bill creates a new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) which is fundamentally undemocratic and unaccountable to both local and national elected representatives, deprives Parliament of the ability to approve, amend or reject National Planning Statements and fails to guarantee that all revenues from the Community Infrastructure Levy will be fully retained by local authorities; and because the combination of the IPC, the Homes and Communities Agency and more powerful regional development agencies represents the systematic dismantling of local democracy to the detriment of the local environment and local accountability.</p>
  
  <p pid="c.122.4/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i> Question put, </i>That the amendment be made:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid="c.122.4/2" pwmotiontext="yes"><i> The House divided:</i> Ayes 215, Noes 281.</p>