Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 2 June 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning Bill.


Planning Bill

The Minister was clearly aware of the seemingly dry nature of the part of the Bill that he has been asked to shepherd through and has sought to brighten up the occasion with a tie to keep awake anybody who might be nodding off—and an excellent tie it is, too. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) made some serious points about the rights of people who may find themselves subject to compulsory acquisition of land. I am particularly concerned about a point that was raised in Committee, as the Minister will recall. When land is being offered in lieu of something that is being taken away, how can we be sure that it is a suitable replacement? If it is common land, for example, will it be geographically suitable for the people who would be exercising rights upon it in the way that they have done customarily? Indeed, land that is special for any other purpose or reason should be borne in mind when an alternative piece of land is offered. We also have to consider how the process will be arbitrated. If there are questions about whether the land represents appropriate compensation for what has been taken away, there should be recourse to some sort of negotiation. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West is right to raise the problem whereby if the compulsory acquisition of land is handled at the time of the development consent order, other issues will obscure the importance or severity of it. People in the community affected in other ways, in far greater number, will have the floor to a greater extent than those affected in a small, personal way that is nevertheless important to that individual. The Government clearly had the desire to speed up the process—they have been clear and up front about that throughout—but my concern is that the process should be correct and just and that any acquisition must be entirely necessary. If those matters are obscured in some way and rolled up into the process of development consent, some of them might be overlooked. I am concerned about some of the changes that are being made, but I welcome the fact that the Government are removing the fog from the proposals and clarifying some of the issues that we explored in Committee.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
476 c538-9 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Compulsory purchase Construction Coastal areas Climate change Crown lands and estates Common land Airports Land Licensing Environment protection Infrastructure Land use Isles of Scilly Local government Planning authorities Planning permission Planning Ports Natural gas Railways Parliamentary scrutiny National Trust Scotland Storage Sustainable development Wales Roads Rights of way Electromagnetic fields Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk