Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Andrews (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 23 October 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Planning Bill.


Planning Bill

I take that point, but we have to be clear that any exemptions from CIL need to be decided on the basis of objective criteria. My noble friend’s amendment fails the second of those, which relates to fairness. I hear what he says, though, and I will consider the implications of it. I turn to government Amendment No. 437A. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked about the large infrastructure projects and the implications they have for bad-neighbour questions. That is something we shall come on to in a later amendment that I seem to remember about how other countries deal with bad neighbours and give some form of compensation. These are national projects, as we know, but my instinct, although I cannot give him a categoric answer, is that there may be situations where they might be local infrastructure as well, so they might be liable. If he will leave that with me, I shall try to give him a clearer answer on that important point.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1313-4 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Appeals Charities Costs Housing Finance Fees and charges Land Greater London Infrastructure Exemptions Local government Navigation Planning permission Payments Planning Natural gas Railway stations Railways Mayor of London Network Rail Scotland Voluntary organisations Transport Social rented housing Taxation Rented housing Revenue and Customs Community infrastructure levy Norfolk and Suffolk Broads
Legislation
Planning Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk