Proceeding contribution from Baroness Andrews (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 6 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning Bill.
Planning Bill
Not at all, my Lords. I almost forgot to address Amendment No. 40. I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness’s arguments. It would clearly be inappropriate to have applications decided on the basis of a policy that is no longer valid. It is our intention that where the Secretary of State believes that circumstances have changed such that it is no longer appropriate for decisions to be made in accordance with the NPS, she will suspend it. However, we do not think it is necessary to suspend the NPS in every case where a review is being conducted, not least because, as I said, there is flexibility now about whether you review part or whole of the NPS. It would not invalidate the whole statement if one was looking, for example, only at scientific data about the risk of coastal erosion. One would have to make a judgment about the extent to which the whole NPS would be affected. I am not going to say what the noble Baroness thought I was going to say about her amendment. The amendment would have an unfortunate consequence, because changing the word from ““may”” to ““must”” would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to judge what the appropriate response might be to a change in circumstances. The whole burden of the clarification and review is to ensure that everyone understands that it is the Secretary of State’s judgment that counts and that there is the necessary flexibility to anticipate and interpret what is happening. If we move to the word ““must”” it is likely that the question of whether circumstances had changed would move from being something on which the Secretary of State can make a judgment to being a question of fact which would ultimately have to be judged by a court. Inevitably, that would lead to an increased risk of legal challenges. I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness will feel able not to move her amendment. I can give her another assurance: we certainly intend that the Secretary of State would suspend the NPS if there were any risk of unsafe decisions being made on applications on that basis.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 705 c412
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Devolved matters Accountability Climate change Countryside Cultural heritage Airports Design Legal profession Environment protection Infrastructure Legislation Floods Local government Ministerial powers Planning permission Public appointments Planning Publicity Railways Parliamentary scrutiny Public participation Passenger transport executives National parks Scotland Transport Regional planning and development Sustainable development Wind power Broads Authority Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements
- Legislation
- Planning Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-04-03 13:16:49 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506871
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506871
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506871