Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Lord Patel of Bradford (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning Bill.

Planning Bill

My Lords, I will first consider Amendment No. 142, in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. While we fully recognise the role of new rail infrastructure in supporting development and agree that CIL should support railways where required, we do not think that the amendment is necessary because Clause 208(2) already provides coverage for rail infrastructure. Railways are already covered at two levels in Clause 208. First, railways are, on any ordinary view, infrastructure and, secondly, they are transport facilities, which subsection (2)(a) explicitly covers. I hope that that explanation addresses the issue sufficiently.

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c742 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Appeals Charities Compulsory purchase Climate change Buildings Common land Airports Design Delegated legislation Brownfield sites Housing Fees and charges Land Liability Infrastructure Exemptions Farms Housing associations Land use Gardens Local government Planning permission Nuisance Planning Power stations Railways Parliamentary scrutiny Noise Parks Parliamentary privilege Standards Transport Sustainable development Social rented housing Roads Wind power Urban areas Regional spatial strategies Planning gain supplement Infrastructure Planning Commission Community infrastructure levy
Legislation
Planning Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk