Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 18 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning Bill.


Planning Bill

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendments. Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Minister has devoted time and a considerable degree of care to listening to noble Lords and responding to their concerns wherever possible. As ever, the wording which the Government have produced is considerably better than mine and I thank the Minister for the two amendments. In introducing them, she said quite rightly that there have been occasions when the term ““site”” has been used. In fact the Bill deals only with ““locations””. We have all been guilty of referring to ““sites””. There was even an occasion at the last stage when the Minister talked about ““potentially suitable sites””. I am glad that that has been corrected and we have slightly broadened the issue. Amendment No. 12 reflected my concern that the Secretary of State should be in the same position as the commission in cases where the Secretary of State takes a decision on matters to which he or she must have regard. I appreciate that it will be rare for there to be a national policy statement in place when there is a Secretary-of-State decision, but it is possible and the Bill allows for that. The Government’s drafting clearly includes confirmation—and I use that word rather loosely—of the status of the NPS vis-à-vis other considerations. Having had it explained to me that it is in a different part of Clause 104 from those to which the panel and council must have regard, and that those parts of Clause 104 are not repeated in Clause 105, I can see that my concern is misplaced; that concern being that a court looking at the two clauses might say that Parliament had a different view as to how Clause 105 would operate and national policy statements would have a different status in that clause. Third Readings are useful occasions. I can see now that that should not apply. I am grateful for the time of the House and for the opportunity to explain my concern, as well as to thank the Minister and make sure that it is understood how the two clauses operate.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c1023 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Charities Compulsory purchase Common land Design Delegated legislation National landscapes Housing Fees and charges Land EU law Infrastructure Exemptions Housing associations Freight Emergency services Land use Gardens Planning permission Police Planning Railways Parliamentary scrutiny Property development National parks Parliamentary privilege Scotland Regional planning and development Sustainable development Social rented housing Renewable energy Urban areas EU aid Planning gain supplement Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Community infrastructure levy European Landscape Convention
Legislation
Planning Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk