Proceeding contribution from John Healey (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 24 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning Bill.
Planning Bill
The purpose of planning aid, as my hon. Friend knows, is to provide assistance to community groups so that they can develop their understanding of the planning system, allowing them to communicate and express their views or concerns better. It is also there to help individuals who, without assistance, would be excluded from the planning process. It is not necessarily there to fund legal advice and representation. Several other significant areas have been previously covered in debate. First, we have something that was urged upon us, and was described as a safety valve for IPC decisions. This area, and a couple of others, relates to the final stage of the new process, which is the consideration of applications. One of the main concerns was that the Bill did not provide for a safety valve if the system was not working. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a commitment on Report, in response to concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), that we would carry out a review of how the IPC was working two years after its establishment. We agreed to table amendments to the Bill in the other place allowing the grounds on which Ministers can intervene in applications made to the IPC, and take decisions, to be extended if the review reveals problems. Lords amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 174 meet that commitment. The second concern about the final stage of the new process relates to opportunities for the public to participate. While the Bill enhances the right for the public to have a greater say at all three stages in the process rather than one, some have questioned the way in which it provides for the IPC to probe, test and assess evidence through direct questions rather than cross-examination. Our amendments strengthened the process and reassured people, making it clear to them that cross-examination was not ruled out in the new regime and that it would be allowed where the commission considers it necessary. I hope that it has been useful to touch on the main points where there has been substantive strengthening of the Bill during its passage in the other place.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 483 c562-3
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Appeals Applications Construction Climate change Common land Design Delegated legislation Advisory services Brownfield sites Conservation areas Housing Fees and charges Land Infrastructure Land use Legal opinion Gardens Local government Low incomes Planning authorities Planning permission Planning Parliamentary scrutiny Public participation Property development Parks Parliamentary privilege Scotland Water Regional planning and development Sustainable development Renewable energy Urban areas Sewers Greenfield sites Local development frameworks Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Community infrastructure levy
- Legislation
- Planning Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:21:28 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_511695
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_511695
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_511695