Proceeding contribution from Lord Beecham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Localism Bill.
Localism Bill
My Lords, I would have thought that this amendment is unnecessary. If an application for retrospective consent is a fresh application, it would, or should, be notified to those occupiers—not necessarily those who objected before, who might be living anywhere. However, surely it should be treated as an application de novo, and therefore the normal processes would apply. So those affected on a retrospective application would receive notice. I should think, unless the Minister disagrees, that the amendment is otiose.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 731 c98
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Compensation Appeals Compulsory purchase Advertising Construction Equality Housing Finance Land Infrastructure Green belt Local government Planning permission Nuisance Planning Natural gas Public consultation Public expenditure Referendums Railways Property development Parish and town councils Local plans Sustainable development Travellers Regional spatial strategies Affordable housing Infrastructure Planning Commission Community infrastructure levy Village greens
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 13:37:03 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_773776
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_773776
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_773776