Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Earl Attlee (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Localism Bill.


Localism Bill

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his work in this area. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, I have really considered this matter only in respect of railways but I think that noble Lords will find my answers satisfactory. The noble Lord and I did indeed have a meeting on this—ironically, I turned up a few minutes late. Amendment 223A would amend the provisions of the 2008 Act which relate to railway projects. The amendment seeks to introduce two new powers. The first relates to a case where a railway project contains both development for which consent is required under the 2008 Act and development for which permitted development rights exist. In this case, the amendment seeks—on application from the promoter—to permit the Secretary of State for Transport to direct that the permitted development should be dealt with under the Planning Act along with the development for which consent is required under the Act. I confirm that Section 35 of the Act already provides a power of direction capable of achieving this. A new power is not necessary. The second relates to a situation where development consent is required for a railway project under the 2008 Act. In response to a qualifying request, if the Secretary of State for Transport thinks that the project is not of national significance, he may direct that the development should be treated as development for which consent under the Planning Act is not required. My DCLG officials have discussed this matter with the Department for Transport and Network Rail, and have agreed that a carefully considered threshold would be preferable to such a power, as it would provide greater clarity on what should be considered major infrastructure. We have therefore agreed that secondary legislation should be brought forward under Section 14 of the Planning Act to set a suitable threshold for rail projects, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. This will be taken forward by the Department for Transport. With this assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c112-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Related items
Railways: Infrastructure
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Written questions
House of Lords
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