---

Localism Bill

My Lords, it seems to me that the policy has always existed about being able to use infill sites. The real debate is: what is an infill? I remember the case of Little Paddock in Pinner from when I was on the Greater London Council. There were huge rows which went on for a period of a year or so about whether or not it was an infill. I do not know how it was eventually decided other than that eventually someone was allowed to build on it. Whereas in other cases I have met, people have been told, ““Oh, well this has been a little smallholding, so if you put a barn on it, and you make it possible to live in the barn, you’ll be able progressively to convert it””, in the way that the Minister has just said, saying that you can rebuild and change things slightly. That seemed to be such a false way of allowing it, to have a creeping development into this infill site. As I said, I have known some that were described as not being infills being definitely described as green belt even though there were huge conference centres adjoining them. It is a question of this definition of infill, which I hope can be clarified in due course. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 228 withdrawn. Amendments 229 to 231 not moved. Amendment 232 Moved by