Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (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 am grateful to the noble Baroness for that response but it did not deal with the central point. I accept that there are a range of reporting requirements for local authorities over a range of aspects, but the purpose of this amendment was to say that we have a new system here. A great deal of uncertainty surrounds it. It is right that both Houses of Parliament should be able to take stock of how it has worked out overall. If I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was in favour of more frequent reporting than three years. Three years does not seem an unreasonable timeframe. It would be a pity if we could not take the whole of Part 5 and have some report back on how it has all worked out as a package at a macro level. This is not the time of night to pursue this in greater depth, but I ask the Government to reconsider this issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 232AA withdrawn. Clause 218 : Taking account of planning permission when assessing compensation Amendment 232AB Clause 218 : Taking account of planning permission when assessing compensation Amendment 232AB Moved by


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c143 
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