UK Parliament / Open data

Planning Bill

Proceeding contribution from Keith Hill (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 25 June 2008. It occurred during Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that trip down memory lane. He is right to say that we had many exchanges on these matters. Although I contend that it would be inappropriate for every item of plant or machinery to be subject to planning consent, the point that I want to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister is that the Lichfield report anticipated that there may be circumstances in which a condition ought to be applied for the development of large infrastructure on railway land. The Lichfield review of the GPDO suggests in two places that there is a need to consider introducing a distance restriction on developments that might involve night-time activity and visual impacts near residential areas. Paragraph 30 of chapter 21 of the report deals with part 17 of the GPDO, which discusses a failed attempt by a local authority to resist a particular railway development. The report says:"““Whilst it is not clear that this is other than isolated case, it suggests the need to consider whether some restriction of Class A development should apply within a specified distance of residential properties””." The following paragraph recommends that further consideration be given to clarifying whether buildings related to the washing and maintenance of railway vehicles should not be defined as an industrial process, as is the case with the Scottish GPDO. Interestingly, the report goes on to say:"““This would have some potential for adverse impacts on residential amenity, although this may perhaps be addressed by a condition requiring a minimum distance, e.g. 50 metres, from residential premises.””" In 2003, when the Lichfield report was prepared, it seemed that there could be a problem with intrusive railway developments close to people's homes. Today, in 2008, the Sternhold avenue case shows that such a problem exists: it would therefore be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would undertake to consider amending the GPDO along the lines suggested by Lichfield and bringing forward appropriate secondary legislation in due course.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

478 c401 

Session

2007-08

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber

Legislation

Planning Bill 2007-08
Back to top