That is a very reasonable intervention. To be entirely accurate, the development somewhat post-dated my tenure as the nation's Planning Minister. As my remarks have indicated, I did consider carefully the record and history of the GPDO, which we are debating. My feeling was that we were waiting for the council to report on whether the development was permitted, but that at some stage I would want to make a recommendation about the distance factor. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do that.
New clause 38 is about the development of plant or machinery by railway undertakers, and I wish to say a word about the role and responsibilities of precisely the undertakers in the case that I have mentioned—Southern railway and Network Rail. It is all very well for railway undertakers to argue ““caveat emptor”” when people choose to live next to the railway, but Southern railway and Network Rail deliberately used part 11 of the order, which minimised the opportunities for local consultation and representation. There was no requirement of prior notice to local residents and only the most cursory notification of the commencement of works. The first that most residents knew of what was in store was a matter of weeks before building work began.
I want railway operators to think more about the impact of their activities, which have been the subject of this brief exchange. I cannot conceive of the fact that rail managers, engineers or architects would want to live next door to such a monstrous intrusion into people's lives. Yes, the GPDO gives enormous leeway to the railway undertaker, but as usual—I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will understand this point—freedom has to be matched with responsibility. In the case that I have mentioned, I do not believe that it was.
Southern railway and Network Rail behaved abominably, but they have the chance to redeem their good name and reputation. The quality of life of my constituents would be greatly improved if the canopy nearest their homes were to be removed. I therefore hope that Southern railway and Network Rail will enter into negotiations with officers and members of Lambeth council as a matter of urgency to remove the canopy nearest the residential properties in Sternhold avenue in my constituency.
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.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c402-3 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:10:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_486725
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_486725
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_486725