I support Amendment No. 72, which is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I do not think that parish councils should be squeezed out of the consultation process. They easily could be, and a formal reminder that they have a right to be consulted would be a very good thing.
I also support Amendment No. 74, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Greaves. The Bill does not recognise that protection of the landscape should be a factor in decisions about where nationally significant infrastructure projects are sited and what sort of projects should be sited in what sort of areas. I hope that, following the debates we had last week, at the next stage there will be a reference in the Bill to landscape. This amendment would reinforce that message.
In many cases, there are plans to extend national parks, which can be pre-empted by developments that take place beyond the current frontier of the national park. That is another reason why the views of national park authorities should be sought. A national park authority is a local authority for the purposes of the Bill and it should be treated as such.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Reay
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 14 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c646 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 22:57:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_499719
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_499719
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_499719