moved Amendment No. 176:
176: Clause 36, page 23, line 6, at end insert ““, and
( ) be accompanied by evidence that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to secure conformity with the local development framework policies of the affected local planning authority and, where applicants have departed from local policy, an explanation for any such departure.””
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments follows on naturally from the discussion that we have just had. Amendment No. 176 would ensure that, where a planning application was being considered by the planning commission, the applicant had worked to make sure that the application was reasonably consistent with the local development framework. That is essential if applications are to receive general acceptance. The part of the Bill that we are talking about sets down conditions with which an application must comply and the amendment adds one more. Its purpose is not to try to make the process more complicated and difficult for the applicant. However, it should be, where and as far as is possible, acceptable to the people who are going to be affected by the application. It is to build that part of the process that we have tabled Amendment No. 176.
Amendment No. 185 also follows that principle by requiring consultation with local residents. I accept that that may prove difficult practically—““residents affected”” can be deemed to run quite wide—but they should have their views taken into consideration. One can raise questions whether the local planning authority is sufficiently representative or, in more rural areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would say, whether the local parish councils might be able to do it, but there may still be large bodies of people who feel that their views have not been taken into account, and we thought that we ought to raise these points.
The relationship between national projects and policies and the current system is a difficult matter. It seems that we are making the current system more complex to comply with the speed that is required for the system being introduced. It is the old question of swings and roundabouts. These are important matters; it is a large group of amendments that indicates wide concern around the Committee. I beg to move.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dixon-Smith
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 16 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c831-2 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:55:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500839
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500839
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500839