moved Amendment No. 399A:
399A: Clause 167, page 85, line 8, at end insert—
““( ) in subsection (1) omit the words ““interested in land in the area of a local planning authority””;””
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns the question of who can enter into Section 106 agreements under the 1990 Act and suggests that the words, "““interested in land in the area of a local planning authority””,"
should be removed. The noble Baroness has been kind enough to send me a note to make it quite clear that if that were done there would be considerable disadvantages. However, it does not address the problem that has been drawn to my attention. Perhaps I may spend a moment on that.
An example of what is envisaged concerns the promoter of a major infrastructure project who wants to enter into a planning obligation—that is, a Section 106 obligation—and the kind of difficulties that he might face in the absence of the wider powers intended. If there is a power under the consent to acquire land by means of compulsory purchase—for example, for the site of a power station—then, as the Bill stands, a promoter could enter into an obligation only after he had exercised that compulsory power. That would be rather difficult. I give a different example. A promoter proposes to install an overhead power cable or an underground pipeline. In such a situation, he would have no interest in the land at the time of the application for development consent; he would have an interest in the land only after the development consent had been obtained and he had exercised his compulsory purchase power. It would be only then that a Section 106 agreement could be considered.
That does not seem right. Where there is an intention compulsorily to purchase land for a development, there should be some provision which would enable the application to be accompanied or followed by negotiations for a Section 106 agreement in advance of the developer gaining possession of the land. That is the point at which the amendment is aimed. I would not dream of pressing it in view of the horrible consequences that would follow, as was spelled out in the note that the Minister attached to her letter, but there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I beg to move.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Jenkin of Roding
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c996 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:48:56 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501709
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501709
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501709