I am sorry if that sounds patronising: I really do not mean it in that sense. She knows how passionately I put forward notions of partnership and the local duties of partnership in the Bill passed last year in this House. At a time when we are trying to reduce the burdens on local authorities and business, we are trying to avoid imposing such a wide-ranging obligation on partner authorities.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the independent examiner is interested only in the process of how the charging schedule is prepared. The answer to that is no because the independent person—this picks up a point of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—who is likely to be a planning inspector, will look at how and whether the charging authority has properly had regard to the matters set out in Clause 201 and the criteria that we have set out. He will look at how the criteria have been met as well as issues of process. In response to the wider meaning of her amendment, all this is about trusting local councils as regards who they need to engage with. We fully accept that charging schedules have to be tested to the same high standard as development plan documents. As I have said, we go further than that, as reflected in Amendment No. 438M by putting it in the Bill.
I turn now to the questions put by the noble Baroness on government Amendments Nos. 438M and 444C, which reflect a forensic dig into the Bill. These amendments are entirely consistent because the first amendment requires that certain functions are to be exercised by the mayor only, such as the approval of the declaration under subsection (4), while the other amendment prevents the mayor from delegating functions specifically to, say, local authorities or Transport for London. The two clauses are internally consistent in the Bill.
Who is going to do the work of independent assessment? In practice we consider that inspectors who work or have worked for the Planning Inspectorate will be best qualified to carry out these examinations, and we want to encourage charging authorities to choose from this pool. In guidance there will be assistance to supplement the inspector if they need specialist evaluation skills. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that we are still considering ways to ensure that the provision is robust enough.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 23 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1290 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:13:06 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503070
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503070
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503070