I take that point, but we have to be clear that any exemptions from CIL need to be decided on the basis of objective criteria. My noble friend’s amendment fails the second of those, which relates to fairness. I hear what he says, though, and I will consider the implications of it.
I turn to government Amendment No. 437A. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked about the large infrastructure projects and the implications they have for bad-neighbour questions. That is something we shall come on to in a later amendment that I seem to remember about how other countries deal with bad neighbours and give some form of compensation. These are national projects, as we know, but my instinct, although I cannot give him a categoric answer, is that there may be situations where they might be local infrastructure as well, so they might be liable. If he will leave that with me, I shall try to give him a clearer answer on that important point.
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 c1313-4 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:33:26 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503104
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503104
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503104