Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 63: 63: Clause 31, page 19, line 36, leave out ““or forms part of”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 67. I do not know who will steal whose thunder on Amendment No. 69. Amendments Nos. 63 and 67 are probing amendments that deal with the phrase, "““or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project””," in the provisions explaining when development consent is required. I proposed a similar amendment in Committee and it was answered in these terms: "““where the development only forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project rather than being one in its own right … [it] will continue to enjoy existing permitted development rights””.—[Official Report, 14/10/08; col. 724.]" The answer took me a little by surprise because I was not seeking assurances on that. I would have thought that it was quite conceivable that part of a project was viable without the whole. What happens if a developer wants to proceed with a part, not the whole? I continue to probe, very gently and fairly briefly, because of issues around the aggregate of several developments being below the threshold. At the previous stage the Minister said that the wording of the clause would not prejudice the promoter’s ability to carry out works below the thresholds, but that did not quite relate to my point. On Amendment No. 69, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said at that time, as I recall it, that she thought that we had a point, but I shall leave it to my noble friend to explain the amendment. I am sure that the Government will want to say why they are changing the Bill and why they feel they do not need to sign up to my words. However, it is a delight to see an amendment that is headed: ““Baroness Hamwee, Lord Greaves, Baroness Andrews””. I am grateful to the Government. I beg to move.