Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 118: 118: Clause 113, page 58, line 7, at end insert ““and is required to facilitate it”” The noble Baroness said: This is another short point. It concerns the definition of ““associated development”” and the fact that development consent can be granted for it. At the previous stage I sought to probe what that meant. Clause 113(2)(a) refers to, "““development which … is associated with the development … or any part of it””." The noble Baroness referred to the single process. She did not say that it would be daft to have consecutive applications, although that is what she meant. She also said that if a development needed highways works, for example, that should be dealt with at the same time. My amendment seeks to add to associated development the requirement that it is necessary, which is what she said. My amendment would make the clause read that the development is associated, "““and is required to facilitate it””." I previously discussed the potentially wide scope of the phrase ““associated with it””, and the noble Baroness said: "““Granting consent for associated works is therefore completely consistent and a logical element in that overall process””.—[Official Report, 20/10/08; col. 947.]" I agree, provided that the associated development is necessary. I beg to move.