It was not a matter of the plans. The Minister has said that, as a matter of principle, the reason to reject the amendment was that flexibility is needed and that statutory provision for the automatic assumption to accept another plan should not be in the Bill. But Clause 86 says exactly that. I am trying to tease out why it is okay for one national plan but it is not okay for these local environment plans. What is the difference, as a matter of principle, if flexibility is required for local plans in every area, as the Minister said?
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Scriven
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 27 March 2023.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
829 c32 Session
2022-23Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-03-28 11:38:06 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-27/23032712000044
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-27/23032712000044
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-03-27/23032712000044