As I understand it, the applicant has to satisfy the IPC that he has consulted properly. The IPC can disagree that the applicant has allowed sufficient time for that to happen. I shall double-check that point, but that is my understanding.
The regulations will deal with this issue in a more detailed way. We have allowed for flexibility in regulations so that the deadlines can account for different circumstances. We have no intention of setting a deadline in respect of receipt of representations of less than 28 days. I shall read what noble Lords have said about these arguments.
I return to Amendment No. 212, which is where we started, in a gallant attempt to try to make sense of it. I appreciate the noble Lord’s efforts to improve counsel’s drafting. I am assured by lawyers that the amendment does not change the effect. The two phrases are identical and mean the same thing. I confess that I think that the noble Lord’s option is clearer. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 16 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c900 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:55:11 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500904
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500904
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500904