I am happy to speak to my amendment and to try to answer the questions which the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has asked.
The origin of my amendments is that paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 requires the marine plan authority that is preparing a marine plan for a marine plan area to give notice of its intention to do so to related planning authorities. Paragraph 1(2) of the schedule defines the related planning authorities, and paragraph 1(4) subsequently defines a local planning authority as one, "““to be read in accordance with section 37 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004””."
It struck me that any developments in the English inshore area in the Solway Firth could have implications for Dumfries and Galloway and the area that is inshore but immediately adjoining the estuary of the Tweed could have implications for the Scottish Borders Council.
Amendment 89BG amends the definition of ““local planning authority”” to include Scottish local planning authorities. I may be wrong, but I believe that it meets the purpose of my amendments probably more felicitously than mine. There is nothing terribly magical about it; it simply recognises proximity, and I am grateful to the Minister for tabling it.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 February 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c20 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:53:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530627
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530627
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530627