In relation to the consultation, the response was frankly a bit thin. This is an issue that we need to consider further. I will revert briefly to the point about material considerations, the Planning Inspectorate and the NPPF. I accept that it may be an entirely irrelevant point, or at least a technical one. Will there be any difference in the weight given to material consideration issues or to issues in the NPPF that balance a range of things between the perspective of a planning inspector and that of a local planning authority? This is quite apart from any difference in process. We might align them as much as we can, but is there something inherent in the process that could give a different result? I do not assert that there is, but I would be interested in a response on that point.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 22 January 2013.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Growth and Infrastructure Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
742 c1074 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-01-18 16:11:37 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-22/13012264000020
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-22/13012264000020
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-22/13012264000020