My Lords, this provision in Schedule 1 allows a new inspector to be appointed in cases where, for example, illness or probity would prevent the original inspector considering a particular case. It is a safeguard and a check, and nothing more. The applicant would be informed of the change of inspector as a matter of course, but there should not be a requirement to do so, only with their agreement. The Secretary of State must be able to choose the most appropriate person to determine an application, just as happens currently with any planning appeal. Equally, there should not be any need to agree this with the designated authority, especially as it would not be the determining body for the application. With those assurances and clarification, I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
(Conservative)
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 c1103 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2013-11-19 10:57:17 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-22/13012272000094
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-22/13012272000094
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-22/13012272000094