My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his support for this amendment and to my noble friend Lord Beecham. When I drafted this amendment it was with a much more innocent approach than has appeared from this debate. It was simply looking at the wording and the disparity between change of use and physical development. However, given the debate that has just ensued, I am very glad that I drafted it. We have yet another example of something that runs through this Bill—an anecdotal approach to a perceived problem in the planning system, with the answer being to circumvent that planning system to deal with it. The issue is not the existence of free schools but their location, and why the normal planning process is not to be applied to that. Although this was a gentle, probing amendment, which I thought we might pass over swiftly with a clear explanation from the Minister, we have opened up something here that we will return to on Report, as well as having some wider debates about permitted development on amendments that come later in the Bill, as we try to remove some of the centralist approach that applies to those amendments and make sure that the local voice is heard.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 28 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 c1322 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2013-11-19 11:03:49 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-28/1301284000084
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-28/1301284000084
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-28/1301284000084