|
| |
| | |
| |
Growth and Infrastructure Bill |
|
MARSHALLED LIST OF MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON |
|
CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS |
|
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 72, the bill as first printed for the Lords.] |
|
|
|
|
|
7 | Insert the following new Clause— |
|
| | “Development orders: development within the curtilage of a dwelling house |
|
| | (1) | Section 61 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (development |
|
| | orders: supplementary provisions) is amended as follows. |
|
| | (2) | After subsection (3) insert— |
|
| | “(4) | Any development order or amendment to an existing development |
|
| | order made after 1 January 2013 that grants planning permission for |
|
| | development within the curtilage of a dwelling house shall not |
|
| | apply within the jurisdiction of a local planning authority if that |
|
| | authority has resolved that it shall not.”” |
|
| | COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON |
|
| | The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 7 for the following Reason— |
|
7A | Because it is not appropriate to give local authorities further powers to disapply planning |
|
| | permission granted by a development order. |
|
| | |
| | Baroness Hanham to move, That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7 to |
|
| | which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A, but do propose the fol |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| |
| | lowing amendments in lieu— |
|
7B | Page 5, line 29, at end insert— |
|
| | “(2B) | Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a development |
|
| | order may include provision for ensuring— |
|
| | (a) | that, before a person in reliance on planning permission granted by |
|
| | the order carries out development of land in England that is a |
|
| | dwelling house or is within the curtilage of a dwelling house— |
|
| | (i) | a written description, and a plan, of the proposed |
|
| | development are given to the local planning authority, |
|
| | (ii) | notice of the proposed development, and of the period |
|
| | during which representations about it may be made to the |
|
| | local planning authority, is served by the local planning |
|
| | authority on the owner or occupier of any adjoining |
|
| | |
| | (iii) | that period has ended, and |
|
| | (b) | that, where within that period an owner or occupier of any |
|
| | adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, it may be |
|
| | carried out in reliance on the permission only if the local planning |
|
| | authority consider that it would not have an unacceptable impact |
|
| | on the amenity of adjoining premises. |
|
| | (2C) | In subsection (2B) “adjoining premises” includes any land adjoining— |
|
| | (c) | the dwelling house concerned, or |
|
| | (d) | the boundary of its curtilage.”” |
|
7C | Page 5, line 31, leave out ““or (2A)”” and insert ““, (2A) or (2B)”” |
|
| | |
| | Lord McKenzie of Luton to move, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from |
|
| | “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 7”. |
|
| | |
| | |
|
25 | |
| | COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON |
|
| | The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 25 for the following Reason— |
|
25A | Because the new status of employee shareholder should be made available. |
|
| | |
| | Baroness Hanham to move, That this House do not insist on its Amendment 25, |
|
| | to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 25A. |
|
| | |
| | Lord Pannick to move, as an amendment to Motion B, leave out from “House” |
|
| | to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 25” |
|
| |
| | |
|
