Clause 40 - Statement of development principles
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
4:30 pm
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I rise with some trepidation, because I must distance myself from what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said about amendment No. 95. I have to do that, because the hon. Member for
Ludlow suggested that my hon. Friend might have tabled it so long ago that he had forgotten why he did it. My hon. Friend did not table it a long time ago, because I tabled it. My hon. Friend is not a mind reader, and any blame must lie with me, not with my hon. Friend.
I recall clearly why I tabled the amendment. I did so for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. I see the provision as an interferer's charter. It is a wonderful opportunity for those in the knee-jerk, against everything brigade with their heads in a bucket of sand, who want to object to anything that anyone else wants to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, it will be incredibly difficult to pick our way through the string of amendments without having the same debate several times—although I know that you will stop us, Mr. Pike, if we fall into that trap. Each group of amendments seeks a way to achieve the aim behind using the word ''may'' rather than the word ''must''. If the Minister would accept ''may'' rather than ''must'' we could make progress, because I suspect that many of the remaining amendments would be unnecessary.
I have no difficulty accepting the Government's principle that there should be an opportunity for people who are genuinely concerned and have a legitimate reason for being concerned to seek more information and that the planning process should be delayed for a moment or two to allow that.