Alex White (Labour)

I will not engage in the manner of the previous discussion where, suffice to say, there are many glasshouses with objects bouncing off them. I will not indulge in that approach. I wish to return to the two issues I raised previously. I was not going to return to amendment No. 28 as the Minister of State pointed out that he is only changing one word but for two reasons I will briefly return to it. First, I noticed that section 20 of the principal Act deals with the problem about which I was concerned. The Internet is a good thing. This is precisely the type of debate we hope the wider community could access, not to participate in the debate but to take an interest in it and to provide an opportunity for people to have their views heard. Over lunchtime I was delighted to receive an email from someone who was doing just that. Mr. Gavin Daly was watching our proceedings somewhere in the country and he pointed out that section 20 deals with the issue of a new local area plan and the notices that are required to be sent out in respect of such a plan. I am sorted in that regard.

However, I still await clarification on the issue we were discussing before we took a break, namely, the question of zoning made pursuant to a local area plan and the provision that it is proposed to insert whereby, "There shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan". How does that sit with the generality of the law in respect of zoning? My understanding is that zonings made pursuant to a development plan by a local authority continue in being from year to year or from development plan to development plan. Are we now to have a distinction in respect of the longevity of zoning decisions between local area plan zonings and mainstream zonings?