The London Luton Airport Expansion Development Consent Order 2025
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
47 Defence to proceedings in respect of statutory nuisance
(1) Where proceedings are brought under section 82(1) (summary proceedings by person aggrieved by statutory nuisance) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to a nuisance falling within paragraph (d), (e), (g) and (ga) of section 79(1) (statutory nuisances and inspections therefor) of that Act no order is to be made, and no fine may be imposed, under section 82(2) of that Act if— (a) the defendant shows that the nuisance— (i) relates to premises used by the undertaker for the purposes of or in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised development and that the nuisance is attributable to the construction or maintenance of the authorised development in accordance with a notice served under section 60 (control of noise on construction sites), or a consent given under section 61 (prior consent for work on construction sites) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; or (ii) is a consequence of the construction or maintenance of the authorised development and that it cannot reasonably be avoided; or (b) the defendant shows that the nuisance is a consequence of the use or operation of the authorised development and that it cannot reasonably be avoided. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), compliance with the controls and measures relating to noise, vibration, dust or lighting described in the code of construction practice will be sufficient, but not necessary, to show that an alleged nuisance could not reasonably be avoided. (3) Section 61(9) (consent for work on construction site to include statement that it does not of itself constitute a defence to proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 does not apply where the consent relates to the use of premises by the undertaker for the purposes of or in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised development. (4) In this this article “premises” has the same meaning as in section 79(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
47 Defence to proceedings in respect of statutory nuisance
(1) Where proceedings are brought under section 82(1) (summary proceedings by person aggrieved by statutory nuisance) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to a nuisance falling within paragraph (d), (e), (g) and (ga) of section 79(1) (statutory nuisances and inspections therefor) of that Act no order is to be made, and no fine may be imposed, under section 82(2) of that Act if— (a) the defendant shows that the nuisance— (i) relates to premises used by the undertaker for the purposes of or in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised development and that the nuisance is attributable to the construction or maintenance of the authorised development in accordance with a notice served under section 60 (control of noise on construction sites), or a consent given under section 61 (prior consent for work on construction sites) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; or (ii) is a consequence of the construction or maintenance of the authorised development and that it cannot reasonably be avoided; or (b) the defendant shows that the nuisance is a consequence of the use or operation of the authorised development and that it cannot reasonably be avoided. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), compliance with the controls and measures relating to noise, vibration, dust or lighting described in the code of construction practice will be sufficient, but not necessary, to show that an alleged nuisance could not reasonably be avoided. (3) Section 61(9) (consent for work on construction site to include statement that it does not of itself constitute a defence to proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 does not apply where the consent relates to the use of premises by the undertaker for the purposes of or in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised development. (4) In this this article “premises” has the same meaning as in section 79(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.