Proceeding contribution from Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Friday, 20 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill.
Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill
Yes, and there is a plan to make some improvements to the rest of Shirley park. I am not sure whether there will be trees involved, but there will certainly be park improvements, which we are all looking forward to seeing. The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, however. Clause 6 is brief and requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local planning authorities to include appropriate protection for large or mature trees within planning guidance legislation. The second part of my Bill is similar to the ten-minute Bill of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), which covers the practice that has become known as garden grabbing. I am delighted to support his Bill, which was introduced almost a year after mine. I am not aware that either he or any of his Conservative colleagues have supported mine to date, although the supportive comments from hon. Members on the Conservative Benches today would tend to contradict that, and I am grateful to them for their support. Clause 3 looks at the planning guidelines that designate back gardens as brownfield sites. If it has not become apparent already, I must tell the House that I am no planning expert. To my simple mind, however, a garden is usually green, not brown. The intention of the planning guidelines is to ensure that brownfield sites are developed first. That is highly commendable, but the unintended consequences of designating gardens as brownfield sites can be seen all over Solihull, and in many other places. Developers see a relatively easy and cheap opportunity in an area where house values are high. They knock down a lovely old house with a big garden and build a block of flats—oops, sorry, I mean luxury apartments—in its stead. Some people have accused me of nimbyism, because I am suggesting that building dense developments literally in someone’s back yard is not desirable. They could be right. After all, we need affordable homes, and we need lots of them. However, these so-called luxury apartments are not affordable homes. They are expensive, because developers want to maximise profits, and our council, at least, is failing to reach the affordable homes targets set by the Government.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 450 c1133-4
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Appeals Community development Construction Housing Environment protection Land use Gardens Local government Planning permission Parks Sales Trees Greenfield sites
- Legislation
- Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:49:51 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353538
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353538
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353538