Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Andrew Miller (Labour) 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

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am not the greatest procedural expert in this place and I am not sure whether the Bill’s scope may be expanded sufficiently in that regard due to the definition that has been used in its long title. However, to take his example of old mental health institutions, if it were possible to do that, or if other legislation were introduced, there would have to be flexibility in relation to their use for other purposes. For example, there is a rather beautiful building at the Countess of Chester site that, appropriately, is called the 1829 building—it is a mental institution of 1829. Clearly, it is not used as a mental health hospital any longer; it is an administrative centre. However, if someone were to make a planning application to incorporate the land and convert the building to flats, I would find it difficult to argue against the logic of it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1138 
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