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
I am grateful for that observation, but clause 9 does not define whose opinion would be relevant to clause 1. That is a fundamental drafting flaw. We need to be absolutely clear that the Bill would address the outrageous situation that the hon. Lady described. That cannot be done by Solihull council because it manifestly does not care about a 350-year-old oak tree. There needs to be a rational opinion that is sufficiently independent of the person selling the land, but the Bill does not define who would have that authority. I hope she accepts that it is necessary to amend it to address that problem.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 450 c1140
- 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 23:18:08 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353561
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353561
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353561