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

Again, I am not a lawyer and I am not convinced. I think that the hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer either. I strongly favour the concept of parkland associations in clause 2. The Friends of Whitby Park in Ellesmere Port have been enormously positive in their contribution to the park’s development. We were lucky enough to succeed in our bid to redevelop the park under the Heritage Lottery Fund, but I am convinced that the only reason for that success was the partnership between the local authority and the Friends of Whitby Park—an organisation that covers the interests of all the park’s users, from footballers and bird watchers to bowlers and many others. Dozens of different users work together positively in the interests of the park. The hon. Member for Solihull has highlighted a good idea, although I do not know whether it is best for local authorities to establish such schemes or whether things should evolve from the bottom up. However, there are huge merits in such activity. I can tell the House from my experience how well such an organisation works and how well it serves Whitby park. It has provided checks and balances on top-down ideas coming from the local authority, as well as encouraging dialogue that brings into focus the needs of all users. When, for example, young people wanted a hardball court and a climbing wall, there was a dialogue through the community groups, agreement was reached and the end product is in place. It is manifest that the organisation has made a positive contribution to the well-being and upkeep of the park. Sadly, as in all communities, a handful of vandals try to wreck all the good work done by those people, but the cohesive group that has been formed is more likely to hold at bay the excesses of that handful than if they had been a disparate set of organisations, so I welcome the spirit of the clause, albeit with one caveat. I shall touch briefly on clause 3, which takes us into other areas, including the great temptation to reflect on the end of planning consent. According to The Daily Telegraph:"““The Tories would scrap planning controls on domestic properties…John Gummer, who is chairing David Cameron’s Quality of Life task force…said…that he intends to turn the planning system on its head.””" Alarm bells are ringing.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1142-3 
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