Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (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
That is another sensible suggestion from the hon. Gentleman. We could have some transitional provisions or instructions from the Department that such behaviour would be viewed dimly. However, the hon. Member for Solihull should reconsider clause 10(2), because two months is far too short a period and somewhat overambitious. I understand her enthusiasm for the Bill, but if she wants to reintroduce it in the next Session—it clearly has little prospect of making progress this Session—she might like to ponder on some of the concerns that have been expressed today about its drafting and perhaps return with a measure that was a little more modest and better worked out.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 450 c1164
- 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 14:07:35 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353625
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353625
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353625