Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Mark Francois (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 15 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill.


Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Our argument is that it is right for developers to make an appropriate contribution to infrastructure—I shall go on to say a little about that—but we believe that the process outlined in the Bill is not the right way to bring that about. Our second reservation is based on the fact that a significant element of the proposed planning gain supplement to be facilitated by the Bill will be regionally administered. In the real world, if we want to persuade communities to accept further development, we must carry people with us. That means persuading them that they will see genuine visible benefits coming back to them from agreeing to further building in their area. A system administered on a regional basis does little to provide reassurance that that will happen. For instance, a community in Kent could be asked to accept 1,000 additional houses in return for taxation that flows into the Treasury and is regionally redirected towards a bus shelter scheme in Buckinghamshire, remote from the original community that was asked to accept the development. Indeed, under questioning this afternoon, the Financial Secretary has admitted that that regional component of the PGS might even not go back to the original region. The Government have been keen to hide the point that it might be sent to another region, but the House of Commons has exposed that point in debate. As the regions currently have few meaningful tax-raising powers, the PGS is partially a device to raise money that they can then spend. It is also likely to make them pro-development, even in areas that do not warrant it, in order to receive their share of the prospective PGS revenue in return. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out:"““We think that the law of unintended consequences will apply, with the result that the proposals will not deliver the Government’s policy objectives without a major element of compulsion being applied to local planning authorities to allow developments that they do not wish to allow.””"


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c573-4 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Community development Administration Costs Housing Land ICT Investment Infrastructure Government departments Land use Local government Northern Ireland Planning Public expenditure Property development Valuation Taxation Tax yields Revenue and Customs Department for Communities and Local Government Planning gain supplement
Legislation
Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk