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

Hon. Members of all parties accept that there are limitations to the current section 106 agreement process. In fairness, the Select Committee highlighted that in its detailed report. I suspect that our solution will not simply be confined to the existing section 106 process. We may therefore go a little further than that, but I am not in a position this evening to say more. There is probably broad agreement in the House that developers should make a realistic contribution to infrastructure costs. The problem with the Government’s proposed solution, and the Bill to facilitate it, is that it is definitely not the best way to achieve the goal. Planning gain supplement represents a top-down, socialist solution, at a time when the Government pay lip service to localism but practise democratic centralism instead.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c578 
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