Proceeding contribution from Clive Betts (Labour) 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
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Select Committee’s position was far more logical than his? We asked the Government to compare and contrast the costs and difficulties of introducing a planning gain supplement with those of enhancing, reforming and improving the section 106 process. The hon. Gentleman’s position appears to be to rule out PGS, without coming to a view on whether reforming and enhancing section 106 would be better and more practical.
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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:23:13 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369366
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369366
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369366