Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Philip Dunne (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 am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the difficulty that local communities will face in bidding for that funding. What she mentions does not appear to be part of the Government’s current plans. The other area that caused me concern was the use of the word ““area””. It was clear that we were talking not about the local authority but about the local authority area. In my county of Shropshire—I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) has returned to his place—we are in the midst of a debate on whether we should move from a two-tier structure to a unitary structure. The word ““area”” currently has connotations of a unitary area. Therefore, in Shropshire, which is a large county, funds raised from my constituency could be spent 50 miles away in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, or further north, in north Shropshire. As far as my constituents are concerned, that is not the local area. Another aspect that causes me concern is that many local councils will lose control of a substantial proportion of their revenues.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c607 
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