Proceeding contribution from Robert Neill (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 27 February 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Greater London Authority Bill.
Greater London Authority Bill
That is absolutely right; that is why I am concerned. It is regrettable that the discussion about section 106 comes towards the end of a time-limited debate, because it is a hugely important issue and probably deserves more time on its own. That is another reason why we should think again about this matter, and why I hope that we will press the amendment. There are ways in which we can make sensible and constructive use of planning gain. There is no doubt about that. There are ways in which the strategic authority can have a legitimate role, but we believe that the current proposal in the Bill is altogether too blunt to achieve that, and that our amendment provides a much more coherent way forward.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 457 c869
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Access Costs City of London Council tax Housing Finance Environment Greater London Greater London Authority Infrastructure Functions Landfill Incinerators Local government Planning permission Powers Public appointments Planning Members Railways Recycling Property development Mayor of London Training Transport Waste disposal Waste Underground railways Transport for London London Assembly London Waste Regulation Authority River Thames Pedicabs
- Legislation
- Greater London Authority Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:31:41 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380401
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380401
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380401