So a UDA is almost in the position of a new towns commission, but not quite. That is exactly the position of this body. I appreciate the concept, but if the ODA is supposed to be a relatively tightly constrained body in terms of its size, we may be in deep water because there will definitely be two classes of member. I am not sure that I would want to be a second-class citizen involved in the planning procedure or, indeed, a second-class citizen unable to hold discussions on the development of what ultimately will have to be a comprehensive plan.
Under normal circumstances, such plans would involve intense discussions between the promoters of the development and the planners in order to work out what would be acceptable. We seem to be saying that such discussion cannot take place because that would constitute ““involvement””. Perhaps we are getting lost in the exact meaning of certain words, but I should say that I am finding this point acutely difficult.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dixon-Smith
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c92GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:21:39 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296524
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296524
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296524