I shall come on to ways of addressing the problem, but the hon. Gentleman has suggested part of the solution. First, however, I wish to explain why the draft order is fundamentally flawed and should not be pursued in its present form.
Paragraph 1(a) of category 3A deals with development which is likely to"““result in the loss of more than 200 houses, flats, or houses and flats (irrespective of whether the development would entail also the provision of new houses or flats””."
In our area, we have several unsatisfactory council estates dating back to the 1960s and ’70s that are being cleared and replaced. A significant number of them would fall within the criteria, particularly the Ferrier estate in Kidbrooke, the Connaught estate in Woolwich, the Morris Walk estate in Woolwich and others. We are not talking about one or two large developments of London-wide significance but about a number of cases in a particular area that are only of local significance. Ironically, as part of the council’s regeneration policy, some of those estates will be replaced by developments containing more properties than the number removed. However, those properties are part of a mixed development, so there will no longer be a mono-tenure estate of council housing but a development in which people have opportunities to buy as well as to rent.
Greater London Authority Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Nick Raynsford
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 27 February 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Greater London Authority Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
457 c857-8 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:31:25 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380377
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380377
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380377