I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 198 stand part of the Bill because I wish to probe the basic concept of CIL. I have two related concerns, which have already been raised by several speakers. First, I understand it is proposed to introduce CIL while retaining Section 106 planning obligations. That puts potentially excessive burdens on the developer. I declare an interest as a landowner in Hertfordshire. Secondly, a combination of CIL and Section 106 impositions may result in widespread withholding of potential development land, as happened in the case of development land tax in the 1970s. I do not wish to interrupt today’s important debate on the detailed provisions of the Bill, but I should like the Minister’s assurance that if Section 106 agreements are to be retained, the combined burden must be kept within reason.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Cobbold
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 23 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1244-5 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:33:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503010
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503010
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503010