Extract from Westminster Hall debate on New Housing Design - Sep 5
Wednesday, 6 September 2017 08:41
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab):...On section 106, I was bemused rather
than amused to see an advert by a company called Section 106, which
tells would-be developers about affordable housing. It talks about
its own performance and references a development in Gloucester
Place in London where an affordable housing contribution of
£646,000 demanded by Westminster Council was reduced to a
nil contribution. It goes on to tell would-be developers that they
can go on a holiday with the money...Request free trial
(Rochdale) (Lab):...On
section 106, I was bemused rather than amused to see an advert by a
company called Section 106, which tells would-be developers about
affordable housing. It talks about its own performance and
references a development in Gloucester Place in London where an
affordable housing contribution of £646,000 demanded
by Westminster Council was reduced to a nil
contribution. It goes on to tell would-be developers that they can
go on a holiday with the money they have saved. That is simply not
a responsible use of section 106; it is not what it is there to
provide. The Minister must look again at making the section 106
process transparent, so there can be public tests, and enforceable
by local authorities. If we are to have the homes for the future
that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is demanding—and he
and other colleagues are right to demand them—our local authorities
must have the capacity to say to developers that developments must
be of an acceptable standard, and that they have the power to
control the rogue builders and developers...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
|
