§ Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he held with the House Builders Federation on the proposed Hamilton development, prior to his approval for a modified development at Hamilton, north-east Leicester.
§ Mr. TraceyThe House Builders Federation took part in the examination in public of the alteration to the Leicestershire structure plan when this proposal was extensively discussed.
§ Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy concerning the construction of large council housing estates and how this policy was applied to the proposed Hamilton plan in Leicester.
§ Mr. Tracey[pursuant to his reply, 13 January 1987]: My right hon. Friend is against large new rented estates. He sees councils primarily as enablers rather than producers of housing, with a special responsibility for groups like the homeless whose needs the private sector cannot meet in full. Housing policies and proposals in development plans relate to the number and location of new dwellings. It is not part of their function to indicate whether the provision will be made by the public or the private sector.
§ Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criterion he used in assessing the need for a large scale housing development at Hamilton in the Leicester, East constituency, and on what basis he considered such a development as "environmentally desirable".
§ Mr. Tracey[pursuant to his reply, 13 January 1987]: Provision of land for housing in structure plans takes account of market demand and other housing requirements. The proposal for Hamilton is in accord with our policy that development should be directed towards urban locations and avoid increased pressure on environmentally sensistive small villages and rural areas.
§ Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received (a) in favour and (b) against the proposed new development at Hamilton, north-east Leicester.
§ Mr. Tracey[pursuant to his reply, 13 January 1987]: My right hon. Friend has received five representations in favour of the development and seven against it. Five other representations supported development in this location, but suggested that provision before 1996 should be reduced.