| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.30 pm
Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam): I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising a matter that has interested and concerned me for many years--public participation in planning.
Nearly 500,000 planning applications were lodged in England in 1993-94. Of those, only 99 were "called in" for decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment, or 0.02 per cent. of all planning applications submitted in England in that year. In the 1995 annual report from the Department of the Environment, entitled "This Common Inheritance", I was pleased to note that the United Kingdom's green belt has been increased in size.
The protection of the green belt is essential, particularly in densely populated areas. Sheffield used to be known as a dirty picture in a beautiful green frame, but that is no longer the case. Since the Clean Air Act 1956, the vision that people had of Sheffield belching out filthy black smoke is no longer accurate. Without the smoke, Sheffield still produces more steel each year.
Planning policy guidance 12 requires planning authorities to test all their policies against the statements in "This Common Inheritance". The Government confirmed that permission can be refused or restricted on grounds of demonstrable harm to the policy, even when the particular case does not cause such harm. "This Common Inheritance" adds that sustainable development means not sacrificing tomorrow's prospects for a largely illusory gain today.
In my constituency, trees have been chopped down that should not have been; sites have been developed that should not have been; and token consultation has taken place and then been ignored, which it should not have been.
Mature trees have been chopped down at Willow Croft in Fulwood. Sheffield city council acted only after the trees had been felled, and following a huge public protest. Thankfully, those trees were not chopped down in vain. The council has now decided to place tree preservation orders on sites it sells off, and has appointed members of the public as watchdogs to monitor such matters.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) was most helpful in responding to my questions at that time, and that helped to bring about the change in council policy. However, we were locking the door after the horse had already bolted, because the powers to prevent the loss of the trees already existed.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is only too aware of the problems with three sites in my constituency, because of the barrage of letters from and lobbying by residents and myself. The planning actions on those sites are the reason for the debate.
The secure unit at Limb lane, Dore, in Sheffield is a prime example. Sheffield city council owned the land and proposed to develop the site, funded by the Department of Health. The council acted as prosecution and defence, judge and jury, as it granted itself planning permission. However, as the site was in the green belt, the case had to be referred to the Department of the Environment. As the development did not conflict with national policy, the planning permission was not called in, even though it was
advertised as a departure and accepted as such by my hon. Friend. He acts in a quasi-judicial role, and cannot be involved in lobbying on such planning matters. His ear was hardly burnt, let alone bent.
There was a six-month consultation period on the Limb lane site. However, one questions what notice the council took of the objections. The original publicity resulted in 334 letters objecting to the development. A petition objecting to the building of the unit contained more than 1,600 signatures, and a further petition contained nearly 1,800 signatures--all objecting on the grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant an exception to green belt policy being made.
I fully accept that planning permissions are generally called in only if they involve issues of greater than local significance, or give rise to substantial national or regional controversy. Despite all the objections, the council's planning committee granted itself planning permission.
The implication is that councils can nibble away at the green belt, while paying lip service to public consultation. That may result in large chunks of the green belt, which the Government are preserving, being eroded by stealth.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury):
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that, yesterday, a significant planning application was granted by the Cotswold district council for a supermarket on the highest point of the Cotswolds area of outstanding natural beauty. Gloucestershire county council has an interest in that application, because it is likely to receive £1 million from the sale of a residential care home.
The county council sent me an extraordinary letter yesterday. It has objected to every application for planning permission on that road on highway grounds, and I had asked why it was not going to object to this application for the same reasons. I shall paraphrase the council's letter. It said that it was aware that it had objected on previous occasions on highway grounds, but that it could find no written evidence to that effect. In other words, it has lost the records. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that application, as the circumstances seem to be similar to the example he has raised?
Sir Irvine Patnick:
The circumstances are similar, and prove that the problem is not confined to Sheffield but is happening throughout the country, as I have always believed.
I shall highlight yet another example in Hallam. A piece of land on the former bus terminus site is bordered by Terminus road, Abbeydale road, Pingle road and Hartington avenue in Millhouses, Sheffield. Despite many letters expressing overwhelming opposition, planning permission has been granted by the city council. Many shops visible from Abbeydale road south for over 50 years will be hidden by the development on that site.
The application to develop land at Abbeydale Grange school playing field also met overwhelming opposition, and yet was granted planning permission by the city council, which owns the land. Two public meetings were attended by a total of 300 residents. A motion was passed stating:
I shall spell out the problem: the council owns the land; the council applied for planning permission; the council granted planning permission; and the council considered and ignored the objection. According to a brochure entitled "Planning--Charter Standards", should one have any complaints about the way the council handled an application, one can complain--no prizes for guessing to whom--to the council.
In August, Sheffield city council proposed, under the Sheffield unitary development plan, which will be subject to public inquiry under an independent inspector, that many parts of Hallam constituency be removed from the green belt. The city council has received 10 petitions, representing just under 4,000 signatures, objecting to the 47 sites identified by the council, including an objection by the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside.
Val Malthouse, whose name will be indelibly engraved on the Minister's heart as a result of the Limb lane discussions, advised me by fax only yesterday:
I can vouch for that condemnation of the planning system, as, when I originally wanted to object to the UDP, the forms were not yet printed, and when they were, obtaining one demanded skill, resolution and patience-- as a former Whip, I would add, cunning. It was worse than a treasure hunt, without the clues.
All three of those examples do not fit the NIMBY-- not in my back yard--criteria. People are concerned that their views are being dismissed out of hand, with no way of bringing them to anyone's attention. Accordingly, people say that it is the fault of the Member of Parliament, the Government--or, indeed, the Minister, who just does not care. That is not true, but it is a typical expression that people use. The planning system does not appear to have satisfied them that their views have been heard, considered and acted upon.
My understanding is that Sheffield city council has interpreted PPG2 incorrectly and that the cavalry--in the shape of the Government--may be on the horizon. The planning committee in Sheffield met only yesterday to recommend amendments to the further proposed changes to the UDP that will be presented in evidence to the unitary development plan public inquiry, and there may be a change in the council's position.
I wonder whether the fact that the inquiry is to take place in public and not behind the closed door of a planning committee meeting influenced the council's decision. How much was it affected by the fact that the Government Office in Yorkshire and Humberside fired a warning salvo? My hon. Friend the Minister may wish to comment on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) disproved the possibility that the problems that I have outlined do not arise in shire counties where the council owns the land and the county council has planning powers.
Let me make it abundantly clear that I am not advocating the return of the metropolitan counties or the GLC, but there should be a way to ensure that a city council owning the land and applying to itself for planning permission seeks public consultation and takes notice of it.
Although the majority of planning applications are not opposed, an independent system of scrutiny is required. It could be based on the public inquiry system without the cost, or by written submission to an independent inspector appointed to examine the proposals. That would enable the objectors' case to be examined by an external source.
I have given some examples of where a local authority owns a site and plans to develop it and grants itself planning permission, albeit by a planning committee with delegated powers. Despite overwhelming opposition to proposals, and because of the lack of skills, facilities and funds, many objectors feel that their views are totally and utterly ignored.
Although the Minister has been most helpful with the many planning matters that I have raised with him, I consider that the objectors' case requires raising at the highest possible level, which is why I raise it here.
"we deplore the intensification of use of this school sports fields, and demand that a public inquiry be held before planning permission is granted."
"one of the local farmers only found out about the possible sale of their farmland through Radio Sheffield and subsequent reports in the Sheffield Star. No intimation of this was received from the Council.".
She continued:
"in our dealings with the planning department we have not found them helpful, in fact when we asked for a supply of objection forms"--
1,000 forms to object to the UDP--
"we were told we couldn't possibly have them under any circumstances, and that only two forms were available. In the local libraries where they were supposed to be available there were in fact none. Everything seemed to be rubber stamped and objectors not taken any notice of. We intend to complain of our treatment in the new year."
There are no prizes for working out whom she will have to complain to--the council.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |