| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Am I right in understanding the Minister to say that the Government are refusing to improve the regulations as they apply in theUnited Kingdom, or to make them stricter than the minimum international regulations? Is the Minister proposing merely to improve the surveillance of those international regulations? The people of Coventry want to know whether the Government are prepared to take action to improve the regulations as they apply to theUnited Kingdom.
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman will serve his constituents best by properly reflecting the position that I have just outlined. The ICAO safety standards are acceptably high. If properly observed and maintained, they allow for the perfectly safe operation of international aircraft. The British Government have always maintained such safety standards. The thrust of my remarks and of those by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is that some member states do not comply as thoroughly as they should with the ICAO conditions. It is important, therefore, to carry out more inspections on the ground of these aircraft--that is what the Opposition spokesman called for--and to target those inspections on airlines that may be identified as not operating to the correct standards.
The citizens of Coventry may take considerable reassurance from the speed and urgency with which the British Government introduced the new regulations following this incident. They should also be encouraged by the speed and assiduity with which the Government were prepared to react to an event that exposed some of the inadequacies of the present reporting arrangements.
Another important element in this debate, raised by several hon. Members, concerned the extent to which Coventry airport has changed over time. I would not dream of contradicting them; after all, hon. Members who are local to the area see what happens there every day and every week. Coventry now ranks as the sixth largest freight airport in the UK. Its freight tonnage rose from 700 in 1990 to 28,900 in 1994. This expansion of freight activity has doubtless been responsible for a considerable improvement in the local economy.
I fear I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, who suggested that the airport had brought very little to Coventry--if I quote him correctly. Instead, I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that everyone recognises that airports are two-headed beasts: they bring considerable benefits to local economies, which is why they are sought after by many towns and cities, and why improving them plays a prominent part
in the plans of many Labour local authorities and local authorities of all complexions; but they have a significant environmental impact, which is why it is necessary to institute a proper regime of control.
We have consulted on, and published, our proposals for new aircraft noise legislation, and we believe that they are the right way forward. They are quite separate from planning legislation and are not intended to deal with planning issues. In theory, it would be perfectly possible for the local authority to alter the planning consent that the airport currently enjoys and within which it operates, but to do so would be unprecedented, not least because it would almost certainly require substantial amounts of compensation to be paid out--an inevitable part of the planning system.
Our proposals, on the other hand, are designed to strengthen the local accountability of aerodromes and to encourage the development of best practice and of measures to reduce disturbance caused by activities allowed under current planning permission.
The operator at the airport has established an airport consultative committee which meets regularly. It is not my place to comment on the efficacy or otherwise of the arrangements--except to say that at the heart of the Government's proposals are enabling provisions to underpin the voluntary measures taken by aerodrome operators. They would be backed by reserve powers to designate an aerodrome if voluntary measures are shown not to be effective.
We remain firmly of the view that this is the right way forward. Work on producing national guidance is currently in hand. I should make it clear that we do not believe it appropriate for central Government to play a role in determining what is best for the circumstances at each aerodrome, of whatever size. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton suggested, the airport was originally very small. There are many similar airports throughout the country, and it would not be right for central Government to override the legitimate interests of local communities, which should be the arbiters of what might constitute the right operating regimes. We lack the local knowledge to undertake the task, and it would be wrong to do it.
Mr. Wilson:
I am slightly disturbed by that rather broad statement of principle. There must obviously be local discretion as regards detailed operations, but is the Minister suggesting that any commercial operator or entrepreneurial local authority can turn an airstrip into a major cargo airport, and that it is not the business of the Government to offer any form of protection to people living in neighbouring areas? If so, that is a dangerous principle.
Mr. Norris:
It would be if it was the one that I was articulating, but it is not. I repeat that the proposals suggest that we would back, by reserve powers to designate an aerodrome, the voluntary measures that we believe are, in the first instance, the right way forward. That arrangement allows for maximum local input. The hon. Gentleman is right that it would be necessary to ensure that if arrangements for, say, local consultation were blatantly inadequate, statutory underpinning would be necessary. That principle is not disputed by any hon. Member.
Contrary to what was suggested by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, parliamentary time is at a premium. While it has not been possible to incorporate the legislation in the current Session, we remain committed to its introduction as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West):
I welcome the opportunity to draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to issues in my constituency, notably those triggered by the proposal by the John Lewis Partnership for a large department store and Waitrose supermarket on the university halls of residence playing fields at Bodington.
Local councillors and action groups have for some time wanted me to raise the matter at the highest level that I could. Councillor Keith Loudon said:
That is the view of the councillor for the area.
The councillor in the adjoining seat, Ann Castle, said that a public meeting at St. Chad's showed the public dissatisfaction with the council about the future of Bodington. She drew attention to the fact that Leeds city council tried to
That she, understandably, regarded as "breathtaking duplicity".
The leader of the Conservative group, Andrew Carter, summed up the underlying issue when he said that there was
I am not sure whether that is the right English, but the proposal has certainly triggered important broader issues.
The proposal has highlighted the unsatisfactory nature of the unitary development plan, or UDP, system. That process is going on now and has been for ever and a day. It has highlighted the double standards of the Labour group that controls Leeds in handling planning applications. Moreover--this is germane to myhon. Friend the Minister--what may happen in my constituency is in blatant disregard of the Government's planning guidelines.
The university vice-chancellor has stressed to me--this is the university's land and he clearly needs substantial development money--that there is no deal. He said:
I do not for one moment challenge that, but it does not address the real issue, which is that Leeds city council tried to enter a deal and wanted money from it. It wanted half the net profit that the university would have got from the sale of land. The vice-chancellor says that that deal was at a much earlier stage, but it was as late as 1993.
I have a copy of the co-operative agreement that was drawn up and of the commentary on it by the chief development officer. In his commentary, dated 31 March 1993, he outlines the scale of the pay-off. It would have provided the city with £1.5 million if the net offer had been low as £3 million--that is 50 per cent. If the offer had been more than £12 million, it would have got
£4.5 million. It is hard to understand how, as the city council has such an interest in the site--even though it did not ultimately sign the deal--it can be objective and neutral. In fact, it backed off as soon as Tory councillors found out about it. They blew the whistle on this hole-in-the-corner deal and it was never signed.
Paragraph 2.4 of the chief development officer's document says that, in return for the money,
the Lawnswood school site, on the other side of the ring road and--
That is trying to create a Chinese wall, which is not how the Labour caucus works in Leeds. The vice-chancellor emphasised that he had been talking to the council
That is to regard the city council as a two-headed monster. It is a monster, but to believe that its planning decision will not be influenced by the fact that it is trying to get £4.5 million out of the site is perverse.
The essence of my argument is that people perceive the decision as having been influenced. However good the scheme is--I met the John Lewis Partnership people so that I could know exactly what was being proposed, and in many ways, it is a sensitively designed scheme--if people believe that the city council has different standards for gauging different planning applications, the planning process is brought into discredit.
Nobody in my patch believes that the council can be objective or impartial about that development--or any development on the site. It is determined to develop it. If, as the council admitted in the 1993 document, it was not prepared to propose an alternative scheme or to object to an application for a superstore, the clear implication is that it was prepared to agree to such an application. As a result, local newspapers have carried headlines about the £4 million deal uproar. The widespread opposition triggered this debate.
In considering more closely how the city council handles its planning applications, I draw attention to another example on the edge of my constituency. The Government rightly set up the urban development corporation for the central part of Leeds and especially for the Kirkstall valley, where Headingley rugby football club needed to sell its playing fields to merge with Roundhay, to produce a more viable and effective Leeds rugby club. Over many years, its proposals for developing the site were objected to by the city council and by Labour councillors.
The UDC took a more sympathetic view and planning permission was given to Morrisons. Since then, the city council and the Labour group have not accepted the procedures, and fought tooth and claw on every conceivable ground to delay the scheme. It is still being delayed by High Court actions. Another case is due in a fortnight or so. It is challenging part of the scheme involving land belonging to a charity, the Leeds Schools Sports Association, which desperately needs money. Its small playing field, which is attached to the main site, should be part of the scheme. Writs have been issued against the charity commissioners. Anything that can be challenged, such as this, or highways approvals--
a 278 highways agreement--is being challenged to delay the development. Yet within a mile of that site, on the site of the old Burton clothes factory--the Cardigan fields site--the city council raised no objections to an even bigger development than the Morrisons development on the Headingley rugby ground. I think that the reason for that is obvious: in the case of Cardigan fields, the council hoped to gain about £1.5 million.
Squeezed between the different approaches that could be described as double standards is a valuable charitable body, which does much good work in helping inner-city Leeds children to develop their sporting capabilities. Because of delays, the Leeds Schools Sports Association has already lost £500,000, and, if the project does not go ahead, it is likely to lose £1 million. Labour is very good at bleating about its capacity for care, concern and compassion, and its interest in the redevelopment of inner cities; but when it comes to the test, the party acts very differently.
Rumour is rife in the city, and the council's integrity in regard to planning matters has been damaged. Indeed, it is being said that planning approval is more probable if the council is likely to make money out of it. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an indication--I doubt that he can do more--that, if and when the John Lewis Partnership makes a planning application for the Bodington fields site, he will be minded to call it in and take the decision out of the council's hands? I know that the matter is not of great regional significance, but it is very important to the city of Leeds. Given public opinion, I do not think that the council will be able to convince people that its view is impartial and neutral.
Let me deal with the broader issue. The unitary development plan may be a dream for planners and lawyers, but for the rest of us it is a nightmare. It is imposing huge costs and anxieties on individuals, parish councils and anyone who challenges proposals; it is a process that is going on and on. The inspector is assiduous; everyone speaks favourably of the way in which he is handling the matter, and everyone is allowed a say. This, however, must be the biggest single plan for a city in the history of planning. My hon. Friend the Minister may be able to confirm that no structure plan has been opposed by so many people, on the basis of so many features.
There is now a planning hiatus, and a serious risk of prolonged planning blight. Part of the reason for that relates to the council's UDP procedures. Is Leeds behaving in a way that is out of the ordinary, and should it have acted more expeditiously? Perhaps my hon. Friend can clarify that. Nothing can be decided in any part of the city until every aspect of the plan has been decided. When will the protracted agony end, and when will my constituents know what will happen to Bodington fields? I fear that we shall know nothing until well into 1998, and the problem will not be over: my constituents will have to deal with the same arguments again when John Lewis submits a formal planning application.
The John Lewis plan is very detailed. It shows all the greenery, raised areas for screening purposes, buildings and so forth. Why is a UDP inspector being given such a detailed plan? I have always understood that structural plans are about broad general use.
Let me be more specific. If the plan is approved on the basis of all that remorseless detail--traffic flow information, for instance--what will happen if
John Lewis pulls out, or wants to change its plans? Will the inspector be able to tie down the development so that it remains as he approves it? Alternatively, willJohn Lewis--or someone else--be able to submit yet another plan which, because the site was approved in the UDP for retail development, could produce a quite different planning application? Given that none of us trusts the city council to do other than pass a retail application for the site, my constituents might then be landed not with a relatively sensitively designed scheme but with something appalling, as happened in 1986.
In 1986, when the university and the developers submitted a scheme, the city council was on the residents' side, and opposed it. There has been a remarkable U-turn. In its appeal, the council then said:
The council also attacked the traffic impact. One of the key factors in the dismissal of the appeal was the impact on traffic patterns. I cannot envisage a lessening of that problem in 10 years. Although a new road across the site, linking the ring road and Otley road, will ease the pressure on the roundabout, the traffic-light junction is likely to cause more congestion on the ring road. There is a lot of wishful thinking about the park-and-ride facilities: it is hoped that they will stop people from driving into the city centre. It is said that the Harvey Nichols store will act as a city-centre magnet, encouraging people to go into the centre. On the other hand, they will supposedly be attracted to the John Lewis store outside the centre; is it conceivable that they will then travel further in on a bus, to do more shopping? In fact, people will not behave like that.
The supertram is also cited, but, at the current rate, it may not operate in my lifetime. If people are going to visit the store, they will travel by car, and if they are going to go on they will go round the ring road to Marks and Spencer: they will not go into the city centre.
The development will, however, draw from a huge area. Even John Lewis's planning proposals show that it aims to tap a huge arc of prosperous satellites north of the city, running quite a long way into North Yorkshire; and why should we imagine that the development will not appeal to the south of the city? The Ikea superstore is one of many huge developments in the south, and it draws many people--including me--from the north. Those who travel through the city will add to traffic flows and pollution. In 1986, the city council used all those arguments in opposing development on the site, but it is ignoring them now and claiming that traffic problems will be eased.
Local councils are supposed to take the Government's planning policy guidance into account in designing their development plans. Remarkably quickly, we have received a revised version of the last definitive guidance. Note 6 was put out for consultation in July last year--I believe that the consultation ended in October. When will it be implemented? It is clearly central to the current debate in Leeds. Has Leeds followed the guidance? It has not even followed its guidance to itself in many respects. In its own "Leeds Countryside Strategy" document, it describes the playing fields as part of a
the lungs of the city. It now ignores the evidence that it gave in 1986-87 and it has ignored its policy documents in other areas, but, more important, is it ignoring the Government's guidance, which it must heed?
The consultation document clearly reinforces the Government's determination to revive and create more vital town centres and to protect neighbourhood centres. Rather than harming town centres by putting large-scale out-of-town developments in place, the document is concerned with promoting strategies for improving town centres and the retail developments in them. It does not preclude out-of-town developments, but it spells out certain important criteria against which they should be assessed: for example, the
In other words, it is trying to reduce reliance on the private car.
The document's central aim is to sustain and enhance the viability of town centres and to
Leeds city council cannot show that the Bodington scheme matches any of the criteria. Evidence that the city gave in 1986-87 showed that town centres in my constituency, in Otley, which is nearby, in Holt Park, which is closer still to the development, in Headingley, on the other side of the ring road, in Horsforth, which is down the ring road, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), and in Moor Allerton, which is across in north-east Leeds, will be severely damaged. It is absurd.
12.30 pm
"This proposal to put a department store on Bodington field is opposed by virtually the whole community, from university students, who see their sporting facilities moved to an almost inaccessible location, to the elderly in Holt Park, who see their supermarket within walking distance threatened with closure, to users of the A660 and the ring road, who fear the traffic congestion."
"railroad planning permission through when it had an alleged interest but rejected permission when it does not."
"a grave question mark hanging over the council's ability to neutrally administer planning applications".
"There is absolutely no question of the city council receiving any money from the proposed sale of our Lawnswood land toJohn Lewis."
"the council would accept specific limitations on the use of its own site"--
"not submit a competing retail planning application; nor will it as landowner object to a superstore application on the university site."
"in its capacity as a landowner rather than as a planning authority."
"There is . . . a clear and unavoidable conclusion that the development of the appeal proposals would seriously threaten the attempts of the City Council to maintain and enhance its city, town and district centres . . . Such development would undoubtedly conflict with the strong and unequal guidance from Central Government which seeks to prevent development which would undermine the vitality and viability of existing centres."
"network of urban green corridors"--
14 Feb 1996 : Column 971
"impact on existing centres; their accessibility by a choice of means of transport; and their impact on the overall amount of car travel."
"support local and neighbourhood centres."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |