| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wilkinson: I shall proceed for a sentence or two before giving way to my hon. Friend.
To his great credit, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment lodged his objections with Hillingdon borough council, which was an extremely responsible and unusual action and helped to concentrate the mind of the local authority. His action induced the council to bow to popular pressure and to withdraw the Sidmouth drive playing fields in my constituency from its plans for social housing development.
Mr. Dicks:
Both my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) will recall that back in the '70s we had problems with the infamous Alderman John Bartlett, who wanted to turn Ruislip-Northwood into one massive council estate for political reasons. When the Conservatives took power in 1978--I was the housing chairman--I was presented with a waiting list of 10,000 people. It was completely false, because it contained the names of people who had bought their own homes or been rehoused years before. I am convinced that the figures in Hillingdon today have been falsified to justify what is called social housing--I call it council housing--and to turn even more of Ruislip-Northwood, parts of Uxbridge and parts of my constituency into council estates.
Mr. Wilkinson:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings incomparable experience of great relevance to the subject. The question of density is crucial and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred to the lack of balance, which perturbs my constituents particularly.
Now that the crucial democratic precedent has been established over Sidmouth drive playing fields, the council should also withdraw its proposals to build social housing on Field End road recreation ground in my constituency. The surface of the recreation ground is currently pockmarked with large boreholes, dug at the behest of the council at the council taxpayers' expense.
My hon. Friend the Minister continues:
My view is that the Labour Hillingdon borough council, which has clearly learnt nothing from the bad old days of socialist municipal vandalism at the hands of Alderman Bartlett 20 years ago, should waste no more council tax payers' money on proposals that have no public support, and should withdraw them totally at its unitary development plan sub-committee meeting on Thursday 21 November.
I reiterate my gratitude to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for allowing me to bring the matters to your attention. They may appear parochial, but they raise issues of national importance and planning questions of the utmost significance to my constituents.
It must be borne in mind that constituencies such as mine and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and for Hayes and Harlington are under special developmental pressure. I mentioned the horrendous application by Warner Brothers to build a theme park and film studios in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. It would have a crucial knock-on effect in my constituency. On top of that pressure we have the expansion of the motorway network and, of course, the potential fifth terminal at Heathrow airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing this debate. He has received support from my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), and they are a formidable team. As has been pointed out, the proposed changes to Hillingdon's draft unitary development plan have caused considerable anxiety to the constituents of all three of my hon. Friends, and they have assiduously pursued those concerns.
The development plan--the unitary development plan in the case of Hillingdon--should under normal circumstances provide for rational and consistent decisions, and should give greater certainty about where new development will be permitted. In permitting plans, the right balance must be struck between the demand for development and the protection of the environment. In that way, plans have a key role to play in contributing to the Government's strategy for sustainable development. Plans help to provide for necessary development, but development should be sought only in locations that do not compromise the needs of future generations.
It is right that anyone with an interest in their area and the way it will develop in the future should participate in the preparation of the plan and help to influence the emerging proposals. Indeed, an objective of the plan-led system is to secure public involvement in shaping local planning policies.
More than two thirds of the London boroughs will have adopted plans by the end of the year. Until Hillingdon published its package of proposed modifications, it looked as if it too would be able to adopt its plan by the end of this year. Hillingdon has already taken its plan to public inquiry. The inspector's report recommended modifications to the plan where the modification would provide a definite improvement.
However, Hillingdon's modifications go further. They are numerous and complex. Several are at variance with the inspector's recommendations, and some modifications bring forward new proposals. While there may be occasions when local reasons support disagreement with an inspector's recommendation, the expectation is that authorities will wish to accept the inspector's recommendations in most cases.
Given what is included in Hillingdon's proposed modifications, the borough cannot be surprised to have received so many objections. I understand that it has received 4,000 or more, the majority relating to the proposals for affordable housing on the Field End and Sidmouth drive recreation grounds.
with our preferred approach to planning and affordable housing. A further five modifications to which objections were made related to proposals for residential development on two recreation grounds.
I have obtained a copy through other sources and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for London for their assiduous efforts to ensure that the interests of my constituents were safeguarded.
Objections to the published modifications in respect of the deposited Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan are addressed to the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. I would be pleased to provide a copy of the objections made by my right hon. Friend, but the approach in the first place should be to the Council."
"We encourage local authorities to meet with objectors to discuss objections."
There have been no such effective meetings as yet, although on occasions there has been a dialogue of the deaf in the Ruislip-Northwood forum and elsewhere, but no proper reasoned dialogue.
"These informal meetings are helpful, not least to consider how the plan might be changed to meet the objections. Officials in the Government Office for London and those from Hillingdon have met recently to pursue the objections made by my right hon Friend. Further discussion is likely once Hillingdon's response to the objections they have received is known."
In those circumstances, it is clear that Hillingdon borough council should act democratically and rescind its proposed changes to the draft unitary development plan. At the least, it should initiate a public inquiry, with an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. Following the inspector's report to the local authority, the Secretary of State could either direct appropriate modifications to the unitary development plan or call it in for his decision in its entirety.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |