| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A rumour is spreading round Westminster that a car park pass in the name of an hon. Member is being used by someone else who is associated with the leadership of the official Opposition. Will you confirm that car park passes should be used only by those who are officially authorised to use them?
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not deal in rumours.
ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments),
Madam Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation,
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
16 Dec 1996 : Column 730
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
Ordered,
Ms Ann Coffey (Stockport):
The 1,000 names of Stockport residents on this petition were collected by Mr. and Mrs. Geldard and their family. They are determined that the recommendations of the Ashworth report be implemented so that no other family should have to undergo the pain and anguish that they have suffered and still suffer. The petition states:
16 Dec 1996 : Column 731
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield):
I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the protection of the green belt. There is no doubt that the green belt policy, which has been in place for almost 50 years, has been successful.
The metropolitan green belt is well established. Most of my constituency lies within it. Without it, we probably would have had urban sprawl and ribbon development all the way between London and Oxford, if not further afield. The green belt policy is certainly firmly supported by the two local authorities that cover my constituency--South Buckinghamshire district council and Wycombe district council.
There is always the need for constant vigilance of the green belt. There is constant development pressure on my constituency, which already has three motorways--the M4, the M25 and the M40.
Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams):
There is no doubt that there is pressure on the green belt, but does my hon. Friend know of the plan to build 868,000 more houses in the south-east of England by 2011? That will certainly put enormous pressure on the green belt.
Mr. Smith:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and very much agree with him. We need to try to ensure that as many of those houses as possible are built in urban areas on reclaimed derelict land, rather than in the green belt where they would take up more of our lovely countryside.
There is constant pressure on the green belt. As well as the three motorways in my constituency, there is gravel extraction, the proposed expansion of terminal 5 at Heathrow, the complementary relocation of the Perry Oaks sludge treatment works to Iver, the Eton rowing trench and the Maidenhead flood relief scheme. I am glad to say that we saw off the threatened Central Railway project.
The Maidenhead flood relief scheme is under construction by the Environment Agency. One might think that a body called the Environment Agency would be particularly concerned about the environment. Construction of the scheme has only just begun, yet in a letter from the chairman of Dorney parish council, Mr. Ken Richmond tells me:
16 Dec 1996 : Column 732
Given the context, I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I read with some amazement the latest consultation paper issued by the Department of the Environment, which is entitled:
The paper goes on:
The paper continues:
On the document's second page--its main virtue being its brevity--which is also to do with extending a garden, it says:
The next paragraph says:
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 18th December, do adjourn till Monday 13th January.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.
That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 2958), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10003/95, relating to the development of the Community's railways, and 9654/96, the Commission's White Paper on the revitalisation of the Community's railways; and endorses the Government's position on the actions proposed by the Commission.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.
That at the meeting of the Committee on Monday 13th January, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)), the Chairman shall put any Question necessary to dispose of any Motion which may be made in relation to the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill at half-past Two o'clock, if not previously concluded.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
10.32 pm
In December 1995 10-year-old Nicholas Geldard died of a brain haemorrhage after a 12-hour ordeal. He had been shunted between four hospitals because there were no paediatric intensive care beds available in Manchester. An inquiry into Nicholas's death found many failings in the local health service and made major recommendations.
To lie upon the Table.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to ensure the urgent establishment of single specialist children's hospital in Manchester where children can be diagnosed and treated; that in the interim all children's intensive care services are reorganised to ensure that children's lives are not put at risk through bad organisation; and that those hospitals with paediatric intensive care beds be ordered to publish details of usage of those beds and how many children have been turned away each month, so the public can make sure that every sick child in need has access to a local intensive care bed.
10.34 pm
"it is becoming apparent that the Environment Agency has little or no interest in the local environment or in our opinions as to how the problems which the Agency is causing could be addressed."
Mr. Richmond also sent me three photographs of the desecration that the Environment Agency has already caused. Unfortunately, it is not possible to reproduce photographs in Hansard. I wish it were; it would probably be a little bit more interesting if it were illustrated. All that evidence underlines the need to adopt an absolutist policy on protecting the green belt. There should be no exceptions to the policy; we must have a very tough approach and be vigorous at all times.
"Proposed New Permitted Development Right To Extend The Garden Of A Dwellinghouse."
It was published last month, and says:
"The Department is concerned that the benefits of requiring a planning application are not significant".
I strongly challenge that assertion. I believe that they are significant and that the damage that would be done if one did not have to get planning permission to extend a garden into the green belt has been grossly underestimated by my hon. Friend's Department.
"Concern has been expressed to the Department that the requirement to obtain planning permission . . . is an unnecessary burden."
Could my hon. Friend tell me by whom that concern has been expressed? I was unaware of a great clamour for a change in the law in this respect. Most people understand that they need planning permission and accept it.
"It is argued that neighbouring householders and other users of adjacent land would not be adversely affected".
I beg to differ with that too. Neighbouring householders could be severely adversely affected by the proposal. Indeed, some already have difficulty with what people do in their gardens. If the new right were introduced, life would be made even more difficult for them. The paper states:
"very little is . . . gained in planning terms by the current controls in this area."
I strongly disagree with that too.
"Householders would . . . be able to fence the land, erect porches, garden sheds, tennis courts, garages and oil tanks, and install swimming pools, satellite antenna and hard surfaces subject to the same restrictions currently set out in the Order for existing gardens."
That could all be done without any planning permission.
"There would be no restriction to the area which could be added to a curtilage under the proposed permitted development right."
In ordinary language, that means that one could buy a five-acre field, fence round it, make it one's garden and, over a period of time, build any number of swimming pools, tennis courts or whatever.
than 50 per cent. of the total curtilage excluding the original dwelling, basically people could do what they liked providing it stayed ancillary to the residential use.
With your intimate knowledge of the green belt, you do not need me to tell you the sort of things people get up to and the pressure the area is under. The proposal now before us would give a green light to urbanising the Green Belt and if it goes ahead, I believe its impact would be disastrous."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |