| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.16 pm
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for allowing me to make a short speech during this Adjournment debate. I apologise to the Minister for my lack of courtesy in failing to let him know the contents of my contribution. I understand that he will respond to me in writing.
There is a saying that the sins of the fathers are often visited upon their sons. That is certainly true when examining the aftermath of the former Government's disastrous policy of selling off landholdings that were the key to improving the nation's transport infrastructure. Towns such as Harrogate are now paying the price: first, for the deregulation of the bus industry, which put valuable town-centre sites on the market for other than transport use; and then for the transfer of British Rail's former landholdings to Railtrack.
In Harrogate, development blight has virtually paralysed a strategic town-centre site for 15 years. The borough council, like the present Government, wants brown-field sites to be used for development. It wants to see retailing development and effective transport interchanges in our town centres. That would be possible without any cost to the Treasury or local taxpayers if Railtrack could be persuaded to use its strategic monopoly for public good as well as private profit.
The former bus station site in Harrogate cannot be developed without using adjacent land that is owned by Railtrack. The borough council rightly insists that any new development should have a transport interchange, including a bus station--a position that was confirmed twice by previous Secretaries of State on appeal. The borough council is willing to negotiate on commuted payment car parking to make the scheme a success, and the site's current owner, Scottish Widows, has agreed to operate on an "open book" basis with Railtrack in order to demonstrate that the development is marginal in profit terms.
Railtrack holds the key to the town's ambitions. It owns significant areas of land that have remained under-utilised for nearly 30 years. Yet every developer who appears--and there have been many--is treated with suspicion and often hostility, and usually gives up and moves away out of sheer frustration. Why? It is because Railtrack will not negotiate--and, frankly, as my hon. Friend said, it does not need to. That cannot be right.
If Railtrack had had to pay market value for its site, its accountants and shareholders would undoubtedly force it to act. As things stand, Railtrack can simply ignore the howls of public concern and sit on land for which it has no strategic use but will not release for the benefit of future investment in rail infrastructure or for the benefit of the people who wish to use the public transportsystem in Harrogate. Furthermore, the current planning
regulations will not allow the use of compulsory purchase powers because, if Railtrack claims operational use for any part of the land, it will become exempt. In short, Railtrack holds all the cards and the pack remains sealed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford):
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate on an issue which I know is of great concern not only to him and his constituents but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and his constituents. Both hon. Members have been assiduous in pursuing the matter with me and I have had several representations from them and their constituents.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised matters relating to development which went far wide of the narrow focus of the debate, which is restricted to permitted development rights. As he will know from his contact with my office this morning, I shall write to him and deal with the points that he has made which are not germane to this debate.
As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has made clear, he and his constituents are concerned about Railtrack's exercise of permitted development rights to stockpile ballast on a site to the west of Oxford. Oxfordshire county council has made a direction under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 to withdraw these rights. If approved, the effect of that would be to require Railtrack to submit a planning application for further development on the site. The direction has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for approval.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East that the concerns raised by local residents--including those related to the impact on the green belt, noise, dust and visual amenity--are being taken into account alongside the views expressed by Railtrack and Oxfordshire county council. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot say more because to do so might prejudice my right hon. Friend's consideration of the issues involved in the case. A decision will be made as soon as possible, as I have already said in answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon.
This is a complex issue and the Government office has today asked for further evidence from both Railtrack and the county council so that a properly informed decision can be made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision will be made solely on the merits of the case and will not be influenced by the fact that works have already been undertaken.
There are, however, a number of general points of principle arising from what the hon. Gentleman has said, to which I shall respond. Permitted development rights have been approved by the House and apply throughout England and Wales. They benefit a large number of bodies in the public and private sectors, including householders. It has been the policy of successive Governments that those rights should not be withdrawn locally without very good reason. Local planning authorities have been advised in circular 9/95 that, generally, permitted development rights should be withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances. The Government stand by that principle. It will rarely be justifiable to withdraw permitted development rights unless there is a real and specific threat to an interest of acknowledged importance.
The hon. Gentleman questioned why permitted development rights originally granted to a public body--British Rail--should continue to apply to private companies such as Railtrack. In general terms, the planning system is designed to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. The ownership of the particular body carrying out the development is not relevant.
The statutory obligations of bodies such as Railtrack necessitate essential development from time to time, just as they did when they were vested in its public sector predecessor, British Rail. It would be in nobody's interest to require the submission of a planning application every time development was proposed, no matter how small or insignificant. Local planning authorities would be inundated with planning applications, the efficiency of the statutory undertaker's operations would be needlessly compromised and the resultant costs would fall to the customer.
I doubt that hon. Members would want Railtrack to have to apply for planning permission every time it needed to carry out essential safety, maintenance or enhancement works on the rail network. To do so could at the very least impose serious delays and at worst impose unacceptable risks for rail customers.
That does not mean that Railtrack or any other statutory undertaker enjoying permitted development rights can do whatever it likes. For example, in the case of the exercise of development by statutory undertakers under class A of part 17 of the general permitted development order, the development has to be by the railway undertaker on its operational land and required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail. It cannot, for example, exploit this power to build an office block or a supermarket anywhere it likes alongside the railway.
As the case that the hon. Gentleman has in mind demonstrates, even where permitted development rights exist, the local planning authority can, with certain exceptions, seek to withdraw those rights by means of an article 4 direction.
Where there is a sound case for improvements to be made to the operation of permitted development rights, the Government will of course give serious consideration to any necessary amendments to the regime. An independent study, commissioned by the Department, into the use made by statutory undertakers of their permitted development rights involved consultation with local planning authorities, statutory undertakers and a wide range of other bodies with an interest in the environment
and heritage. It concluded that, by and large, the system of permitted development rights operates effectively,but it made recommendations for relatively minor amendments to the system, and those are being considered.
The hon. Gentleman asked why permitted development rights should be enjoyed in the green belt. As I said in my written answer to him on 9 November, one reason for withdrawing permitted development rights in a particular case might be the impact on the green belt. To remove those rights throughout the green belt for works involving development, however trivial, would be unjustified. Much of the railway network passes through the green belt and I doubt that hon. Members would want essential maintenance, safety and enhancement works to be delayed or prevented on those parts of the network because of a blanket disapplication of those rights and the consequent need to apply for planning permission.
The hon. Gentleman asked also why the local planning authority may be liable for compensation where permitted development rights are withdrawn. I shall elaborate on the reply that I gave him on 9 November. Since permitted development rights should not be withdrawn save in exceptional circumstances it follows that the body deprived of the rights that would normally be enjoyed should be entitled to compensation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |