House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Nov 1999 (pt 58)

12.4 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forthe Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on securing this Adjournment debate. I think it is important for hon. Members to come to the House to raise issues that concern their constituents, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for doing so.

I shall try to deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I shall first reiterate for him the purpose of the planning system. It is fundamentally to try to reconcile and balance the interests of all those concerned with the development and use of land in an area. The system recognises that there are often strong conflicts of interest in the making of final decisions. It tries to operate openly and fairly both in controlling land use and in promoting sustainable development.

Of course, not everyone is always satisfied with the outcome of a particular decision on land use, and we have heard today, rightly, some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about his local area. I assure him that the planning system operates to try to balance interests. It has never been the case that there is a right of veto on development in a particular area, and I am surprised by his comments about the inspectors. Their role is designed so that they are independent of all those strongly held interests precisely so that they can try to reach a balanced judgment in decisions that are often difficult. If the hon. Gentleman is querying the independence of the inspector's role, he is challenging a fundamental characteristic of the planning system.

Dr. Fox: I am not challenging the independence of inspectors per se. My specific question was why, if six earlier inquiries had come to the same conclusion that

10 Nov 1999 : Column 1265

development should not go ahead, the Secretary of State agreed that house building should occur in this case? What was different about this inspector's conclusions?

Ms Hughes: I heard the hon. Gentleman's contention that there had been six previous occasions on which different conclusions were drawn. If he knows the detailed, complex history of the various decisions and appeals relating to this site, he will know that his question is not straightforward. At least one decision by an inspector was overturned because throughout the inquiry he wrongly assumed that the land was greenbelt land. His decision was subsequently quashed by a court. The decision-making in this case has a tortuous history, and I shall go over that in a moment.

First, however, in the case of the Long Ashton appeal, I cannot comment on the merit of the specific planning decision because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Secretary of State has made his decision not to overturn the inspector's decision, and there follows a six-week period in which aggrieved parties can make application to the High Court. I cannot prejudice the position of the Secretary of State or any other party because we are still within that six-week period, which ends on 17 November.

I want to make general remarks about greenbelt policy, which was at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's criticism, because the debate is about greenbelt land at Long Ashton. It is very important first to stress that the land to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not have greenbelt status. However, before I say what status it has, which is germane to the issue, I want to restate our policy on green belts.

We remain firm in our commitment to green belts. I confirmed that in an Opposition day debate as recently as 2 November. Green belts are meant to remain open for as far ahead as we can reasonably foresee, and there should be a strong presumption against inappropriate development in them. That does not mean, however, that development cannot take place in green belts. It means that inappropriate development can take place only where very special circumstances exist, and we take that policy very seriously.

As I said, the Government remain committed to their policy on green belts, but it has always been open to local authorities, if they wish, to propose changes to greenbelt boundaries, and that has been attempted in relation to the land at Long Ashton on two occasions. However, such changes must be exceptional; they should take place only after rigorous examination of all the options. Furthermore, they should be open to full public consultation.

If it is proposed to add land to existing green belt--as has been twice attempted on the site referred to by the hon. Gentleman--it must form part of the development plan process. The onus is on the local authority to show that one of the five purposes of including land in green belts has been met. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, those purposes are to stop urban sprawl, to prevent neighbouring towns from merging, to help safeguard the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and character of historic towns and to encourage the recycling of urban land.

There has been no change in that policy; it remains the same as that of the previous Administration in PPG2, published in 1995. However, not only is the piece of land that we are discussing not greenbelt land, it has yet

10 Nov 1999 : Column 1266

another status. In the plan, it is earmarked as safeguarded or white land. White land is not covered by greenbelt status; it is land between the urban area and the green belt that may be required to meet longer-term development needs. The purpose of white land is to help safeguard the green belt--that is most important--by providing a reserve of land that could be built on in future, thus avoiding taking land out of the green belt. Safeguarded land does not mean that land so designated is being safeguarded for future addition to the green belt. Quite the contrary--safeguarded land can be built on in future so as to preserve adjacent greenbelt land. That is the status of that piece of land in the plan.

The Long Ashton site is not in the green belt; it was excluded in 1966. Although there have been two attempts since then to include the site in the green belt, both were quashed by the courts. When the hon. Gentleman says that decisions have been taken time after time to include the land in the green belt, that is not true.

The Woodspring local plan was put on deposit in 1995. That was the first attempt to include the land in the green belt. On behalf of the Secretary of State, the Government office of the south-west objected to that proposal, because the council had not shown the exceptional circumstances required to remove the land from its white land status into the green belt. At the public inquiry held to hear objections, the council accepted that it could not justify the change. The inquiry inspector--who is independent--concluded that there was no compelling case for a departure from national policy so as to include the land in the green belt.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, North Somerset council, the successor authority to Woodspring district council, decided not to accept the inspector's recommendation. The council's proposed modifications, published in June this year, did not allocate the site for housing--as the inspector had most recently recommended--and proposed extension of the green belt around the site. In its response to the inspector's report, the council again stated that it could not identify any exceptional circumstances to justify the proposed extension to the green belt. That is why the Government office of the south-west objected to the council's decision not to accept the inspector's recommendation; the office again pointed to the council's failure to identify exceptional circumstances.

The council is still considering its response to that objection. I understand that it is likely to publish further modifications to the plan in the near future, but I cannot speculate on that matter. As I do not know what the council will propose, I cannot say what the Secretary of State's response might be.