| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(2) (Liaison Committee),
- That this House agrees with the Report [22nd June] of the Liaison Committee.--[Mr. Betts.]
PETITION
Religious Broadcasting
1.22 am
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon): I am very grateful to have the opportunity to present a petition supported by more than 2,000 of my constituents which relates to the injustice whereby religious broadcasters, such as United Christian Broadcasters, are prevented from bidding for national radio broadcasting licences. Such organisations already broadcast successfully to local communities through local radio and satellite, but, for no good reason, are barred from seeking to broadcast to a wider audience. The petition has been organised by my constituent Mrs. Catherine Van Zoen, to whom I am most grateful.
- That current broadcasting legislation is unfair in the way in which it discriminates against religious broadcasters and that religious organisations should be able to compete on a level playing field with secular organisations for the full range of broadcasting licences.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their Rules and Codes of Guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.
Planning Policy (Chelmsford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
1.24 am
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): A matter of great concern to my Chelmsford constituents is the amount of housebuilding that is expected to take place during the next 11 years. They fear that whole swathes of greenfield sites--possibly even greenbelt land, if the Liberal Democrats have their way--in Margaretting and Battlesbridge will be concreted over and lost for ever, thus despoiling our environment.
The cause of that concern is the requirement for 69,600 houses to be built in the county of Essex and in Southend-on-Sea between 1996 and 2011. According to figures given by the Deputy Prime Minister, the total could be even higher. My constituents and I want that number to be reduced, as it is unacceptably high.
The current system for housing allocation and the computation of housing need is deeply flawed and unsatisfactory. It is based on a top-down approach--from the Government through county councils to borough and district councils--rather than on the bottom-up approach which would be a more satisfactory and sensible way of dealing with a highly contentious issue throughout the country.
Between 1996 and 2011, Essex and Southend must provide 69,600 new homes. Under the structure plan, they have been allocated throughout the county taking several factors into account--including locally generated needs; the economic potential to support further housing and population increases; and a range of environmental and planning constraints. That will have a bad impact on the town of Chelmsford in my constituency, especially as the land available for housebuilding is, in theory, restricted because the whole of an area in the southern part of the town is green belt--as is the land in Battlesbridge to the south-east of the district council area. My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) is extremely concerned about the impact of greenbelt changes on Battlesbridge in his constituency.
Chelmsford has been allocated the largest number of new dwellings in the area--11,950. That is wholly disproportionate and unfair for reasons that I shall outline.
First, building land available in Chelmsford is restricted by the fact that we have a significant amount of greenbelt land in the southern part of the town and in Battlesbridge. Secondly, we do not have the infrastructure to sustain the amount of housing that has already been imposed on us under the Essex county council structure plan.
Thirdly, I understand that 2,250 of the allocated dwellings are intended to meet the needs of people from outside the borough. Apparently that is because Chelmsford
- has a strategic role to play in relieving south Essex of housing pressures because of its close proximity to this area.
Instead of trying to offload south Essex housing pressures on to Chelmsford, why not put the 2,250 houses--or some of them--in the Thames gateway?
As infrastructure improvements have already been carried out in that area and more are proposed, it is better suited to meet the Government's wider sustainability goals and objectives. Furthermore, the Thames gateway is nearer to that southern part of the county in which housing pressures are so great that Chelmsford is expected to bear them. I urge the Minister and the Government to ensure that the final guidance reflects the potential of the Thames gateway by ensuring that it takes higher levels of housing provision to stop Chelmsford having to shoulder the burden,Fourthly, the Government have stated that 60 per cent. of the buildings should be on brownfield sites, and I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments and that policy decision by the Government. However, as I pointed out to the Deputy Prime Minister on 7 March, Chelmsford does not have enough brownfield sites to take 60 per cent. of the new buildings. When account is taken of the homes built since April 1996 and the housing land available at April 1999, the number of extra dwellings needed in Chelmsford before 2011 will be about 7,700. However, most of the brownfield sites have already been used or earmarked for redevelopment.
The Deputy Prime Minister extremely helpfully recognised the problem when, in answer to my question, he said:
- The 60 per cent. brownfield site that we have agreed is a national figure and will vary from area to area. In London it could be as much as 80 per cent., but areas outside London--
- do not have that proportion of brownfield site available. That is why we have set a national figure.--[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 880.]
If that is a correct assumption of how the Government will implement the policy, I urge them to intervene to implement it as quickly as possible so that we can start reallocating on a national average basis to take into account those areas that have more brownfield sites than others. If we do not take such a course of action sooner rather than later, district councils will have to plan for and implement the housing allocation numbers that they have been given. The flexibility that the Deputy Prime Minister envisaged will pass them by, because it will be too late. I urge speed in trying to put the flexible system into place.
Finally, I come to the question of what Chelmsford borough council seeks to do in allocating the 11,900 houses that it must find room for within its boundaries unless the figures are revised downwards, as I desperately hope that they will be in the not too distant future. I certainly do not envy the council or its planning department. They will have to try to find reasonable sites in which to place that housing. That will be difficult for the reasons that I have mentioned--the lack of brownfield land and the complication caused by the fact that greenbelt land lies within the council's boundaries.
I have been surprised by some of the ways in which the Liberal Democrat-controlled council have come up with recommendations. To be fair, I accept that the recommendations are for consultation and that no decisions have been made. I also accept that it would place the Minister in an invidious and impossible position
if I were to ask her to make any decisions on the suggestions that have been put forward. She is not able to do that. Decisions on greenbelt land may ultimately come before her and her colleagues, so she cannot compromise her position.In May last year, the whole council came up for re-election. The Liberal Democrats, who formed the majority before the elections, fought them on a pledge to the people of Chelmsford that, if they were re-elected to power, they would increase the southern band of the green belt in Chelmsford the whole way round the limits of the town in order to seek to prevent housebuilding in our suburbs. I could quite happily have signed up to and supported that policy, which is the one that the Liberal Democrats fought the election on.
The Conservative party did significantly well by noticeably increasing its number of borough councillors and the Liberal Democrats lost overall control of the council. However, within four months of the election, they suddenly announced to the people of Chelmsford, out of the blue, that it was not possible to implement such a policy. It surprised me that they could not find that out before the election, but they did not.
It could be assumed from that that the Liberal Democrats are deeply committed to the green belt, but their consultation document that has gone out for the people of Chelmsford to respond to--it deals with where the housing should go--refers to the village of Margaretting, to the amazement of my constituents, and to the considerable anger of most of them. Margaretting, which is to the south of Chelmsford, has no transport infrastructure worth talking about except that the A12 rather noisily passes by it. It has no education infrastructure apart from a very good primary school and, with a population of about 800, it has very few houses. It is entirely within greenbelt land. However, the preferred option of the Liberal Democrats is to have 2,500 houses placed in the village.
The villagers of Margaretting are outraged, as is anyone in Chelmsford who cares for our environment. If the borough council, in the light of its consultation, is to disregard the representations that it receives and press forward with the proposal, I can assure the Minister that I will be knocking on her door with many of my constituents to try to ensure that the Government do not relax the green belt in that part of Chelmsford.
There is a problem in the north-east of the town. The proposals that have gone out for consultation contain the idea that north of the Boreham interchange there will be an additional 1,000 dwellings. In the village of Boreham, or on the outskirts, between 1,500 and 2,100 dwellings could be placed.
Boreham is a relatively small village and local community. To impose suddenly such a significant amount of housing upon it would destroy the nature and character of the village. With the possibility of 1,000 houses north of the Boreham interchange, the village--it is about three or four miles from the outskirts of Chelmsford--could become a suburb of the town, which is not acceptable.
These examples demonstrate the difficulties caused by placing a significant amount of housing in a relatively small geographical area. The county council should certainly reconsider the way in which it has carved up the county, giving Chelmsford the largest proportion of
additional houses when that is unwarranted, unrealistic and unsustainable. The preferred option of Margaretting in the borough council's consultation document is unacceptable. I do not accept that what it is planning for Boreham and other parts of the borough is the most sensible way of proceeding.I would hope that, even at this stage, we could see a reduction in the number of houses that the county is expected to have built between now and the year 2011. We do not want our environment to be destroyed by the bulldozer, the brick and concrete. We want our villages to remain villages and our green belt to remain green belt. We want our open spaces and countryside to be just that, rather than a mass of urban sprawl.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |