| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together—
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Separately.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Merchant Shipping
- That the draft Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
European Communities
- That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Database Protection Agreement between the United Kingdom on behalf of the Isle of Man and the European Community) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Animals
- That the draft Avian Influenza and Newcastle Disease (England and Wales) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
- That—
(1) at the sittings on Monday 14th, Tuesday 15th, Wednesday 16th and Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and
(2) at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Paul Clark.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
- That at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—[Paul Clark.]
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the vote that has just taken place, only 317 Members voted in favour of Third Reading: fewer than an absolute majority. Given that the majority of Members failed to vote in favour of Third Reading, is it the Chair's opinion that this would be an appropriate piece of legislation on which to invoke the Parliament Act?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is not a point of order, but a point of observation, and the Chair certainly has no opinion about it.
PETITION
Trade Justice
11 pm
Mr. Michael Weir (Angus): Many hon. Members will have been lobbied by the Trade Justice Movement within the past few weeks. I was lobbied by the Arbroath fair trade group and presented with this petition, together with supporting cards collected by our local churches, St. Andrews and St. Vigean's in Arbroath.
- To the House of Commons
The Petition of the Constituents of Angus
Declares that they have great concerns about the imbalance in world trade and wish to see Trade Justice at the top of the Agenda at the Cancun summit.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ensures that the UK government takes a lead in international trade negotiations to
1. Stop forcing poor countries to open their markets; and champion their right to manage their own economies
2. Regulate big business and their investments to ensure people and the environment come before profit
3. Stop rich countries promoting the interests of big business through trade interventions that harm the poor and the environment
4. Ensure trade policy is made in a fair, transparent and democratic way.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Planning and Development (Sutton Coldfield)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
11.1 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield): I am enormously grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing me to initiate this debate on the Floor of the House. I should like, first and foremost, to congratulate the new Minister for Housing and Planning both on his promotion and on his elevation to the Privy Council a week or so ago. Those of us who form the brotherhood of Government Whips know how richly deserved his promotion is. Indeed, we have watched with great admiration the work that he did as Government Deputy Chief Whip, when he often displayed the cunning of a serpent and the guile of a fox. Indeed, we marvel at the Government's willingness to move him, especially in the light of last night's substantial revolt against their plans for foundation hospitals. It is particularly good of him, as the senior Minister with responsibility for planning, to respond to the debate.
I am very much aware that individual planning matters are not generally a matter for the local Member of Parliament, but rightly rest with the local council. I pay tribute to all nine of Sutton Coldfield's councillors, who work extremely hard on important and difficult matters to do with planning in Sutton Coldfield. I particularly pay tribute to David Roy, who until recently was leader of the opposition on Birmingham council and is one of Sutton's most senior councillors. He is a member of the planning committee and therefore acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. He is enormously experienced in planning matters, as is acknowledged across all the parties represented on Birmingham council.
Although planning is not usually a matter for the Member of Parliament, strategic planning issues are a different kettle of fish, and it is those that I want to discuss. I hope that the Minister accepts that I would not bring such matters before the House lightly. This is only the second Adjournment debate that I have sought and been awarded in the 12 years that I have been in the House of Commons. I do so first, because I believe that the issues that I want to raise are of far more than local significance, and secondly, because they are absolutely vital to the interests of my constituents.
As you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sutton Coldfield is a hugely attractive place in which to live. People aspire to live there, not least because of the very high quality of our housing, the real sense of community and the very desirable local environment. The heart of my job as Sutton's Member of Parliament is to maintain and enhance the quality of that environment. Of course, I do not seek to preserve Sutton in aspic and I am conscious that affordable housing is important not least because of the substantial increase in house prices that has occurred locally in recent years.
A pattern has developed: developers try to buy old houses with mature gardens and replace them with blocks of flats. That happened most recently in Lichfield road, Belwell lane, Tamworth road, Clarendon road and Welford road. I observed those developments with deep dismay. I found that my views were at least partly
shared by the experienced planning team under Emrys Jones in Birmingham. They are widely shared by my constituents and the highly articulate and concerned local groups, such as the Little Sutton action group, that have sprung up. Their arguments are utterly persuasive and unanswerable. They are delivered politely, decently and correctly. They are right.Replacing old houses with multiple dwellings has a tremendous effect on doctors' surgeries, schools, local facilities, cars, parking and our local roads. Each development may appear isolated at the time, but together, their effect is incalculable. We shall wake up one morning in Sutton Coldfield and find that the whole character of the town has changed and gone for ever if these piecemeal developments continue.
Against that background, two recent development proposals dramatically exemplify the problem. The first is in Jockey road, which is a major road in my constituency. Developers want to demolish five homes and replace them with 18 houses and six apartments.
I had to rub my eyes in disbelief and check that it was not April fool's day when I heard about the second proposal. Monmouth Drive fronts on to Sutton's famous park. It was proposed to demolish four large Victorian villas with lovely mature gardens and replace them with 25 apartments in three blocks. There are many more such developments, which I have no time to mention. Proceeding with them would constitute a grotesque act of vandalism. After much local debate and concern, nearly all the proposals were rejected. Many will be the subject of appeal.
A proposal to demolish two beautiful detached houses in their own gardens on Four Oaks road, adjacent to the Four Oaks conservation area, was rejected, but the decision was overturned on appeal. The planners lost the battle, we lost the battle and 15 apartments were won on appeal at the end of last month. Every successful application encourages others in the immediate vicinity. The cumulative effect lies outside the consideration of the planning process, but it causes genuine concern.
As I said, almost all the vexatious applications have been turned down. However, in cases when the planning authority determines that a proposal is unacceptable, the applicant has the right of appeal. Far more often than is right, the applicant has the possibility of being granted planning permission. Those who object have no right of appeal. It is unfair that in planning matters, one side has recourse to an appeal mechanism if aggrieved by a decision, whereas the other side has no such right. There is no coherent reason for the appeal process in planning matters to be totally one sided.
It has been argued that allowing objectors to appeal would delay development and increase the costs of the prospective developer. I acknowledge that an even-handed appeal process would delay some developments. However, planning authorities can currently require archaeological studies of sites to be undertaken at the developer's cost. Such studies obviously cause some delay and additional cost, but are accepted as proper and appropriate.
Using the cost and delay argument to justify the current position is analogous to claiming that allowing appeals in the courts is unwarranted. We have many
appeal and review processes because it is recognised that mistakes will sometimes be made in all fields of human endeavour. The glaring omission is the right of objectors to appeal against planning decisions.The planning authority is ever mindful of the possibility of its decisions being challenged by prospective developers and of being charged with the legal costs of defending a successful appeal against the original decision to refuse planning consent. I have no doubt that that knowledge has an effect on some decisions that might be termed as marginal. It is human nature to err on the side of caution in such circumstances.
Planning policy guidance note 3, published on 7 March 2000, exacerbates the general problem that I have outlined. Paragraph 54 of PPG3 encourages
- "making best use of previously developed land"
- "improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas."
- "more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment."
Contrast that with the destruction of old housing and gardens to open up back land—what developers describe as brown land. That is absolutely outside the spirit of what the Minister or I would ever define as brown land. If one journeys by train from Sutton Coldfield into the middle of Birmingham to New street, there is extensive evidence of what I mean by brown land and what I am sure the Minister would mean by it. It may not be as profitable for developers as carving flats out of Sutton Coldfield, but it is much more in keeping with the spirit of what we at Westminster intended brown land development to be.
Those infill developments should be massively discouraged. PPG3, paragraph 52, states:
- "The Government attaches particular importance to the 'greening' of residential environments. Greening initiatives can enhance quality."
I have the highest regard for the individual planning officers with whom I deal in my constituency, and life is made more difficult for them by the lack of neighbourhood plans. They have to rely on the broad policies contained with the city-wide unitary development plan. The UDP serves its purpose, but its purpose is that of a broad strategic view of a city of around 1 million people and it cannot adequately reflect the individual characteristics of the many neighbourhoods within Birmingham or Sutton Coldfield.
Our planning frameworks fail because the development of neighbourhood plans—with the active involvement of local residents, local voluntary groups and organisations and locally elected representatives—is not central to the process, but, as set out so clearly in PPG3, an optional addition that is consequently given low priority. The Government should change that.
We remain continually at risk from developers cherry-picking PPG3 and related planning law, pushing ever harder at precedent. Technical modifications may be made, winning support on appeal for applications that are wrong in principle and should never have got that far. The balance needs to be redressed in favour of our local communities. That is my central point.
PPG3, paragraph 55, suggests that
- "Local planning authorities should develop a shared vision with their local communities of the type of residential environment they wish to see in their area and articulate this through their development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance."
- "The involvement of the Planning Authority, the local community and other relevant bodies at an early state would be advisable to speed up the decision making process and arrive at a mutually agreeable solution."
I hope that when the Minister visits the midlands, he will come to my constituency to meet some of our elected councillors and some members of the groups most closely involved with all these matters, so that he can hear for himself and see the practical suggestions that we would wish to make to give intent to the laws passed on these matters in the House of Commons.
In ending my speech, I want to quote from a letter from Ros Toon, of the Little Sutton Action Group. She says:
- "The vision the people of Sutton Coldfield have at this moment is a nightmarish one whereby good quality housing is lost, insensitive developments are approved whereby intense dwellings are introduced into neighbourhoods far exceeding the present density, completely out of character with the area and failing to enhance the locality in any way."
I repeat my thanks to Mr. Speaker for granting this debate, and I thank the Minister for attending at this very late hour. I reiterate that we must conserve and enhance the qualities that make Sutton Coldfield a desirable place to live. We must make sure that the vagaries, doubts and lack of protection currently afforded to my constituents are ended. We look to the Government to redress the balance and to address the serious threat that is currently upon us, which Ministers should have the inclination—and do have the power—to diminish.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |