| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to the Minister for his general attitude, even though he does not want my Bill to go further. It would be helpful to planners generally if he was specific. Is he saying that the removal of caravans and moveable items of building material is permissible under current legislation and regulations?
Keith Hill: I am saying that, and I hope to develop the point further. Let us be clear. It is common ground
between the hon. Gentleman and the Government that the issue at stake in the Bill and in the Government's response in the temporary stop notice amendments is not the substance of the powers, but the speed with which they may be enforced. The purpose is preventive. Imagine a case in which building works are commenced and, because of the delays in the law, continued; ultimately, the authority might be faced with a fait accompli. Our aim in our amendments is to achieve the ability to act far more swiftly in such cases.As I was saying, it is unnecessary to extend the powers in section 178(1) of the 1990 Act as the hon. Gentleman proposes precisely because the powers can be used in connection with any step required by the enforcement notice to be taken. That includes steps to be taken to remedy the breach, including the removal of objects, to remedy any injury to amenity and to ensure the discontinuance or cessation of a particular activity. The Bill would give local planning authorities similar powers in respect of enforcement of a stop notice as they already have to seek compliance with and to take remedial action in respect of an enforcement notice. We do not believe that that is necessary.
When a breach of planning control occurs, the local planning authority may take enforcement action to remedy the situation by serving an enforcement notice on the owner or occupier of the site where the breach has occurred. If there has been an extremely serious breach of planning control, a local planning authority can serve a stop notice under section 183 of the 1990 Act. I emphasise a point that I believe the hon. Gentleman made that contravention of a stop notice is a criminal offence. However, the stop notice can be served only after, or at the same time as, the enforcement notice. Although both the enforcement notice and the stop notice set out the details of the activity or development that must cease, it is the enforcement notice, not the stop notice, which gives details of the remedial action that must be taken. I note that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my analysis there.
As I have already said, local planning authorities have powers under section 178 of the 1990 Act to enter land and take the steps required by the enforcement notice to remedy the situation. A stop notice can be served only on the back of an enforcement notice, and must relate to the activity prohibited by the enforcement notice. The breach of a stop notice will therefore mean that the enforcement notice, too, has been breached, and the powers of entry and other powers associated with the breach of the enforcement notice will therefore be available to the local planning authority. I believe that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
In addition, section 187B of that Act already gives an express statutory power to serve an injunction in support of other enforcement functions, so an injunction can be used to enforce a stop notice's provisions where the law has been deliberately and flagrantly flouted.
A majority of those who responded to our recent review of the planning enforcement system in England—there were more than 500 responses—agreed that the range of enforcement powers currently
available to local planning authorities give them the right tools to enforce planning controls. However, respondents also suggested a range of ideas and proposals for making planning enforcement more effective. We shall publish our full conclusions on the review later in the year.It was evident during our proceedings in Committee and on Report on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that there was a strong feeling that a measure was needed to deal more quickly with breaches of planning control. That is, of course, part of what prompted the hon. Gentleman to introduce his Bill. However, we believe that there is a better solution than duplicating existing powers, as this Bill would.
As I said earlier, we have tabled an amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase (No. 2) Bill that would give local planning authorities a new power to enable them to issue a temporary stop notice. The hon. Member for Upminster asked me to spell out in more detail the terms of that amendment, and I know that that would also be of interest to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
Mr. Pickles: I realise that time is quickly passing us by, but I must tell the Minister that I am not aware of even one example of local planning authorities using the powers that he says they have to remove caravans from a site. I suspect that that is because authorities are not aware of those powers. If the Minister gets his Bill through the House, will he make it absolutely clear in guidance that as well as a temporary stop notice, removal is permissible as part of that process. If he makes that clear and explicit, he will not only make me very happy, but do a great service for local communities.
Keith Hill: I can tell the hon. Gentleman immediately that we intend to spell out as clearly as possible the existing powers, as well as the new powers that will arise from the temporary stop notice provisions.
My ministerial colleagues and I have many meetings with hon. Members from both sides of the House, especially Opposition Members, on problems associated with Gypsies and Travellers. Those problems are high on the Government's agenda, and we want to find practical solutions. My feeling is that the issue has been somewhat in abeyance in terms of policy development for some time, and that this is the moment to take our policy forward. In that context, we shall publicise the new powers under the temporary stop notice provisions as extensively as possible.
If the House will permit me, I shall say something about the content of the amendment that the Government have tabled in the other place. Where the local planning authority considers that there has been a breach of local planning control and it is expedient that the activity that amounts to a breach should stop immediately, it may issue a temporary stop notice or TSN. This differs from the normal stop notice powers, because the TSN does not have to be parasitic—
It being half-past Two o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the debate, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Remaining Private Members' Bills
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 21 May.
TRESPASSERS ON LAND (LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE AND EVICTION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 15 October.
WILD MAMMALS (PROTECTION) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL
Order read for resuming debate on Question [6 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 30 April.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (REGISTRATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 20 May.
Milton Keynes/South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
2.31 pm
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire): It is a pleasure to be able to hold this debate on a subject that is of enormous interest and concern to my constituents. I am delighted to see the Minister for Housing and Planning at the Dispatch Box. I know that he is always careful and conscientious, and I am sure that he will give a considered reply to the very serious points that I shall raise on behalf of my constituents.
My first point is that I find it somewhat extraordinary that I should have to hold a debate in Parliament today on what is essentially entirely a local matter that should, in the proper course of events, be dealt with by the relevant local authorities in my constituency. I shall say a little more later in the debate about the constitutional concerns that result from what the Government are doing with planning and house building.
In essence, as far as South Bedfordshire is concerned, the Milton Keynes and south midlands sub-regional strategy intends to ensure that, up to 2031, 43,000 additional houses are built to the north and west of Dunstable and Houghton Regis, with others perhaps around the village of Stanbridge. In addition, there is the possibility that a further 8,000 houses could be built in the town of Leighton Buzzard. Further expansion is possible on top of that.
Let me put the issue in context and explain what the broader parameters mean for South Bedfordshire. If another 51,000 houses are built, we will be looking at an increase of roughly 100,000 people. I have calculated that carefully on the census data, and it is a conservative estimate based on the household numbers currently in Bedfordshire. It will also mean—again, calculated on a conservative basis—roughly 70,000 more cars on the roads of South Bedfordshire. We are looking at doubling the population of the area.
I am well aware, as the local Member of Parliament, that there is great housing need in my constituency. I defer to no one in wanting to see that solved. I feel highly inadequate as a Member of Parliament when, week after week, my constituents come to me because they are unhoused or very inadequately housed. I know that, in the short term, there is very little that I, my local housing authority or local housing associations can offer them.
We have about 2,000 people on the local housing list and South Bedfordshire district council already had in place before the arrival of the communities plan, as it is called, plans to build another 7,000 houses in South Bedfordshire. That alone is not an insignificant expansion for the local area. My constituents cannot understand the scale and nature of the Government's proposals to build between 43,000 and 51,000 extra houses in South Bedfordshire, but, judging by everything that I have heard, they fundamentally disagree with them. I want to analyse why the scale and nature of the Government's proposals for South Bedfordshire are not right for our area. We must relate
the situation to jobs and consider the Bedfordshire economy, because having a house is one thing, but we must consider how the people who will live in them will survive economically and earn their living.At the moment, 40 per cent. of the work force in Bedfordshire commutes out of the county to work, which causes massive congestion on our roads. The M1 is regularly gridlocked, and although I know that there are plans to widen it, I suspect that it will remain a pretty packed road, especially at commuting times. Trains on the main railway lines to London that run through Leighton Buzzard and Luton are very full during regular commuting times.
I have heard no convincing explanation of how we will find jobs for the workers among the 100,000 extra people who will come to live in South Bedfordshire. The job growth that we can realistically envisage is likely to happen on the south-east side of Luton—around the old Vauxhall car plant site and Luton airport—but that is directly on the other side of Luton from where the majority of the houses will be built. That does not seem to make sense, and it will lead to further local congestion. Roughly 1,200 people are currently unemployed in South Bedfordshire—the figure has slightly risen over the past few months—and the situation will lead to further competition for those people. Many people in Leighton Buzzard would like to work locally, but are unable to do so. They have to commute to London, Milton Keynes, Watford or other larger towns in the area.
There are fundamental questions on transport to which we do not have the answers. Will the Minister give me an absolutely honest answer to a principal question: what is the purpose of the Dunstable northern bypass? The Highways Agency believes, on the basis of the London to south midlands multi-modal study that the Government commissioned, that the bypass, for which people have been asking for 80 years, is required now to relieve awful congestion in Dunstable and Houghton Regis. It is unusual to find a major stretch of trunk road going through the middle of an urban area to such a degree as the A5 does in Dunstable and on the edge of Houghton Regis. However, if one studies the Milton Keynes and south midlands study and the pronouncements of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, one sees that the Dunstable northern bypass is clearly described as a route that will facilitate further growth in the area. Those two statements and reasons cannot stand together. My constituents would tell the Minister that the road is desperately needed as soon as possible to cope with current congestion and that house building on anything like the scale proposed would make the situation even worse than it is at present. We really need an answer about what is happening.
I am pleased that Bedfordshire county council has called on the Government to undertake a serious transport study of the whole of south Bedfordshire. It especially calls on them to create a strategic rail connection between the west coast main line near Leighton Buzzard and the midland main line near Luton. That is significant, not least because Bedfordshire county council has withdrawn its support for the Translink scheme, which it supported for many years in its early days. Recent studies have shown that
Translink is likely to lead to a reduction of only 1 per cent. in car traffic between Luton, central Dunstable and Houghton Regis. It would be incredibly expensive and bad value for money, and would not serve people in the outlying areas who need to get to the towns concerned. So we have serious questions on transport in the area.As for the infrastructure that will need to be provided for even 7,000 to 8,000 additional houses in the district, we know that the Government intend to build the bypass out of the planning gain from the houses that they hope to build south of it—so section 106 money will go towards that. We have no commitments on the additional community facilities that will be needed, such as schools and those that provide health care. There are serious concerns about essential things, such as water. The Minister will be familiar with the report by the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which drew attention to the problem of water supply. It is likely that water will end up being extremely expensive within the south Bedfordshire area because of the additional works that will need to be put in place.
We know from a recent Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation that local authorities will not get extra landfill allowances for a growth in population, but the plan to have an incinerator at the Shank's plant south of Bletchley was recently overturned. There are concerns about such basic matters.
Woodland and green spaces outside of our towns will be under huge pressure. The owner of land on the edge of Linslade recently tried to bulldoze a community woodland area. Thankfully, that was stopped, but that action is indicative of the pressures that my area faces.
Leighton Buzzard has a significant infrastructure shortage. There is no local hospital facility. Again, high numbers of people commute out of the town, many of whom would like to work locally. The town is already severely congested. Those issues need to be addressed now, before we agree to large numbers of extra housing.
Perhaps the Minister can help me with my concerns about the green belt. My constituents were intrigued to read a letter from the Minister's boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, in the Daily Mail on 6 February, in which he said:
- "Your article on Wednesday mentioned 'threatened Downing Street plans to allow thousands of homes on Green Belt land'. There are no such plans. No Ministers are demanding the rules on Green Belt must be relaxed."
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that the Minister is steering through Parliament allows unelected regional assemblies, through their regional spatial strategies, to dictate the number and style of houses that are built in localities. The Minister's communities plan goes even further, in that it introduces urban development corporations, with a minority of elected councillors who will take the vital decisions that should be taken locally.
We face a worrying fact in respect of the public examination. When the commissioners were asked recently whether the Government would listen if the strategy were found to be unsound, the reply was that this was part of Government policy and that the Government had a majority. What is local democracy for if it is not for local people to take local decisions on the key matters that affect their areas?
I wonder whether the Minister saw the report in The Times on 12 February by Camilla Cavendish, one of its distinguished journalists. She wrote:
- "This is not even 'predict and provide', it is 'dictate and provide'."
We are not nimbys in south Bedfordshire. We recognise that there needs to be future growth. We want to provide for those who are inadequately housed in a sensible and planned way. The Minister has many serious questions to answer. My constituents are about to hang on his every word.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |