| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister implied that our amendments were an attempt to remove a ministerial code. The fact is, however, that the ministerial code is already in place, and we want to reinforce and affirm it. We want to give it full status within the pledge of office. As it stands, the pledge of office refers to a ministerial code of conduct in terms of some of the key Nolan principles and so on, but it does not refer to the ministerial code itself. Let us remember that previous legislation addresses the issue of the ministerial code. The Minister forgets that the legislation that set up the IMC, for instance, specifically provided for breaches of the ministerial
code to be referred to the IMC. That would be a matter for the IMC, however, not the courts, and we would not run the danger of all sorts of decisions being turned over: not just recently made decisions, but all sorts of consequential decisions that might be turned over after a number of years because somebody decided to appeal the basis on which the decision was first made.
People take cases to Brussels to hold things up. We see vested interests doing that. If someone like Michael O’Leary is threatening to take the British Government to court over something as fundamental as their action on airport security, might not it just be possible that some vested interests, including some business interests, might see fit to tie up a regional government in court, create all sorts of political implications, seek affidavits from different Ministers and have Ministers give evidence against each other, never mind the definite risk under the Bill of Ministers suing each other?
We are withdrawing our amendment not because we find any merit in the Bill in this regard—we think that there are dangers in it, and they were amplified by the Minister in his earlier reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), which confirmed that all sorts of matters could come to court. It is not lost on us that the DUP’s clear attitude is that any north-south issue is a cross-cutting matter, and therefore that even a
bit of everyday cross-border co-operation in a border area could be subject to challenge and review, as it would have to be referred to the Executive.
We will withdraw our amendment, because we want to ensure that we expedite the passage of the Bill, to try to hold to the deadline later in the week. However, just because we want to meet that deadline does not mean that we will accept any responsibility for the deadlock that will inevitably result from the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
It being Ten o’clock, The Chairman of Ways and Means put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
Clauses 5 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
That, in respect of the Investment Exchanges and Clearing Houses Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.— [Mr. Watts.]
Public Parks
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Watts.]
10.5 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is important to the people of Stanley in my constituency. For the past few months, with many of my constituents, I have been fighting a battle to save View Lane park in Stanley. The park was originally gifted to the people of Stanley by Lord Joicey, and has existed as a public park for their benefit ever since. Not only is it an important and welcome recreational space, but it is of major historical significance and it has a wealth of flora and fauna, making it a wildlife haven in an urban area. In recent years, Derwentside district council, which owns the park, has been criticised by local residents for failing to maintain it to a high standard. Despite that, the park remains a well used community facility.
Recently, a property development company, Mistal Homes Ltd, made an unsolicited approach to the district council offering to purchase half of the total area of the park to build what it calls a residential centre for adults with autism on the site. I have serious concerns about the proposed development and about Derwentside district council’s behaviour in dealing with it.
There is abundant local opposition to the sale and development of the park. I have been contacted by hundreds of local residents who do not wish to lose a significant part of an historic and well loved park. I pay tribute to Dr. David Walton and the members of the View Lane park action group, who have been campaigning to secure a future for the park. I also wish to put on record my appreciation of the tremendous efforts made by local councillors Derek Little, Kevin Howe, Carl Marshall and David Broadly. County councillors Clare Vasey and Edna Hunter have also assisted residents in their fight. A petition of more than 100 residents was submitted, along with several letters objecting to the development, and at the two consultation events held by the council, no one spoke in favour of the proposed development.
The sale of the land will result in a capital sum of £600,000 for Derwentside district council, which has stated that it intends to spend some of the money—I emphasise, some of it—on improving the rest of the park. The council claims that that is the only way to improve the rest of the park; I shall return to that point later in my speech. It is also important to note the claim that Mistal Homes approached the district council, as opposed to the council offering the land for sale.
When councillors took the decision, both in principle and in subsequent meetings, to proceed with the sale of the land, there was no discussion and no information was given to councillors regarding Mistal Homes’ financial position or the company’s track record. I find that odd, especially as I have been advised that the firm in question has no track record and has been registered with Companies House only since January. What is clear is that it is a property development company, with no background in care
provision. The company will simply build the facility, then sell it on to the highest bidder.
I am also concerned that one of Mistal Homes’ directors, Mr. Hampshire, has declared to Companies House that he has no other directorships apart from that of Mistal Homes. However, research by Dr. David Walton shows that he is also a director of several other companies, one of which, Chartnell Ltd, is late in filing its accounts and is proposed to be struck off by Companies House. A post in the London Gazette in September suggested that the company in question is going to be wound up under the terms of the Insolvency Act 1986.
I was able to get hold of copies of the minutes of the council’s executive meeting of 24 July, when it was agreed to sell the land in question. No mention was made of the widespread public opposition. A discussion took place regarding alternative forms of funding, including lottery funding, but misleading statements were made by the officers in question. A Councillor Llewellyn, who is part of the executive of Derwentside district council, questioned the officers and asked whether they would try to get lottery funding to improve the park. According to the minutes, the acting head of leisure advised
“that there is a limited number of funds for ground work and less opportunities for local authorities to apply”.
That is patently untrue. The Heritage Lottery Fund’s “Parks for People” scheme, which opened applications this year, is intended to include major capital works and is specifically tailored towards applications from local authorities. Its guidance notes say that it expects most applications to come from local authorities. In light of that, the comments of the acting head of leisure clearly misled the councillors who took this decision. This week, I was grateful to receive from Shaun Walsh of the Big Lottery information about not only this fund but the excellent work that the lottery has done to fund other parks around the country. I therefore question the validity of any decision taken by the council on the basis of misleading information from a senior officer. That must prompt the question that alternative forms of funding were available but were not put forward to councillors. The head of leisure’s claim that no other form of funding was available was clearly untrue. This must be investigated, and I have written to the district auditor to that end. The objections of local people were completely ignored, to such an extent that I would argue that this represents maladministration.
Unfortunately, that is not the only aspect of the Derwentside district council’s behaviour that has left my constituents wondering what planet it inhabits. I was concerned that the council’s bias towards the scheme, and the fact that it stands to gain financially, made it difficult for councillors to make any impartial decisions when the matter came before the development control committee. In August, I wrote to the Secretary of State to request that the planning application be called in, given the controversial nature of the development and the clear regional interest for the future of the park. Under the criteria governing call-ins, it is stated that cases to be called in may include those which
“give rise to substantial regional or national controversy”.
The proposed building on View Lane park has led to a lot of regional controversy. It has been featured in local newspapers including The Northern Echo and The Journal and on BBC local radio and Durham FM. The world-respected naturalist, Professor David Bellamy, has also made clear his concerns about the development.
The proposed development appears to be in direct conflict with planning policy guidance note 17, which states:
“Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements.”
No evidence has been put forward by Mistal Homes or Derwentside district council to support the view that the land in question is surplus to requirements. PPG17 also states:
“Parks, recreation grounds, playing fields and allotments must not be regarded as ‘previously-developed land’”.
In spite of that, the planning application describes the site as “brownfield”. Derwentside district council has confirmed that it regards the terms “brownfield” and “previously developed” as meaning the same thing. The application was therefore not made in accordance with PPG17. I wrote to the Government office for the north-east on the subject, but unfortunately it did not agree to a call-in. That was a great disappointment to my constituents and to me. I was disappointed by the Government office’s arrogant attitude; I expected it to give me its reasons for refusing to call in the application, but it did not.
As might have been expected, my concerns about Derwentside district council’s ability to make an impartial decision on the scheme were well founded, because on 12 October, the council rubber-stamped the decision to grant itself planning permission for the site. The council was intent on taking View Lane park away from my constituents, and that has raised a number of questions about the council’s efficacy. It has failed properly to consult local people and officers deliberately misled councils about lottery funding to improve the park. There was a failure to check the business background of Mistal Homes, a disregard of local people’s views, and a failure to understand the park’s importance to the people of Stanley, and the council has shown an inability to grasp the fact that the proposal does not fit with planning policy. That is a litany of failures, and I unreservedly condemn the council for the way in which it handled events.
I have been raising concerns about Derwentside district council’s conduct in respect of planning matters for some time, and in the past I have asked for an investigation. It has been brought to my attention that the chairman of the development control committee and the leader of the council hold pre-meetings before the planning committee meets, to decide what they will do. The leader of the council is on the planning committee, and I am told that he moves every single recommendation to the planning committee. Two weeks ago, that resulted in the spectacle of planning permission being granted for a development on green belt land, on a site owned by a fellow member of the planning committee, despite the fact that officers
produced a strongly worded report, saying that the application should be rejected. That is the behaviour of a banana republic, rather than what we would expect from the open, transparent democracy in the UK.
I have written to the Government office for the north-east, asking for an investigation into planning matters. I suggest to the Minister that the way in which the council deals with planning matters seriously needs investigating. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not feel able to intervene in the case. That highlights the weaknesses and shortcomings in the call-in system. There is no third-party right of appeal left to my constituents. Derwentside district council, clearly in collusion with Mistal Homes, has steamrolled ahead with the proposed development on a beautiful, historic park. I note that, in the Queen’s Speech, there is a proposal for the reform of the planning system. I suggest that the call-in system be considered, as well as the ability of local communities to appeal planning decisions. I am not referring to every single small item, but to applications affecting areas of major importance, such as View Lane park. I am talking about applications that are of concern not just to one or two people, but to major communities whose interests are being ridden over, roughshod, by arrogant and uncaring councils, such as Derwentside district council.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Angela E. Smith): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) for raising an important and serious issue. His grave concerns have led him to raise the subject tonight. Later, I shall come to the specific issues that he raised about his constituency, but first I should like to set the policy context, as that may be helpful.
Good quality green spaces enhance quality of life and contribute to wider Government objectives, such as improved health and community cohesion. Their greatest benefit is to deprived neighbourhoods. To support those aims, we are introducing a number of initiatives to raise the profile of green space and enhance its quality. Those initiatives have already helped to halt the decline in the quality of green spaces in many neighbourhoods. Evidence shows that the quality of parks has improved—for example, the number of green flag awards continues to increase, with a 32 per cent. improvement on the previous year. There is clear evidence that people are more satisfied with their local parks and green spaces. The proportion of park managers who thought that their spaces had improved or were stable almost doubled to over 80 per cent. between 2000 and 2005.
More action is required, however, to support the poorest performing parks, often in the most deprived areas. Local authorities must continue to build capacity and skills if they are to take a strategic approach to management, especially by engaging effectively with community users of open spaces—a point made by my hon. Friend in relation to children and young people. Local authorities have an opportunity to engage better with constituency Members and the community as a whole. In my own constituency, Danny Crates, the gold medal-winning Paralympian, has assembled a coalition
of interests, including the local council and myself as Member of Parliament, to campaign to improve the quality of our local parks and achieve greater usage.
We must build on success and learn from good practice to achieve a renaissance of parks and green spaces, which benefit everyone in the community. The Department for Communities and Local Government has developed an urban green space action plan and engaged everyone involved. I am loth to use the word “stakeholders”, but it is appropriate, as everyone with an interest in the subject should be engaged. We want to build on progress and target areas where we need to do better in response to recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee and the findings that the National Audit Office published in March in a report entitled, “Enhancing Urban Green Spaces”.
Our land use planning system provides strong protection for all open spaces that local communities need, including our valued public parks. As my hon. Friend said, Government policy is set out in planning policy guidance note 17—“Open Space, Sport and Recreation”—affectionately known as PPG17. My hon. Friend said that PPG17 requires local planning authorities to undertake robust assessments of local communities’ existing and future needs for all types of open spaces, including public parks. Existing provision must be audited for quality and quantity. That work will allow local planning authorities to identify deficiencies in provision in their areas and plan to meet them.
National policy is quite clear: existing open space, including public parks, should not be built on and lost from recreational use unless an assessment has been undertaken by the local planning authority which clearly shows that it is surplus to requirements. Where an assessment is not up to date, or has yet to be completed, the developer must demonstrate through an independent assessment that that is the case. Ultimately, as my hon. Friend said, that assessment is a matter of judgment for the council. PPG17 recognises that some areas of recreational land are of poor quality and are underused, but those factors are not always an indicator of an absence of local need.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I am interested in what the Minister is saying, but I can assure her that Derwentside district council did not do any of those things. The Government office should have pulled it up, but it did not do so.
Angela E. Smith: I shall come to the Government office in a moment. I was trying to make the point that it is for the council to make a judgment on whether the assessment is acceptable. Ultimately, that can be tested in court.
Councils must look at opportunities to improve the value of poor facilities through, for example, better management or new investment to secure improvements. Any decision that they make on the way forward must be balanced against the quality and quantity of existing open space provision in the local area and the improvements that can be achieved. Again, it is for the local authority to decide whether to fund such improvements, and to decide whether an individual recreational facility can meet an existing local need if investment is applied to adapt or upgrade it.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |