Petitions
Tuesday 6 November 2007
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Post Office Card Account
The Petition of residents of the Borough of Havering and others,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the post office network provides a vital service to local communities in both urban and rural areas. The Petitioners are concerned that the threatened withdrawal of services from local post offices, by the Government, will seriously affect the governance and more specifically, efficiency of the postal network, as well as damaging community cohesion around these post offices, which in many cases acts as a central and focal point for local community interaction.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform to reverse its announcement to end support for the Post Office Card Account 2010 thereby threatening the viability of thousands of post offices and further urges it to immediately halt its activities designed to kill off the account in advance of that date.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Andrew Rosindell , Official Report, 24 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 807 .] [P000036]
Observation from t he Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform :
The Post Office is one of a number of ways to deliver Government services and still has an important role to play. The Government cannot ignore that people increasingly want to access services in different ways — using direct debits, ATMs and the phone and Internet. We believe in choice and cannot simply hand over work to the Post Office or force people to use the network.
The Post Office recognises the need to increase its range of services and products and that it needs to adapt to changing shopping habits and give sub-postmasters high quality products to sell which appeal to the needs of today’s and tomorrow’s customers.
We have supported Post Office Ltd (POL) in its efforts to develop its range of financial service products, with Government’s investment having included £500 million for the Horizon project to bring computer systems into every post office throughout the UK.
The current Post Office Card Account contract ends in March 2010. The Government decided that there will be a new service after 2010. This will be available nationally and customers will receive a similar set of services to those currently provided. EU procurement rules require us to tender competitively for this product, in order to ensure that best value for money for the taxpayer is achieved. The intention is to give a single contract and the Post Office is in a strong position to bid.
We have now started the procurement process, the first stage of which was the placement of a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). A copy of the notice has been placed in the Library.
The Government remains committed to allowing people to access their pension and benefit in cash at the Post Office if they choose to do so, and there is a range of accounts which makes that possible. This process will not affect those arrangements. We still believe that being paid into a bank or building society account is the best option for the vast majority of our customers, and around three in four of our customers are paid in this way. It gives them more choice about where and when they get their money, enables them to make savings on some bills by paying by direct debit and get interest on balances on their accounts. Many of these accounts can be used at Post Offices, still generating income for POL, which is also introducing its own new accounts.
DWP customers do not need to take any action at the moment. Existing Post Office Card Account customers can continue to be paid this way and new Post Office card accounts can still be opened. There will be plenty of publicity about the new arrangements in the future.
Communities and Local Government
59 Godolphin Road
The Petition of Residents of the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and others,
Declares the Petitioners’ serious concerns about the proposed disposal of 59 Godolphin Road, the registered premises of The Hut Association and several other local community organisations.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to use her powers to reverse the decision of Hammersmith and Fulham Council not to renew the lease of 59 Godolphin Road.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Mr. Andy Slaughter , Official Report, 5 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1165.] [P000043]
Observation from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The Government understands and recognises the concerns of local residents in Hammersmith and Fulham about the closure and disposal of local community facilities. However, the Secretary of State does not have legal powers to intervene in local decisions about the disposal or closure of community assets.
That said, the Government’s policy is to encourage local authorities and their partners to take a more strategic approach to asset management, including consideration of more community management and ownership of assets, as set in the Quirk review “Making Assets Work” and the Government’s response to the Quirk review “Opening the transfer window”.
Hammersmith and Fulham reviewed the funding of community and voluntary sector organisations earlier this year in relation to needs/objectives and there were obviously winners and losers as a result of this process. H&F also reviewed the accommodation needs of CVS groups and, although a decision was taken by Cabinet earlier this year to dispose of the three properties in question (for very different reasons), we are informed that discussion is ongoing with the groups concerned in terms of accommodation need and possible relocation.
Coal Mining
The Petition of persons living in the vicinity of the Derwent Valley and the historic Gibside Estate,
Declares that the proposed development of an open cast coal site at a place known as Skons Park will have a detrimental effect on the environment, the development of the area as a tourist destination and on the natural habitat of an area that has for centuries borne the scars of coal mining.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government to consider the negative impacts of this open cast proposal and not approve its development.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Mr. David Anderson , Official Report, 24 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 805 .] [P000039]
Observation from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
On the basis of the information made available to my Department, a planning application was submitted to Gateshead Borough Council in May 2005 by Halls of Durham, for the development of an open-cast coal site at Skons Park, Whickham in the Derwent Valley, to provide 0.5 million tonnes of coal and fireclay. In March 2006 Gateshead Borough Council refused planning permission for the development. In November 2006 the applicants lodged an appeal against the refusal of planning permission, but in June 2007 the applicants withdrew the appeal. My Department has not been involved in this matter. Until planning permission has been obtained for the development it is not able to proceed.
College Park Community Centre
The Petition of Residents of the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and others,
Declares the Petitioners’ serious concerns about the closure of College Park Community Centre and the methods in which the decision to close the College Park Community Centre was reached.
The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to use her powers to reverse the decision to close College Park Community Centre.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Mr. Andy Slaughter , Official Report, 5 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1165 .] [P000040]
Observation from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The Government understands and recognises the concerns of local residents in Hammersmith and Fulham about the closure and disposal of local community facilities. However, the Secretary of State does not have legal powers to intervene in local decisions about the disposal or closure of community assets.
That said, the Government’s policy is to encourage local authorities and their partners to take a more strategic approach to asset management, including consideration of more community management and ownership of assets, as set in the Quirk review “Making Assets Work” and the Government’s response to the Quirk review “Opening the transfer window”.
Planning
The Petition of the residents of Ruislip-Northwood and others,
Declares that Britain’s gardens are under increasing threat of destruction arising from inappropriate and unpopular development with local opinion being disregarded and communities left powerless to prevent the infill of green spaces with the loss of precious biodiversity, the increased strain on infrastructure, notably with regard to parking and traffic flow, and the resulting change in the fundamental character of neighbourhoods against local wishes.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward legislation to give stronger protection to gardens in planning law, and to allow elected local councillors to have greater discretion to protect local neighbourhoods.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Mr. Nick Hurd , Official Report, 16 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 133 .] [P000037]
Observation from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
Whilst there is a considerable need for new housing, the Government recognises that it is important to ensure development is in the right place, and that includes preventing inappropriate development in residential areas or on garden land where it is not sustainable and other sites are available.
The Government believes that what is important is not simply one of how land is defined but how sites are managed for development. Planning policy for housing - Planning Policy Statement 3 - published in November 2006 gives local planning authorities greater flexibility around the location and kind of housing they wish to see in their areas and strengthens the tools that local authorities already had under previous policy to turn down inappropriate development on former residential or garden land. They can specify targets for different kinds of brownfield land, which distinguish between residential sites and other kinds of brownfield land. PPS3 gives local authorities greater powers to restrict garden development if they have alternative viable land available and the level of development within residential areas is much higher than their plan.
The policy also places a much stronger emphasis on the quality of residential design and layout, making clear that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted. Local authorities also need to assess the extent to which new housing development provides, or enables access to, community green space, open space and private outdoor areas such as gardens, as well as provides for the retention or re-establishment of the biodiversity within residential environments.
PPS3 states in clear terms that there is no presumption that land is suitable for housing simply because it is brownfield, stressing the need for sites to be suitable for housing development, that are in suitable locations, and which will contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.
Planning (Benfleet)
The Petition of people living around the St. Mary's Church Conservation Area,
Declares that we the residents of Benfleet and surrounding areas object to the proposed demolition of the parade of shops opposite the historic St. Mary’s Church, in High Road, Benfleet to make way for a new block of four shops with five one bed and eight two bed flats in a two storey development above the shops with underground parking, on the grounds that the access is unacceptable, there are insufficient parking arrangements, particularly for visitors to those new properties and shops, and consequently the shops and public will suffer, because the bulk of the proposed building would be unacceptably detrimental to the street scene in this sensitive position around the Conservation Area and because this would put unacceptable additional stress on the existing infrastructure at a sensitive point on the highway and for many other valid planning reasons as set out by the Member of Parliament and the previous Council members for the ward, in their objections to the earlier applications which were rejected.
The Petitioners therefore call on the House of Commons to implore the Government to impress upon Castle Point Borough Council, and three Boyce Ward councillors in particular, the imperative that this application is decided by members rather than unelected unaccountable officers, and the need to reject the application on behalf of all residents of Castle Point who are sick to the back teeth of the attempts to overdevelop their community.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Bob Spink , Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 134 .] [P000041]
Observation from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The application to Castle Point Borough Council is in respect of the demolition of existing retail/residential units and construction of 8 x two bed and 5 x one bed flats and I retail units with underground parking. The application was considered at Castle Point Borough Council’s Planning Committee on 31 July 2007. The committee resolved that the application be granted conditional approval.
Parliament has entrusted local authorities with responsibility for development control in their areas. It is for them to decide, with particular regard to the provisions of the County Structure and Local Plans, any relevant views expressed by neighbouring occupiers, local residents and other third parties (although they are not bound to accept those views) and any other relevant material considerations which fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned, whether or not a proposal should be given planning permission. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervenes in this responsibility only in the most exceptional circumstances and then only when issues of national or regional importance are involved. To do so more often would undermine the responsibility given to local planning authorities.
Once planning permission has been given for a particular development, the Secretary of State has no power to intervene. The only recourse a third party would have would be to challenge the decision to grant planning permission in the High Court.
Planning (Bournemouth)
The Petition of residents of the Borough of Bournemouth and others,
Declares the Petitioners’ serious concerns about the overdevelopment in the Bournemouth area and the lack of investment in our infrastructure which are affecting the character of our town.
The Petitioners recognise the need for some development to meet the needs of Bournemouth but believe planning decisions should be made by the local authorities and not influenced by targets set by the South West Regional Assembly.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to reconsider the impact present planning policy is having on our town, introduce legislation to protect back gardens from overdevelopment, place more emphasis on supporting off-street parking facilities and ensure Bournemouth’s Greenbelt is not threatened.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. —[Presented by Mr. Tobias Ellwood , Official Report, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1581.] [P000038]
Observation from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
The housing market has not responded sufficiently to meet the needs of the country's ageing and growing population. There is a shortage in the supply of housing, the Government outlined its plans to address this and for delivering the homes that are badly needed in the Green Paper “Homes for the Future: more affordable, more sustainable”, published in July 2007, including setting a new housing target for 2016 of 240,000 additional homes a year to meet the growing demand and address affordability issues.
Whilst there is a considerable need for new housing, the Government recognises that it is also important to ensure development is in the right place. This includes preventing inappropriate development in residential areas or on garden land where it is not sustainable and other sites are available.
Planning at the regional level is essential to address regional or sub-regional issues, such as the balance between major areas of housing growth and its supporting infrastructure, that often cross county or unitary and district authority boundaries. However, Government planning policy guidance - Planning Policy Statement 3 - published in November 2006 gives more responsibility than ever before to local authorities to decide how and where new development should be built. The new policy approach gives local authorities more flexibility to shape new development according to the needs of their local areas, and allows them to make decisions on where new housing should be located in those areas. It stresses the need for sites to be suitable to housing development, that are in suitable locations, and which will contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. In assessing what sites are suitable for inclusion in their plans, local authorities need to consider, amongst other things, the current and future level and capacity of infrastructure to support the proposed distribution of development.
The policy continues the focus on developing suitable brownfield sites wherever possible. The Government has re-emphasised that it has no intention to make fundamental changes to Green Belt policy, which affords strong protection to Green Belt land.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |