| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
“It is important that the legislation should contain sufficient flexibility to allow improvements to be generated as further knowledge is gained from the experience of the establishment of marine conservation zones.”—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 435.]
I turn now to aspects of the Bill mentioned by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs and others raised the involvement of local authorities in the designation and implementation of the coastal path. The Government’s intention has always been to involve local authorities fully in many aspects of the Bill. We see them as extremely important partners, not least in the coastal access project. Following the constructive discussions that we had in the other place, we have amended the Bill to make that clear.
We believe that the English coastal access authorities—defined in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 as the local highway authority, or the national park authority in a national park—are best placed to manage many aspects of the local implementation. They include consulting local interests, contacting and discussing options with landowners, and managing the work required. Where those authorities are willing and able to act, they will be fully involved in the implementation of these proposals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made a very constructive contribution. I pay tribute to him for his work, just as he paid tribute to the work that this Government have done in bringing forward the Bill. We need to take account of socio-economics, but we have to get the balance right. We know the expectations outside the House, but we have to deliver what the Bill proposes. We must deliver sustainability in the seas and conservation, but the Bill is also about securing sustainable livelihoods. I am looking forward to teasing out that balance in Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe asked about the general objectives and responses of the proposed MMO. He called for further changes to its objectives, but the Bill as a whole is designed to put in place better systems for delivering the sustainable development of the marine and coastal environment. The MMO will be the Government’s strategic delivery
body in the marine area, and will be required to have regard to all aspects of sustainable development in carrying out its responsibilities.
I join the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) in paying tribute to the work of the lifeguard and emergency services in the recent incident to which he referred, but we must never forget what they do every day and every week. Fishermen are part of the solution as well as the challenge that we face. The Bill is predicated on bringing people with us so that they own the solution and play their part in solving some of the challenges.
In respect of two-tier marine conservation zones with highly protected areas, the Government expect that there will be highly protected areas in the MCZs. However, there will be other areas in which the wide variety of interests can be represented. What we do not want is to have super-duper versions called “highly protected areas” and others that are not as good. All the MCZs will be important, and will contribute to the ecologically coherent network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) made some valid points about ecologically coherent networks, socio-economics and the sea fisheries defence. That latter point, which was also raised by other hon. Members, is something that we will return to in Committee. He also referred to seascapes, another matter that I am sure will come up in Committee. Seascapes are mentioned in the high-level marine objectives that were published earlier in the year, and they will be covered by the marine policy statement. Moreover, locally important seascapes can be recognised in marine plans.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) spoke about co-ordination across boundaries. He was absolutely right and, as we go into Committee, I can assure him that we have the right structures to deal with Wales, Scotland and so on.
Many other hon. Members made valuable contributions in what was a passionate and well informed debate. I am looking forward to our deliberations in Committee: the Bill has already been improved significantly, but it will become better still in the next stage of discussion.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [ Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 16 July 2009.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.— (Mr. Watts.)
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [ Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52 (1)(a) ),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Marine and Coastal Access Bill [ Lords] it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(i) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department under or by virtue of the Act, and
(ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act, and
(b) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.— (Mr. Watts.)
Business without Debate
delegated legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 1342), dated 1 June 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 June, be approved.—( Mr. Watts.)
business of the house
Motion made,
That, in respect of the Parliamentary Standards 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.)
Edgbaston Cricket Ground
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mr. Watts.)
10 pm
Mr. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath) (Lab): I am most grateful to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the redevelopment of Edgbaston cricket ground, which has generated an enormous amount of interest and concern among the communities surrounding the ground.
The Warwickshire county cricket ground at Edgbaston has both a national and an international reputation. There is no doubt that a facility such as Edgbaston gives added value to the city. However, like other sporting venues in the city, including St. Andrews and Villa Park, Edgbaston is located in a primarily residential area—it is described as leafy—so it has to take account of the impact of its activities on the local community, not least in terms of congestion, parking and noise when matches are held. Although some local residents would prefer the cricket club to relocate elsewhere, I believe that the majority are not opposed to the club remaining at Edgbaston, provided its activities do not impact unreasonably on the residents and the local environment.
The planning application submitted by Warwickshire county cricket club towards the end of 2008 was for
“a new stand incorporating spectator seating, player, media and visitor facilities, museum and library, club shop and offices, conferencing, banqueting and exhibition facilities. The erection of five floodlighting columns and lights. Demolition of two dwelling houses at the Cricket Club and twelve houses on Pershore Road. Erection of mixed use development comprising residential, offices and hotel, retail, restaurants and cafes, pubs and bars as well as leisure facilities and a crèche together with service basement and multi-storey car parking and public plaza and hard and soft landscaping”.
I think the House will agree that the application was not for the replacement of old, dilapidated stands, but for a major redevelopment of the ground, which I very much equate with the “Chelsea village” concept incorporated in the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge football ground. The club estimated the cost of the scheme at £32 million.
It is acknowledged that the facilities at Edgbaston needed to be improved and updated. Account also needed to be taken of the stipulation laid down by the England and Wales Cricket Board—the ECB—that if Edgbaston wished to host international day-night matches it would need to install permanent floodlighting bases—not floodlighting pylons—at the ground.
When the planning application went to the council’s planning committee on 12 May, there was considerable annoyance locally that discussions and consultations with local residents and community organisations had been limited. At the meeting, the planning application was approved by nine votes to four. However, it had already been revealed that for some time the council’s cabinet had been in discussions with the club about the possibility that a £20 million-plus loan might be made available to assist with the redevelopment.
As part of the discussions, a report went to the cabinet on 6 April. Its most important point was that if the council did not make the loan to Warwickshire county cricket club, it
“would mean that if this project were to proceed commercial loans at increased cost will be required and would reduce significantly the scale of any...development.”
So a request for a loan of £20 million was being made to the council’s cabinet before planning permission had been given for the scheme. Furthermore, the report that went to the council reminded councillors that if they refused to grant the loan of £20 million, it would, as I said,
“significantly reduce the scale of the development.”
Surely that puts the council in a very strong position in its negotiations with the Warwickshire county cricket club. The question is, therefore, whether it will use its strength to support the reasonable request of the local community, or give in to what the club is proposing.
After the planning committee approved the application, it was notified to the Government office for the west midlands, and there was a widespread expectation that the application would be called in because of the scale of the development and the fact that that development was taking place at a major national sporting arena. Furthermore, there had been an inquiry by a Government inspector in 2000, when Birmingham city council had resisted the erection of four permanent floodlighting installations of 52 m in height at Edgbaston, and the inspector dismissed the appeal by the Warwickshire county cricket club. The five pylons now being proposed are 50 m in height.
The Secretary of State, in her wisdom, decided that the application should be decided by the city council. I believe there was justification for calling in the application. I know that this view is shared by other local hon. Members and local residents and community groups. Will the Minister therefore explain the reasoning behind not calling in the application, when the previous one in 2000 was called in?
Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): It is not quite correct to say that the previous application was called in, because the council did not determine the application, so it went to appeal. That is how it found its way to the inspector’s desk. However, the council said that
“had it been able to decide the application, it would have refused it on grounds that it would have adversely affected the amenities of occupiers of dwellings in the vicinity by reason of noise and disturbance, visual impact, light pollution and glare from floodlighting, and traffic and parking congestion.”
The inspector who decided the appeal dismissed it, agreeing with many of the council’s objections. That raises the question why the council approved the current application so quickly.
Mr. Godsiff: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points.
Will the Minister give an assurance that the five questions put by the 14 local resident and forum groups in their joint letter of 6 June to the Government office for the west midlands will receive a response, as they are all relevant to the decision-making process regarding the application?
The application is now in the hands of the city council, and in view of the fact that the Warwickshire county cricket club is seeking a preferential loan from
the city, I hope that the Conservative-Liberal-controlled council will insist that before any finance is made available, the club engages in meaningful and ongoing discussions with community groups about how to minimise inconvenience caused by the increasing numbers of spectators attending functions and international matches, and most importantly, that the five floodlight pylons are retractable, rather than permanent.
It appears that a local councillor has already attended a meeting that was held by the council leader on Monday, at which he is alleged to have said that he—the council leader—voted against permanent floodlights when he was a member of the planning committee in 2000. It also appears that assurances were given at that meeting that any loan would be conditional upon further “consultations”, as the note says. However, it is not stated with whom those consultations will take place.
Above all, nothing appears to have been said at the meeting about the council’s position on permanent or retractable lights. I strongly believe that there is a basic pre-requisite for any loan to be conditional upon retractable lights at Edgbaston. When the Department’s inspector considered the appeal by the cricket club to erect four permanent floodlight pylons in 2000, he was scathing in his objections. He stated in paragraph 25 of his report:
“My conclusion is that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area”.
“their proximity to residential dwellings would be unacceptably dominating for local residents—many houses would become substantially less pleasant places in which to live.”
Most importantly, in paragraph 40 of his report, he states:
“PPG 24 which deals with noise from recreational and sporting activities requires that the enjoyment of the participants should be balanced against the nuisance to other people.”
“This I have done, and I find permanent lights to be unacceptable.”
I assure the Minister that the rest of the report was equally scathing.
Warwickshire county cricket club, in the planning application that it has now submitted, says that it has considered
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |