| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Nov 2009 : Column 267WH—continued
"It is true that a Hub development would meet wider housing needs and relieve pressures in other parts of Fylde Borough".
In other words, the strategy was focused more on the needs of Fylde borough than those of people in Blackpool.
At that point, fate took a hand. The sudden and sad death of the councillor for Stanley ward, which includes Marton Moss, precipitated a by-election in August. Inevitably, the council's position on Kensington and the future of Marton Moss became a key issue. However, few were prepared for the spectacular stream of revelations during the last five days of the campaign. My local newspaper, the Blackpool Gazette, broke the story that Kensington Developments had given two donations of £5,000 to Blackpool, South conservative association, one in July 2008 and the other in May 2009, just before its second application went in and the council revised its core strategy. The headlines that followed in the Blackpool Gazette, speak for themselves: "The Tories and the Tainted Cash," "Tories defend cash gift," "Now it is another £5,000" and "Tories agree to repay £10,000 to developers."
The planning chair stepped down from considering the future of the Moss because he was also its councillor. There were allegations that the Conservative candidate at the by-election had known about the donations and done nothing, and the north-west Conservative agent, who carried out an internal investigation, said that the money had been earmarked for the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate's election fund. The leader of the council, who said he was furious about the matter and demanded the return of the money, then demanded a letter from his councillors saying that they knew nothing about the donations. It was signed by 21 councillors, but six have not signed it. Since then, the deputy leader and other councillors have been referred to the Standards Board, and the latest headline in the Blackpool Gazette on Saturday 31 October stated, "Deputy leader in cash gift probe." It is perhaps not surprising that on the back of that controversy and the continued objections, the Government office for the north-west wrote to the council on 16 September saying that the Secretary of State was directing the council not to grant permission for Kensington's application without special authorisation and reference.
I want us to remain focused on the real issues of policy, and to emphasise the key issues. Blackpool's regeneration is a key issue for everyone in the town, and we should be looking positively for ways to take it forward. That is why I have repeatedly urged the council to engage positively with an alternative agenda to their obsession with building on the periphery, why I raised the issues with the then Minister with responsibility for housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), in the spring, and why I wrote to the chair of the Homes and Communities Agency, Bob Kerslake.
The Moss campaigners recognise that a strategy for the area must be linked to employment and skills overall. In a note on the council's core strategy, Angelia Hinds
and her colleagues say: "Absolutely nothing has been done about attracting employment opportunities. Have any proposals been put forward to suggest how this will be done or will the whole area become a dormitory town? The proximity to the M55 will encourage residents of the new village to travel to Preston and Manchester, rather than go to the centre of Blackpool. The prospects then for the inner town are not good."
Blackpool and Marton Moss need a coherent strategy that works with the grain of Government policy, the regional spatial strategy and the growth point. I ask again why Blackpool council has not turned to its partners, especially Fylde, to consider what they can do to take up some of the slack.
Kensington is still stonewalling on these issues. In its latest letter to Blackpool council, its property consultants brushed aside residents' complaints, stating that
"with regard to comments of local residents, generally I do not consider it is the role of applicants to respond...we stand by the contents of our Environmental Statement."
Ultimately, this is about sustainability and coherence. It is about not narrow nimbyism, but coherent strategy planning that recognises that Blackpool's needs can be met only with a sustainable programme for the centre. We need the dynamic twin-track approach of major, practical, cost-efficient brownfield development that can attract more HCA and private sector funding, and an imaginative new deal for Marton Moss.
The people of Blackpool and the Moss know that. Let me give the last word to some of my constituents who have contacted me. One said:
"I don't think the infrastructure is sufficient to cope...I am worried about the wildlife and who is going to buy all the houses."
"There's enough derelict and empty housing within Blackpool that could be redeveloped rather than use this beautiful nature environment."
"I agree...with the points...raised on the state of the land-it is one big bog."
"The key to regenerating Blackpool is to redevelop eyesores and dilapidated buildings...once greenfield land is developed it is lost forever."
Finally, Shirley Earnshaw of Midgeland road said:
"As a resident of Marton Moss for over 30 years I am appalled at the idea of the proposed development-we have a moral duty to protect the environment for future generations."
That is what the people of Blackpool and Marton Moss are saying. I can only hope that Kensington Developments and Blackpool council will listen to them.
11.22 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Ian Austin):
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on securing the debate and raising this important issue, which I know is of great interest to many of his constituents. It was fascinating to listen to what he had to say. I must confess that when I was taken to Blackpool as a child, we drove in and out and did not get to stop in Marton
Moss and see all the great things in the area that he told us about, so I feel that my childhood was lacking in comparison to his.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who takes a very keen interest in this issue and has contributed to the debate. Both my hon. Friends work tirelessly and effectively for their constituencies and are great champions of and for Blackpool, speaking up for the people whom they represent. I am sure that the work that they are doing on this issue will be noticed by those people. I would be very pleased if the local council could work as closely as possible with both my hon. Friends on these and other matters.
However, I must say at the outset-I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand this-that I can make no direct comment on the current planning application, because there is a possibility of that being called in for decision by the Secretary of State, and pronouncement on it now would prejudice the Secretary of State's decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South read out the results of the local paper's investigations. It should be congratulated on the work that it is doing in the area. However, it is pretty clear that there are other investigations and issues affecting this case that make it an even more sensitive issue.
I would like to clarify the Government's position on housing. Clearly, the long-term demand for housing is rising. The 2008 regional spatial strategy for the north-west increased the average annual requirement for new houses in the region from 12,790 a year to 23,111. That was based on independent research commissioned by the North West regional assembly. It attracted remarkably little controversy at the public examination. Blackpool's share of that housing allocation amounts on average to 444 homes a year. The overall housing estimates and allocations to individual local authorities were accepted by the vast majority of authorities without disagreement.
However, it is important to remember that RSSs do not go into site-specific detail and it is up to local planning authorities to decide where to locate the housing development allocated to them in the RSS. Authorities should do that through their local development frameworks. That will not only ensure plan-led development as intended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, but that local communities are fully consulted on both the need for and the siting of development in the area. Blackpool is working on a new LDF core strategy that will provide a framework for identifying sites for new housing development.
The increase in housing requirements in the north-west reflects an increased need for housing in the country as a whole. For decades, there has been a mismatch between supply and demand for new homes, leading to significant problems of affordability, particularly on parts of the Fylde coast, where housing is out of reach for those on low incomes. The downturn has significantly impacted on house prices and the delivery of housing, but falling house prices have not solved the affordability problem. On the contrary, mortgage rationing and larger deposit requirements have made it harder to buy a home. At the same time, demographic pressures continue to build, with the latest projections showing that the number of
households in England is likely to grow by about 250,000 a year. That underlines the urgent need to achieve a step change in housing supply.
It also needs to be borne in mind that Blackpool council decided, as we heard, to be part of the central Lancashire and Blackpool growth point. The purpose of growth points is to provide additional housing over and above the requirements in the RSS. The 2008 programme of development proposed a 32 per cent. uplift above RSS housing levels across the growth point as a whole and a 16 per cent. uplift in Blackpool. The programme of development proposes new housing on a number of urban sites, including the North and South Beach regeneration areas, Talbot Gateway, Squires Gate and Blackpool and The Fylde college, as well as parts of Marton Moss and Whyndyke Farm. However, the Government have always made it clear that any housing proposals in a growth point must be tested through the planning system in the normal way and that the growth point mechanism is not a short cut.
The Government have taken quick and decisive action in responding to the challenges facing the house building industry, to keep the industry moving and protect jobs. More than £7.5 billion is being invested over this year and the next to deliver 112,000 affordable homes. That includes the funding announced on 29 June as part of Building Britain's Future, whereby over this year and the next, another £1.5 billion will be invested to provide an extra 20,000 new affordable homes, of which 13,000 will be for social rent. That is good news for families in housing need, and it is estimated that 45,000 additional jobs will be created in the construction industry and related industries over the three-year construction period. It will enable local authorities to build 3,000 additional homes over the next two years-a fourfold expansion of the scheme announced in the Budget. Like my hon. Friends, I urge the council, registered social landlords and developers in Blackpool to take advantage of the extra money that the Government have made available to give the local development industry a shot in the arm.
Once development is back on track, it is the job of Blackpool council to decide where the requirement for additional housing should be met. In working on its new LDF core strategy, the council must decide on the appropriate balance between urban brownfield sites and new greenfield sites. The Government have made it clear to local planning authorities that they should normally use previously developed land first. Neither the council nor the Government should give up on regenerating Blackpool's inner area as an alternative to additional greenfield development.
The council is discussing with the Homes and Communities Agency a proposed £35 million package for new housing in the Tyldesley road area of Blackpool. It is also discussing another scheme for the conversion of houses in multiple occupation into apartments. Blackpool faces its own unique housing challenges in its inner area, arising in particular from the high numbers of HMOs and the numbers of vulnerable people whom they attract. The council is working on improving the quality of private landlord management practices and the quality of housing on offer. The Government are working on improving the town's economic base through the regional development agency and the development corporation.
While Blackpool council is considering the pattern of long-term development, I am aware that Kensington has submitted an outline planning application to build 584 houses, with associated parking, village green and so on, on part of Marton Moss. My hon. Friend will understand that, as I said, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the planning application. The council has already been directed to refer the application to the Secretary of State, should it be minded to approve it, as it could raise issues of more than local importance. It will then be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to call in the application or to allow the council to proceed to determine it. It is important, therefore, that the Secretary of State be seen to be carrying out his planning responsibilities impartially, and I cannot prejudge the case.
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue about the future of Marton Moss. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood are doing a superb job as first-class MPs in speaking up for their constituents and the communities that they serve.
11.30 am
Probation Service
2.30 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I am pleased to have secured this important debate and to know that it will be chaired by your good self, Mr. Cummings, in your usual able manner.
I pay sincere tribute to all the men and women who work as probation officers. I say that with some experience. In my former calling as a criminal lawyer, I often found that their intervention could be crucial in turning people round and redirecting them away from an inexorable life as professional criminals. It is not an exaggeration to say that many thousands of young people owe a lot to the probation services for the advice and guidance that they have received. I saw at first hand young people who were heading the wrong way and going down the slippery slope to a life of crime. They were expertly diverted by probation officers, who often went the extra mile and put in huge effort for that purpose. Those people who were going the wrong way are now holding down good jobs, are responsible parents-grandparents even-and have a valuable input into various communities in my constituency. In other words, probation works.
We know that the rate of reoffending post a community penalty is considerably less than post release from prison. Probation not only works, but is cost-effective for obvious reasons. It saves the cost both of prosecuting individuals and recommitting them to prison and of the actual offence to society. So, the good sense of committing extra resources to community penalties that are properly supervised by qualified probation officers is clear for all to see.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): I agree with the hon. Gentleman. For the £900 million it costs the UK taxpayer, probation is exceedingly good value. When I put the question about budgets to the Secretary of State on the day before the summer recess, he told me that budgets had grown by 70 per cent. since 1997 but that there were still some cuts pending. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that only last Thursday there was an announcement that those cuts have been scaled back, and does he expect the Minister to give us a bit more detail as to where the cuts will fall, because that is really important?
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I know that he, like me, takes a great interest in this field. We welcome the partial reversal of the cuts, but I believe that the cuts will still amount to about £24 million. No doubt the Minister will explain further in due course, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and he is quite right to raise it at this point.
As a last resort before imprisonment, community penalties work. However, what we have found is that the probation service has seen its work load soar over the past few years. For example, in the South Wales Probation Trust area, the number of community service orders rose from 2,760 in 2006-07 to 3,163 in 2008-09, which is an increase of 14 per cent. However, breaches of community penalties in the same period rose by an incredible 73 per cent., from 2,002 individuals to 3,816. In the case of breaches-where a person fails to carry out court-ordered work-the individuals will be warned, and if they are
unable to provide a cogent reason or excuse, they may find themselves summoned before a magistrate or judge who will often resentence them for the original or specimen offence and send them to prison.
Mike Dunne, secretary of the Gwent and Glamorgan branch of the National Association of Probation Officers said:
"The planned cuts by the Ministry of Justice will have a significant impact on the ability of the probation service in Wales to work effectively. Napo has been campaigning vigorously to fight these cuts and we have clearly made an impact, as the Minister of Justice announced a reduction in the cut to the overall budget for the Probation Service to £24 m down from a cut of £50 m. We welcome this change, but the proposed cut is still a significant reduction on an already overstretched and overworked workforce."
The consequences of a reliance on an over-stretched work force are plain for all to see. Monday's report by the chief inspector of probation found very serious failings in the supervision of potentially dangerous criminals. In almost half of the cases that he saw, probation staff fell short of the standard required, which, according to his report, was to ensure that the public in London were protected from criminals with the potential to harm them. The chief inspector found that only 54 per cent. of public protection work reached the required level, which is nine points lower than the score awarded 12 months ago.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria Eagle): The inspector's report was in respect of London probation, which is just one of the 42 areas. Obviously, I can deal with that point in my own remarks, but I just wanted to emphasise that that was not a report on the entire probation service.
Mr. Llwyd: The Minister is right, and I did say that it was London; I was not pretending otherwise. It was in London that the Dano Sonnex matter happened because of lack of supervision. Probation officers did not have the time to devote to that very important work of public protection. Clearly, there have been shortcomings, and I argue that it is to do with work load more than anything else.
Maria Eagle: I just want to clarify the findings of the inquiries following the terrible case of Sonnex. Management failings and an inappropriate allocation of resources in the London probation area led to that case, which is well documented in the reviews that took place and were published after the case came to light.
Mr. Llwyd: The Minister is absolutely right, but I, too, am correct in saying that the individual concerned was overworked and could not possibly do the work that she was assigned to do. Therefore, I was right from the beginning. With regard to the findings, I agree with the Minister that they provide a snapshot of London, but I will come to other parts of the United Kingdom later in my remarks.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |