Planning Policy

: I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have raised that point with my own authority, but it told me that in one case to fight and lose an appeal cost the authority £250,000. At a time when local government is under financial pressure, those costs all have to be borne by the council tax payer. Perhaps we can understand the reluctance of councils to undertake such battles. I put it to him and, more importantly, to the Minister that by making her policy more clear, if only in her answers to me today and perhaps in the guidance that her Department issues, we could avoid such a problem arising. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My third point is on the loss of existing employment sites. Lichfield—I keep mentioning Lichfield, but my point applies to other areas—is predominantly a residential city. Many people travel out of the city each day to work in Birmingham and the surrounding conurbation. Clearly, all the daily traffic that that generates is not good for the environment or sustainability. Lichfield needs a much better balance between housing and employment sites, so that its residents can find employment in the immediate locality, but employment sites stand little chance when competing with the far greater property values that can be obtained from a high-density residential development. Instead of providing new employment sites, many of the employment sites in the city are being closed down and developed for housing. In most cases, it is not a result of business failure—they are going concerns—but the one-off bonanza of selling their land is apparently worth more than the long-term value of selling their product. A packaging factory now has 80 houses on it, and a concrete firm called Bison has permission for 175 houses. Even our greatly cherished old public houses such as the Carpenter's Arms and the Sozzled Sausage are being bought up and bulldozed to be replaced by yet more private housing. As with the development of gardens, the conversion of employment sites to residential development also attracts brownfield points, because it re-uses previously developed land and so—supposedly—benefits sustainability. However, what really happens is that it worsens the imbalance between housing and employment in the city, because more and more people have to travel out of the city to work, often to the relocated sites on the outskirts, which are inaccessible by public transport. They will probably have to drive out of town anyway to fill up with petrol, because most filling stations in the city have also been closed and sold as housing land. Even where land is earmarked for employment development, it is often not developed, because the landowners hold back in the hope of eventually securing a far greater financial gain from a residential development on the land. Finally, where planning policy currently provides a useful gain locally is through use of section 106 money, which is provided by developers. The money can be used by the democratically elected local planning authority to improve the local environment and provide necessary infrastructure. However now, the proposed introduction of a planning gain supplement—PGS—by the Treasury would require Lichfield district council and other councils to abandon their policies. That could hinder the ability to identify and respond through the planning process to the legitimate needs of wider social and community facilities than those available through PGS. The Government claim that the PGS will be a tax on developers, but it will also have a major financial impact on charities, which will receive less for their land from developers if they sell it. It will have an even more serious impact on charities developing their own land to fulfil their charitable purposes because they will not have received any income in terms of a price paid for the land against which they can offset the PGS. Yet again, the Chancellor is failing to trust locally elected bodies. He is imposing his will from the centre and introducing a stealth tax that will damage some of our most respected and deserving charities. I have four questions for the Minister. First, the Government make many fine statements about involving the local community in the planning process, so if a local community make it clear that they want lower-density development—for example, houses with gardens—will the Government provide clear guidance that such local wishes can outweigh centralised density targets? If she did that, she would answer the very point raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Secondly, will the hon. Lady accept that development on residential gardens is hardly ever justifiable and amend the guidance in PPS3 to give a fairer and clearer definition of brownfield land that specifically excludes residential gardens and positively discourages building on them? Thirdly, to maintain a sustainable balance between employment and housing, will the Minister introduce measures to restrict new housing being developed on sites that are currently in viable economic employment use? Finally, will the Minister and her Department make robust representations to the Treasury not to abandon the principles of local democracy and the application of section 106? The environment of our historic towns is fragile, yet they are a reflection of our nation's heritage. The Government are the steward of our built heritage; they owe it to future generations to ensure that that environment is not lost for ever.