Planning Policy

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on securing the debate, but I shall start by saying how much I agree with a couple—not all—of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), first on what he describes as icon buildings, which I describe as landmark buildings and which my local planner tells me ought to be called locally listed buildings. Whatever they are, they are buildings that are of a special character in the town. On the night before the general election, I saw a building that was about to be demolished in Shanklin and I was so horrified that I took time out from my canvassing to telephone the local conservation officer to ask her exactly when planning permission had been given in relation to the building. It is a former pub that was called ““The Clarendon”” because it was built of timbers that were rescued following the shipwreck of the Clarendon off St. Catherine's point in the 17th century, yet that building was being demolished to make way for some pretty ghastly flats. I am pleased to say that the decision was taken when Isle of Wight council was controlled by a different political party from the one that controls it now. I would very much like more action to be taken to secure individual landmark buildings and to secure the protection of the character of areas through the conservation area approach. I have another story for the Minister. A house on the front in Cowes called ““Mornington”” was listed with the agreement of English Heritage. It was then, while the area was subject to consultation on the question whether it should have conservation area status, delisted without anyone in my constituency being notified. It was then demolished while the area was still under consideration. When I challenged the local authority on why it had not imposed the conservation area first and then consulted, instead of consulting first and then imposing the conservation area, it told me that it was regarded nationally as bad practice not to consult, presumably, a developer who would want to demolish a building before measures were put in place that would prevent him from demolishing it. I do not think that what I have suggested is bad practice. The Minister looks puzzled. I hope that she will look into how more sensible guidance can be given. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield in that regard. I also echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester on clone-town Britain. We are certainly seeing the development that he described in too many of our town and city centres. I note what he says about VAT, although I would rather see VAT imposed on new building than taken off repairs to old buildings. It is always easier to argue for improvements to old buildings. On section 106 agreements, which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned, I am concerned to hear that it is now possible for a developer, having secured a development with a section 106 agreement and signed up to it, to challenge after five years have passed the agreement that he freely entered into. That seems to be a case of developers having their cake and eating it, but of course it is not uncommon for developers to try to do that. Finally, I should like to reinforce the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield about the unitary development plan falling out of date. My local plan was only approved in 1997, yet it is already significantly out of date and has been made more so by changes in Government guidance. I am pleased to say that my local authority is proceeding rapidly with the creation of its local development framework, but however rapidly it proceeds, there is a gap through which the developers can sneak and develop in ways that my councillors and I do not like.