Planning Policy

First, I apologise to you, Mr. Chope, and to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for not being in my place at the start of this debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, because protecting the unique character of our constituencies is a huge priority for all Members of this House. The constituency that I have the privilege of representing has a number of historic landmarks, the most famous of which is perhaps Bramall hall, a magnificent manor house dating back to the 15th century. During my time as leader of Stockport metropolitan borough council, we took positive steps to protect the character of the area surrounding the hall and to preserve its unique qualities. The area is blessed with sites of historic and architectural importance throughout the borough of Stockport, including a market that dates back to medieval times. However, it also faces high demand for housing and other developments, so I empathise with the hon. Gentleman's cause this afternoon. All of us have the responsibility to seek to balance the competing needs of housing demand with the protection of the character of our towns, villages and neighbourhoods. That is one of the reasons why my party strongly supports cutting VAT on home improvements. Literally hundreds of thousands of properties all over the country could be brought back into use if only there were the financial incentives. In addition, I agree with the assertion that loopholes in planning policy and guidance allow building work up to the curtilage of the plot, meaning that gardens and other spaces can be compromised. Attempts to close that loophole through legislation are ongoing, and my colleagues support that course of action. However, it should be acknowledged that the Government's record on developing brownfield, as opposed to greenfield, sites is reasonably good. Nevertheless, pressures persist on communities such as those we are debating this afternoon. There is a wealth of guidance from a variety of sources that seeks to preserve the character of historic locations when it comes to planning. Indeed, English Heritage has published detailed proposals for principles that should be applied to developments in areas of historic importance. They include the careful use of materials, incorporating historic street patterns, detailed site analysis and plenty of other guidance, which, if consistently implemented, would have a very positive effect. Of course, there is guidance from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, particularly in PPS6, although that has a high degree of internal conflict in respect of market towns, historic towns and cathedral cities. One of the statement's basic premises is that"““It is not the role of the planning system to restrict competition, preserve existing commercial interests or to prevent innovation.””" However, much of the document seems to suggest a high level of encouragement, and even protection, of traditional businesses such as markets:"““Local authorities should ensure that their markets remain attractive and competitive by investing in their improvement.””" The statement goes on to say that"““Local authorities should, where appropriate, seek to protect existing facilities . . . for people's day-to-day needs and seek to remedy deficiencies in local shopping and other facilities to help address social exclusion.””" Detailed research on PPS6 and other planning guidance shows that that top-down approach does not always produce the desired outcomes on the ground, and that the results in terms of development are at best patchy. My party's aim is to decentralise the system, speed up the planning process, increase sustainability and give communities a much greater say over land use in their areas and improve their ability to shape their local environment.