UK Parliament / Open data

Planning Policy

Proceeding contribution from Alistair Burt (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 March 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Planning Policy.
This debate has been wide-ranging, interesting and enjoyable, as these debates always are. First, I should say that normally my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) would answer a debate on the impact of planning policy, but unfortunately he is indisposed. Anything I say that goes contrary to our Front-Bench team's planning policy will be immediately disowned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), so I let the Chamber know in advance that pretty much I have free rein. Debates such as this are enjoyable because there is always some element of competition, along the lines of the Monty Python sketch with the three Yorkshiremen. The competition has been partly about pubs and local produce—we had the Sozzled Sausage and the Banbury cakes; my contribution is the Bedfordshire clanger, a wonderful pasty with meat at one end and fruit at the other, wonderfully made by Mr. David Gunn and his team at Sandy. Hon. Members have also competed on the age of their new towns; we went from the 12th century to the 11th century, which was then trumped by the Romans of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). All I can say to that is that my children were born in a part of Bury known as Jericho, and Jericho is the oldest city in the entire world—so I win that one. I shall go into a little more substance, as I think is appropriate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on raising the issue of planning policy clearly and sensibly. He picked out a variety of issues, a number of which I shall address, paying particular attention to two. He mentioned the problems that are likely to be caused by the new stealth tax—the planning gain supplement—that the Government are planning. It will drive up the cost of properties, be passed on to those who buy houses and do nothing to improve the affordability of housing for those who seek it. He was right to draw attention to yet another stealth tax from a Government who have become renowned for them. Secondly, I strongly support my hon. Friend in his concerns about the so-called back garden development, which is a new phenomenon. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) is nodding, and I know that that development is a concern to many of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden tabled early-day motion 486 as long ago as July last year, almost as soon as the new Parliament convened. It noted"““the growing public concern over the damaging effect of inappropriate infill development on the character of local neighbourhoods””." At that time the problem was related to PPG3. Back garden infill is very insidious, setting neighbour against neighbour. At its worst, it can take out a row of houses, because the asking price for a house becomes impossible for a householder to resist. The houses can then be removed and a new estate constructed. That is not the proper way to go about things. We are right to resist it and to urge the Government to be much more direct, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, in their opposition to it, as opposed to their current lukewarm attitude. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the key point, which is the need to preserve the distinctive character of our great historic cities and market towns—those places in this country that have history. We are proud of our heritage, but it is threatened by the inevitable march of progress. That has its place and, as hon. Members from all parts of the Chamber have mentioned, careful conservation can do wonders. Inappropriate development could be a tragedy. We have lived through the renovations of this country in the 1960s and we know what we lost. We all hoped that we had learned some lessons, but we are not so sure now that we did. The Campaign to Protect Rural England produced a report in March 2004 entitled ““Market Towns: Losing their Character?””. It will be familiar to all of us, including the Minister. It set out a series of concerns that have been echoed today. Its survey"““found that the individual distinctiveness of some market towns are at risk through ill considered, uniform development which can generate intolerable levels of congestion and stretch local services to their limits.””" Various comments were made in the survey, which ranged all over the country. The report stated:"““local retail outlets are struggling; availability of local foods is decreasing; the use of local materials in new building developments is rare.””" My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) mentioned that last point. The report continued:"““The quality, character and distinctiveness of market towns and their surrounding countryside is a huge economic asset which provides opportunity and competitive advantage. It is important that this is recognised””." My concern is that the Government are failing to learn some blindingly obvious lessons. Three or four particular points raised in this debate make that case for me. I do not think that the Government do learn lessons. The Observer this weekend had an article entitled ““Mr Prescott, please save us from another supermarket mega-shed””. It was about a planning application in Sunderland, where a local proposal to have a much more appropriate town centre development runs the risk of being lost because of proposals by a supermarket called Tesco. I sometimes wish that we played Tesco bingo in the House of Commons and awarded ourselves points for each time that company's name was mentioned, because we would all be doing very well. I am afraid that Tesco is going to take another beating from me, because I am less generous towards it than my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I feel strongly that it has its place; there is no doubt that supermarkets have made an extraordinary contribution to the retail life of this country and to the everyday lives of many people. They have their place, but we have learned over the years that sometimes their impact can be more damaging that it is worth. In the 1970s and 1980s, we learned of the damage that out-of-town centres do to town centres. I wish that the Government would now learn the dangers of the express stores—the small stores—coming into what used to be the independent retailers' area. I do not object to Tesco the supermarket; we have learned to live with it and it has many advantages, although I know that farmers are very concerned about the pressure on them as suppliers. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the worrying involvement of the big stores in small-scale retail developments in towns is very damaging. The Association of Convenience Stores claims that some 2,000 independent stores went out of business last year. The Forum of Private Business has written to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Nick Goulding, chief executive of the FPB said:"““We have written to the secretary of state, calling on him to use his powers to instruct the Office of Fair Trading to stop dithering””." That comment was made about the monopoly position of large stores. He continued:"““High streets are in crisis, with shops being forced to close at a rate of 50 a week due to the dominance of the retail chains.””" The Government have failed to learn lessons and to appreciate the dangers that are affecting our market towns, which were set out in the 2004 report to which I referred and which are echoed two years later, in 2006. There has been a slow response. Our town centres and historic market towns demand something better. The Government are also slow in relation to design. The design of new buildings in historic settings—indeed, in any setting—is important. The Minister will be aware of the criticisms made by the urban task force in November 2005. The UTF was set up by the Government but finds its voice listened to increasingly less. It issued an independent report that was critical of new design and new developments. On page 5, it stated:"““The majority of new developments remain poorly designed, with public realm and buildings of a very low quality. Where some good practice has emerged, it tends to be in smaller ‘infill' schemes where designers can relate to an existing context. However, too many housing projects are just that—thoughtlessly laid out groups of cheaply built fragmented residential units relatively isolated from surrounding communities.””" That is not what we need; we need a Government who listen carefully. A further Government failing is that when a good initiative is introduced, such as the market towns initiative that emerged through the Countryside Agency, they cannot help but meddle. They took that initiative away from the Countryside Agency and put part of it with regional development agencies. That was a transfer to an unelected body—a collection of interests which gets increasing powers and responsibilities. The Government meddled with the basis of an initiative that had attracted some interest and built up core skills, which were then diffused. The Government cannot resist being top-down, meddling and slow to respond to things that are necessary. That is the core of the issues that colleagues have raised today about our historic market towns and cities. We need appropriate planning guidance that recognises the distinctive differences and characters of urban areas in the United Kingdom. We also need a Government who demonstrate that they have learned lessons and that they have seen the dangers to our historic cities and market towns, which colleagues from all parts of the Chamber have discussed in their contributions. Above all, we need a Government who recognise the importance of local decision making rather than having decisions increasingly being made by unelected regional assemblies. The hon. Member for Cheadle had a sly dig at comments made by the shadow Chancellor, but he will have to consider how he reconciles local decision making with his own party's demands for regional government and for moving things further away from local regional councils. I assure him that our policy on the green belt is fixed: the green belt is important and remains a vital part of Conservative party planning policy; ensuring that we make better use of brownfield sites and of ill-designated green sites might help everyone. The House, and our historic cities and market towns are seeking those things, but I suspect we will not get them until the Minister and I swap places in some years to come.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c126-9WH 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Back to top