Lorely Burt MP - THE BILL

7.08.32pm BST (GMT +0100) Thu 28th Jul 2005

Lorely Burt, Solihull's new Lib Dem MP has fulfilled her promise to introduce a bill to give locals more of a say in planning decisions today.

The text of Lorley's speach follows

Thank you Mr Speaker

I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill, in the words of the long title, to impose conditions on the sale of parkland by local authorities; to make provision about the circumstances in which a planning application may be rejected by a local authority and about rights of appeal in such circumstances; to prohibit repeated planning applications in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.

This Bill, Mr Speaker is intended to give communities a greater say in the building developments and in keeping the green heritage which shapes the character of their lives.

My constituency of Solihull, like many leafy suburbs, is characterised by green open space, parks and many lovely old properties.

But that character is being eroded by threats to this green open space and the constant destruction of these houses and the erection of blocks of luxury flats in their stead. These flats, or to use developer speak, 'apartments', stick out from the rest of the housing nearby, like sore thumbs.

Residents hate it, and more than half of my postbag relates to residents calling for action to stop windfall developments of this kind.

If councillors want to stop these developments they are constrained by central government planning guidance and policy, which permits developers to appeal against council decisions and to make councils pay all the costs if the council loses.

So, councils may be reticent to object to planning applications, but if the council won't bite the bullet and say 'no' to a planning application, local people have nowhere else to turn. THEY can't object in their own right because there's no third party right of appeal.

And if the developer doesn't appeal he can make fresh applications again and again, wearing down a community, blighting residents' lives for years and years until they either move away or lose the will to carry on fighting.

Now Mr Speaker, we understand that current planning law was designed to achieve higher intensity development which reduces the necessity for building on open space and green belt.

We applaud this, but by designating people's gardens as brownfield land, planning guidelines have had the unintended consequence of enabling developers to target windfall developments in preference to true brownfield sites.

Developers, like any other business people, are in business to make a profit. If they can develop a 'soft' target instead of tackling polluted and more difficult inner city true brownfield sites they will do so. It's like putting a goat in a garden and telling it to eat thistles and not the flowers: unless you put a restraint in the way it'll go for your prize begonias every time!

But when a developer seeks to build in someone's garden, there are often more substantial things in the way than begonias - in other words trees.

The first thing a developer will do before an application is submitted is often to fell any trees so their presence can't be used as a justification for refusing planning permission.

And unless those trees are fortunate enough to be sited in a conservation area, or have tree preservation orders on them, there's not a thing anyone can do about it.

So that's our first problem. The second one occurs if a council decides to sell off green open space, parkland or some other green amenity as defined in PPG17.

In Solihull, despite large petitions objecting, the Council has determined it's going to sell off over 6 hectares of open space to fund the redevelopment of the local leisure centre.

Despite the fact that the local community's up in arms, Mr Speaker, the council is literally ploughing ahead with destroying our green heritage.

And when that parkland is gone, it is gone forever.

And what happens when the council has another project it needs to fund? What other bit of parkland will it sell off then? Soon Solihull, whose motto is 'Urbs in Rure' or town in the country, will have to change its motto to 'Simply Urbs', or even 'Urbs R Us' because there'll be no rure left to talk about!

People care passionately about their local environment, but they have no say in the decisions taken in their name, other than to vote out those who've made the decisions at election time.

But by then, Mr Speaker, it can be too late. And sometimes the sale of green space affects too small an electorate to enable them to vote out the perpetrators.

So there has to be a way of redressing the balance, of giving local people a say in what the character of their local area should be.

So that's the problem, Mr Speaker. Now, this is how I propose this Bill would tackle it.

Firstly, the issue of Public Green Space. Councils have a duty to consult local people before green space is sold off, but where the council is determined to impose a course of action, consultation can be a sham.

I therefore propose that local communities should be given management control of council green space - effectively making it true common land. This would mean they'd have to agree to any change of use or sale.

This is already the case in rural areas where there are still commons, and the locals vote on any development proposals. If we extended this principle to public green space local people in urban areas would then have responsibilities as well as rights over their green environment.

Next windfall developments. I believe windfall developments are a largely unintended consequence of PPG 3. I propose amending PPG 3 to re-designate garden land as greenfield land.

Under the sequential test of PPG 3 true brownfield land would then have to be developed 1st - BEFORE garden land could be considered.

An exception for extensions into the back gardens of existing properties would need to be made, but if a development involved the building of more than 1 property, the rules of PPG3 could apply.

I further propose a third party right of appeal, so that where councils are unwilling to refuse an application that contravenes the local plan, local people themselves can appeal to the Secretary of State.

Next: blighting of communities by continuing re-applications for planning permission The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act of 2004 will abolish twin tracking of applications WHEN it's introduced, so that will give some relief.

However, there's nothing to stop a developer continuously re-applying for different developments on the same site. I propose that after 3 applications have been turned down within a 3 year period local residents should be given a rest and no further applications would be eligible for consideration within a further 3 year period.

This would enable an almost acceptable application to be modified and resubmitted whilst protecting local residents from the constant pressure of continuous new applications: a sort of '3 strikes and you're out' formula.

And finally, the issue of trees. The only trees which are currently protected from destruction are subject to tree preservation orders or are in conservation areas. I propose that our leafy suburbs and urban areas should be protected by extending the rules regarding felling and works to trees over a certain size or age to all urban areas.

This, Mr Speaker, will put the onus on developers and everyone who wants to destroy trees over a certain size or age to notify the local authority. Trees are not only beautiful and worth preserving in their own right: they are the green lung of our communities. You can't have leafy suburbia without the leaves!

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, central control of planning is needed in some circumstances, but one size does not fit all at a local level. People want, and should have, more control over the planning decisions which affect their lives: and this Bill will give it to them.

I beg to move this Bill.

ENDS