Planning Policy (Housing Targets)

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Steve Brine

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

Yes—a very long time ago, as my hon. Friend says. For 30 years, the landowner and developer have dragged their feet, and have set a pattern that others seem very happy to follow. Of course, we all understand that there may be solid planning reasons for sites not coming forward as quickly as was hoped—both I and the Minister understand that—but those reasons should not include the whims of developers. Test Valley borough council is seeking an amendment to national guidance that would enable local planning authorities to factor in forecasted delivery rates in the housing land supply calculated when permission was originally granted. The review of delivery rates should be permitted only if there are sound planning reasons to do so.

I note the Minister’s response—dated yesterday—to the leader of the council, which focused on the steps local authorities can take to bring forward development. Yes, of course he is right that time scales for the start of development can be shortened, but that does not help where development has started but then progresses very slowly indeed. The fund for self-builders is, of course, welcome, but it simply will not deliver the scale of development needed to address the disputed land supply figures.

I turn now to some specific Test Valley examples. I have mentioned Parkers Farm in Rownhams, a greenfield site, which has not been included in the revised local plan but is now the subject of an appeal for 320 houses and a 60 bed extra-care facility. That site would have been considered as part of the borough local plan process but clearly was not deemed as sustainable as other potential sites. It is adjacent to another site that it is thought will imminently be subject to a planning application.

Were the two applications to be granted, they would effectively close the gap between the village of Rownhams and the Southampton city boundary. For generations Test Valley councillors have sought to maintain gaps between settlements and enable villages to retain their own identity and sense of community, but that looks to be under very real threat.

On the edge of Romsey, a site at Halterworth—again, a greenfield site and part of an important local gap between Romsey and the village of North Baddesley—is subject to a proposal by Foreman Homes for in excess of 100 dwellings and a leisure centre. Again, that site would have been considered by the borough local plan process and, again, for good planning reasons it has been excluded.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The Hampshire love-in continues. Those examples are very pertinent. There is a site in my constituency being developed called Pitt Vale, next to Pitt Manor. It is between Winchester and Hursley, and is right on the border of my hon. Friend’s constituency—she is my parliamentary neighbour. That site was considered as part of the local plan and was dismissed. It is now part of what I consider to be a speculative planning application but that I have no doubt will one day end up with the Planning Inspectorate. My constituents are angry because they have done their bit, worked with localism and created a local plan, but now they find themselves in that situation. Does she not agree that that is undermining one of the best things this Government have done—namely, the Localism Act 2011?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour makes a valid point. That is exactly the sentiment of my constituents as well.

I wrote to the Minister about Wrens Corner in Romsey Extra—he has responded recently. That is yet another example of a speculative proposal on the edge of the borough local plan and certainly not included within it. All the schemes I have mentioned rely on a supposed lack of a deliverable five-year housing land supply, despite the fact that, as I said earlier, on the cold figures Test Valley borough council has granted seven years’ worth of permissions in the south of the borough.

I will conclude, as I know the Minister will want to respond. Test Valley borough councillors have sought to be constructive and engage with him and his officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government. They have provided examples and evidence of how the five-year land supply, as it is currently determined, is being manipulated by developers. The system enables developers to bank permissions, start development, although painfully slowly, and then move on to a new site, claiming that previous developments are now not deliverable—or at least not at the same rate they had once claimed. It is rather like a cake from which a slice is cut and one bite taken out, before the consumer moves on to cut another slice: the whole cake is ruined, but nobody’s appetite is satisfied.

That is not good planning. It is not plan led, but led by speculation and greed, helping only the developers, and certainly not those seeking to buy their own homes in this desirable part of the country. I urge the Minister, who I know is in receipt of advice from his officials and my councillors, to look at the five-year supply problem and find innovative and effective ways of encouraging—or, if necessary, compelling—those who have permissions to bring their sites forward, as well as ways to deter that sort of manipulation of the system, so that ultimately communities can be constructed, rather than blighted for decades by slow or non-existent building.

Park Homes

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Steve Brine

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

As a new Member of Parliament in 2010, I did not expect park homes to feature large on my radar. I freely admit that I did not know a great deal about them and that, although I knew that a significant number of park homes were dotted around my constituency, there are more than 200 spread over seven sites. To some colleagues, especially those from the south-west, that will seem a tiny number, but in Romsey and Southampton North it represents a significant and at times vulnerable minority.

I pay particular tribute to my constituent, Tim Deacon, a member of the park homes residents association, who has made it his mission over the past 18 months to inform me of the issues facing park home residents. He has endeavoured to educate me and, along with many of his fellow residents—in particular, with another whom I will mention later—he has highlighted their issues and encouraged me to apply for the debate.

I am conscious of the fact that the subject affects a lot of hon. Members, many of whom will have far greater expertise than I do. I congratulate the mobile homes all-party parliamentary group on its hard work in drawing attention to the issue and on seeking resolutions to the problems of park home owners. I am also aware that this is only a 30-minute debate, which is a disappointment to some and will not allow all of those Members who have an interest to take part.

Many owners of park home sites are fair and upright, especially the deputy leader of my local authority in Test valley, who owns a site in Ampfield. Unfortunately, however, others are not.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. There are many good park home owners throughout the country, including in my constituency. Does she agree that they have nothing to fear from a fit and proper person test?

[Caroline Nokes]

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend: good park home site owners have absolutely nothing to fear from a fit and proper person test. I certainly did not wish to criticise those who treat their residents fairly and with respect; it is the others on whom I wish to focus and about whom something needs to be done.

Last November’s mass lobby of Parliament brought several of my constituents to Westminster and they outlined in detail their prime concern—that they could not sell their homes freely, without the consent of the park owner.