Radlett Aerodrome (Green Belt)

James Clappison Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for giving me permission to take part in the debate and for the leave from appropriate quarters. I congratulate her on securing the debate.

As anybody listening to the debate will have gathered, my hon. Friend has been absolutely indefatigable in her opposition to the planning application. It would be disastrous for the green belt in Hertfordshire, for her and my constituents and for anybody who has a fondness and affection for the city of St Albans. I join her in paying tribute to STRiFE for its hard work against the behemoth that is seeking the planning application.

It is entirely right that we debate the decisions not to hold a conjoined inquiry for the Colnbrook and Radlett proposals and to grant permission for the Radlett proposal—two decisions announced just before Christmas. Those decisions can be described only as perverse and unreasonable, in view of what the Government said previously. As recently as 19 September, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wrote to interested parties to say that he was of the view that there should be a conjoined inquiry. I shall briefly quote from his letter, which is absolutely clear:

“The Secretary of State is of the view that the two schemes raise similar and inter-related issues. He considers it likely that their comparative merits will be a significant material consideration in his determination of the Radlett proposal. Furthermore, he considers that a decision on the Radlett proposal and the reasoning for that decision may have a significant bearing on his determination of the Colnbrook proposal. Given this, he is of the view that re-opening the inquiry into the Radlett appeal and conjoining it with the planned inquiry into the proposed SRFI at Colnbrook is likely to lead to a more coherent and consistent decision-making process overall.”

The Secretary of State’s view on 19 September could not have been clearer, nor could the subsequent U-turn. How can he take the view in September that a conjoined inquiry is the right way forward, then simply take the opposite view in December, without giving any proper explanation, and decide that one is unnecessary?

The majority of respondents to the Secretary of State’s letter of 19 September were in favour of a conjoined inquiry, and, in any case, all the responses to the consultation were what would have been expected from the relevant parties. The Minister needs to explain to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend how that change of mind came about. It is not good enough to say, “I have changed my mind.” Ministers need to give reasons. We cannot have capricious decision making. As matters stand, the Minister is, according to his Department’s own argument on 19 September, taking a course likely to lead to inconsistent and incoherent decision-making processes overall. That was the view in September.

Any reasonable person observing the contortions of ministerial decision making in such a short time would be driven to the conclusion that the process had been thoroughly perverse. The Minister owes it to those affected by the decision to give a proper explanation. As matters stand, the process bears the marks of a capriciousness that one would more readily associate with a mediaeval despot than a Minister in a modern democracy. I know my hon. Friend the Minister, and I do not think that it is in his nature to be a despot, but on this occasion he is giving a passable impersonation of one.

There is also capriciousness in the Secretary of State’s assessment of the harm associated with development on the two sites. In his letter of 20 December 2012, he said that he sees

“little reason to conclude that Colnbrook would meet the needs for an SRFI in a less harmful way than the appeal site”.

That stands contrary to the position the Secretary of State took when he reached his first decision only two years earlier, on 7 July 2010:

“The Secretary of State considers that if an application were to be made for a SRFI at Colnbrook of about the size indicated in evidence to the Radlett inquiry, then harm to the Green Belt might, subject to testing in an alternative sites assessment, be found to be significantly less than the harm caused by the Radlett proposal.”

[Mrs Main]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we have never had the alternative sites proposal that is necessary to determine whether an exception should be made in the green belt?

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is another matter that the Minister needs to explain. The residents of the two areas, and those who are interested in the environment, deserve an explanation as to why there has not been an alternative sites assessment. We have a Minister saying in 2010 that the alternative site could be less harmful and then saying in 2012, “No, it will not be less harmful.” I do not think that Slough has moved since July 2010 and I am certain that St Albans has not moved. What other explanation could there be? He is saying the exact opposite of what was said just over two years ago.

The decision is no small matter as far as my constituents and those of my hon. Friend are concerned. As she spelt out in graphic and correct terms, it has profound implications for the green belt in Hertfordshire. Everyone, apart from the applicant, who has looked at the application can see that it is very damaging for that green belt. As previous Secretaries of State and inspectors have concluded, this development would have a substantial impact on the openness of the green belt, result in significant encroachment into the countryside and contribute to urban sprawl, to mention but some of the highly undesirable consequences that flow from it. This development would damage the environment and reduce the quality of life for my constituents and for those of my hon. Friend in St Albans.

[Mrs Main]

Luton’s plan now includes having a rail freight interchange in the north-west sector, which should be considered as an alternative to the site we are discussing, but again it is not being considered because we are apparently too far down the road.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is again right.

The decision is deeply flawed, because such a decision should be taken only when the alternatives have been properly considered, and, they have not been in this case. Ministerial decision making has been flawed, unreasonable and perverse. It does not stand examination, and questions are not being answered. An onus now falls on the Minister to explain such clearly flawed decision making and to demonstrate that the Government really care about the green belt. As my hon. Friend has appropriately explained, as matters stand the Government’s commitment to the green belt is questioned by the decision-making process in this case, which is very damaging to the green belt in Hertfordshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I do understand, and I profoundly regret that the decision letter has been as unsatisfying to my hon. Friends as it clearly has been. I would never have expected them to be persuaded by its contents, but I might at least have hoped that it would explain why a decision with which they disagreed had nevertheless been reached, and I regret that the letter clearly failed to do that.

[Mr Clappison]

Does the Minister agree that any reasonable person who looks at the two letters would regard this decision letter as unsatisfactory?

[Nick Boles]

I am afraid that I will again have to disappoint my hon. Friend. I am not permitted to comment further on the decision letters, either those produced earlier or the current one, but I nevertheless say that I wish such letters had been more satisfying to my hon. Friends, and had at least explained to them why the position seems to have changed in the decision letter about the Secretary of State being minded to allow the proposal.

In the remaining time, I simply say that the planning job is one of the most difficult ones at any level of government. I am not pleading for sympathy; I am simply observing that the job is one in which we have to balance very difficult and important but entirely contradictory or competing demands. Of course, a good planner tries to do whatever they can to resolve those demands, by finding a way as much as possible to meet both of them. However, there are some occasions—when building a new prison, new nuclear power station or, as we are discovering, a new vital high-speed rail infrastructure that will connect our major cities—when decisions unfortunately have to be made that will never be acceptable to local people or win their support, and which will always cause them a level of pain, misery and disappointment that they feel can never be alleviated by any mitigating measures. That is profoundly to be regretted, and is not something that any decision maker, whether a local councillor, an inspector or a Minister, does lightly or with relish.