Joan Ruddock
Main Page: Joan Ruddock (Labour - Lewisham, Deptford)
Greg Clark
The combination of neighbourhood plans and local plans in the new system will be much more robust than at present. My hon. Friend can reasonably expect that they will govern the decisions that are taken. Too often at the moment, an appearance before the planning committee is merely the first step on the way to an appeal, and that is the wrong way to do planning.
I want briefly to refer to the amendments on betting shops tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I know from our conversations that he is very concerned about the proliferation of betting shops in his community and elsewhere. We announced in the Budget a review of how use class orders, relating to a change in use, are handled in the planning system. I will ensure that a specific part of that review deals with the very real issue in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and we will look at what can be done to make progress in that regard.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
When the Minister undertakes that review and looks into the issue, will he consider the fact that there are clusters of betting shops in many high streets, including Deptford high street in my constituency, and that they are crowding out regeneration and diversity of retail? This proliferation of betting shops is blighting many areas. He needs to take into account not only changes of use but the fact that there are far too many instances of this single type of operation being clustered in one street, which I am sorry to say attracts a lot of antisocial behaviour.
Greg Clark
I understand the right hon. Lady’s point. This is something that is reflected across the country. One aspect of neighbourhood planning will look at the character of high streets, in particular, to ensure a proper diversity of uses.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
I shall speak briefly to new clause 5, which stands in my name. The new clause is designed to allow the Secretary of State to change, by order, any piece of planning legislation that is causing any planning authority problems in carrying out its statutory duties or where a particular piece of planning legislation is causing local public controversy. I appreciate that this is an extensive power for the Secretary of State, but I also propose, as part of the same amendment, a strong safeguard in that a variation in the law may be made only if it has been subject to a positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
The need for such a power is evidenced by an issue in my constituency. Brighton Marina was built in the 1970s following the lengthy passage of the Brighton Marina Act 1968. The marina is located in an undercliff location on land that was reclaimed from the sea. From the coast road anyone looking at the marina can gaze downwards to see the boats, shops, restaurants, businesses and low-rise accommodation located there. For many years the 1968 Act has been taken to mean that any development above cliff height would be only for ancillary works, such as lamp posts and fencing.
However, in recent years, that has been challenged by proposals for housing development that would rise well above the cliff height. One such scheme was agreed by Brighton and Hove city council but not acted on, and one was turned down by the council. That refusal was sustained last year by my right hon. Friend on appeal, for which I am grateful. Both these developments were highly controversial and there was a clear difference of opinion between residents and the planning authority as to the intention of the 1968 Act. If my amendment to the Bill had been in place, that difference of opinion would not have occurred, because the legislation would have been crystal clear. Instead, we have had years of wrangling and uncertainty and still have no clear view of the meaning of the 1968 Act even now.
The thrust of the coalition Government’s policy is to simplify, eliminate and clarify the rules, regulations and legislation faced daily by the public and businesses. My new clause would add significantly to the practical implementation of that policy, and I commend it to the House.
Joan Ruddock
I shall speak to new clauses 30 and 31, with reference to Deptford high street in my constituency. It is one of the oldest and most historic in the country. Although the area is one of multiple deprivation, it has a diverse and vibrant community, a good retail offer and a thriving local market. In recent years we have seen a proliferation of betting shops, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who tabled the new clauses, described from his own constituency experience.
The problem in Deptford started with Coral, which took over a shop that had been used as an art gallery and café, and moved away only because it was so hugely successful that it needed bigger premises. There followed a succession of developments that took many of our most historic buildings and iconic pubs, such as the John Evelyn and the Deptford Arms.
Joan Ruddock
I very much agree.
There have been the changes of use on Deptford high street that I have described, but at the same time there has been a determination to improve it, and after years of battling we secured the funds, with the co-operation of a Labour Government, for a new station at Deptford and we expected new development to follow. However, who will want to live where they will look out on such a high street? As local campaigner Sue Lawes has described, at No. 14 we have Better Betting, at Nos. 34 to 40 we have William Hill, at No. 44 we have The Money Shop, for payday loans, at Nos. 49 to 50 we have Ladbrokes, at No. 55 we have Paddy Power, at No. 60 we have Fish Brothers pawnbrokers, at No. 70 we have Coral and at No. 72 we have H&T pawnbrokers. The final straw is Betfred’s application to take over the old Halifax building. There the change of use would have been required because it was restricted specifically to use by a building society.
The council has of course turned down that application and said, quite reasonably, that there are already far too many betting shops in the area and that it is unnecessary. They say that within the designated core shopping frontage the number of betting shops has reached
“beyond an acceptable level, detracting from the range of retail services available within the defined District Town Centre”.
Betfred has of course appealed. We await the result of that appeal with interest.
I put it to the Minister that it cannot be acceptable that, in an area of great deprivation but great spirit, local residents, 700 of whom have signed a petition, have no say in what is done there. I suggest not only that local people must have a say, but that others need to be protected from this kind of proliferation. Surely this is a community that can ill afford to spend what little money it has in betting shops on this scale. I am not opposed to betting; none of us is. It is the cluster effect and the proliferation that must be dealt with, and I very much hope that he will see that that is done.
Philip Davies
I am surprised at the lack of faith that the right hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) have in their own constituents, because betting shops of course go where there is a demand for them. If there was no demand for them on the high streets in Lewisham and Tottenham, presumably some of them would close down.