Bromsgrove: Local Government
Mark Garnier Excerpts(4 days, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bradley Thomas
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. The disaggregation and loss of access to sustainable services is a profound risk in any case of local government reorganisation, but particularly in rural constituencies.
I acknowledge the recent survey shared around Worcestershire, and thank those who responded: local consent should always be a priority in any devolution process, including local government reorganisation. The results showed a clear split in opinions across the county, and must be considered in context. Some 48% of respondents supported two unitary councils, 29% supported one unitary authority and 19% did not support any reorganisation, yet the number of respondents—4,200—represents only 0.6% of Worcestershire’s 621,000 population, meaning the survey is questionable as a true representation of Worcestershire as a whole. In short, it is a snapshot, not a consensus.
Worcestershire is a rural county—approximately 85% is classified as such—and a picturesque one, with a seamless mix of small urban cities, semi-rural towns, rural villages and uninterrupted green space. That is no less so in my constituency, which is 79% rural and 89% green belt. Serving the needs and wants throughout the vastly different parts of the county is a delicate balancing act, but it is a balancing act that allows Worcestershire to be so wonderfully unique. It is a balancing act that allows my constituents to enjoy beautiful country walks and quaint villages on their doorsteps, alongside the convenience of more urban towns or cities not very far away. That harmony between rural tranquillity and accessible urban life is part of what makes Worcestershire a fantastic place to live.
That balancing act would be toppled by the forced use of a city template. A model designed for incomparable metropolitan areas cannot be imposed on a county defined by its largely rural character without causing catastrophic disruption. Keeping decisions local to Worcestershire is vital: it is the only way to ensure that local communities are not sidelined, that my constituents’ voices are not stripped away and that the fabric of rural life is not sacrificed. Counties shaped by their rural character are rightly proud of their identities and traditions, and any local reorganisation that happens in Worcestershire must recognise and respect our distinct needs.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend and Worcestershire neighbour is making a strong argument about the risks of a north-south divide, in which the north could be subsumed under a greater Birmingham. That is a very important point. Is he as surprised as I am that, of the district and city councils across Worcestershire, Wyre Forest was the only one to advocate a single Worcestershire unitary authority rather than the split model?
Bradley Thomas
I am surprised but that must be seen in the context of the survey I referenced. Only a very small proportion of the Worcestershire population responded to any consultation about future options. I will refer later to the wider stakeholders that are supportive of a single unitary authority to deliver local government in the best interests of residents across Worcestershire, including Wyre Forest.
The creation of two unitary councils would do the opposite of respecting the distinct needs and rural identity of Worcestershire. It would see the north Worcestershire section become by default an extension of Birmingham and would fundamentally shift our identity. North Worcestershire is a neighbour of Birmingham, but is proud to be part of the adjacent countryside that so many Birmingham residents enjoy. Conversely, north Worcestershire enjoys a proximity to Birmingham, while maintaining its unique rural character and slower pace of life.
A divided structure would only weaken our voice, dilute our identity and place our future in the hands of those who do not understand us. One unitary authority is the only option that protects Worcestershire’s integrity, strengthens its governance and secures its long-term ambition for prosperity. Many residents across Bromsgrove and the villages have chosen to live there because they value the way of life. That valued identity must be protected from being merged into an urban extension, or even treated as a subset of an identity that has existed for generations and delivered a footprint for successful local government service delivery until now.
We are already at risk of urbanisation and our local democracy is already being eroded by the unprecedented housing targets being forced upon us, despite consistent local objection. As a 79% rural constituency composed of 89% green belt and approximately 8% brownfield land, our housing targets have increased by 85%. Meanwhile, our neighbouring city of Birmingham with at least 140 hectares of brownfield land and extensively established infrastructure, has seen targets cut by more than 30%.
If we were involuntarily to risk becoming an extension of Birmingham, it is highly likely that our precious green belt would be sacrificed even further. The character of our county, its landscape, identity and rural heritage would be placed at real risk. Despite that loss, it would still be the urban areas that would continue to receive the largest proportion of infrastructure investment, leaving my constituency questioning how it can be expected to absorb the growth when infrastructure is already at capacity.
Urban areas have the highest demand for housing precisely because they are urban. That is why urban densification remains the housing policy most genuinely representative of the public’s needs and wants. When providing a common-sense counter to central Government decisions, such as unreasonable housing targets, one unified voice is essential. A single coherent authority can speak for the whole county, representing all our views and standing the strongest chance of securing greater funding for transport, housing and economic development. Multiple voices drown each other out; a united voice is harder to ignore.
Alongside ensuring that decision making is kept local to Worcestershire and that my constituents are not stripped of their voice—an action that would run counter to the principle of devolution—a single unitary council is also the most sensible financial decision. It would protect local democracy while strengthening our ability to shape our own future. Financial sustainability is vital for any council. Across the country, we have seen many councils struggle with rising costs; costs that inevitably become the burden of the British taxpayer. Without a sustainable model, residents pay the price through higher taxes, reduced services or both.
My constituents have already experienced a 4.9% increase in council tax this year, due to increasing financial pressures, and are set to face a staggering 9.9% increase from Reform’s county council in the next financial year. A single financially resilient authority is the most responsible way to safeguard public money and ensure that essential services remain secure for the long term.
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend has been very indulgent of me. I suspect one interesting point was not taken into account by the survey. That would be the fantastic cost of splitting up all the county-wide services, which range from adult and children’s social care to waste disposal. To divide that into two and then merge the district authorities would in itself be an unnecessary cost if we have two authorities rather than one.
Bradley Thomas
I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. He makes a very relevant point that the cost of organising two councils will be profound, and in the long term will prove to be a false economy. The figures that I will quote shortly will demonstrate that further.
Reorganising local government will not resolve all the financial challenges facing our communities, because even with structural change, there will continue to be rising demand on adult social care, persistent pressures in homelessness and temporary accommodation, a growing resource need for schools and increasing demand for children’s services. That is why financial sustainability must be by design and not chance. Anything less will fail to meet the increasing needs of local communities and will ultimately result in deficits that must be paid for by hard-working residents. Financial sustainability cannot be an afterthought; it must be the foundation.
One council will have the ability to follow six key principles to achieve genuine and lasting financial sustainability. First, it could reduce the cost of leadership and governance by redesigning leadership from the ground up to reflect the needs of a new, modern unitary authority. Secondly, it could become prevention focused by embedding a long-term independence-based approach across all services, enabling people to get back on their feet and easing the burden on local provision. Thirdly, it could ensure that all commissions are intelligent and that services provided are appropriate and necessary, supported by the unparallelled buying power and market access afforded to one council, enabling strategic investment in better value services. Fourthly, it could nurture an accountable and high-performing workforce by bringing together the strengths of seven predecessor authorities and building on their collective skills. Fifthly, it could deliver responsible custodianship of public assets to maintain a balanced budget, safeguard the continued delivery of local services and preserve our historic culture. Finally, it could make decisions that are fully informed and grounded firmly in evidence.
The outcome of that approach is simple—£32 million saved by 2031 and a more balanced, less impactful increase to council tax. In comparison, the imbalance between service need and income from council tax would be significant under two unitary councils. A new North Worcestershire unitary council would face substantial challenges, with higher levels of need but a smaller share of the tax base, while a South Worcestershire unitary authority would experience significant council tax rises over the same period. It is simple to understand that improved financial results lead directly to improved services for the community.
With the stronger position created by one council, services could be delivered through a more community-centred approach, with simpler, more accessible pathways. Residents will no longer need to navigate multiple tiers of local government to resolve their issues. That is particularly beneficial for individuals who require access to multiple services at once. This model will not only increase transparency and improve local access, which are distinct components of British politics, but will also ensure that policies truly reflect what people actually want to see and expect their council tax to support.
Streamlining service delivery under one council removes the risk of a postcode lottery where access, cost, sufficiency and quality vary depending on where residents live. That is especially vital for young people, as many schools are reaching capacity, so students are being required to travel further, and for rural communities, which are already facing limited infrastructure compared with more urbanised areas. Key people services, including housing, family support and social care, are currently delivered across two tiers of local government, creating unnecessary complexities and inefficiencies. That is particularly important in Worcestershire, where demographic shifts are significant—an ageing population exceeding the national average, with 22% of people aged 66 to 84, alongside a growing younger population of more than 117,000 children. Those trends place profound pressure on essential services such as GPs, hospitals, schools, nurseries and social care.
One council could integrate those services so that they work cohesively to achieve better outcomes for the community. A prime example, given the demographics that I mentioned, is the ability to align health priorities with housing and leisure, enabling preventive policies that improve quality of life and reduce pressure on health services later on. Removing duplication across services would also increase efficiency in the council’s overall offering. It would allow organisations, including local NHS trusts and schools, to build stronger, more consistent relationships as they would be working with a single unified authority rather than navigating multiple structures. It is evident that one council would be able to deliver the improved and simplified services that my constituents called for.
The risk of disaggregation also cannot be ignored. The need for high-cost social care, the service that 42% of survey respondents cited as the one that they care about most, is concentrated in one half of Worcestershire, while the greatest proportion of the tax base is in the other half. The current degree of balance that results in residents paying relatively low tax would be disrupted, creating long-term instability for both households and essential services.
Not only is the disaggregation of social care a dangerous risk, but it would set back the progress on bringing its functions to the high standard that they are. Adults would be at risk of not receiving seamless community care. Service deliveries and assessments would be delayed. Children’s services would be restricted by boundary lines, causing disruption for those not on the correct side to continue their current care; it would be a postcode lottery. Maintaining two recording systems for social care would be costly and take a long time to implement, diverting resources from frontline support.
Similarly, fragmenting the network of partnerships in Worcestershire would only complicate funding arrangements, commissioning plans, service eligibility and the ability to install an action plan. Those partnerships have taken years to build; dismantling them would undermine the very foundations of effective care. Instead, relationships should be preserved and built upon, and closer collaboration would be far more possible with a single service provider rather than numerous tiers. That is a key benefit that only one unitary council can provide; it would ensure continuity, coherence and a system that works for every resident across Worcestershire.
A proposal for a single Worcestershire unitary authority has been backed by local partner stakeholders, including the police and crime commissioner, the local NHS integrated care board, Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust, the Worcestershire local visitor economy partnership, and commercial stakeholders, including Worcester Bosch.
It is evident that the proposal for a single unitary council meets the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for devolution arrangements. The case is clear and compelling. A single council for Worcestershire would offer not only operational simplicity, but a renewed sense of purpose for local government in our area. The one council would prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to residents.
This would not simply be an organisational reshuffle; it would be a commitment to ensuring that every community, from the most rural parish to the most urban centre, receives services that are consistent, efficient and good value for money. Councils in the area have sought to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views. This collaborative approach demonstrates a proactive start and an ambition to adapt and build a structure that is reflective of residents’ realities.
Having one council would enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment. Removing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy would give residents a stronger voice and a more direct relationship with those making decisions on their behalf. There would be a single tier of local government for the whole area, simplifying it and making it more accessible. The new structure would resize in order to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks. In an era when public finances are increasingly overwhelmed, the ability to operate with greater resilience and strategic oversight is essential. It cannot be doubted that one unitary council would significantly meet the criteria outlined by the Government, while being in the best interest of Worcestershire as a whole.
Keeping decisions local is vital, as is achieving long-term financial sustainability, offering consistent, high-quality services, and protecting our green belt and our county’s identity. That is why I strongly support the creation of one unitary council that would streamline services, improve value for money for residents and work towards a strong future for Worcestershire. This is an opportunity to shape an efficient and community-centred system for our local government—one that respects our current identity while preparing us for the challenges and opportunities ahead. A single unitary council is not merely an administrative preference; it is a strategic choice for a more secure, more coherent and more prosperous Worcestershire.
Homeless Families: Relocation outside London
Mark Garnier Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris
I completely agree. This is not care; it is coercion.
Homelessness is an ever-present spectre of our time. According to a survey by the Big Issue, two thirds of private renters are worried about paying their rent and the potential adverse consequences for their housing situation. At a time of desperate need, people should be able to trust their local authority to provide advice and support, but what do they find? They find a system in which some families are being threatened, intimidated and pressured into making potentially life-changing decisions in a moment of profound vulnerability.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He talks about the number of people who are vulnerable. In my constituency of Wyre Forest, we discovered that so many people were being moved from Brent to Birmingham that Birmingham filled up and they had to come to Kidderminster as well. This is a huge problem that has been going on for a long time. It is absolutely tragic for families who are separated from their family networks, their friendship networks and the possibility of getting a job.
Grahame Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not suggesting that it is a problem that affects only Easington or County Durham; I am trying to highlight that it is an illegal practice. I hope to persuade the Minister that there should be redress and some sanction against local authorities that are breaking the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) said that the practice is immoral. It is certainly questionable, but it is also unlawful. In 2015, a Supreme Court judgment made it absolutely clear that local authorities
“have a statutory duty to provide accommodation in their own area ‘so far as reasonably practicable’…The accommodation must be suitable to the needs of the homeless person and each member of the household, and the location can be relevant to its suitability…The obligation to secure accommodation as close as possible to where the household had previously been living was strengthened by Supplementary Guidance on the homelessness changes in the Localism Act 2011 and on the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 (‘the Supplementary Guidance’), including the need to seek to retain established links with schools, doctors, social workers and other key services and support.”
How is it possible to retain established links to key services and support when a family is relocated to an unfamiliar location over 250 miles away?
Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 requires that where someone is relocated out of the area, councils must notify the receiving local authority. However, that is not happening. In response to my representations, my local authority, Durham county council, said:
“We are aware of some households moving into County Durham with financial assistance from London Boroughs, largely discharging their homelessness duties into private rented tenancies. Placements tend to be in selective licensing areas through a small number of managing agents—notably Reloc8 Lettings and Capital Letters. In accordance with homelessness guidance, councils who make a referral to another local authority area should notify the receiving authority, but this is generally not happening in these cases, and our referral numbers remain low.”
The issue is not unique to Durham County Council. There has been nearly a decade’s worth of press articles documenting cases of London boroughs—some London boroughs—breaking the law and secretly relocating families. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for writing to council chief executives to remind them of their legal obligations, but I must be candid about this. I contend that council chief executives know their legal responsibilities and are choosing to break the law.
What we need is enforcement and accountability. I ask the Minister directly: what practical steps will she take to end these unlawful practices? What sanctions will be imposed on councils that continue to intimidate families, disregard their legal obligations and fail to notify the receiving authorities? The families affected by these actions deserve better, and so do the communities being asked to bear the burden of a broken system.
County Durham, like many areas, faces its own housing challenges, which were overlooked and ignored by the previous Government. Our council budgets are overstretched; we have limited means to raise revenues, owing to a low council tax base; and service demand, especially for social services and SEND provision, is overwhelming. Our north-east mining communities are resilient, but we do not have the resources to absorb the fallout of the London housing crisis without additional support.
Respectfully, I do not underestimate the task facing the Minister. The unlawful system of forcibly relocating vulnerable families through threats and intimidation was created by the previous Government. I am pleading tonight with the Minister not to allow it to persist under a Labour Government. Councils that knowingly break the law need to be held to account. I hope that she will explain how that is going to happen.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mark Garnier Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government champion high ethical standards in local government. On 14 January, I supported the important Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) to disqualify sex offenders from local office and, before Christmas, I met the Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life to reaffirm that we will shortly be responding to the Committee’s report on this important issue and will set out further steps to improve the system.
Mark Garnier
I am sure that you of all people, Mr Speaker, would agree that standards of politicians at every level are not always observed. On Wyre Forest District Council, a local councillor has been sanctioned for not the first, but the fourth time, for standards breaches. In this case, it was the leader of the Liberal Democrat group, but I think that we would all agree that frequent offenders who see sanctions as an occupational hazard of being a controversial councillor come from every political party. It is three years since the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on local government ethical standards were published. Can the Minister confirm if and when the Government will legislate to implement their recommendations and that any legislation will equip councils with more robust sanctions for serious or repeated breaches of the code of conduct, an example of which could be a ban for six months?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and for his recent letter on the matter, which I shall respond to shortly. I am actively considering the recommendations set out in the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and will respond shortly. It is of the utmost importance that local authorities have the right tools to make the system work.
Planning (Enforcement) Bill
Mark Garnier Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on his dedication and determination in leading the Bill to a Second Reading.
Green-belt land is one of our country’s most important assets. It spans approximately 6,000 square miles and provides beautiful open spaces and woodland across the whole country for us all to enjoy. Not only is the green belt critical for our environment, but it provides many people with respite from their busy daily lives.
As my hon. Friend may know, my beautiful constituency of South West Hertfordshire is approximately 80% green belt. My constituents value that land and enjoy using it; it enables them to get closer to nature and enjoy the fresh air, whether they are walking, jogging, running, cycling or even exercising their pets. I have made preserving the green belt one of my top priorities as Member of Parliament for South West Hertfordshire, and I am working hard in collaboration with my constituents and local authorities to achieve that. It is essential that we utilise the plentiful brownfield sites that I and many hon. Members have in our constituencies, to ensure that we preserve vital unspoilt land as best we can.
Green-belt land is not just good for recreation; it is a vital flood defence. Sadly, flooding affects South West Hertfordshire, just as it affects many other areas across the UK. Green-belt land serves as an important defence against flooding, better absorbing water and slowing its flow down rivers such as the Chess, the Gade and the Colne in my constituency. Residents, particularly those who live in Long Marston, have long suffered the detrimental impact of flooding. Only last week, we passed the landmark, wide-ranging Environment Act 2021, which introduced several new measures to incentivise farmers and landowners to use their resources to combat flooding further. It would be a step back to undo that hard work by allowing the destruction of our beautiful green-belt land, which serves a similar purpose, while spending extensively on flood-prevention measures.
Destroying green-belt land can also cause irreversible damage to wildlife and ecosystems, have a negative impact on our biodiversity, and damage land that contributes significantly to our world-leading efforts to reach net zero by 2050.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Does he agree that one of the problems with unwanted developments, particularly lorry parks or scrapyards, is that the land that he is talking about—the rivers and streams that Conservative Members very much cherish, as everybody knows, and the areas of outstanding natural beauty and nature reserves—get contaminated by fuel oil or by whatever comes out of the developments? There are so many reasons why this is such a good Bill, but preserving nature from such contaminants is one of them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind Members: when you make interventions, please face the House, because the microphones can then pick it all up, and because it is respectful to both sides of the House.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Runnybridge and Weymede, who is not only a friend in this place but a neighbour. I have seen his work in supporting his constituents not only with challenges such as flooding but on so many other issues in Surrey. We are so lucky to have him. I know from the various WhatsApp groups that I am in that there is so much support for the work that he is doing in this area across Surrey.
I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), on the Front Bench. Not only is he known as one of the smartest people in Whitehall, but he has a much more important accolade: he is a former constituent of mine, so he knows the joys of the beautiful landscape in East Surrey. I am sure that he will be listening very carefully to the debate.
When we look at planning controls, we should start by thinking about what they mean. The reason they are so important is that they protect our heritage and ensure that planning improves the infrastructure that we all access. It is so fundamentally important that we have good planning, because it is a key part of people’s lives—of how they interact with their community and feel at home.
On heritage, I am lucky in East Surrey because I have not only areas of outstanding natural beauty but sites of special scientific interest, listed buildings and one of the largest proportions of green belt in the country. We have heard from many Members across the House, and I fully concur with them about the importance not only of green spaces, which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) mentioned, but of protecting the landscape, the luxury of clean air, and the beauty of the biodiversity that we have in those wonderful spaces.
I do quite a lot of work on the environment. On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) made, it is not only that building on these spaces in this way might denigrate their green-belt status; the environment is a delicate chain, and once we take away parts of natural habitat, it is so hard to replace them. I work with so many organisations that are trying to do exactly that, but in these cases they should not have to.
The things that these rogue developers do are not limited to the rogue development that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) talked about; they also affect infrastructure, such as infrastructure to handle sewage and flooding—things that my constituents face particular challenges with. That is why it is so important that development goes through planning controls and that measures can be looked at as a whole, so we know that anything that is being built in an area is fit for purpose and fit for the local community.
However, that is not always what happens. We know that some of these rogue developers not only do things that might encumber the local infrastructure, but cause great upset in our communities by doing things that affect local heritage, whether it is the landscape or something else such as listed buildings. It is so important that we crack down on these things.
One of the challenges that I face in my community is that there is sympathy for the need for homes—when I talk to people about affordable homes in particular, they know that we need more homes—but there is a problem with trust in the planning system and in developers. People feel that where there are rogue developers and people not building to planning controls, there is not enough enforcement. When people feel like there is no rule of law, it makes it so much harder for them to trust in more house building, and I will be very clear—I have said it before in the House—that we do need some of that.
These people are not nimbys. Many have spent many hours and weeks working on neighbourhood plans. They have put forward sites, and sometimes there can be difficult conversations about green fields or beautiful places, and they say, “We all agree we can build some homes on that site.” What they do not trust is that developers as a whole will ensure that they build in the way that people would like to see. I know that the Minister will be considering that carefully.
This particular challenge around rogue builders and rogue developers is a real problem, and not just in affluent parts of this country; it affects deprived parts of this country, too. I visited a deprived part of Bristol recently, and I talked to residents there who had not only set up a local lettings policy, but had got their own equipment to go and check building standards. They would look at some of the developments that had been built and use their own equipment that they had personally bought to see whether building standards had been met, and they had not. They felt that they did not have a place to turn to. We should work out how we can give people that confidence when building standards are not being met.
Mark Garnier
I hope my hon. Friend will stay for the next couple of debates and will contribute to make that point about building standards in the debate on my Bill about a licensing scheme and rogue builders—hopefully that debate will not be too long away.
Claire Coutinho
I always like to listen to what my hon. Friend has to say, particularly in this area.
Turning to some of the interesting measures in the Bill, the database is particularly good. We all know that good government runs on good data, and the database should enable us to find some of the people who are repeatedly breaching proposals. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) made an interesting point when she said that for so many people, a breach is a first-time mistake and they learn about the planning processes through making it. Certainly we do not want to catch too many of those people out, but where there are major breaches and repeat breaches—I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has put this in his Bill—we should take that into consideration, so that we know who is carrying them out.
My hon. Friend talked about creating a financial offence, which is particularly important, because for so many of these people, they will keep committing the same offences over and over again, as he so clearly set out, because there is a lot of financial gain for them. It is not only the fact that they can do it multiple times, but the length of time it takes for enforcement. We heard earlier that it can take up to 16 weeks and possibly longer just to go through the appeals process set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I would welcome that being looked at again.
I have talked about the importance of why we must protect heritage and people’s confidence in their local infrastructure, while also allowing for the house building that we need, and this Bill is a very good starting point. My hon. Friend knows I have some technical questions that I would like to see answered, but this is an interesting area and I hope the Minister is listening carefully.
Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (EU Foreign Direct Investment) (Modifications) Regulations 2020
Mark Garnier Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Scully
As I said, we already go far enough with the Enterprise Act. The information is released and on gov.uk. This is very much a tidying-up exercise to ensure that the legislation works.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My apologies for pressing the point, but having been the Minister for Investment at the Department for International Trade, I know there are quite significant implications in the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean and all of this.
Ministers from the Department for International Trade will be actively seeking foreign direct investment into UK businesses and, at the same time, the Competition and Markets Authority could start pushing back against those active Government interventions to bring people into the country, for various reasons. If Ministers could disclose some of the information at the start, that would pre-empt the problem otherwise of Departments working against each other, which would be to the benefit of the country. Should DIT officials try to start bringing in people who may be a bit dodgy, we could work out that they were dodgy before we started all the hard work. That is why that question is so important.
The Chair
Order. Before I ask the Minister to respond, may I gently bring hon. Members back to the fact that we are considering the instrument before us, not any future instruments?
Lea Castle Farm Quarry
Mark Garnier Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Lea Castle Farm Quarry.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to be in Westminster Hall, even as it evacuates so only the three of us are left, alongside you and your good team. I completely understand, as this very specific local issue of the Lea Castle quarry in my constituency is not of huge interest to other people.
It is quite ironic to have this Minister here responding to this debate. I look back on a January Sunday afternoon in 2004, when he and I were in the final of the Wyre Forest Conservative Association competition to become the parliamentary candidate for the constituency. I beat him, but it could easily have been the Minister standing here, championing the cause for his constituents— as I know he does very well—and me elsewhere.
This is a highly specific issue and I appreciate that the Minister cannot necessarily go into details because of the planning application, but the strength of feeling about it in my constituency is incredibly strong. Basically, the application is to excavate 105 acres of Lea Castle farm in my constituency, bang in between the villages of Wolverley and Cookley and to the north of Kidderminster. The quarry, as I say, is 105 acres and is set to be excavated over a 10-year period, with a requirement to restore the land to its original agricultural use at the end of that period. The family who own Lea Castle farm have entered into an agreement with NRS Aggregates, which will undertake the excavation.
Before I get to the meat of my points, I want to talk about a few points of agreement, because there are certain things that I do agree with. First, I completely agree that we need to quarry; it is essential that we can dig out aggregates and building materials to meet the Government’s target of building 300,000 homes over the period of this Parliament, and 1 million over the complete forecast period. The materials have to come from somewhere, and holes in the ground are as good a place as any, although it is worth bearing in mind that recycling aggregates is something we should do.
Secondly, I understand that, to lessen the impact on the environment, the nearer a quarry is to any development, the better; fewer miles driven by lorries lowers damage to the environment. The Wyre Forest local plan sets ambitions for around 5,400 homes between now and 2032, the vast majority of which will need aggregate resources.
Thirdly, the planning application is designed to be sensitive. It proposes a phased process, with a central plant being established for the full 10-year period, and five processes lasting, I guess, two years each, with each successive phase being required to infill the previous phase to reduce the impact on the local area. It is also worth bearing in mind that there are requirements to have a left-only exit from the site, thereby avoiding the village of Wolverley and all the schools in the locality.
Fourthly, the community benefits from £2 per tonne local community tax, known as the aggregates levy. That is fantastic; it was brought in in 2002 and mitigates the impact on the local community, so that the community can benefit from it. However, I would say that the Government made a mistake in 2010 when as a result of the spending review they ended the aggregates levy sustainability fund. That fund brought together industry, environmentalists and local communities to restore areas affected by extraction and to transform degraded sites back into areas that could be used by the local community.
Those are the areas where I broadly agree with the Government’s position, but there are many areas of contention. First is the location of the quarry, which is bang in between two villages—Wolverley to the west, directly on its western extreme, and Cookley to the north; to the south is Sion Hill, a suburb of Kidderminster. There are four schools within a mile’s distance of the centre of the site: Wolverley Church of England Secondary School is 0.9 of a mile away, Cookley Sebright Primary School is five eighths of a mile away, St Oswald’s CE Primary School in Kidderminster is just over half a mile away and Heathfield Knoll School’s nursery is on the other side of the road from the edge of the second phase of the site. Wolverley Sebright Primary School is just over a mile away, but, as I say, that is measuring from the centre of the site; the full extent of the 105 acres means that the site it is much closer to some of those schools.
Within the immediate locality are three communities: Cookley has 2,034 people on the electoral roll, with 1,114 homes; Wolverley has 1,820 people on the electoral roll and Sion Hill has 760. A lot of people live very close to this site, and despite the proposal’s being low impact, it is inevitable that they will suffer from noise pollution, dust pollution and the impact on highways. Of course, I completely understand that there is an enormous amount of legislation surrounding, for example, the pollution put up by silicates as they come off these sites, and there is a requirement to suppress them. One would hope that NRS Aggregates would comply fully with those with that legislation, and I expect it to do so, but it is possible that there will be accidents. While accidents are wholly to be avoided, and any punishment is the right thing to do, the problem is that, while it is possible to get away with an accident in an area with nobody living around it, the middle of a highly populated area is a really bad place to have one. That creates a greater threat to the local community.
Finally, we have a riding stables, which is privately owned, right in the middle of the site. The riding stables will be quarried all around over the 10-year period. Their lives will be appallingly badly affected. The whole planning application has profound impacts on the local community and the local community is very heavily against it.
Looking to the future, the planning application is merely for a 10-year period, to extract 3 million tonnes of aggregates from a 105-acre site. I recently met Mr Louis Strong, who seemed a perfectly reasonable and nice chap. He is the son of the site’s owner; he is 36 years old and wants to be a farmer. The site has been in the family for three generations, and while his father is a successful entrepreneur doing land deals who now lives in Jersey, Mr Strong strikes me as being a very sincere individual who genuinely wants to farm. I think his wishes are at odds with his father’s. His father previously applied to secure planning permission for the site to be a golf course; although planning was approved, the plans were shelved for one reason or another. The farm is around 250 acres, and although they farm one or two other sites locally, the farm seems only marginally viable. Louis Strong is understandably seeking alternative cash generation schemes from his farm. Farm diversification is a wholly understandable and desirable option, and Mr Strong wants to continue farming the site once it has returned to agricultural use.
I used to be an investment banker. Among other things, I used to invest in and study aggregate companies and extraction companies. I am absolutely convinced of the sincerity of Mr Strong’s desire to be a farmer, but the key principal in the application is NRS Aggregates Ltd, which in this case—it does a number of different things—is entirely in the business of extracting value from the ground. I know the company will be eager to secure the maximum output from the quarry. To deliver its fiduciary duty to shareholders—having secured the big heave of getting the initial planning permission across the line— it will almost certainly seek to maximise the output beyond that stated in its initial low-impact intentions.
There are too many variables that could change decisions over the coming 10 years. As we know, extraction rates are determined by market demand, and the cost to developers of sand and gravel are a function of market price and delivery cost. We are proposing in the Budget to increase the demand for aggregates by encouraging the building of 300,000 houses per year over the next few years. That can result only in an increase in the price of the aggregate and a subsequent increase in quarrying. Although the argument is that local demand means there is a local market, it requires the demand locally to match in every way the continuous extraction of 300 tonnes per annum. How can anyone predict at this stage the exact flow of local demand? It requires synergy for a decade, which is very unlikely to happen.
Should there be a period of low development locally, the quarry will have to find markets further afield or slow production. That would bring into question the end date of the process. Similarly, if demand is high, will the quarry beef up production and seek to vary its planning permission in order to excavate at a higher, and thus more aggravating, rate? That will cause greater concern and upset to the local community. If market rates for sand and gravel continue to rise, there will be a greater imperative to dig more. If the company seeks to change the planning grant to extract more aggregates from the area, it will create more hassle for my community. In any event, the average six-room home requires around 100 tonnes of sand and gravel—in Wyre Forest, that equates to a total demand for 5,400 tonnes of sand and gravel, compared with 3 million tonnes being excavated. The vast majority of the quarry’s output will actually have to go out of the district.
Looking at the green issues, the local plan has a variety of sites across the district. Meeting low-emission targets for delivery could easily result in a subsequent application to change the left-only exit policy from the site, meaning that lorries would drive past a number of schools and through villages. On this particular argument, the environment’s interests are at odds with those of the local community. Did I mention that the quarry is smack in the middle of the green belt? It is quite offensive in terms of the green belt legislation.
There are plenty of examples of quarries that have submitted subsequent planning applications to enhance their size. Clifton quarry in Worcestershire was extended in 2016. In 2017, Willingdon quarry sought to enable the production of a further 2.07 million tonnes of sand and gravel. There was a proposed extension to restore Chadwich Lane quarry in Bromsgrove. There was an extension to Barton Quarry Western to extract 6.3 million tonnes of sand and gravel over a period of 10 years. These are all extensions, not the absolute planning. At Newington quarry there was a proposal for an extension to sand and gravel extraction. The Norton Bottoms quarry applied for a four-phase extension, Hints quarry for a variation of conditions, and Methlick quarry for an extension for a further 10 years—and on it goes. Quarries change their planning applications because they want to extend what is going on. Lea Castle Farm quarry is already hideously offensive to the local community. What will it become if NRS Aggregates decides it wants to maximise the output from this opportunity?
The application is due to go before Worcestershire County Council’s planning committee later this year, possibly in May. Officers are committed to ensuring that planning law is upheld. It may well be that they recommend approval. All of us know that planning committee members are prevented from predetermination, so I have no idea how the planning committee will vote, but I think that if its members take the recommendation of the officers, it is not impossible that this may get passed. If the application fails, the refusal will almost certainly be challenged. I warn the Minister that, in the event of a successful appeal and the inspector passing the application, I will ask him to call in the decision to get the Secretary of State to look at it.
There are plenty of examples where planning has been refused in the past. For example, a proposed expansion of Wangford quarry in Suffolk was blocked given its location in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The planning inspector found that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the expansion of mineral extraction on the site. At the Thrislington quarry in County Durham, residents fought Lafarge Aggregates’ proposed extension to the quarry. Officers had recommended that the planning committee did not object to the development, but councillors blocked the quarry due to the unprecedented level of objection to the scheme, with 1,366 individual letters and objections. It is entirely possible that at Lea Castle Farm quarry, an application may have a similar number of objections.
At Bengeo quarry in Hertford, campaigners were fighting plans to quarry an extra 1.25 million tonnes of sand and gravel from its field. The planning inspector rejected plans for the quarry, and the developer appealed to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State backed the views of residents and the planning inspector decided that the quarry had the potential to threaten water supplies and loss of amenities. More important, and very similar to what we face at Lea Castle farm, his concerns were also raised due to health risks from silica dust in the air and significant damage to open space and the green belt. Similarly, at Fullamoor quarry in Oxfordshire, an Oxfordshire based company, Hills Quarry Products, wanted to use land over 12 and a half years to extract 2.5 million tonnes of earth. The application was finally rejected in 2017. The company reapplied in 2018 and the council again turned the application down, concerned about the green belt and severe highways impact; that was for a smaller and lower impact development.
I am not against quarrying, but I am against quarrying in people’s backyards in semi-urban areas. Canada has a rule forbidding quarrying within 600 metres of schools and residences. I know there is an argument that there is more available space there, but nonetheless the point is still well made. No part of this quarry is not within a 600-metre radius of a school or property adjacent to this site.
Today, I want to make the Minister aware that, if the planning inspectors put the application through, I will ask him to call it in and give all his support to help the Secretary of State come to a sensible decision—in case of doubt, “sensible” means backing my constituents. I also want to ask the Minister to review planning laws on quarries. I completely accept that we need quarries, but we cannot have quarries so close to people’s private residences, businesses, and schools. It does not make any sense. If Canada can have a 600 metre rule, why can we not have something similar here? I look forward to hearing how the Minister would have dealt with this had he been elected Member of Parliament for Wyre Forest all those years ago.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mark Garnier Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. Clearly, the process of levelling up is not restricted to that of economic infrastructure; it is also absolutely about making sure that the life chances of individuals are realised to the full. That means, for example, making sure that our skills policy works, and the Government are committed to delivering a new national skills fund—we will announce more about that as part of the Budget process. It also means that it is really important that we get the process of skills devolution right, and we are keen to make sure that we work with strong local mayoral leaders to make sure that they deliver those budgets in a way that makes a real difference. This is clearly a long-term challenge. We need to make sure that we get the right devolution models in place so that such things as the towns fund and the future high streets fund are complemented by comparable work on life chances.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
This afternoon, we will debate and vote on the final local government finance settlement for 2020-21. The settlement is a huge investment in the sector, with a £1.5 billion boost for social care and the biggest year-on-year increase in spending power for a decade.
Mark Garnier
I am grateful to the Minister for detailing the amount by which he is increasing funding for local government spending, but Wyre Forest District Council has seen a 2.7% drop in funding, which is very disappointing. That is largely due to the fall-off in the new homes bonus. The council is doing its best to grant planning, but the problem is that developers are land banking. What can my hon. Friend do to help district councils that are doing their best to deliver new homes but are facing increasing land banking by developers? If his answer did not include anything to do with compulsory purchase, that would be terrific.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mark Garnier Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Brokenshire
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about ensuring that smaller builders are able to play their part, which has implications for localities and for the supply chain. Indeed, funds are available for smaller builders, but it is a challenge to see how we embody that. Councils are also able to use their new flexibilities to borrow to build, and we will continue to champion that, because the diversification that he highlights is critical.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
I am pleased that the Competition and Markets Authority is investigating mis-selling and onerous leasehold terms and looking at whether such terms are deemed to be unfair, and we will consider further action when it reports. That work supports a strong package of reforms to promote fairness and transparency for leaseholders.
Mark Garnier
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his comments but, despite those efforts, buyers of brand-new properties in Kidderminster in my constituency still believe that they have been misled in terms of leasehold contracts and contracts relating to communal services charges on new build estates. Given that we agree that we need to increase house building significantly across the country, does he accept that the apparent mis-selling must be properly investigated and brought to an end once and for all before the scandal affects millions upon millions of future homebuyers?
James Brokenshire
I absolutely do. Unfair practices in the leasehold market have no place in modern housing, and neither do, for example, excessive ground rents that exploit consumers who get nothing in return. I called on the Competition and Markets Authority to look into this issue, and I am pleased it has now responded, also reflecting the calls from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—I note that the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), is in his place this afternoon.
It is right that we get to the bottom of this, that we challenge it and that we respond to these unfair practices firmly and effectively.
Residents of Leisure Park Homes
Mark Garnier Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are also well-managed park homes sites in my constituency, which is a reason to take action where the system is not working. We have to make sure that the whole industry is not tarnished by the actions of an unscrupulous minority.
For a subset of sites, there is a problem. Gaps in the law and inadequate oversight by local authorities allow unscrupulous site owners to benefit from a lack of consumer awareness. To fix that, we need to strengthen the rights and protections for holiday home owners, make sure that owners and potential owners know those rights, and make sure that the law is properly enforced.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a coherent case on both sides of the argument. Does she agree that in some cases—not many—tenants are gaming the system to the disadvantage of park owners, and that a way forward may be more formal legal requirements, through which people who sign leases receive legal advice and are properly bound by the contracts that they sign?
Helen Whately
I have heard the same thing. It is as if my hon. Friend had seen my speech in advance—although I know he has not—because we have clearly come to some of the same conclusions.
I reiterate that where the law does not work and enforcement does not happen, the industry overall gets a bad name. As a consequence, individuals’ dreams of an idyllic retirement in a country or coastal setting turns into a nightmare. One specific reason for that is because the owners of a holiday park home do not own the land that they live on; they are simply leasing the caravan or the mobile home on that land. People think that they are signing up to own the property in the long term, but they are actually signing a short-term lease, which can be for as short a time as 12 years. As they are leaseholders, they are covered only by consumer protection legislation, not wider housing laws.
Under the Mobile Homes Act 2013, local authorities have powers to issue notices to residential site owners when the site is not kept in a good condition. They can be fined up to £5,000 for failure to comply with those notices. The Act also gives councils emergency powers to enter sites at short notice to enforce those notices. Holiday park homes are excluded from the Act, however, so although it has helped to reduce exploitation on residential sites, that exploitation seems to have shifted to holiday home sites. Solving one problem appears to have created another.
Space Industry Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Mark Garnier ExcerptsTuesday 23rd January 2018
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 View all Space Industry Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 January 2018 - (23 Jan 2018)
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Minister is being very helpful. One of the interesting points that lies behind some of the concerns is about who advises the Secretary of State that the intervention needs to be made in the first place. Will the Minister give a little more flavour of the process whereby advice is given that leads to an intervention order? That may give some comfort to the Opposition.