Planning (Quarries)

Debate between Nigel Evans and Paul Holmes

1st reading
Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a presumption in planning decision-making against approving quarry development in close proximity to settlements; to require the risks of proposed quarrying sites to the environment and to public health to be assessed as part of the planning process; to provide that the decision on a planning application for quarry development may only be made by the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes.

Let me start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who submitted a similar Bill in December 2021. In that Bill, he raised the difficulty that local people experience in resisting planning applications that are favourable to the planning authority and to big businesses that do not have a stake in the local area of concern. That is what I will focus on today.

The unique geography of Eastleigh is both a blessing and a curse, with the rivers Itchen and Hamble flanking the boundaries and with access to the southern tip of the constituency and the village of Hamble limited to a single arterial road, the B3397, called Hamble Lane. Since 2013 an area of green space, the old Hamble airfield—a former RAF airfield—has been allocated under Hampshire County Council’s mineral and waste plan as a potential quarry site for aggregate. Over the past year, local residents and I have been resisting a planning application by the company Cemex to open a quarry for the extraction of 1.7 million tonnes of gravel by dozens of heavy goods vehicles along that single arterial route.

What has struck me, and my constituents, is the stark inadequacy of the planning process surrounding quarries, along with the favourable advantage for companies versus the voices of local people, and the fact that planning responses are not suited to addressing the scale of the environmental and health horrors that such quarries can bring, particularly when built so close to schools, health centres and villages. Let me therefore set out in very simple terms what the Bill seeks to achieve, using the context of my constituency to explain why I believe that this change is needed.

First, I believe it is necessary to amend planning regulations to change the presumption in planning decision making to being against approving quarry development close to local amenities, schools and settlements. I was shocked to learn that the planning application tabled by Cemex had been lodged with a request for a quarry only 70 metres from residential properties and 100 metres from local secondary and primary schools. Furthermore, the village infrastructure in Hamble is already woefully overloaded and subject to a large amount of congestion outside normal rush-hour traffic.

During this whole sorry saga, the way in which Cemex has consulted the people of Hamble has been shameful. It has committed itself to the bare minimum of what is required during a planning consultation, and has provided highways responses based on outdated traffic data completed before the covid-19 pandemic. I consider that an industrial quarry such as this—which gives rise to various potential health concerns that I shall mention later—should not have been looked on favourably by a local authority, given that it is so close to existing settlements, GP surgeries and schools, as well as a small village. Health professionals, local businesses, schools and more than 2,000 local people have objected to the proposal, but have been dismissed and ignored, despite the valid concerns that all of them have raised, with poor responses to their factual findings and to their own measured consultation responses.

The second issue, which is even more concerning to me, is the lack of evidence and the lack of scrutiny on the part of the highways authority about the risks of the proposal. When the development is up and running, 144 lorries per day will be using an already crumbling arterial route that has suffered chronic under-investment while the building of housing and other developments has been allowed to continue unchecked. That is why I believe there is merit in my second proposal, which is to remove the decision-making power on quarry applications from local authorities and transfer them to the Secretary of State. Such a change would ensure that the consultation and scrutiny applied to such applications would be treated more seriously, and would involve proper community consultation.

The latest highways data on this application has not relied on physical road assessments since 2017, against the recommendations of Hampshire County Council, but the application has been allowed to continue with a highways authority response that fails to take that into account. Areas such as Warsash, Sarisbury, Hamble and Bursledon will be affected by the excess traffic. I also struggle to justify to residents that the decision maker on this application is the authority that allocated the site in its minerals and waste plan in the first place. This is why all future applications should be decided by the Secretary of State and planning inspector.

The third proposal of my Bill is, to me, the most important. It relates to the health and environmental impact of quarries close to settlements. My Bill would impose a requirement that the risks of proposed quarrying sites be assessed as part of the planning process. Aside from the risks to road safety and access to and from local schools for young people, this proposal will directly harm the many small businesses in Hamble that rely on tourism and local investment. I believe that the proposal represents a material risk to the health of the local population through possible contamination and water run-off into the River Hamble, but I am especially concerned about air quality and the scientific facts around airborne particles known as silica that are created by quarrying. Scientific evidence has proved that quarrying creates dust that pollutes the air around the areas of operation.

Air quality has long been talked about as an issue. Since 1956, Governments have openly been aware of, and legislated on, air pollution and addressed the shocking risks to human health at the time. Governments and politicians are actively talking about air pollution and the effects on human health. As the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has pointed out, on air toxicity, the Environmental Working Group, a US-based body specialising in research and advocacy, has already stated that

“ none of the air quality standards for silica are adequate to protect people living or working near sand mining sites. The danger of airborne silica is especially acute for children…Silica air pollution has become a danger for residents near open sand mining and processing. Children, older adults, and others with existing disease are especially at risk.”

As a result, the group has concerns for any resident living within 1,500 metres of an excavation site, where air pollution can be 10 times higher than the recommended limit. This proposed site is 70 metres from existing settlements, and therefore much closer than those outlined by the group as being at risk.

I feel the need to point out that I am not against quarries in principle, and this Bill does not seek to ban or stop the development of quarries, which are much needed for building the homes that we need across the country. However, I feel that the planning system is now woefully out of date. My constituents in Hamble, and in the wider Hamble valley, feel like they are banging their heads against a brick wall. The Government have previously made a great case, with which I strongly agree, that local people should have a deciding say in the development of their local area. They have raised their concerns, and I believe that it therefore falls to the Secretary of State to make these consequential decisions on whether to permit the establishment of quarries in areas close to settlements.

I would like to close by thanking my constituents, particularly the Hamble Peninsular Residents Group and Hamble Parish Council, for organising meetings and responses to the consultation run by Hampshire County Council, and for the overwhelming campaign that those organisations have run. I would also like to thank my colleagues who are supporting the Bill today, and in particular the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, who introduced this Bill a year ago. I am proud to promote this Bill and I hope that it will be one step further towards protecting the health and wellbeing of local residents up and down the country against ignorant planning systems that do not align with local democratic wishes or recognise the health risks as we understand them today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

This is the opportunity for anybody who wishes to oppose the 10-minute rule motion to indicate that they wish to do so. I have had no notification of any opposition and I see none, so I shall pose the question.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Paul Holmes, Matt Western, Amanda Milling, Caroline Nokes, Mark Fletcher, Mrs Flick Drummond, Chris Clarkson, Sara Britcliffe and Stephen Hammond present the Bill.

Paul Holmes accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 268).

Planning (Local Authority Housing Developments)

Debate between Nigel Evans and Paul Holmes

1st reading
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish independent local planning processes to determine housing development planning applications submitted by local authorities; and for connected purposes.

This Bill is designed to improve scrutiny and transparency in the planning process, particularly in the light of the growing appetite of local authorities to build more homes for private sale themselves and to act more like private developers than local authorities.

Hon. Members will know that at present, the foundation of our planning system rests with an impartial assessment of a planning application being carried out by the local planning authority. That assessment takes into account the council’s own planning policies and the views of a wide range of consultees. In conjunction with bodies such as the Environment Agency, Natural England and the relevant transport authority, a local planning officer will then either determine the application under delegated powers or provide an officer recommendation and allow councillors on the relevant planning committee to make the final decision, with regard to key planning issues at hand.

The fundamental point in the current process is that both the assessment and the determination of a planning application are independent. In the majority of cases, the current system works well, and local planning authorities can deal with the full spectrum of applications they receive from individuals, small and medium-sized enterprises, large private developers, housing associations and other parts of the public sector. Yet in a system that works well, there are examples where local authorities can effectively mark their own homework.

Many local authorities bring forward applications for new council housing or, in the case of unitary authorities, new schools, meaning that the council is, in effect, both the developer and the applicant. Generally speaking, those applications relate to core council and public services, so perhaps these relatively infrequent conflicts of interest could be overlooked. However, as I alluded to, many local authorities are beginning to move away from the provision of just council housing and core public services, and to focus instead on building more houses for private sale. In effect, councils are starting to act more like private developers.

Nowhere is this more evident than in my constituency of Eastleigh. As I have raised in the House previously, the Liberal Democrat council in my area is taking forward a large-scale application for 2,500 houses in the village of Horton Heath, all built on green fields, to the considerable dismay of local residents. The council has borrowed large sums to fund the development. It has bought land from a private developer and expanded the original planning permission for the site from 900 homes to 2,500.

We already know that the profits from that development, which is overwhelmingly for private sale, are built into the council’s future budget. I hasten to add that the borough council currently has a debt of £540 million, or £4,000 for every man, woman and child who lives in my constituency. I would argue that that is not a good business model, but that questionable business model has contributed to Eastleigh’s having built 49% more housing than required by Government targets in the last three years, and it is continuing to inspire the council to build 4,311 houses in the next five years, nearly 20% more than targets ask for.

Naturally, this has left many of my constituents feeling angry and let down by the planning system. These plans appear to go through the council’s own planning system with ease, given that this level of overdevelopment is the policy of the Liberal Democrat administration. Many residents are rightly asking how this can be right when there is such an obvious conflict of interest.

We must ask ourselves: where is the independent scrutiny that we apply to other planning applications? Is there any realistic proposition that this application would be refused when the council is so heavily invested in a project, both financially and politically? To a lesser degree, would the council treat itself in the same way as a private developer when it comes to issues such as transport, flood mitigation, density or the provision of affordable housing? I say to the Minister that my experience is that it would not. It should also be acknowledged that even if the current system does not generate any difference in the treatment of applicants, the perception of applicants being treated differently is just as damaging to the whole system.

To be clear, I am not saying that local authorities should not be able to build and develop housing themselves. I entirely agree that they should. However, I am concerned about the lack of transparency and the absence of the usual checks and balances afforded to other developers. It stands to reason that if a local authority wants to act as a developer, it should be treated as such and should not take advantage of the fact that it is the local planning authority. That is why I believe that this Bill is absolutely vital to protect the integrity and probity of our current planning system. In simple terms, the Bill would reform the process by which planning applications made by a local authority in its own area would be determined. The process would ensure that any application made had been scrutinised and determined properly.

Before outlining how the reforms would operate, I will first set out the process for triggering the new independent process. The mechanism for determining applications could be triggered in one of two ways. The first way would be if a local authority brought forward any development of 300 units or more in its administrative boundary. That would automatically trigger the independent process.

To supplement this and to provide a mechanism for the public to trigger the process, the second way would require a level of public engagement subject to a threshold. When a local authority submitted a planning application to itself, there would be a grace period of 30 days before a planning application was processed. Local authorities would be obliged to set up an online portal that allowed people to register their request for the independent process to be triggered. If 10% of the electors of a council ward affected by the development signed the petition, the independent process would also be triggered. This would not only provide a safeguard for multiple applications just below 300 units, but allow members of the public to direct controversial applications to the independent process if a suitable number of electors was reached. This would then lead to the reforms to the actual process.

Once the independent process is triggered, the first step in it is for the planning application to be assigned to a statistical neighbour planning authority. The neighbouring planning authority would allocate a planning officer to act as the case officer, and the case officer would determine the application in line with host local authority’s planning policy and usual consultees. A fee would be paid to the neighbouring planning authority by the host planning authority to cover the costs in officer time. The decision would then be referred to councillors at the host planning authority for determination. The public could be assured, however, that the officer recommendation was based on an independent assessment of the planning merits.

The second part of the independent process would automatically refer any decision made by councillors from the host authority to the independent Planning Inspectorate. In order for the planning application to be approved, it would be necessary for a planning inspector to ratify the decision made by councillors. If the planning inspector disagreed, the application would then be referred to the Secretary of State for a final decision.

I believe that this small but significant reform to our planning system would bring much-needed transparency back to the current system. It would ensure that local authorities submitting their own planning applications were subject to proper scrutiny and would provide reassurance for members of the public and constituencies across the United Kingdom. It would end the conflict of interest that exists in the current system and ensure that local authorities were not granting planning permission to themselves.

The planning system—I say this as a former planning committee chairman—can be a game-changer for house building across the UK. However, many people still see it as opaque and favourable to big developers. This is a small step to correct that view and give our residents the reassurance that they need. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have been given no indication that anybody intends to oppose this motion, and I see no one rising, so I intend to put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Paul Holmes, Chris Clarkson, Sara Britcliffe, Robbie Moore, Ben Everitt, Scott Benton, Andrew Griffith and Stephen Hammond present the Bill.

Paul Holmes accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 286).