Mole Valley Local Plan

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Minister and her officials for coming, and I thank her in advance, because I am hoping for an excellent, useful response. I realise that I am picking on a specific planning case that is under an inspector’s review, so the Minister can only respond in the round and not to the specific case.

I came to London from an area of open green hills, bush, trees—the lot—from horizon to horizon, and arriving in east London was more than a shock. I then moved to Mole Valley, so I am particularly delighted that the voters of Mole Valley have returned me as their MP several times.

Mole Valley is south of London, bordering on the M25 with Epsom and Ewell, with Guildford to the west and Gatwick to the east, and it is halfway to Worthing going south. What distinguishes it from London is the green open spaces. There is the famous Box Hill, and farms, commons and parks, and they are all amalgamated together—glued together—and retained by the green-belt land. It is a lovely place to live. The residents live there because it has two small towns and many villages spread among the green.

The local planning council is Mole Valley District Council. It is liberal—no, wait a minute: it is controlled by the Liberals; there is nothing liberal about it at all. The last ratified local plan for Mole Valley was dated 2009. I understand that more than 90% of English local authorities have adopted and are up to date with their local plans. Liberal Mole Valley is among the errant 10% of local authorities, which leaves it vulnerable, as it is finding now, to developers.

In May 2019, the Liberals took control of Mole Valley District Council and with that the responsibility for producing the draft local plan. It was produced between May 2019 and February 2020 and passed for consultation by the council executive and the council without a vote. It contains 30 or more green-belt sites— I am told that; I have not counted them—and the inclusion of many, if not most of them was vehemently opposed by local residents. That was not just those next to the green-belt sites, but those within what New Zealanders would call “cooee”.

I recognise that the proportion of land protected from development in Mole Valley is considerable, and, relatively speaking, the quality of brownfield sites free for development is small in comparison, but it is not impossible to increase the number of dwellings on those brownfield sites. I know from my own time in inner London that with imagination and the new rules and regulations on building, it is possible to increase density and height and adapt those sites.

It has been claimed that the percentage of green-belt sites that the Liberal plan will remove from protected status is small. However, that is a bit like my saying to a cancer patient that the prospect of a long-term cure is 97%—it sounds great, unless they are in the 3%. That is what is happening with green-belt sites. The figures are small in percentage terms, but if they affect someone who chose to live there in part because of those green-belt sites, it is bad news.

The plan went to inspection, but, as last May’s local elections arrived, the Liberals asked the inspector to stall her inquiry, and she did. The Liberals announced on their election leaflets that they would remove the green-belt sites from the draft plan. They did not. Last month, at a full council meeting, the council faced a decision on three choices provided by its planning officers. The first was that the plan be withdrawn for a complete rethink. The second was to continue with the inquiry but withdraw the green-belt sites. The third was to continue with the planned inquiry with the 30 or more green-belt sites included, which the Liberals said they had redrawn but had not.

Just before the council met, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, being aware that a restart is probably the worst option, wrote to the council to tell it that it had to keep the plan in the system; it could not withdraw it. The Liberal council, in a classic Liberal, duplicitous way, chose to proceed with the inquiry with the green-belt sites—which it said it had removed but had not—still in the plan.

The need for a clear plan is obvious: it would protect sites that are not appropriate for development, but also set out development sites that are considered suitable. The current situation with the Mole Valley plan has come back to bite the Liberals. I will give one example, but there are others. A site near Dorking called Sondes farm is a green-belt site that was put in the draft local plan by the Liberals for its green-belt protection to be removed. In spite of that, the Liberal council did an about-turn and refused a developer’s application for housing on the grounds that it was a green-belt site, ignoring the fact that it was going to withdraw that protection. That refusal was in line with what a large number of local people wanted to happen. They wished to support Sondes farm as a green-belt site. Perhaps they were unaware that the Liberals had in effect already given it away.

Not surprisingly, the developer, having faced a refusal, took its application to appeal and won, with the inspector pointing out that the site was down in the plan to be taken out of the green belt. Others in the portfolio will be in the same situation; one of them is not very far away from that position now.

My ask of the Minister is that she re-emphasises the importance to her, to Ministers and to the Government—certainly to me and most of my residents—of the protection offered by the green belt, that the removal of that protection from a site can happen only in exceptional circumstances, and that those circumstances do not include housing. This is a long-standing situation. It applied when I was a planning Minister, and I think it still applies now. It is not specific to Mole Valley—it applies across the country—and I cannot but emphasise how important it is for so many in Mole Valley and many other areas throughout the country that the strength of protection for the green belt is retained.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing this debate and on his eloquent speech. I would like to respond by commenting on the latest position of the emerging Mole Valley local plan, and by explaining why the Department has intervened.

On 25 January, the Secretary of State exercised his powers under section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to direct the council not to take any step to withdraw the plan from examination. As my hon. Friend has alluded to, my ministerial role in the planning system dictates that I cannot go into the specifics of the local plan, which remains at the examination stage. However, I will try to deal with some of the general points and the reason why we have taken action.

My hon. Friend will know that Ministers have consistently set out the importance of having an up-to-date plan in place. As he correctly said, the Mole Valley local plan is from 2009—remarkably, it is over 14 years old. It should have been updated many years ago. As he rightly said, that puts the plan in the bottom 7% of plans in the country by age. That is clearly not acceptable.

The council submitted its emerging local plan for examination in February 2022, and the hearing sessions commenced in June that year. It is the role of the independently appointed inspectors to look at whether the plan is legally compliant before considering whether it is sound. For a plan to be found legally compliant, the local planning authority must demonstrate that all the procedural checks and balances had been followed. Effective co-operation early in the plan-making process is essential to ensure that the homes and infrastructure needed are planned for. Authorities are expected to collaborate with stakeholders to identify the relevant strategic matters to be addressed. For a plan to be considered sound, it should be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Ultimately, the inspectors may report that the plan is unsound and cannot be adopted by the local council—as my hon. Friend will understand, that is not for me to decide.

As I have said, Mole Valley has an old local plan, so having an effective and up-to-date plan in place is long overdue. Such a plan is essential to identifying the very latest development needed in any given area, deciding where it should go and dealing with planning applications. The plan is also the main vehicle for setting out the vision for Mole Valley and how to address housing needs, along with economic, social and environmental priorities. It is for the independent inspectors to consider the council’s planned strategy, but I know that Mole Valley’s emerging strategy has been not to fully meet its own housing needs. It is clear that Mole Valley has not been delivering homes—its delivery is within the bottom 10% nationally, as shown in the latest housing delivery test results. The council has indicated, as part of its examination documentation, that it had a shortfall of 1,164 dwellings over a five-year period, with only 2.9 years of supply. My hon. Friend will also know that housing affordability is a significant issue in Mole Valley. The council is clearly way, way behind, first on having a plan, and secondly on delivery of housing.

The inspectors had agreed to pause the examination between February and May 2023 to take account of the local election result. That pause was later extended to allow for publication of the updated national planning policy framework. That was a perfectly reasonable position to take. However, the transitional arrangements in the updated NPPF make it clear that the Mole Valley local plan will be examined using the pre-December 2023 NPPF—that is, the NPPF under which the draft local plan was developed.

My hon. Friend will know that our Government’s policy is clear: councils and their communities are best placed to take decisions on local planning matters, without unnecessary interference from central Government. However, when it becomes clear that a council is not acting in the best interests of its communities, it is only right that the Government consider whether it is appropriate to act. With that in mind, the Department became aware of an extraordinary council meeting arranged for 25 January, which included a motion to withdraw the local plan from examination.

It is not unusual for a council under a new administration to want to change direction on its local plan, but that is normally before a plan is formally submitted for examination. However, there was no change of administration at Mole Valley; a Liberal Democrat administration voted to submit the plan to examination, and a Liberal Democrat administration subsequently wanted to consider a motion to withdraw the plan. That was after the plan had reached an advanced stage in the process; the hearings had been completed and the main modifications were to be finalised. This is highly unusual.

The council had one of the oldest adopted local plans in the country. Withdrawing the plan at that stage would have meant starting the whole plan preparation process again. The Secretary of State quite rightly concluded that such an action would not be in the best interests of the people of Mole Valley and decided to intervene. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that further delay in a plan coming forward would not serve his constituents’ interests.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I completely agree with the Minister, and with the reasons why the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety wrote to the council. The difficulty is that there were two choices left: one was to withdraw from the green belt; the other was to remain. The council’s choice was to retain the green-belt sites. The Minister said that the council will have to justify its decisions. As I see it, the council will have to justify why it has 30 or so sites—perhaps individually—in that plan in the green belt, in spite of the fact that the local population are vehemently against that.

[Felicity Buchan]

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot talk to the specifics of the plan—that is not my responsibility. However, I will talk generally about the Government’s philosophy on the green belt. Just to be clear, the process is that the local plan goes to examination by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspectorate comments on the plan. It then goes to consultation.

It is definitely not in the interests of my hon. Friend’s constituents for there to be further delay in the plan coming forward, as that may well mean that homes are built on a speculative basis, with no co-ordination and with limited buy-in from local people. Even the council has acknowledged that in the absence of an updated plan, with no prospect of a new plan coming forward for years, the district would be at risk of developments on green-belt sites getting planning permission because of the district’s poor housing delivery record.

I am pleased to hear that following the Secretary of State’s most timely direction, Mole Valley District Council has indicated its willingness to progress, and to then conclude its work at the examination. Its intention is to inform the inspectors that the council wishes to continue with the draft local plan, subject to the modifications identified by the inspectors.

I want to step away from the details of Mole Valley and the local plan, update the House, and clarify the Government’s position on green belt. Let me touch on what we are doing to not only protect but enhance our green belt. I am proud to say that our national planning policy delivers on the promises we made in the 2019 manifesto. The Government remain committed to protecting and enhancing the green belt. National planning policy includes strong protections to safeguard this important land for future generations, and this policy remains firmly in place. I should emphasise that national policy will continue to expect that green belt boundaries are altered only where exceptional circumstances can be fully evidenced and justified at examination of the revised plan. In order to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a local authority has to show that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified development needs. Green belt release is a last resort.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

In broad terms, is it not unacceptable to assume that an exceptional circumstance is the need to increase housing? It certainly was when I was in the Minister’s shoes. Is that still the case?

[Felicity Buchan]

The Government’s position is clear; let me restate it. To demonstrate exceptional circumstances, the local authority has to show that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified development needs. As I say, green belt release is definitely the last resort.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Organisations in the private sector, such as the one in his constituency, are contributing to dealing with the building safety crisis. It is the responsibility of Homes England and indeed my Department to make sure that small and medium-sized enterprises that are making a contribution are promptly paid. I have raised the issue with Homes England and in the Department, and I hope that prompt payment will follow. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for speaking up for small business in his constituency.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

T9. Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that green-belt sites set aside for housing in local council draft plans are removed prior to plan adoption?

[Lucy Frazer]

The national planning policy framework is clear that a local authority should not propose to alter a green-belt boundary unless there are exceptional circumstances and it can show at examination of the local plan that it has explored every other reasonable option. Any proposal to release land from green belt is subject to rigorous examination by the planning inspector, who is independent and who acts on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Mole Valley Local Plan

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am delighted to see the Minister on the Front Bench, who is nearly a neighbour and knows the area that I am talking about, even though he cannot specifically mention it. I realise that he cannot discuss the actual Mole Valley local plan, because he is in a quasi-judicial position as long as it is under assessment by the planning inspector, but I am sure that he can cover in broad terms the issues that I hope the inspector will focus on.

As an ex-council leader, I clearly see the full potential of a local plan as a chance to develop an imaginative approach to the protection and the enhancement of, in my case, Mole Valley. It is a chance to recommit to the vital principles of green belt protection and to begin the much-needed revival of our towns, particularly Dorking and Leatherhead. These are important objectives, and I am sorry but unsurprised to note that the Liberal Democrats at Mole Valley District Council dismally failed to meet them.

Even the procedures used to get the plan through the council were a mess. The plan was put to the whole council; the vote was not for or against, but to “note the plan”. In other words, as far as I can tell, there was no full council vote on the actual plan. The draft plan apparently passed through the council executive, which is entirely Liberal Democrat controlled. I am unsure whether there was a vote there or—more likely—a small clique rammed it through with another mere “note” of the plan.

At the full council meeting earlier this year, every single Conservative councillor was opposed to noting the plan and spoke up about the damage it would do. All independent councillors were also opposed. Subsequently, many Liberal Democrat councillors have been frantically distancing themselves from the same plan that they voted to note. Any hon. Member who has dealt with the Lib Dems at a local level will not be particularly surprised to hear that.

I understand that the final draft plan has not been discussed with Surrey County Council, which is the body that should be discussing roads, social services, schools and other infrastructure, all of which goes unmentioned but is relevant to the plan. I believe it has also not been discussed with the relevant health organisations; no consideration has been given to medical centres, GP practices and so on.

Similarly, I understand that there has been no discussion with Thames Water, which is responsible for sewage, or SES Water, which, as its name implies, would supply water to any new houses. As I believe the inspector has already pointed out, there is confusion as to the status of discussion between Highways England and the council about M25 junction 9 at the northern edge of Mole Valley. Many of my constituents have the impression that the Liberal Democrat councillors see themselves, on their local plan island, as isolated and cut off from external opinion and input. In fact, it is not an island but an iceberg, melting around the edges and slowly sinking.

I came here from a high country farm in Otago, New Zealand. It was the sort of country that is green from horizon to horizon. In Mole Valley, if one stands on the viewing point at Box Hill, one can see the beautiful green landscape wrapped around our two towns and assorted villages. I came to Mole Valley safe in the knowledge that virtually all our precious natural surroundings were protected. They were either green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty, ancient forests or had some other form of protection. Admittedly, that makes it hard to draft a local plan with adequate numbers of new houses. Under those circumstances, the housing target for Mole Valley is high, but it is only a target.

As I mentioned earlier, I am a former leader of Wandsworth Council. I am not—I emphasise the word not—suggesting that Mole Valley could or should mimic Wandsworth’s approach, but it is worth noting that that council, when it was Conservative, managed to build or have in plan more dwellings than the rest of inner London combined. It did so with creative thinking and by embracing innovation—it can be done.

The main towns of Mole Valley need reviving. Dorking and Leatherhead need shops. Shops need shoppers, and shoppers need homes. Years ago, I ran a brief investigation on the extensive files held by Boots the Chemists on Mole Valley shoppers based on data taken from their loyalty cards. It was apparent that the vast majority of youngsters left Mole Valley for university and beyond, and they did not return until at least their mid-30s. We need to draw these younger people back, but three, four or five-bedroom houses on the outer reaches of Mole Valley’s green belt will simply not do that. We need modern flats close to commuter hubs such as Dorking or Leatherhead stations. There is land, including car parks, near and even directly adjacent to Leatherhead station and on the so-called Aviva site, that would be ideal for development.

The local plan contains development, but it is inadequate, insufficient and will not provide enough dwellings. Seizing the opportunities now will maximise the amount of brownfield land available for development. We can even work with National Rail to develop on its land—I have done it. We must take any chance to prevent the Lib Dems from grabbing our precious green belt and forever ruining our irreplaceable natural surroundings.

Early on, in the run-up to developing the plan, many villages and parish councils were asked for input and put in hours of community work developing neighbourhood plans. These plans were carefully thought out and provided for many units that would fit in with the villages without eroding the green belt. This was what I would call “modest and acceptable expansion”. To the best of my knowledge, the plans have been ignored or discounted by this out-of-touch Lib Dem council.

My hon Friend the Minister is not able to respond directly to Mole Valley’s plan, but he might be able to set some broad parameters or guidelines that may be helpful for the inspector in looking at this disgraceful plan. Moreover, I hope he will feel able to put a record of his thoughts, and perhaps mine, into the inspector’s hands as evidence to be considered. Mole Valley needs a plan that saves its green belt and revives its towns.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Paul Scully)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing a debate on a topic that is important not just to him and his area—I know he has campaigned vociferously on it—but to the country as a whole. I can think of few better things to do on a Friday afternoon than to talk specifically about Mole Valley’s local plan. As he says, I am a near neighbour and know Dorking and Leatherhead well. Obviously, however, he rightly says that I am unable to go into the specifics, but I will try to deal with some of the general points, which may shed some light on the matter and complement his campaign.

The whole House will share a mutual appreciation of the parks and green spaces that add vibrancy to our communities and lift the spirits of the people within them. My hon. Friend was right to talk about the circular nature of shops needing shoppers and shoppers needing homes. The whole point of a local plan is to have a holistic view of the local area, rather than just chasing targets.

I mentioned green spaces and, after the NHS, they were what people turned to most during the pandemic, as a source of solace and space. It is that kind of holistic view that allows communities to breathe and expand. As we get past the covid pandemic, it is right that we reflect on what will keep our green spaces looking beautiful and brilliant in the months and years ahead.

My main message is that the Government share my hon. Friend’s determination to ensure that there are adequate green spaces for communities to enjoy right across the country. As he said, I cannot comment on the specific case, because the Secretary of State and my Department have a quasi-judicial role in the planning system, but I can speak to our unwavering commitment to keeping the country green and beautiful, and to what exactly we are doing as a Government to protect green spaces while encouraging development in the places it is needed most.

My ministerial role in the planning system means that I cannot drill down into the specifics of local plans, including the evidence base, the handling of the planning process, or any proposal for a new policy, but I can share some facts about the plan and how it is submitted. Mole Valley put forward its emerging local plan for the Secretary of State to consider in February. As is normally the case, the then Secretary of State appointed an independent planning inspector to assess the emerging plan, and hearing sessions at the examination in public started in June. The independent inspector’s role is to look at whether the plan is legally compliant before considering whether it is sound.

For a plan to be found legally compliant, the local planning authority must demonstrate that all the procedural checks and balances have been followed. Effective co-operation early in the plan making process is essential to ensure that the homes and infrastructure needed are planned for. It is expected that authorities collaborate with stakeholders to identify the relevant strategic matters to be addressed. For a plan to be considered sound, it should be positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. Ultimately, the inspector may report that the plan is unsound and cannot be adopted by the local council, but that is not for me to decide.

For the plan then to be adopted, it will require a full council vote, where all elected councillors are able to have their say. Mole Valley’s last local plan was adopted in 2009, and it stands to reason that having an effective, up-to-date plan in place is essential to identify the very latest development needed in any given area, deciding where it should go and dealing with planning applications. In this case, we would expect the local plan to set out the vision for Mole Valley and a framework for addressing housing needs and any other economic, social and environmental priorities, many of which my hon. Friend mentioned.

I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that due to my role, I cannot comment on specific planning applications, but he will know that local planning authorities are required to undertake a formal period of public consultation prior to deciding any application. Relevant concerns or considerations raised by local residents may be taken into account by the local authority. Applications are determined in accordance with the development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Each application is judged on its own individual merit, and the weight given to those considerations is a matter for the local planning authority as the decision taker in the first instance.

Let me touch on what we are doing not only to protect but to enhance our green belt. I am proud to say that our national planning policy delivers on the promises we made in the 2019 manifesto, with strong protections that safeguard this important land for future generations—promises that I hope will remain in place, irrespective of the outcome of the leadership competition. The national planning policy framework sets two tests to protect the green belt and the openness of land within it: first, that a local authority should not propose to alter a green belt boundary unless there are truly exceptional circumstances; and secondly, that it can show during the examination of a local plan that it has explored every other reasonable option, such as using brownfield land, optimising the density of development, and discussing whether neighbouring authorities could take some of the development required. The long and short of it is that our current framework is clear that inappropriate development—a designation that includes most forms of new building—should not be approved on a green belt except in very special circumstances, as determined by the local authority.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My memory, having been in the Minister’s position, is that “exceptional circumstances” does not mean housing merely to fill the statistical numbers required or requested.

[Paul Scully]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is right. Exceptional circumstances means exactly that. It does not mean just jumping into targets because of a lack of preparation elsewhere. That is key to understanding the issue. He talks about the local plan and the robust steps that any local authority has to engage in to get a sound judgment by the inspector and get a local plan adopted in the first place. It is about not just chasing targets, but the holistic view that I was talking about earlier.

The logical counterweight to building on green belt is to make far, far better use of suitable brownfield land, especially to meet housing needs and to regenerate our high streets and town centres. It is a principle at the heart of our levelling up agenda and our mission to drive forward bold, Kings Cross-inspired regeneration projects in cities and towns across the country. My hon. Friend was very modest, as a former leader of Wandsworth Council, when he talked about that progressive council and the inspiration we can draw from it. For years, derelict sites across the country have been not only unloved but underutilised. In many cases, they happen to be the most sustainable locations for the kind of new homes and new developments we need, but too often that potential goes unrealised.

To help councils and support the re-use of suitable brownfield land, we have done a number of things, including updating the national planning policy framework so it sets out that planning policies and decisions must give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield sites; increasing housing need by 35% in our 20 most populated urban areas in the UK, so we can make the best use of existing infrastructure, including schools, shops, GP practices, train stations and bus stations, as my hon. Friend alluded to; and requiring that every local authority collates and publishes a register of local brownfield land suitable for housing in their area. We have already seen the dividends of those kinds of forward-thinking policies. For example, the registers tell us that nationally we have more than 28,000 hectares of developable land, which is enough land for 1 million homes.

We are, of course, committed to building the homes the country needs and to ensuring they are built in the places they are needed most. Over recent years, housebuilding has defied all expectations. Thanks to the steps the Government took with the industry at the height of the pandemic, we kept the conveyor belt of house building going, with over 216,00 new homes built in 2020-21—just a small dip on the previous year. There is every indication that in 2022, even with the challenging economic backdrop, the numbers will climb back up in the coming months and years.

Thanks to measures such as the one we introduced in 2018 to assess local housing need—a measure that makes less opaque and more efficient the process of identifying how many homes any place needs—local areas are in a much better position. To help us reach our housing targets we changed the formula in December 2020 to grow the numbers of homes and meet demand in our 20 most populated urban areas. That will not just help us to deliver homes that help people get on to the housing ladder; it will also make sure we are developing in a way that makes the most use possible of existing infrastructure and helps us minimise the cost to the climate of long-distance commutes.

When we look to the future and what that future looks like for our planning process, the Government set out their vision through the reforms we proposed in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which was introduced on 11 May and is going through its parliamentary process now. The Bill will place a duty on local authorities to engage with their communities on proposed plans, giving communities far more say in planning applications and empowering them to have their say in the first place. The increased weight given to plans and national policy by the Bill will give more assurance that areas of environmental importance, such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas at high risk of flooding, will be respected in decisions on planning applications and appeals. The same is true of the green belt, which will continue to be safeguarded.

Meanwhile, measures to digitise the planning system will help radically transform the way that information about plans, planning applications and the information underpinning them is made available. That transparency will make the process smoother for all parties while putting the power back where it belongs: in the hands of local communities.

I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing the debate. With so much focus on other events, it is more important than ever that we keep discussing and debating the issues that really make a difference to people’s day-to-day lives. Again, I can only apologise that we cannot go beyond generalities into the specifics of his constituency. What I will say, however, is that we have both faced Lib Dem councils, but it is so important that local councils of any colour engage with the residents they represent. Councillors are there to reflect the desires of the people who put them in power in the first place. They have an incredible power to shape their community for decades to come through local plans. It is incredibly important that all areas get it right, but they can only do so by bringing people with them and going through the correct process.

When I look at the lie of the land with levelling up and regeneration and think about the direction of travel, I am reminded of a quotation from the American poet Randall Jarrell:

“The people who live in a golden age usually go around complaining how yellow everything looks.”

Don’t get me wrong—I know how much further we have to go to get the balance right between protecting green land and ensuring that the homes the country needs get built—but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and the interest from parliamentarians on both sides of the House will help us to get there.

Question put and agreed to.

Council Tax: Government’s Proposed Increase

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) [V]]

I listened to the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). The sad things he is telling us go right across the country, and that is why the Government have put a staggering £36 billion into local authorities and local businesses. Some £4.6 billion of that has been given in unprecedented, unring-fenced grants to those local authorities, and many of them, particularly the Labour ones, should be looking over their shoulder at how they have been spending the money. Their largesse is often outrageous.

It is interesting to compare three south London councils: Southwark, Lambeth and Wandsworth. All three are very similar, in that they are London local authorities, all with similar needs and a similar population. All have similar inner-city problems. They are neighbours. The first two are Labour-controlled, and have been through a considerable period of time as Labour-controlled councils. They have a reputation for high council taxes, without the quality of services to match. Wandsworth is a Conservative-controlled council. It has a reputation for high-quality services and low council tax. The central Government grant to Lambeth is approximately 15% higher than that to Wandsworth. The grant to Southwark is approximately 20% higher. The grant per head of the population is approximately 20% higher for both the Labour authorities.

If one looks at the council tax of those authorities, after the removal of the Mayor’s precept, Wandsworth’s council tax for this financial year at band D is approximately 40% that of the two Labour authorities, and it provides better services. Those councils should look to their expenditure. That is where they should be looking, but I guess they will not.

We all recognise that covid has put all local authorities under considerable pressure, but that is no excuse to agree the motion we are considering, which would cover the inability of many Labour authorities to better manage their services. They should use this opportunity for the sake of the public to keep their council tax rises right down, if not to zero.

Planning System: Gypsies and Travellers

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

It is a delight to have your eagle eye on us, Sir George, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate. I will heed your advice to be short and will focus on one tiny point—as I look around the Chamber, there is a sigh of relief that I will be sitting down soon.

Mole Valley is an interesting and beautiful area covered with green belt, areas of special scientific interest and so forth. Anyone who applies for permission to build on land there has extreme difficulty, unless they are applying for land within the limited amount that is available for normal building. That applies to the settled community and to the Traveller community. Most Travellers in our area are on settled sites and are part of the community, and most of the kids go to school. The situation works normally and is accepted by the settled community.

However, we must recognise that any constituent who builds on land in Mole Valley, especially green-belt land, without permission can expect a heavy hand to apply to them. We have had a few such cases, and the properties have been completely demolished. However, some of the Traveller community—I emphasise that it is some—do not seem to believe that the laws apply to them, or they just ignore them. I will give just one example of many. It is on a green-belt pasture land site in Leatherhead. In 2003, Travellers with a distinct Irish accent arrived out of the blue and squatted on the site. They said they owned it, and they may have—I am not absolutely sure. They fenced it and put in a fast-growing hedge and a series of caravans. They put up buildings of a more permanent design than caravans. To my amusement, they put in two high, wrought-iron, electrically operated gates of the sort that one might expect to see at a manor house. It really is quite extraordinary.

Over the years, the usual series of planning applications have been made and rejected. They have been appealed, and the appeals have been rejected. Deadlines that have been set for departure from the site have come and gone. Just as a deadline approaches, new and slightly different planning applications are delivered to the local authority, sometimes hours or minutes before the deadline. The Travellers are still on the site—they have been there since 2003. The newly Liberal Mole Valley Council that was elected last May has just published its draft local plan. To the absolute dismay of the law-abiding settled community, and despite local resistance at every stage, the council has decided to designate the green-belt site as a Traveller site, in addition to the other Traveller sites that are being created.

In other words, if the Liberals have their way, 17 years of blatant abuse of the planning laws will have paid off for those Travellers, who do not travel. A proportion of the green-belt pasture land will be gone, and the series of rejections, repeals and so forth will be set aside and ignored. From what I have seen, this is the sort of behaviour that one expects of the Sicilian Mafia. One might ask why those Travellers act in such a way. The answer, of course, is because they frequently can. Nobody, including the courts, the police, the local authority and various Government Departments, seem capable of stopping them.

The Minister and his Department are running a review, which has been mentioned. It has been running for years and the time has come for some action. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said that it will be completed within five years, but we do not want to wait that long. We are making local plans, and we need something in short order. We need the Minister to consider tightening up the legal definition of Travellers, which is too loose at the moment—many of those who squat have no intention of travelling. Extraordinarily, the claim to “need” to live in caravans frequently overcomes the normal and understandable offer of bricks-and-mortar accommodation, especially where the local authority is required to house Traveller families. That is particularly relevant where children and infants would, by normal standards, be accommodated in a better, healthier environment than a caravan or some of the out-of-the-way sites in the middle of the green belt.

Local planning authorities should be in a situation where they can force vacation of the land prior to approval or rejection of a planning application. If a house builder started building on a site without permission, a stop notice would be applied. The change should be applicable to, and enforceable on, Gypsies or Travellers —I had better change that to Travellers, because I know many Gypsies who are the most pleasant, law-abiding people I have come across. It is time we did something, because the law-abiding population—the settled community—would not test the system as they know they would be rejected, but the Traveller community abuse it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I am a new Member and this is my first Westminster Hall debate, so I came this morning with a little trepidation.

I have listened with alarm at what the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and other Conservative Members have said. Gypsies and Traveller communities are not a problem that needs to be tackled, nor should legislation crack down on them. They are citizens entitled to equal treatment and the protection of their way of life. The dehumanising language we have heard should have no place in society or in the halls of power.

I appreciate that this debate is about planning law and relates to the Gypsy and Traveller communities, but that topic cannot be understood outside the context of the prejudice that they face. All too often, they are othered as outsiders unworthy of equal rights. As with all types of bigotry, it comes from the top down—including, I am sad to say, from Members of this House, who have in the past compared Gypsies and Travellers to a “disease” and a “plague”. Such scapegoating catches on.

A report by the Traveller Movement found that 91% of people in the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities had experienced racism because of their ethnicity. Some 70% had experienced discrimination in education; 49% had faced discrimination in employment; and 30% in access to health. More than three-quarters said that because of this prejudice, they have hidden their ethnicity to avoid discrimination.

Such bigotry—like all bigotries—has consequences: 77% of Gypsy, Roma and Travellers report having experienced hate speech or hate crime. Racist attacks are common, such as the burning of three caravans in Somerset at the end of last year and the killing of Johnny Delaney, a teenager kicked to death in 2003— his assailants reportedly shouting that he was only an “effing Gypsy”.

This prejudice has a long history: from 16th-century laws that threatened nomadic peoples with exile or death, to the Thatcherite Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which repealed the duty of local authorities to provide sites for Roma and Travellers. Since then, there have only been further reductions in stopping places and authorised sites, which has left many with the choice either to use unauthorised sites or to abandon their identity. The inadequate provision for Gypsy and Traveller communities is the principal cause of the problems that hon. Members have mentioned. It is hardly surprising that a mess is made when adequate sites are not provided for them. The advocacy group Friends, Families and Travellers argued that the main cause of unauthorised camps was

“the abject failure of the government to identify land for sites and stopping places.”

It is a mistake to blame the effect, when the underlying cause of inadequate provision is at fault. That is why the Government’s consultation document, released early last year, as well as Tory manifesto commitments, are of great concern to me. The sweeping new police powers would be unnecessary and authoritarian. Existing powers are already more than enough, as shown by the fact that the majority of police who responded to the Government’s initial consultation opposed increased eviction powers. The powers are also authoritarian. One traveller said:

“The police will have the power to kick my door in, take my home, arrest me and take the children into care. We won’t get them back because we won’t have a home.”

That is the fear that those proposals cause in the Gypsy and Traveller community.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Zarah Sultana]

Sorry, I will not.

The proposals do not solve a problem; they further oppress a marginalised group.

What, then, are they really about? Why was this bigotry so prevalent throughout the Conservatives’ election campaign? Was it because this is a major issue faced by working people of this country? Of course not. It is because, in the words of the chair of the Gypsy Council, the Tories are trying to

“criminalise Gypsies to hide their own failures”.

I know what it is like to be part of a scapegoated community. According to research from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, 22% of people openly express negative feelings towards Muslims, while 44% openly express negative feelings towards Gypsies. We are both scapegoated communities blamed for problems not of our making. I note that the hon. Member for Kettering, who calls for oppressive measures on the Gypsy and Traveller communities, has also demanded that the burqa be banned.

Some people—often children born to wealthy families, sent to expensive private schools and educated at prestigious universities—are intent on blaming people they deem to be outsiders. I know where the real blame lies: not with Gypsies or Travellers, migrants or refugees, Jewish people or Muslims, but with a class of people born into privilege who dominate society and use their power and privilege to deflect the blame for a failing economy away from themselves. Instead, they scapegoat others.

At a time when there is rising racism against Muslims, Jewish people and the Gypsy and Traveller community, we must all stand up to bigotry wherever we see it and recognise that our struggles are one and the same. There is safety in solidarity, which is more powerful and more beautiful than anyone’s hate.

Intentional Unauthorised Development

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I accept that point. It seems to me that we are trying to have an orderly planning system on which people can rely as a level playing field, equal for all. If the planning system is not enforced, we end up with a system that can be railroaded, which is in effect what is happening.

As I was saying, as council enforcement proceeds, with a good deal of development already on site, retrospective planning permission is applied for. The process is delayed, with the inevitable inertia of court or planning inquiry proceedings, and the scope for applications for adjournments, so months can pass into years. Perhaps a personal permission is eventually obtained on appeal. Then, I am told, more unauthorised development might take place for a family member here or a living room there. Over a period of years, the initial failure to apply for planning permission has been rewarded with a full caravan site. That might help to explain why the number of caravans on unauthorised sites has increased by 17% in the past year.

If a site is intentionally developed without permission, should it not be put back into the state that it was in before, and then a planning application could be made? Should not the enforcement notices all be followed, and then, from the position of anybody else applying in advance, we should have that proper process?

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

As the Minister is aware, I have had considerable difficulty in my constituency. Some of the sites have been fought over for 14 to 18 years. I have a very aggressive one at the moment. Perhaps the Minister might consider enabling the local authority to put a stop order on any development at all, emphasised and backed by the courts.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

That is a very constructive proposal and I would be interested to hear how the Minister responds to it. At the moment, if a site is intentionally developed without permission, there does not seem to be much of a disincentive to ignore planning law in the first place. The Government’s planning policies and requirements for Gypsy and Traveller sites are set out in “Planning policy for traveller sites”, which must be taken into consideration in preparing local plans and taking planning decisions. In theory, that encourages local authorities to formulate their own evidence base for Gypsy and Traveller needs and to provide their own targets relating to pitches required, which is a good thing. Where planning authorities are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites, that in turn might make it more difficult for them to justify refusing planning applications for temporary pitches. However, where a council does what is suggested, that does not provide the certainty for the council or the local residents that is intended.

In preparing its local plan, East Hertfordshire District Council undertook a thorough process to establish Traveller needs. That was scrutinised by the planning inspector as part of the public examination of the draft plan and, after due consideration, the plan was approved by the Secretary of State and adopted in November 2018. Yet within weeks, it was being argued successfully on a retrospective planning appeal before another planning inspector that this did not adequately reflect Traveller need in the district because it did not include the appellant, who was not actually living in the district at the time of the council survey a few months earlier. Surely the local plan should have more force than that. There should be a period from adoption of the plan within which it is not possible to reopen issues such as that of need. The plan should be determinative—at least for a reasonable period.

In a welcome January 2014 written ministerial statement, the Government sought to re-emphasise existing policy that

“unmet need, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development in the green belt.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 35WS.]

I asked the Minister whether that still applied.

In September 2014, the coalition Government published “Consultation: planning and travellers”. This made intentional occupation of land without planning permission a material consideration in any retrospective planning application for that site. Will the Minister confirm that that remains the case?

The guidance “Dealing with illegal and unauthorised encampments: a summary of available powers” was published in March 2015. Since then, there have been a number of debates in which hon Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), have highlighted these issues. On 9 October 2017, the then Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), said that the Government expected local authorities and the police to act and announced a review of the effectiveness of enforcement against unauthorised encampments, and made the point that this was not a reason for local authorities and the police not to use their existing powers.

On 12 October that year, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), reiterated that the law must apply to everyone and agencies should work together to deal with wrongdoing. In April 2018, the Government launched a consultation and published their response in February this year. In it, the Government set out their intentions for further action on unauthorised developments and encampments, including:

“Practical and financial support for local authorities including new good practice guidance and funding for planning enforcement to support local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments more effectively…Supporting traveller site provision through planning policy and the Affordable Homes Programme…Support for the travelling community to improve life chances”.

Many Gypsies and Travellers now live in settled accommodation—mostly in bricks and mortar—and do not travel, or do not travel all the time, but they do consider travelling part of their identity. The number of Traveller caravans is on the increase. In July 2018, the figure was 22,662—an increase of 29% since July 2008. There are concerns expressed by Select Committees of the House that this is leading to unsatisfactory conditions in unauthorised sites. It is also worth making the point that Travellers have the worst outcomes across a wide range of social indicators, so work to improve their life chances is welcome.

The Government have said that they will consider writing to local authorities that do not have an up-to-date plan for Travellers, to expedite the requirements of national planning policy and highlight examples of good practice. But this may be ineffective if the general view of councils becomes that, even if they prepare a plan and it is approved as part of the local plan by the inspector and the Secretary of State, such a plan can still be impugned within weeks in a retrospective planning appeal. I understand that the Government intend to publish further consultations on options for strengthening policy on intentional unauthorised development, but action is needed now to uphold the rule of law, provide a level playing field, and remove the stress and tension caused to local communities by intentional unauthorised developments.

[The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)]

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) on securing this debate. He has been a persistent and formidable champion for his constituents, and has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions. I am pleased that we are now able to address it in the open air.

The Government take unauthorised encampments extremely seriously, and a lot of work is ongoing in this area. Both I and the Secretary of State have listened extensively to views from across the House on this highly important issue, and recognise the strong feelings and concerns that have been raised in recent debates and discussions. As both I and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), have stressed before in this Chamber, the Government are listening and taking action. We have listened to concerns raised in debates, discussions and correspondence, and we have sought evidence on the issue through consultation.

In February this year, we published the Government’s response to the “Powers for dealing with unauthorised developments and encampments” consultation, working with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. Since then, ministerial colleagues and officials have been working together closely towards delivering on the commitments made in that response. Among the concerns that have been raised by colleagues in the House and members of the public, there were particular concerns over fairness in the planning system, illegal activity and the wellbeing of travelling communities. Indeed, I can understand the frustration that is felt when it appears that the law does not apply fairly to all. We want to ensure that the system is fair, so we must take into account the concerns being raised—whether those concerns are from the travelling community or members of the settled community. This means ensuring that all members of the community have the same opportunities and are free from the negative effects of those who choose to break the law.

The responses we received to our consultation on unauthorised development highlighted several aspects that we need to improve on in order to address this issue. Our response put forward a package of measures, including consultation on stronger powers for the police to respond to unauthorised encampments, practical and financial support for local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments, support for Traveller site provision and support for the travelling community to improve their life chances. My colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks), recently provided a summary to the House on some of the work that the Government will be undertaking as a result. For the benefit of everybody here today, I will briefly reiterate some of these points, with consideration to what has been brought up by my right hon. and learned Friend.

First, let me address the concerns raised by my right hon. and learned Friend about intentional unauthorised development, and, in particular, how this type of development is taken into account when planning permission is sought retrospectively. The Government do want to ensure that fairness and confidence exists in the planning system, and I believe that this can be partly achieved through the strengthening of policy in this area. In 2015, the Government introduced a policy that made intentional unauthorised development a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and appeals. As set out in our response, we are concerned that harm is caused by the development of land that has been undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission. We will therefore consult on options for strengthening our policy on intentional unauthorised development so that local authorities have the tools to address the effects of such developments. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will contribute to that consultation.

We know, however, that this is not only about having the necessary policies and regulations in place, but about local authorities having the powers and resources to enforce them. There is already an extensive range of powers in place, as set out in the 2015 guidance, to allow local authorities to clamp down quickly on unauthorised encampments. The Government expect authorities, working with the police as necessary, to use these powers to take swift and effective enforcement action. The responses to our consultation on unauthorised developments and encampments demonstrated that local authorities generally believe that the powers available to them under sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are adequate. Local authorities have extensive planning enforcement powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Government believe that, if used effectively, these are sufficient to tackle unauthorised development and reduce the risk of it occurring.

We note, however, that some local authorities may deal with unauthorised encampments less frequently than others, and the Government have heard that it can be difficult to develop expertise and good practice in all areas. We recognise that resourcing, training and skills are a concern in relation to planning enforcement. That is why we have committed to practical and financial support for local authorities, including new good practice guidance and funding for planning enforcement to support local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments more effectively.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

There has recently been a meeting of every single local authority in Surrey. The Chancellor set it up and a number of other MPs went there. They would disagree totally with the Minister that we think that the legislation is adequate. It is inadequate.

[Kit Malthouse]

I hear my hon. Friend’s view of the legislation, but, as I say, it is not the generally accepted view that came through in the consultation. I am more than happy to take a submission from the local authorities in Surrey if they believe that there are lacunae in their powers that mean they are unable to enforce successfully. However, there are local authorities across the country that do successfully enforce in this area. I would be more than happy to put his local authorities in touch with those local authorities who are successful in this regard, particularly the one that is always held out as an example—Sandwell in the west midlands, which has a particularly assertive and successful policy in this area, and might, I am sure, be able to offer some tips and tricks on what is available in the armoury of legislation for local authorities to use.

We want to ensure that local authorities use their powers to full effect and, as I say, draw on good practice across the country, at county or district level, in the ways that they can work more effectively with police and neighbouring authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said earlier, I am keen for us to strengthen the measures that can be taken against intentional unauthorised development, on which my right hon. and learned Friend is very focused, and rightly so, but the process by which we get there means that we have to go through a consultation, which we will be doing shortly. I hope that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) will submit to that consultation whatever measures they think are appropriate.

I think it fair to say that on this issue, given the interest of a large number of Members, the Government have listened and announced a comprehensive package, which will be implemented over the next few months—as my right hon. and learned Friend will know, the wheels of Government often grind slowly—so that in time for next summer, when there will be an uptick in activity, we will have measures in place that will not only allow local authorities to enforce sensibly, but encourage them to provide more transit sites to which Traveller communities can legitimately be moved.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

As part of the consultation, will the Minister take it from me that we would like him to consider the ability for local authorities to step in quickly and put in place a legally binding stop notice on the development as the trucks are driving in, the caravans and kids are arriving and the green belt is being destroyed?

[Kit Malthouse]

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s aspiration for local authorities to be able to move extremely quickly in these circumstances, and a lot of the measures that we are putting in place are intended to encourage them to do exactly that, with authority and in the safe knowledge that they are acting within the law. However, it is also critical that they have a legitimate place to which they can move Traveller communities, so in my view the provision of transit sites is one of the key issues. In my constituency, where we have the same issues—not necessarily with encampments, but certainly with summer visitors—unfortunately we do not have a transit site, and I have talked to my local authority about providing one so that those people who do arrive in Andover every summer can be moved somewhere legitimately and swiftly. I think that the two issues go together.

I would like to end by briefly updating Members on the work that the Government are doing on outcomes for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, which my right hon. and learned Friend quite rightly raised. We are committed to continuing to address the serious disparities faced by these communities. On almost every measure, those communities are significantly worse off than the general population. The Government have been working to improve their outcomes, but we recognise that we need to go further. That is why we recently announced that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will lead the development of a cross-Government strategy to improve their outcomes. We will work closely with other Departments, including the Race Disparity Unit within the Cabinet Office, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office, to develop the strategy. The strategy will seek to tackle the inequalities faced by these communities across a range of outcomes highlighted by the race disparity audit, including housing, education and health.

I would like to conclude by thanking those Members who have participated in this important debate. The Government have listened to Members’ concerns and are progressing on the commitments made in our response to the consultation and on the wider issue of unauthorised development and encampments. I hope that over the next few months all those Members will participate in the various consultations that will appear, so that we can reach a settled policy around which we can unite in solving the problem, while improving the lives of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Travellers in Mole Valley

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for being here as the last man standing. It is an awful position, one I used to have, too. However, this is an opportunity to raise a vexing issue that has plagued my constituency and Surrey as a whole. We are now in what we call the summer Traveller season; it is like a disease. Mole Valley constituency consists of Mole Valley District Council south of the M25 and the eastern wards of Guildford Borough Council. It is close to London and to Epsom downs, so it is attractive to Travellers from afar, and many of those come with a distinct Irish accent.

We have two distinct, different types of Traveller problem. The first involves those who suddenly appear and squat on a site. The second involves those who squat on a site that they say they own or have access to, and then proceed to openly defy planning regulations. The first group very occasionally have permission to camp—as I have noticed—use the site and then they leave it as it was found. That is rare, and normally things are quite different. This is exemplified by an incident at the end of March, when five caravans and various vehicles squatted on a public commuter car park near Leatherhead station. The council moved fast—or, rather, as fast as possible—and after a few days it served a section 77 notice for the caravans to move. Predictably, that was ignored and a couple of days later the police arrived in force and moved them on, with the council then doing the clean-up. This was a waste of time and money, and a blockage, with a loss of space, of a busy commuter car park.

Last Traveller season, Surrey had hundreds of these incidents, and Mole Valley had more than its share. Surrey’s councils and the population accept the need for Traveller sites, but not without limit. Currently, the Surrey districts are working together to provide one or two transit sites, which will help the police and councils to justify their action. Elmbridge Borough Council, a Surrey council, has tried something revolutionary. It mapped every public space—churchyards, schools, playgrounds and so on—in Elmbridge and then obtained a three-year injunction against Traveller squatting on those mapped sites. That meant the police in Elmbridge could act straightaway, regardless of who the individuals were, and whom the vehicles and caravans belonged to. However, this approach has several downsides. As a member of the National Farmers Union, I note that no private land, including farm land, was covered by the injunction. The injunction was for only three years, and huge public efforts and expenditure went into setting up the maps. What this approach does provide is an indication that if such land squatting was criminalised nationally, as I believe applies in Ireland, direct action by the police could take place, whoever owns the land, although obviously at the landowner’s request.

The second area of Traveller abuse relates to abuse of planning law. Mole Valley District Council and the Mole Valley constituency are smothered with building restrictions; we have sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty, green belt and so on. This includes the Guildford wards next door. Any constituent from the settled community that builds without permission, particularly on land where these restrictions apply, can expect to be required to remove the development. Some of the Traveller community do not believe these laws apply to them—or they choose to ignore them. I wish to focus on how a very few of these Travellers manipulate the system in ways that would not be entertained by settled residents or by planning authorities. In saying that, I emphasise that there are a number of successful, popular Gypsy, Traveller sites in the constituency where there are no difficulties and no arguments, and where the community is integrated.

First, I shall touch on two long-standing examples. One is in Guildford, on a site on a narrow little private lane off the A246. The A246 is a busy road, but the lane is tiny and narrow, with few properties. Development is severely limited as it is an area of natural beauty, with ancient forests—it is green belt and so on. A Traveller from outside Mole Valley inherited the land, or access to it, squatted on it and, over a short period, placed a number of caravans, trucks and cars there and ran several different businesses from the site.

The second example is in Leatherhead, on green-belt pasture land. Since what I believe are Irish Travellers arrived at the site in 2003, which is a few days back, the area has been fenced, a fast-growing hedge has been planted, a number of caravans have been placed there and a few other buildings of a more permanent design have been built. To my amusement, two large, high, wrought-iron, electrically operated gates have been erected between pillars at the entrances. It looks like the entry to a minor stately home.

On both sites, it is apparently the norm that all injunctions have been ignored; numerous applications have been made, rejected and appealed; and relations with the local community are fractious, with numerous threats to community members. As I said, the Travellers arrived in 2003, so this has been going on for years, without success in ensuring that the planning laws respected by the settled community are not ignored or dodged by devious legal means by the people who have squatted there.

A third case commenced this Easter weekend in Capel. By chance, I drove past and came across the site. Going by the accent, it was probably a group of Irish Travellers, with two or three small caravans squatted on a two-acre field. They claim that they own the land, which may or may not be true. The land is accessed by a narrow agreed-access way over another person’s land. The squatters bought in a small digger and widened the access way, and they wooden-fenced the widened way without the landowner’s agreement. This morning, I observed that the fence has been taken down while the access is being further enlarged and re-fenced to allow through bigger vehicles, such as horse-carrying vehicles and bigger caravans. The standing passage right of way for this field specifically bans caravans.

The individuals have brought in a number of lorry-loads of hardcore, which was laid and spread by a fairly large JCB digger. The wooden buildings were knocked down to make space for what I understand are going to be new buildings, including stables. A local neighbour I talked to was threatened by the individuals in respect of the water supply, which I understand has been accessed probably without the water company’s agreement. Moreover, other neighbours have been threatened and told not to interfere or they will suffer severe retaliation.

The local council is seeking legal advice pending an approach to the courts. The Travellers have put in the usual foot-in-the-door planning application for caravans and stables for a horse business. This probably means that the council cannot act on any injunction until the application is heard, presumably reviewed, refused and then appealed. That will probably be followed by a further sequence of applications and appeals, and in around 20 years’ time these people will have continued to breed there, raised their horses, increased the whole site, or at least the number of vehicles on it, and added numerous caravans and more businesses.

The behaviour is along the lines of what I have seen of the Mafia in Sicily. One might ask why these people would act in this way; the answer is, of course, because they can and nobody, including the courts, the police and the local authority, seems capable of stopping them. The Minister and his Department have being running a review for months, now running into years. It is time for a speedy and tough response.

First, in cases of squatting on possibly-owned land and the ignoring of planning regulations, I would like the Government to change the legislation to enable local authority planning officers to place an immediate stop notice on even minor development, with heavy fines and ultimately jail for failure to comply and return the land to the condition it was in before. Leave it to the Travellers rather than the local authorities to go to court if they wish to oppose the stop notice. Where Travellers squat on other people’s land without permission, this should be made a criminal offence. That is how it is done in Ireland and it seems to work, enabling the police to take direct and immediate action.

Next, will the Minister consider tightening up the legal definition of Travellers? It is too loose at the moment, and one thing that those who squat do not do is travel. Related to that is the extraordinary requirement that the claim to need to live in caravans should overcome the normal and understandable offer of bricks and mortar accommodation. That is particularly relevant where children and infants would by normal standards be accommodated in a better and healthier environment in a normal dwelling. I have a number of other suggestions, but I will test just one more. Will the Minister enlarge on the definition of repetitive similar applications, so that these can be accumulated and rejected at a stroke?

There is a belief among many of the settled community who brush up against these individuals—that is a polite way of putting such contact—that such Travellers ignore normal law-abiding activity because the law is weak and ineffective. My experience supports that feeling. Change is years overdue; and, because of the Easter events, let me make a vain request: can any change be made retrospective to the day before last Easter? Over to you, Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing this important debate. Reading through the materials to prepare for this evening, I saw very clearly his long-standing commitment to standing up for his constituents on, as he described it, this vexing issue. It was also clear that he has consistently pushed the Government to support his residents, and I commend him for that.

I am pleased to say that the Government take the issue of unauthorised encampments extremely seriously. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing have listened extensively to the views of those in this House on this highly sensitive and important issue and recognise the strong feelings and concerns raised by many Members. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has articulated powerfully about his own constituents, many other hon. Members have also highlighted the sense of unease and intimidation that residents feel when an unauthorised encampment occurs, the frustration at being unable to access amenities and premises and the waste left and cost once an unauthorised encampment has moved on. The Government were also troubled to hear about the widespread perception that the rule of law does not apply to those who choose a nomadic lifestyle and that the sense of available enforcement powers did not protect settled communities properly—all points that my hon. Friend has made on many occasions previously.

The Government therefore sought evidence on this issue through a formal and substantive consultation. Our “Powers for dealing with unauthorised development and encampments” consultation received more than 2,000 responses, and I am pleased to say that the Government published our response just a couple of months ago. Among the various concerns raised by colleagues in the House and members of the public, particular issues were highlighted regarding illegal activity, enforcement or the lack thereof, concerns about planning policy and the green belt, and concerns about outcomes for the travelling community.

I am confident that I speak for everyone in this House when I say that we recognise that the majority of the travelling community are decent, law-abiding people, but we need to ensure that the system is fair for all members of our communities. That means ensuring that everybody has the same opportunities, is subject to the same laws and is free from the negative effects of those who choose to break the law.

I am pleased to say that the Government response puts forward a package of measures to address those issues, including consultation on stronger powers for the police to respond to unauthorised encampments, practical and financial support for local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments, support for Traveller site provision, and support for the travelling community to improve life chances. I thank ministerial colleagues in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice for their assistance in this work.

I will summarise the various strands of work that the Government are now undertaking. In doing so, I will respond to the specific points raised by my hon. Friend. I will first address my hon. Friend’s concern regarding intentional unauthorised development—in particular, how intentional unauthorised development should be taken into account when planning permission is sought retrospectively. In 2015, the Government introduced a policy that made intentional unauthorised development a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and appeals. As set out in our response, we are concerned that harm is caused where the development of land has been undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission; the Government have listened to my hon. Friend on this issue. The Government have now committed to consulting on options for strengthening this policy on intentional unauthorised development so that local authorities have the tools to address the effects of such development. This will help to ensure greater confidence and fairness in the planning system.

On a related matter, I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government remain committed to strong protection of the green belt, which my hon. Friend has also championed many times in this place. The Government have been very clear, through the national planning policy framework, that inappropriate development—including Traveller sites, whether temporary or permanent —is harmful to the green belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. The document “Planning policy for traveller sites”, which was updated in 2015, makes it clear that personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the green belt.

The planning system is of course continually reviewed, and I will take on board the comments made by my hon. Friend tonight as the Department looks at updating its guidance for Traveller sites to bring that in line with the national planning policy framework. Indeed, the Department always reserves the option of issuing planning practical guidance documents to fine tune our view on particular interpretations of planning guidance.

This Government are also committed to continuing to address the disparities faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. As a result, we have provided £200,000 of funding for six projects that aim to improve outcomes in the areas of educational attainment, health and social integration. We have also funded 22 projects that support Roma communities across England through the controlling migration fund. Interventions include improving access to services, improving health outcomes, outreach and supporting children and English language learning. We have also provided two projects with £55,000 each to tackle hate crime against GRT communities.

I will finish by summarising our ongoing work on enforcement against unauthorised encampments, because I am aware that this has been a particular concern, as highlighted by my hon. Friend. I am pleased to say that we have identified a set of measures to extend the powers available to the police to enable unauthorised encampments to be tackled more effectively and hopefully to reduce the frustration felt by many constituents of my hon. Friend and others that these issues are not being dealt with as they would like.

As highlighted in our response to the recent consultation, the Government will seek parliamentary approval to amend sections 61 and 62A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. These amendments will include increasing the period in which trespassers directed from land will be unable to return from three months to 12 months.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Will that apply where the individuals concerned claim to own or actually own the land, or just on public-type land or other people’s land?

[Rishi Sunak]

This is a matter for the Home Office, which will soon be launching a public consultation on the specific nature of these measures. I am sure that it will welcome my hon. Friend’s views on how they should be implemented and the detail behind them. I would be happy to ensure that his views are passed on to the Department as it constructs the consultation.

The amendments will also include lowering from six to two or more the number of vehicles needing to be involved in an unauthorised encampment before police powers can be exercised and enabling the police to remove trespassers from land that forms part of the highway, which is another very specific barrier that has been identified.

My hon. Friend said that England should consider adopting the Irish model to criminalise unauthorised encampments. Like many others, he notes that this process in the Republic of Ireland had led to an increased number of Travellers in this country, and many have urged the Government to adopt the Irish model. I would like to reassure him and all those interested in pursuing this that the Government will conduct a review of how this can be achieved.

My Department will support local authorities with up to £1.5 million of funding to support planning enforcement. Finally, my hon. Friend raised temporary stop notices. These allow local authorities to act swiftly to tackle unauthorised developments, and I am pleased to tell him that the Secretary of State has confirmed that he is minded to extend the period for which these temporary orders can be put in place.

I am also pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State is looking forward to sitting down with him to discuss these issues in more detail and, in particular, to ensure we can learn from the experience of his constituents as we look to improve measures to tackle this greatly vexing issue.

I thank my hon. Friend for all his contributions to this debate. He should without question be commended for ensuring that the views and needs of his constituents are raised in this House with force and power and repeatedly with Ministers so that we can act to improve the lives of his residents through changing these policies. I hope that he feels reassured that the Government are listening to his concerns and progressing the commitments we made in response to the consultation. I look forward to working with him on these issues in the coming months.

Question put and agreed to.

Guildford Borough Council

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Guildford Borough Council and its local plan.

I am delighted to have you here, Mr Betts—an expert in the very field we are discussing—and also the Minister. Some years back, I had the same sort of role that she has now, although I did not have the entourage behind me. I used to do debates such as this on my own; I think they were too embarrassed. I am very aware that the Minister cannot comment on the specific details of a local plan in her position, which is quasi-judicial. She must be broad and not specific in her replies. Given the time constraint, I intend to try to set the scene, but I will write to the Minister in the next few days with considerably more detail.

The Mole Valley constituency is not coterminous with Mole Valley District Council; the eastern wards of Guildford Borough Council are within my constituency. They are therefore covered by the Guildford council as regards planning, including the draft local plan. Local residents were consulted, as is standard for local authorities in developing their plan. The plan relating to some of the eastern wards involves massive—and I mean massive—loss of green-belt land. For many residents, the green belt was the basis of their desire to live in Mole Valley; it is what makes it attractive. Protests from individuals and groups, especially parish councils, was particularly vigorous, but it was also careful, constructive and thoughtful. In my opinion, the disregard for the views of those dissenters to the plan, and the manner of that disregard, during the progressive consultations by the council leadership was not good.

Of the land that makes up those wards, a significant majority is green belt or similar. Thanks to our robust planning rules, any development that takes place on that land cannot be of high density or particularly high rise. It is therefore only logical that, when Guildford Borough Council looks around for locations on which to develop, it should look first at brown-field sites, as it has done. It should look to offset increasing height and density with innovative design; the Minister and I know from our local government days that that is possible in some particularly difficult areas of inner London.

This Government, including, if I may say so, my hon. Friend the Minister, has made it clear that that should be the default approach to planning home development in local authority plans. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who incidentally is a resident in one of the wards in question, recently highlighted the importance of this approach to English local authorities more broadly, not just this one. With that in mind, I am here to highlight the fact that Guildford Borough Council has produced a draft local plan that puts a full 59% of the proposed new development on green-belt land. On top of that, the council has also brought forward deeply concerning proposals for placing a large quantity of industrial land in the little village of Send, on top of a large increase in homes on green-belt land.

The main town for the borough of Guildford is, unsurprisingly, Guildford town. It is an ancient town; the archaeological footprint goes back to Roman days. Clearly, it is a place that must be protected, and it is, but around Guildford town and beyond there are brown-field sites, places of little ecological or historical worth, that could be utilised to meet the borough’s housing need. It is true that many of these sites appear in the local plan, but they are not being utilised in an innovative way that would best unlock their potential. I believe the council should look further at building higher and denser buildings, particularly around prime sites such as the railway stations, which would provide well-positioned, affordable homes to the younger generation of busy commuters in a busy commuter town.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that Guildford has run into difficulties with many villages over the production of neighbourhood plans. My intervention is just to tell him that I too am aware of that, in my role as Government champion for neighbourhood planning, and I am dealing with the problem.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my hon. Friend; I think Guildford council, with its behaviour and reputation, will keep him rather busy.

By definition, the surroundings of those villages cannot have a building of any significant height or density. The number of homes per acre of footprint must be low. I wish to concentrate on just two specific areas, the village of Send and the Wisley site, as examples of what this draft local plan would mean if implemented. Both feed on to the A3, which feeds to Guildford to the south, London to the north and the M25 via junction 10. The A3 is overloaded at peak times, and junction 10 is the worst junction on the M25 for delays, heavy traffic and accidents. In recognition of that, Highways England is proceeding through the rigmarole of extending and developing the junction. However, its work will merely enable the better management of the current traffic flow. I believe that Highways England has not factored in, or has not been able to factor in, the increase that would come from the developments proposed for Send and Wisley, and others. Neither Send nor Wisley has a railway station.

Those problems were a major factor in the rejection of the recent appeal to develop the Wisley site along the lines now suggested in the local plan. That rejection followed Guildford council’s refusal of an application by the owners and developers of the Wisley site. There was an appeal where, after a lengthy—I think it was five weeks—inquiry by the inspector, who endorsed Guildford council’s refusal, the decision was backed by the Secretary of State. The three main reasons for the Secretary of State’s refusal were damage to the green belt, lack of infrastructure and traffic overload. It was a sensible decision all round. I even applaud Guildford council for refusing the application. I ask the Minister, then, to imagine the general amazement when Guildford council did an unabashed and blatant volte-face and shamelessly put the Wisley plan back into its local plan, in spite of everything it has done and in spite of what the inspector and the Secretary of State had said.

There has been a long history of refusals on the site, predominantly on the grounds that the site is green belt and that development would cause considerable difficulties on local roads as well as the A3. The majority of those local roads are winding and narrow and there is no realistic hope that they could ever sensibly be expanded. They generally have no lighting and mostly no pavements, and the nature of the roads is not conducive to cycling—although that does not deter the packs of cyclists who go up and down the roads, particularly at the weekends. The Wisley site, if developed, would result in an isolated island of properties, which would need a full range of infrastructure purpose-built at great cost to make the site even remotely viable. In other words, it would end up as an urban island damaging a rural area.

The promoters behind the Wisley adventure are numerous and the links that bind them together are nothing if not convoluted. There appears to be a Russian influence behind the proposers. We know that, for example, the leader of Guildford Borough Council took a trip, or trips, to Russia with a councillor from the Vale of the White Horse, who was working with the Wisley owners. I understand that the reason for the visit was to encourage Russian development in the UK and presumably in Guildford, with an emphasis on Wisley. I understand the interest, because if Wisley is developed the investors stand to benefit considerably—given the sums of money involved, it may be more accurate to say enormously—but, of course, that is not a planning issue.

I will now briefly turn to the village of Send, which, like Wisley, has no railway station and thus also feeds traffic on to the A3. The village has a single two-way central road, with a number of minor roads branching off. The village is surrounded by green-belt land, with development limited to infill opportunities. The village has about 1,660 properties and a population of about 4,000. It is a village, although if Guildford council has its way, that will change.

The local plan proposes to increase housing in Send by 40% as a starter, with four new slip roads on to the overloaded A3. Additionally, Guildford Borough Council will dump 40% of the borough’s new industrial development on this little village. The overload is obvious.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for listening patiently as I outlined the threat these villages face. I hope she will now indulge me a little further as I gently remind her why the decision to build on green-belt land is so objectionable. Most obviously, it directly contradicts the Government’s policy. The national planning policy framework makes it absolutely clear that permanence is the central feature of the green belt, and that development on it can be sanctioned only in genuinely exceptional circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), when he was Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, wrote to me confirming that local housing need does not meet the threshold to be considered exceptional.

For all the problems that the development of these sites will create, I am perhaps most concerned about what would be lost. It is widely accepted that only the presence of the green belt has prevented runaway urban sprawl from London and preserved the unique, rural nature of areas such as my constituency. Remember, both sites are right on the edge of the M25 and right on the edge of what we consider to be the spread of London. I therefore resist in the strongest terms any action that undermines the integrity of the green belt, and I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that when that land is gone, it is gone forever, as she will know from our time working together in inner London.

In this context, the willingness of the Guildford Borough Council leadership to demolish so much green belt in these wards is deeply distressing to me and my constituents. It has been noted by some that both wards under threat are not currently represented by Conservative councillors, and have not been for some time. However, knowing the council leader as I do, I am quite sure that that was never a factor in his thinking. It is certainly not a planning issue.

At this stage of the inquiry into the local plan, my hon. Friend the Minister could make a number of moves, if she agrees with my concerns. She could call in all or parts of the plan, or she could direct modifications to it. At the very least, she could put the plan on hold while she and other experts look at the points that have been made.

In complex cases in my professional field it is routine to seek a second independent opinion. Perhaps the Minister could ask the inspector who sat for the five-week Wisley appeal and rejected the application if he could look at both these cases—particularly the Wisley application, because it is identical to that which he advised the Secretary of State to refuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Ministers’ Financial Interests. Mr Betts, do you mind if I shuffle around a bit? Of course I should not have my back to the Chair, but I want to address my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) directly.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on local plans—particularly the draft Guildford local plan—and more specifically on the use and development of land within the green belt. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the subject and thank my hon. Friend for the interest he takes in housing, planning and green belt matters, and for bringing these important matters to the Government’s attention. I am also grateful for the opportunity to debate with my predecessor, as a Minister in a former incarnation of my Department, and former leader on Wandsworth Council.

It may come as a disappointment to my hon. Friend that I cannot comment on the specific details of the emerging Guildford local plan, although he mentioned that he already knows that. The Secretary of State has appointed an independent planning inspector to examine the plan, and at some point the Secretary of State may be called upon to act formally in relation to the plan. It is therefore important that he is seen to be acting impartially and allowing due process to run its course in the interests of all parties and the integrity of the planning system as a whole. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will find my contribution at least helpful.

I will start by talking about the importance of local plans in the round. The planning system should be genuinely plan-led, with up-to-date plans providing a framework for addressing the social, economic and environmental priorities for an area, which of course include housing need. Local plans are prepared in consultation with communities and play a key role in delivering needed development and infrastructure in the right places. Community participation is a vital part of accepting the development required to meet our housing needs.

Effectively engaging with communities throughout the process creates the best plans. Having an up-to-date plan in place is essential to planning for our housing requirements, providing clarity to communities and developers about where homes and supporting development should be built and where not, so that development is planned for, rather than the result of speculative planning applications. The Government are determined to build the homes our country needs and help more people get on the housing ladder. We are committed to delivering 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s through policies that aim to make better use of land and vacant buildings in order to provide the homes that communities need.

My hon. Friend raised a very good point about where it is appropriate to have higher density use—around railway stations or wherever. I am sure that point has been forcibly made to the planning inspector at those public meetings, and I am sure that, where appropriate, the planning inspector will take that on board.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I understand that, during the presentation of the local plan, the inspector inquired as to why there was not enough of that sort of development.

[Mrs Wheeler]

I am always interested when planning inspectors ask nuanced, leading questions of local plans and answer them themselves at the same time. We await the planning inspector’s comments with interest.

As my hon. Friend correctly stated, the Guildford local plan is currently under examination, with further hearings due to be held on 12 and 13 February. That will give two more opportunities for people already involved in existing issues to make further comments and for the public to attend and listen. The resumed hearings will focus specifically on the implications of the 2016 household projections for objectively assessed need and the plan’s housing requirement. They will not be an opportunity to discuss matters already considered. Following the hearings, we expect the inspector’s report and recommendations to be published later this year. I encourage my hon. Friend and his constituents to study the findings of the examination at that point.

I reassure my hon. Friend of the robustness of local plan examinations. During an examination, an independent inspector appointed by the Secretary of State will robustly examine whether the plan has been prepared in line with relevant legal requirements. That includes the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities and whether it meets the tests of soundness contained within the national planning policy framework, including the extensive consultation requirements for involving local communities.

The inspector, in examining the plan against the tests of soundness, will consider, among other things, whether the plan is based on a sound strategy. In examining these matters, the inspector will take account of the evidence underpinning the plan, national planning policy and the views of all persons who made representations on the plan. I trust that reassures my hon. Friend that the examination of a plan is a thorough and robust process.

As the Guildford plan was submitted for examination before 24 January 2019, it will be examined against national planning policy set out in the 2012 national planning policy framework, including the rules on green belt development, which I will say a little bit more about later. The 2012 national planning policy framework maintains strong protections for the green belt and sets a very high bar for alterations to green-belt boundaries. It allows a local authority to use its local plan to secure necessary alterations to its green belt in “exceptional circumstances”. The Government do not list the exceptional circumstances, as they could vary greatly across the country. Instead, it is for plan makers, and the planning inspector at examination, to check that any change is fully justified. Each local authority is expected to plan to meet local housing need, in full if possible, over the plan period. The local authority then has to consider where to find land to fulfil that need. Only if it does not have enough suitable land because of other constraints and circumstances can a local authority consider a green-belt boundary change. That is the national policy position relevant to Guildford’s draft plan.

The revised national planning policy framework, published in July 2018, will apply to any plan submitted after 24 January 2019. In that framework, following consultation, we clarified the steps that a local authority needs to take to ensure that green-belt release is being proposed only in exceptional circumstances and is fully evidenced and justified. The new framework makes it clear that, in order for exceptional circumstances to exist, the local authority should be able to show that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. As I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate, there will therefore be more specific tests to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist. That will help examining inspectors to pick up on inadequate efforts to find land. It will still be up to inspectors to decide whether the level of evidence provided meets the exceptional circumstances test.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley for raising these important issues. He is aware that the Secretary of State has powers to intervene formally in a plan until it is adopted by an authority. However, we consider it important that the plan is allowed to run its full course and be tested properly first, before such action is considered. I strongly encourage my hon. Friend and his constituents to study the findings of the examination carefully when the inspector issues the final report later this year. I genuinely do thank my hon. Friend for his great interest in this matter. The green belt is precious to us all, as is housing for our children.

Question put and agreed to.

Housing, Planning and the Green Belt

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I first dipped my toe into this sort of water quite some time ago as a councillor in a small, unknown local authority in south-west London. We swept in and made huge changes to the staff and the attitudes. In the planning department, for example, we introduced planners who thought laterally, took a positive attitude and worked with local developers and local people, bringing in imaginative programmes and buildings.

My constituency is on the edge of London. It remains a beautiful constituency: 90% of it is green belt, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty or similar. Most of the constituency falls within the Mole Valley District Council area, but the western wards form part of Guildford Borough Council’s area. In developing its local plan, the district council is trying to meet its housing numbers with potentially spectacular developments adjacent to and around Leatherhead. To do so successfully, it will need to build imaginatively, higher and more densely. That is understood and expected by most people, including many Leatherhead residents. Of course, there is the usual small group, living in aspic, who want only low-rise housing and everything to be essentially the same. Whatever the eventual outcome, however, it is obvious to me that the local team, led by Councillor Simon Edge, is prepared to think outside the box, so I have real hopes.

I spent a period as a Minister in the then Department of the Environment and one of the things that I discovered was the variation in local authorities. Some are excellent, high quality and low cost and work with local residents, but some will not budge. When it came to planning, some local authorities—I will not name them—killed any hope of development and they are still there. Hopefully, Mole Valley council will not do that. Guildford Council, which has put its draft plan out for consultation, is a complete contrast. Some 57% of the housing that it intends to develop lies on current green-belt land and several thousand of the houses are in the Guildford wards of the Mole Valley constituency. The plan has been out for consultation in some form twice and the protests were gigantic.

Three of the plan’s main sites lie adjacent to a section of the A3. Those who use the road will recognise the section from Guildford to Hook as one of the most consistently overloaded roads. The A3 crosses over the M25 at junction 10, which is the busiest, most accident-prone junction on the M25. Plans are in hand to improve the junction dramatically to meet current demands, but not the demand that will result from Guildford Council’s plans. The council leaders should look to the surrounds of the town itself and use their imagination to build higher and denser quality housing.

I visited my old borough of Wandsworth to see how the council is handling the demand for homes. It has more homes under construction or in planning than the rest of inner London put together. That has been achieved through exciting, often iconic developments and a combination of compact development, quality development and height. In desperation, I sent the leader of Guildford Council a photograph of one of the more spectacular iconic towers. It is stunning. It is tall—it is far too tall for Guildford—but it is an example of how tall can be made to fit. However, my thoughts and those of many others have been rejected by the leadership.

The inquiry on the plan will be a battle to save the green belt. I hope that the Minister will look over the shoulder of the inspector at each of the local plan inquiries. It is an opportunity for that inspector—and there are some very good inspectors—to assess the quality of the council as well as the quality of the local plan. If the local council is raiding the green belt as an easy option, rather than moving back in and around the towns, the plan should be heavily rejected and the council should be sent back to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am grateful for that news, Mr Deputy Speaker, as it means that I can expound my argument a little more fully than I had thought. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), on securing the debate.

In the limited time I have—notwithstanding your generosity, Mr Deputy Speaker—I wish to cover three points. First, I do not think that we have a national housing crisis; we have a serious regional housing problem that is more severe in some parts of the country than others. Secondly, I shall say a little about housing finance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury touched on. Thirdly, I shall say a word or two on an issue to which one or two Members alluded: the need to spread economic growth and development more evenly throughout the country. Doing so would help to deliver housing, including affordable housing, in many parts of the country.

Many Members have commented about the planning system, but I think that it is doing its job properly in many parts of the country by delivering housing in line with the projected population increase. Under the plans that local authorities are putting in place in my area of Gloucestershire, we are projected to build housing in line with the growth in population. There are a number of other regions throughout the country where that is true, but it is not true in London, where we are massively under-building housing compared with the growth in population, as several colleagues have mentioned. There is also significant pressure in the south-east and east. Those are the parts of the country where the projected growth in population is significantly outstripping the housing that is being built, so that is where the Government need to focus their efforts to bring the housing market under control.

My point about population growth is supported by figures on housing affordability, which give us a good idea about whether we are balancing the supply and demand of housing. Unaffordability is not significantly higher in most of the country now than it was before the financial crash, but that is not true in London. In London, the ratio of median house price to median gross residence-based earnings is nearly 13:1, whereas the average for the rest of the country is about 7:1, so London is skewing the national figure and giving a misleading impression.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I talked about the houses that were being built in Wandsworth, but I should have mentioned that thousands of the homes are specifically for low rent or for purchase at low cost. In fact, the focus is on those people whom my right hon. Friend is so concerned about.

Space Industry Bill [Lords]

Paul Beresford Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I certainly agree with the parting shot that I heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson).

I am tiptoeing into this debate from a position of enthusiasm but not very much knowledge. I am learning quietly and quickly, and have been for some weeks. I am very aware of the Bill’s importance, but also, as others have said, of having a spaceport—or two. The thought of the All Blacks flying on an A380 for two or three hours to Australia and for four hours from Australia to this country, and then landing in Devon or Cornwall and tiptoeing on to a train to take another four hours to reach London is an exciting one. However, from the knowledge I have been learning, it seems to me that we need more than one site—and, because the Bill is going through, we need this urgently—and they should have facilities for vertical launch, horizontal launch or both.

Space and the space industry have been of considerable interest to me ever since I was a lad in New Zealand. I hasten to add that, as I have already said, my interest is not matched by knowledge. My knowledge has been further stimulated, however, by discovering and visiting on several occasions not just the Surrey satellite business that was mentioned, but—closer to home for me—the Mullard Space Science Laboratory in my constituency. It is part of University College London, and has been working on that site in Holmbury St Mary for over 70 years. I would be delighted to take the Minister, and even the Secretary of State, for a visit—if we can find it; it is hidden away.

Mullard is in an old manor house with beautiful grounds in the hills above and beyond Dorking. As one enters through the archway with its double doors into the foyer, one sees standing—alongside the ancient chandelier, and heading up into the wooden stairwell—two rockets from a bygone day. One only has to be there a wee while, however, to feel the pulse of the IQ of the scientific intelligence, which is quite staggering, of the people all around the site. There are modern buildings at the back, including a fantastic laboratory, and room for a little bit more building.

Mullard supports the Bill. At present, anything developed by the Mullard centre or other commercial or research organisations—this has been mentioned—is taken away from the UK to be launched. As the Mullard people have explained to me, this often means a loss of control. With the Bill and the development of our launch sites, which must go hand in hand and promptly, we will now be able to utilise British research and expertise in Britain to the benefit of Britain.

To give a feel of the importance of that, I wish to dwell for a few moments on the broad spectrum of the research going on. Just at this centre, there are 180 people—academics, engineers, post-doctoral researchers, postgraduate students and support staff. The research areas are staggering: they are doing astrophysics, solar physics, space plasma physics and planetary science, and researching climate extremes on earth, space medicine, space imaging analysis and detection systems. They are world-renowned experts in manufacturing scientific space instruments, although those instruments go not into our satellites but elsewhere.

Those at the centre have contributed equipment and expertise to projects such as Euclid, which is studying dark matter, the ExoMars rover, the solar orbiter—a large spacecraft mission that includes three Mullard-built plasma instruments—and the ESA solar wind electronic instrument. Additionally, they are partners in the team building an instrument containing three extreme ultraviolet telescopes. The Mullard team are building the electronics that will make them work. Perhaps most interestingly at the moment—this has been mentioned—they are building miniature instruments on QB50 CubeSats, which are small satellites of 30 cm by 10 cm by 10 cm. They are being deployed from the international space station, not from the United Kingdom. With the Bill and the development of the launch sites, I hope that UK firms will soon be able to directly operate the satellites they build and the instruments within them. Reaction Engines has been touched on, and it is vital that such British inventions remain in our hands.

I want to mention a few other points, some of which have also been touched on. Anyone with any knowledge, even if is as limited as mine, can see there is a huge future in space technology. Alongside the Bill, we need to establish the structure for launching spacecraft from the United Kingdom, whether those launches are vertical or horizontal. This will enable the development of commercial applications, of which the most talked about—it has been mentioned several times today—is of course space tourism. However, other considerable commercial prospects are being developed. The most understandable is the launching worldwide of constellations of satellites, particularly those to provide worldwide broadband facilities. I understand this is commercially in the offing, and it should be helped in the United Kingdom both by the Bill and—if I may repeat myself—by the provision of at least one site and possibly two or more sites. The Minister will be aware of that, and we have clearly rubbed it in throughout this debate.

In looking at the Bill, we must make sure that the new legislation does not hold back commercial and scientific development and research. The way in which the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), talked made me feel gloomy, because regulation can cripple just such developments. For example, a huge effort is now being put into developing nano-satellites and constellations of satellites, and there is a realistic prospect of the world benefiting from constellations of satellites across the world.

We must, however, be careful for two reasons. First, there has been some mention of space debris and its generation, and the dangers of collisions are obvious. All the equipment shot into space has an end to its operational life, which may be a considerable number of years; indeed, some of the Mullard equipment is still running extremely successfully 15 years after its launch. I understand that this is under discussion and that the Minister may feel it is not appropriate to pass legislation at this time. However, if he is going to do something, I hope he does so with a certain freedom and looks at making the equipment disintegrate by design, so that it burns up as it returns towards the earth.

The second point, which has also been mentioned several times, is indemnifying insurance, a subject in which I have a little interest. We of course need it in case of accidents, which may happen, but we should recognise that we need not be stringent in the level of protection applied. I believe that the negative effect on any firm or research organisation of something going wrong would be far more damaging and would create a bigger hole than the actual financial one. At the moment, because of the cost, the prospect is that the Mullard laboratory will have to transfer the ownership of its developments to countries that have more appropriate arrangements to avert insurance costs and will therefore lose control of the project. That would be disastrous: if we provided the sites and took through the Bill, but then crippled such organisations with insurance liabilities, we would have wasted our time.

I note that, in certain circumstances, the Secretary of State will provide at least part of the indemnity. I am keen for the Government to recognise that they could consider providing more, if not total, cover for research organisations, such as Mullard, developing this equipment —nano-satellites, CubeSats—in carefully selected research projects. In many ways, the UK leads the world in space research and technology, but this problem of indemnity is threatening that position.

I was reminded by a very elderly gentleman that before the second world war rockets were banned in the UK and, I believe, in America, so there was no progress, but they were not banned in Germany, and Germany produced the V2. We need to think and move ahead positively, and I most certainly support the Bill.