Mole Valley Local Plan
Paul Beresford Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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)
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(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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.
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.