HC Deb 24 July 1987 vol 120 cc670-7

2 pm

Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the effect of Government planning policies in the London borough of Bromley. I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for attending this, her third debate today. I hope that she will find a special interest in this debate, she being a past member of the council of the London borough of Bromley. I believe that she still has a home within the borough.

I wish to discuss planning procedures in built-up areas, covering extensions and in-fillings, and applications for development within the green belt. I do so in the context of Bromley, but the issues that I shall raise have a wider interest, as was demonstrated in the earlier debate that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay).

Planning is a sensitive issue. We all know that an Englishman's home is his castle, and we expect, if we want to, to be able to extend our own home and do whatever we wish to it. It is an entirely different matter, however, if the chap next door wants to extend his home. If we buy a site on which to build our own home, we expect to be able to build the sort of house that we want. If someone else purchases an open space in our neighbourhood and wants to build, we react strongly to the spoiling of our surroundings.

There has to be a correct balance in these matters between the rights of the individual and the rights and needs of the community. The body that exists to strike it is the local council, which is the planning authority. In doing so it is guided by town planning laws, Department of the Environment guidelines, the town plan and members of the local authority who have an intimate knowledge of the area. Local councillors are especially important because every planning case is individual and a development that may be entirely appropriate on one site may be entirely unsuitable on another site nearby.

It can be argued that the local authority should be the final arbiter in these matters, but even councillors are human beings with weaknesses and foibles:. They may make mistakes, and in any event natural justice suggests that there should be some system of appeal. Appeal is, theoretically, to the Secretary of State, but we know that in practice these matters are handled by inspectors whom he appoints. The inspectors receive written statements and they might make a site visit. In some instances there will be an inquiry.

The appeal system is somewhat one-sided. If an applicant applies for a development and he is refused by the local authority, he has the right of appeal. There may have been a number of local objections to the proposal, however, and if, despite the objections, the council decides to grant the application, the objectors have no right of appeal. It seems there should be a system whereby in some circumstances at least objectors have a right of appeal, or that in circumstances where there are objections the Secretary of State should call in the plan and examine it himself.

The presumption behind planning laws is, or at least has been, that the local authority knows best, and I am concerned that between 1983 and 1986 the national figures show that the proportion of appeals allowed increased from 32.4 per cent. to 40.5 per cent. That is a large enough increase in itself, but over the same period in Bromley the number of appeals allowed increased from 29 per cent. to 44 per cent.

It is worth examining some of the decisions. For example, in Beckenham an entire house that was used as office accommodation without planning permission clearly contravened the local plan in respect of loss of residential accommodation. The enforcement notice that was issued by the council was quashed and permission was granted on appeal. In Orpington, permission was refused on four separate occasions and two appeals were dismissed for the erection of a dwelling house. Towards the end of last year permission was granted on appeal, despite the fact that the house would have virtually no garden. In Chislehurst high street, permission was granted on appeal for car repairs on a prominent site within the Chislehurst conservation area. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) in the Chamber. Alas, he is mute; but, if he were not, he could say that he was until very recently a constituent of mine. Application was made a couple of years ago for development of a site near to where he lived. That application was refused. The applicant took it to appeal, and was refused again. This year, he tried yet again. His application was refused by the local council, but it has now been allowed.

That seems a fairly typical pattern. Applicants who have been refused in the past are now resurrecting their proposals and trying again, because they believe that they will win on appeal. Alas, the figures suggest that they may well be right.

There is particular concern in the borough about applications for intensive flats and sheltered accommodation development in areas of predominantly low-density suburban housing. I have details of six such sites in the borough. In each case, the application for development was refused by the council; in each case, the decision has been overturned on appeal. The borough has a local plan adopted two years ago after a public inquiry. It incorporates the suggestions of the Department of the Environment inspector who conducted the inquiry, and the Department of the Environment was consulted throughout its compilation. The plan includes proposals relating to the pattern and number of dwellings to be built over a decade. However, because of what has been happening under the appeal system, we are already well ahead of those figures, and the character and amenities of parts of the area are being altered. The wishes of local people, residents' associations, councillors and, ultimately, the authority itself are being overturned.

The council wrote to the Department expressing concern at the trend. The reply from an official suggested that the increased number of successful appeals nationally corresponds to the increased rate of refusals by the authorities. That may be so nationally, but it is not so in Bromley. Between 1984 and 1986 there was no material increase in the number of refusals in Bromley, but the proportion of appeals allowed increased from 29 per cent. to 44 per cent.

I am bound to ask who is in charge of planning in Bromley. The council draws up a local plan, it seeks to control development according to it, and according to DOE guidelines and good planning practice, and it is continually undermined. It is not surprising that officers and councillors are becoming demoralised, and are sometimes tempted simply to rubber-stamp applications even if they are inappropriate, because they feel that if they do not agree to them, they will in any case be allowed on appeal.

I have referred to the Chislehurst conservation area. There are a number of conservation areas in the borough, the most recently designated being in Bickley, which is also in my constituency. In an admirable document describing how it intends to control development, the council sent to each resident its policy for conservation areas. Representations have been made to me by my constituents asking me to support the council, and to defend the conservation area policy which it fears is likely to be endangered by the decisions of Department of the Environment inspectors.

It seems sad that my constituents, who are anxious to maintain the quality of their surroundings, are not looking to the Department for the protection of their environment, but are asking me to protect them from the Department. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to examine carefully how the appeal procedure is operated. Has there been a change of policy which the inspectors are implementing? Are the inspectors perhaps less diligent, or less sensitive? Are they misinterpreting departmental guidelines? I do not know the answers to those questions, but 44 per cent. of appeals being upheld must mean that something is wrong, and I urge my hon. Friend to put matters right.

There is a substantial area of green belt land in the borough, particularly in the constituency of my hon, Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has set out the Government's policy on the green belt on several occasions, most notably in a speech to a Confederation of British Industry's conference in October 1986. That policy was summarised succinctly in reply to a question that I tabled on 19 November 1986. The Minister said: There is a general presumption aganst inappropriate development throughout the green belts. I do not doubt that there is such a presumption, but that does not prevent applications from being made.

The whole of the London borough of Bromley is particularly concerned about a proposal that involves Hewitts farm, which is now a pick-it-yourself strawberry farm. The owner and Prudential Insurance are planning a massive regional shopping and leisure centre, comprising shopping malls, restaurants, bars, cinemas, sports facilities and a garden centre. That is utterly contrary to the borough's green belt policy, and the council quite rightly has refused the application. We await the almost inevitable appeal and all that that involves. It will be to no purpose, because the appeal will not be allowed. My hon. Friend the Minister surely cannot allow it. I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment on this application, for obvious reasons. However, it will be allowed only over the dead bodies of the four hon. Members who represent Bromley constituencies. Furthermore, it would open the door to similar developments all round the M25. The Government's green belt policy would be in ruins.

Even if the matter goes to appeal and is refused, there is nothing to stop another application being made. That is ridiculous. There is nothing to prevent you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or me, from making an application for anywhere in the green belt and sparking off the whole process of council consideration, refusal, appeal, and again refusal, with all the costs that are involved and the generation of great local concern, resulting in public meetings and petitions—all to no purpose.

In the question to which I referred I asked my hon. Friend the Minister to seek powers to enable him to designate certain green belt land as inviolable areas in respect of which he would not be prepared to entertain planning applications or appeals in relation thereto." — [Official Report, 19 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 241–42.] The reply was that it was not considered to be necessary to take such a power. I am asking my hon. Friend to think again. Surely it would be practicable to take such a power.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) is an ally. In an Adjournment debate on 13 July he made the very good point that if property developers were told that there would never be an opportunity for them to have land banks in the green belt—because they would never be given the right to develop them—they might turn their ingenuity, enthusiasm and financial acumen to some of our inner-city areas of derelict land."—[Official Report, 13 July 1987; Vol. 199, c. 745.] Surely it should be possible to designate certain parts of the green belt as inviolable for, say, 10 years, with a review thereafter. Potential developers would then be in no doubt about their position. They would not waste their time and energy and cause concern to others by submitting planning applications. The fears of my constituents and of all those who care about the green belt would then be put at rest.

On behalf of the people of Bromley, my message to my hon. Friend and to her erstwhile colleagues on Bromley council is that she should ensure as a general principle that appeal inspectors support and do not undermine a council's planning policy and that our green belt should be made safe from those who wish to despoil it.

Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. Does the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) have the consent of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the Minister to speak in the debate? I see that he does.

2.14 pm
Sir Philip Coodhart (Beckenham)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on securing the debate. I wholly endorse his powerful and sensible speech. During the recent general election campaign, I walked around most of my constituency. I can well understand the anxiety that is felt by many of my constituents about some recent decisions that have been taken by Department of the Environment inspectors. Many such decisions, such as the one that allowed the Sunday market at Beckenham junction, have caused great annoyance and aggravation. My constituents fear that piecemeal decisions by inspectors are undermining sensible local planning policies. As my hon. Friend powerfully reminded us, in the three-year period 1984–86 there was no material increase in the number of applications that were rejected by Bromley council, yet the number of successful appeals has gone up from 29 per cent. to 44 per cent. Not surprisingly, during that period, the number of appeals doubled from 171 to 336.

What can he done? As the Minister knows, I have made two suggestions to her. The first suggestion is that she should hold regular meetings with hon. Members who represent similar constituencies to discuss the implementation by inspectors of Department of the Environment guidelines. The second suggestion is that hon. Members should be allowed to play a more important role in the appeal procedure and that inspectors should be reminded that substantial weight should be given to their views when constituents' amenities are affected.

We have great confidence in the abilities and sensibilities of the new Minister, who once was a Bromley councillor. I am sure that she will effectively stop the destruction of pleasant neighbourhoods.

2.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe)

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) for putting the issues before the House. I have listened most carefully to all the points that they have made about their concerns over certain aspects of the Government's planning policies as they affect the London borough of Bromley. I am pleased to be able to reply to the debate. As my hon. Friends have said, I retain a close interest in the affairs of the borough, having been a councillor in Bromley for three years. I do, of course, have a personal knowledge of some of the issues that have been raised, especially the developments adjacent to the ward that I represented on Bromley council.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst has drawn attention to the pleasant environment that is enjoyed by the borough and the importance of the green belt to it. Bromley is most fortunate in having within its boundaries what is, I believe, the largest area of green belt of any of the London boroughs. From my own experience, I am well aware of the great value that Bromley people place on the lovely countryside in and around the borough. I also know how well managed the borough is. Within the context of the debate, Bromley is, for example, third in the London league in the speed of processing planning applications.

Over the past five years, Bromley has spent at or below the Government's expenditure guidelines. That prudence has allowed the council to benefit the ratepayers of Bromley with a local rate that has consistently been among the lowest in outer London. It is, of course, the quality of the countryside, coupled with the character of residential areas, which Bromley residents wish to protect. Inevitably, such a thriving area is under considerable pressure for development. Not surprisingly, others wish to share that prosperity, and the pressures for development are therefore intense. It is those pressures, and the apparent results of them, to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention. Not only does the council aim to protect the countryside, but it has imaginative schemes for the enhancement of its built-up areas. My predecessor, Lord Skelmersdale, visited the borough last month to see the progress on the "Green and Clean" campaign. He was, I know, impressed by what he saw.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the various planning decisions that have been issued or are in train. That would be quite improper. However, I should like to respond in general terms to the points that have been raised. If I fail to deal with any, I shall, of course, write to my hon. Friend about them.

I am aware of the considerable concern in Bromley about the increase in the number of appeals that are being allowed. This is understandably seen by some as undermining the authority of the local planning authority. My hon. Friend asked a question on this subject only last December. I have also received correspondence on the same point from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. Furthermore, the chief planner of the borough has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

It is a fact that since 1983 there has been a significant increase in the proportion of appeals allowed, not only in Bromley, but nationally. However, there has also been, in the relevant period, a marked increase in the rate at which local planning authorities refuse applications for planning permission — from 12.8 per cent. in 1983 to 14.9 per cent. in 1986. In absolute numbers, this amounts nationally to 11,000 more refusals a year.

To place those figures in their context, the House should know that in the same period planning applications increased in total by 14,000. There was no change in national planning policies or in development plan policies that would have justified that increase in the rate of refusal. The Government have no wish to undermine local authorities carrying out their responsibilities, but our inspectors have been taking these national policies into account, and have taken different views from local planning authorities in a large number of cases.

As far as refusal of planning permission in Bromley is concerned, the rate of refusal during 1984 to 1986 has been about six percentage points higher than in London and England as a whole. As my hon. Friend has said, it is true that there was no material increase in refusals in Bromley between 1984 and 1986, but Bromley's refusal rate rose from 17 and 15 per cent. in 1982 and 1983 to 21 and 22 per cent. in the following three years. So it is not surprising that the percentage of appeals allowed rose. However, it is now back in line with the national average.

We should also keep the increase in the percentage of appeals allowed in perspective. The applications permitted as a result of appeal represent less than 2 per cent. of the 350,000 or so planning permissions given each year. Some commentators allege that my Department's circular 14/85 was responsible for the increase, but this circular was no more than a simple reminder of the general presumption in favour of allowing applications for development, having regard to all material considerations, unless that development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. The principle is as old as the 1947 planning system and the key words were repeated from circulars issued in 1949 and 1953. The principle was again restated in 1985 in the White Paper "Lifting the Burden".

I note that Bromley council is concerned that the Department and inspectors are not taking proper account of the local plan in allowing appeals. That is not so. The White Papers "Lifting the Burden" and "Building Businesses … Nor Barriers" specifically referred to the need for development plans, and our consultation paper on the future of development plans equally emphasises the importance of such plans in our system of planning control. The latter said that they were a vital part of the framework for development control and that, while they are not prescriptive, they provide a firm basis for rational and consistent decisions on applications.

I do not want to understate the problems that face planning authorities. We face a considerable problem of reconciling throughout the south-east the pressures for housing on the one hand with the need to conserve the environment on the other. We all accept that there are difficult decisions to be taken on whether and where to allow development. The main vehicle for resolving these differences is the development plan, which is why we place such importance on streamlining.

In each appeal case, the inspector must carefully consider the development plan policies. I am well aware that Bromley is concerned that its plan is not accorded sufficient weight by inspectors, but I must underline that it is only one of the factors which must be weighed in the balance. An inspector will set aside the provisions of the plan only with good reason and he must give a clear explanation why he does so in his report. Similarly the views of local people are also given considerable weight in planning matters and, again, in giving his decision, the inspector must explain the account he has taken of them.

My hon. Friend asked about the objectors' right of appeal. It is certainly true that third parties do not have any right of appeal against a decision of the local planning authority to allow development. Applicants, on the other hand, do have a right of appeal against a refusal. This difference dates from the creation of the post-war planning system by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. That Act substantially strengthened controls over the use and development of privately owned land. It took away many of the rights of the individual to develop his property as he wished. Yet within the modern planning system there has always been a presumption in favour of development. The local authority must be able to establish good reasons for preventing or interfering with a proposed development. For cases where the developer considered the authority's decision to be unreasonable, Parliament provided a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

A third party, on the other hand, lost no rights as a result of the 1947 Act, so no right of appeal was needed. However, he was given, and still enjoys, a right which he did not previously have—the right to make his views known to the elected local authority and to have them taken into account in the decision-making process.

I should like to turn now more specifically to the issue of development in the green belt. In particular, I am aware of the application for a major retail-leisure complex at Hewitt's farm, permission for which was refused by Bromley council on 24 March. From what I have already said, my hon. Friend will understand that I am unable to comment on the merits of this particular application lest I prejudice the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role in determining any appeal that may come before him. Nevertheless, in general policy terms, the Government remain firmly committed to maintaining the green belt. This long-established policy was restated in my Department's circular 14 of 1984. The Government are not opposed to new methods of retailing and the benefits that modern retailing schemes can bring to the customer. But the Government have also made it clear that large retail stores simply do not belong in green belts. We have also made it clear that developers who pursue proposals for large scale retail developments in green belts to appeal and are unsuccessful may expect to have the costs of any inquiry awarded against them.

My hon. Friend has asked whether certain parts of the green belts should be designated as inviolate and that planning applications should not be entertained in respect of such areas. This proposal raises a fundamental issue. Our planning system is founded upon the principle that each case—each planning application or appeal—should be considered on its merits. In green belts, and only in these areas, there is a presumption against inappropriate development. Duncan Sandys' historic circular 42/55 states: Inside a Green Belt, approval should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use of existing buildings for purposes other than agriculture, sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds, or other uses appropriate to a rural area". But my hon. Friend will realise that even in green belts certain forms of development have always been considered appropriate. There is, for example, no reason for preventing appropriate agricultural or sporting uses of green belt land. Moreover, there needs to be provision for allowing other development, in exceptional circumstances, as circular 14/84 and its predecessors have made clear.

I believe that there would also be considerable practical difficulties in pursuing the designation of absolute "no go" areas for development. Leaving aside the question of appropriate powers, there is the procedure for defining such special areas. It would be for the local planning authorities to identify the areas, through their structure and local plans, in the same way that they have brought forward proposals for green belts for the Secretary of State's approval. This would be a protracted process and I remind the House that, despite encouragement from Ministers, we still do not have detailed green belt boundaries adopted or approved for many areas. There would be the impact of such designations on other green belt areas—there would in effect be first and second-class green belt — and doubtless heated local debate about which should apply where. These are just a few of the issues which the creation of areas, without planning applications or new development, would raise.

The Government are not insensitive to the problems caused by the relentless pressures applied by some developers who seek to undermine our green belt policy, but we need to work within the framework of the existing planning system. I make no apology for not dealing with specific cases raised by my hon. Friend, but he will understand why. On the general matters, Bromley receives the same even-handed treatment from my Department as any other borough or district. I assure the House that each case is considered purely on its merits.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  1. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
      2. c677
    1. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT 52 words