§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
12.49 am§ Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—again here for an Adjournment debate. I am sorry to have kept him up so late, but I am sure that he will treat this matter with his normal courtesy.
I wish to raise some issues involving the green belt in the north-western corner of the conurbation around Glasgow. I believe that all hon. Members think of the green belt as one of the great successful planning innovations. Some of us have been to other countries and seen the consequences of ribbon development and urban sprawl. Green belts are popular with all our constituents. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State agrees that both left and right are aware of the green belt's importance to our constituents. Open land seems to give great comfort to people and they forcefully resist any incursion on it.
I wish to raise two issues in Greater Glasgow and ask for the Government's response. In the Clydebank part of my constituency, we recently received an application for outline planning permission for a huge and controversial project led by Kilpatrick Estates. If I tell the Under-Secretary of State that it is said to involve £250 million and 2,000 jobs, he can imagine the scale of the proposed development. There are proposals for two large hotels, one of which will be a first-class hotel; one dry ski slope, billed as the finest in Europe; a corporate trading centre; an equestrian centre; a rare breeds centre—I hasten to assure the Under-Secretary of State that by "rare breeds" the developers do not mean Scottish Conservatives or aristocrats and that he is likely to be able to walk around safely—and three golf courses. It adds up to 4,000 acres—half the area of the Clydebank district. It is a huge project and an application of great significance.
What does Kilpatrick Estates consist of? We know of four people connected with it: one person who was billed as an "entrepreneurial adviser" has had three convictions and served prison sentences for offences including fraud; the chairman designate is a bankrupt; another leading agent served a gaol sentence arising out of a fraud case; and the company secretary is a struck-off solicitor. That hardly fills one with confidence.
Who are the backers? They were said to be a Saudi prince and the Sultan of Brunei, both of whom are backing away from the project and want to clear their names. A prestigious French company of international financiers, GM F, is denying all knowledge of the project. Everything that Kilpatrick Estates has claimed seems to be untrue. One doubts its claim that the proposed first-class hotel, with 250 beds, would create 650 jobs. With such a hotel, one would normally be thinking of one job per bed. It is difficult to understand from where 2,000 jobs would come overall.
The company's claims that consultations have taken place turn out not to be true. For example, it claims to have consulted the Countryside Commission, but I have received a letter from the commission stating that its 409 knowledge of the project is based only on reports which have appeared in newspapers, to which tribute should be paid.
Tribute must also be paid to local people. An organisation called Clydebelt is extremely concerned about the project and wanted to resist it from the beginning. It was because of the organisation's concern that the newspapers stepped in and there was some first-class journalism, especially in the Sunday Mail, the Clydebank Post, the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. As a result, the company has been exposed. It is now known that there are some fairly dubious people behind it.
Unfortunately, casualties have been left behind. For example, on the basis of promises made by the company to a local farmer that it would buy his farm, he bought another farm. Perhaps that was foolish. Having received no money from the company, he is unable to follow through with the transaction. Major Glasgow firms of architects, consultants, lawyers and public relations advisers have received no money from the company. There is no evidence that anyone who has carried out work for the company, or been promised money by it, has been paid. If that is untrue, I shall withdraw with great pleasure. As I have said, however, there is no sign that anyone has received money from the company, and there are debts amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
It seems that a company with a strange background can approach a district council—in the instance to which I have referred, it seems that the company was without resources—with a view to obtaining planning permission. But for the journalism which ensued, the company might have been successful. When applications are made involving extremely large projects, is there not a case for giving district councils the power to satisfy themselves as to the bona fides of the applicant company? I would genuinely welcome the Minister's guidance on that.
I know that conditions can be laid down after planning permission has been granted, but in the case to which I have referred there were applications involving £250 million and half the land area of Clydebank. Is it adequate to treat each application equally? If someone applies for permission to erect a porch, for example, the council will not ask if the applicant can afford to carry out the project. But if half the land area of a district council is involved in a project, there is a strong case for the district council to have investigative or interrogatory powers to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant company.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) wished to be present to associate himself with my remarks but is unfortunately unable to be in his place this evening.
The remarkable recovery of Glasgow and other urban areas in recent years has been in large part due to regional structure plans. These plans, often with the active co-operation of the Government, have stopped development on the outskirts of conurbations and other urban areas. They have effectively brought back into use what are described in jargon as brown-field sites, which may have been polluted or on which there are derelict buildings. In any event, the sites are not available instantly for development.
At the Clydebank end of my constituency, the Admiralty left behind a considerable number of oil tanks which had been there for many years and for which it no longer had any use. The pollution was such that it rendered the land useless for ordinary commercial 410 development. I am extremely grateful that an organisation such as the Scottish Development Agency is available to improve that land and to bring it into use, in this case for housing.
The SDA has made a huge contribution to preparing land so that it is attractive for other developments, but it now seems that restrictions on the budget of the SDA—soon to be Scottish Enterprise—are causing considerable problems, which Strathclyde regional council has already noted. At a regional planning committee last week, the regional council said that there were now considerable problems because the SDA was no longer bringing forward brown-field sites for development to the same extent as previously. The council is therefore having to drop from its planning proposals some brown-field sites that it is not reasonable to expect the SDA to develop, so they will not become available for housing. The consequence is not only to hold back the redevelopment of Glasgow and other older urban areas, but to transfer pressure to green-belt areas on the outskirts of cities.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden would like to be associated with my next remark. Bearsden, Milngavie and Strathkelvin are now under considerable pressure from developers who want green-belt land to be freed. In Milngavie, Stakis Developments is proposing 170 houses on 390 acres of green-belt land. That proposal has attracted 430 objections from local people who see a precedent being set for future developments and further housing. They recognise that further traffic will be generated and envisage the loss of quiet parkland with its associated flora and wildlife.
I am seeking from the Minister the assurance that Government policy will take account of the pressures that are occurring. If the Government do not use their influence and money to free brown-field sites in constituencies such as mine, areas such as Milngavie, which have a special character as a result of being small, compact and extremely pleasant to live in, will lose that character to the considerable resentment of the people who live there, some of whom—believe it or not, Minister—actually vote for your party——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Harold Walker)Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.
§ Mr. WorthingtonI beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
At the moment, there is considerable pressure on areas such as Bearsden, Milngavie and Strathkelvin, but at the same time—this is extremely sad—the pressure tends to be for new housing for the more prosperous groups when what is desperately needed in areas such as Bearsden and Milngavie is the continued existence of lower-value housing which is within the income of local people. Since the Government's introduction of the right to buy council houses, the small council housing stock has shrunk even further, with the result that local people who are not on high incomes are virtually forced to leave the area in which they would wish to live due to the loss of council housing. The local district councils tend not to be able to build houses to rent or lower-value houses to buy.
I ask the Minister for some assurances. First, will he take a look at the power of councils confronted with gigantic planning applications from people of dubious credentials? Local councils are not adequately protected at 411 present. Will he also examine the SDA's environmental budget? The consequences of the cuts in the budget are considerable, particularly with the forthcoming transfer to Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. It is not clear whether the local enterprise companies or Scottish Enterprise will be responsible for considerable environmental improvements. I fear that the pressure on the green belt will mount, while Scottish Enterprise is denied the funds to bring older brown-field areas back into use.
§ 1.5 am
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland(Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this Adjournment debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Bearsden and Milngavie and Clydebank green belt areas. I am aware that any proposals to develop within the designated green belt areas can give rise to concern, but I hope that I shall be able to allay some of the hon. Gentleman's fears.
Green belt boundaries are not fixed by the Secretary of State. Any alteration of green belt boundaries is primarily a matter for the district council, as planning authority, which is guided, in areas such as Strathclyde, where both the region and the district have planning responsibilities, by the regional council. The regional council may suggest reductions in the area of the green belt through alterations to its structure plan, perhaps to provide increased housing land and to accommodate new business or industrial development, or it may propose extensions to provide additional protection. But it is for district councils alone formally to define the boundaries of the green belt in local plans. The boundaries of the Strathclyde green belt which cover the districts of Bearsden and Milngavie and Clydebank are therefore set out in the adopted local plans for the area and may be revised only by the district councils through the statutory alterations procedure. Only in the most exceptional circumstances would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intervene in the preparation or alteration of a local plan.
The structure plan for Strathclyde region is normally updated every two years and anxiety is regularly expressed that the region's proposed policies are likely to lead to significant inroads being made into the green belt, particularly to accommodate new housing developments. The hon. Gentleman will recall that both he and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) raised this very point with me in an Adjournment debate on 12 April 1988. As I said on that occasion, I am unable to offer a definitive interpretation of the policies that form part of the current approved structure plan.
The reasoning behind any modifications to the policies which my right hon. Friend has made to the region's structure plan are set out in full in the decision letters approving the alterations. The precise import of the region's policies could be the subject of debate in the future, particularly when individual planning applications are being considered, and it is possible that the issues will eventually have to be determined by the courts. It would, therefore, be wrong for me to try to explain how the Government consider the policies should be interpreted. They should be interpreted by the district councils in 412 preparing alterations to their local plans and in considering any applications for planning permission which they might receive.
The previous alteration to the Strathclyde structure plan to come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—the 1988 update—was approved in December 1989. As with all Strathclyde updates, one of the major issues was the identification of districts where action needed to be taken to increase the effective supply of housing land. As with the previous alteration, in the 1986 update, Bearsden and Milngavie was not identified as one of those districts. Nor was Clydebank. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that further land for housing will not have to be found in the years ahead; this is a matter which the district councils concerned will need to discuss with housebuilders when preparing alterations to their local plans. It does, however, show that in a regional context neither Bearsden and Milngavie nor Clydebank are districts where a particular shortage has been perceived.
I understand that Strathclyde regional council is in the final stages of preparing its latest structure plan alteration—the 1990 update—for submission to the Secretary of State. It will, of course, be appreciated that I cannot discuss in detail any of the council's proposals, as they are not yet formally before the Secretary of State for consideration, but, as I understand it, the council has indicated in the consultative draft of the structure plan that certain parts of the green belt would be very sensitive to any development proposals. The green-belt wedges, or fingers, which penetrate into the built-up area of the conurbation—such as the land between Clydebank, Glasgow and Bearsden—are specifically identified as falling into that category. I also understand that the council's preliminary conclusions are that, as in previous years, there are no projected local housing shortfalls in either Bearsden, Milngavie or Clydebank districts. I should, however, again stress that this is not a matter on which I can speak with any authority at present.
More generally, the need for additional sites for housing does not necessarily entail the release of green-belt land. Many districts have sites allocated for housing which builders have reservations about developing. In some instances the problem may lie in an unwillingness on the owner's part to sell the land; in others there may be difficulties with ground conditions, site servicing, or infrastructure. We have always maintained that a joint examination of those sites by the builders and the district councils concerned could resolve many of the perceived problems and could lead to their acceptance as effective contributions to the housing land supply. In addition, there is considerable scope in many areas for development on brown-field sites in built-up areas. For all those reasons many of the additional sites which are required can, we believe, be found without the need for incursions into the green belt.
On more specific proposals within the Strathclyde green belt, I am aware that a development proposal has been put forward by Kilpatrick Estates Ltd. for the use of a large part of Kilpatrick hills, which straddles both Clydebank and Dumbarton districts. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about certain aspects of that proposal.
The company has, I understand, proposed that a large part of the Kilpatrick hills be developed to provide two hotels; golf courses and driving ranges; an equestrian centre with associated pony-trekking facilities; a dry ski 413 slope; and hill walking trails. An outline planning application was submitted to both Clydebank and Dumbarton district councils in November 1990.
I understand that 90 per cent. of the total 4,000-acre development area lies within Clydebank district and that this sector includes all the major construction proposals. With the agreement of Dumbarton district council, Clydebank disrict council has therefore taken the lead in dealing with the application. The council has told the developer that the application will not be considered until an environmental assessment of the proposals' impact on the area has been undertaken. I understand that the director of planning for Clydebank district council does not expect to be in a position to report to the council's planning committee before April at the earliest.
It is possible that the proposed development would be out of accord with both the structure and local plan policies. The Strathclyde structure plan key diagram shows that the southern part of the application site might form part of the Strathclyde green belt. Current approved structure plan policies presume against development within the green belt and any proposals are required to be justified against economic benefit, specific locational need, infrastructure implications and environmental impact criteria. The northern part of the site would appear to fall within an area defined as countryside around towns, which is governed by similar policies. The site as a whole forms part of the Loch Lomond and Kilpartrick hills regional scenic areas. Here structure plan policies presume against prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact. The site is also covered by green belt and environmental protection zone policies in the Clydebank district countryside local plan.
As the hon. Gentleman will have noted, there would be obvious implications for structure plan policies if this development were to proceed and it is likely that Strathclyde regional council will take a close interest in the application. As the regional planning authority for the area, it has the right to call in the application for its own determination, and it is possible that it will take that action if Clydebank district states that it is minded to grant planning permission. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, appreciate that at this stage there is no sign of what the district council's eventual decision will be, but it is clear that the benefits that the development might bring to the district will have to be weighed carefully against any adverse impact that it might have on the environment.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are two ways in which my right hon. Friend can become involved in planning applications such as this. Firstly, should the district council be minded to grant planning permission and should it consider that the development makes a significant departure from the approved structure plan, it will be required to refer the application to my right hon. Friend for consideration. At the same time, it must also refer the application to the regional council for its consideration. I cannot, of course, speculate at this stage as to whether either my right hon. Friend or Strathclyde regional council would thereafter call in the application for determination, but the opportunity would be there for those powers to be used.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend could become involved, should either Clydebank district council or Strathclyde regional council refuse to grant planning permission. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an applicant for planning permission has a statutory right of appeal to my right hon. 414 Friend against such a decision. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that because of the possibility of either referral of the application, or an appeal against refusal, I cannot comment in any way on the merits of the proposal or the applicants, their employees or their backers. I am, however, aware of the hon. Gentleman's grave concern about the matter and his recent request that my right hon. Friend investigate the company behind the proposed development. I believe that any such investigation would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to consider, but I shall look into this matter further and write to the hon. Gentleman shortly about the procedures for any such investigation.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the funding of the Scottish Development Agency, in particular the provision of funds which would enable it to carry out environmental improvements to brown-field sites. It is important to recognise that the economic development budget for Scottish Enterprise, which includes provision for environmental improvement works, has in fact increased. The budget set for environmental works reflects Scottish Enterprise's views on relative needs and priorities. It should also be borne in mind that Highlands and Islands Enterprise will, in future, carry out environmental works in its area which were previously undertaken by the Scottish Development Agency.
§ Mr. WorthingtonIt seems that, in recent years, the SDA's priorities on environmental work have changed and it is giving preference to work connected with job creation. In some ways, that makes sense. It will put money allocated to the environment into work leading directly to jobs. I can understand that focus, but other money must be made available because of the costs incurred when environmental work is not done to bring sites into housing operation. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of those involved. Provision for environmental work has increased, which is important.
I shall take the opportunity to comment on our policy towards green belts. Since 1987 we have made it quite clear that we remain firmly committed to green belts and will continue to defend them against unsuitable development. It is particularly important to reaffirm that commitment at a time when Scottish green belts are coming under greater pressure for development than ever before.
The hallmarks of the Government's policy on green belts are, first, our strong commitment to maintaining the existence of effective green belts, and, secondly, our commitment to maintaining two policies that we have applied to green belts, which have been in existence for about 30 years. Although the policy has been restated and refined in that time, the original purposes have not changed. I am glad to have the opportunity to confirm that, not just in relation to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but throughout Scotland.
That pressure on the green belts is undoubtedly due to the growth in economic activity that the country as a whole has enjoyed in recent years. But while that growth is to be welcomed and provides people with the spending power to consider a wider choice of options for where they live and work, we must also ensure that any new development is channelled into the appropriate areas. We 415 therefore have to ensure that we integrate positive policies for providing jobs and houses in areas outwith green belts with positive policies for maintaining the integrity of the green belts, so that the green belt continues to fulfil the objectives for which it was created.
416 The Scottish Development——
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at nineteen minutes past One o'clock.