HC Deb 13 November 1996 vol 285 cc330-6 1.29 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

I have two reasons to be grateful for the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes by Hillingdon borough council to the draft unitary development plan. First, the new planning proposals set out by the borough council cause the most acute local concern I have ever experienced in the 17 years that I have represented Ruislip-Northwood. Secondly, they raise aspects of environmental and housing policy that are of national significance, as they demonstrate the need to encourage the private rented sector, rather than relying on housing association developments subsidised by the taxpayer.

My constituency is largely residential, with some light industry at its southernmost extremity. Most people commute to London by tube or train, or travel by car to work at Heathrow airport or Stockley park or along the A4-M4 and A40-M40 corridors. Unemployment is the lowest of any Greater London constituency and, despite constant developmental pressures, limited school places and traffic congestion, Ruislip-Northwood is a pleasant place to live, to raise a family and to retire. It has excellent schools, good recreational facilities and playing fields and a high proportion of owner-occupied homes. In short, it comprises a harmonious blend of residential districts and public open space, underpinned with carefully designated, well preserved, green chain and metropolitan green belt areas.

That crucial harmony and balance have been deliberately put at risk by the Labour borough council's proposed changes to the UDP. When the plans became public in late July, proposing social housing development on up to 50 acres of green chain land, I immediately wrote to the leader of the Labour borough council, Councillor Chris Rogers, to protest that the wholesale social housing developments which were being promoted by the socialist borough council put at risk the quality of life of my constituents, would damage the environment irreparably and would be fiercely resisted by local residents.

It is worth quoting my letter verbatim, as it summarises the arguments clearly—not one of which was addressed by the Labour council leader in his curt reply: I am in receipt of your letter of 22nd July 1996. Your comments have been noted. Hon. Members will agree that maintaining the value of my constituents' homes, retaining playing fields and recreation grounds for their children and designated public open spaces in a green chain of protected areas for people to walk, exercise their dogs and breathe freely when so much of their daily lives is spent strap-hanging on the underground travelling to and from work and enduring endless traffic jams, noise from aircraft and motorways, are worthy planning priorities for any responsible outer London borough.

Under the heading "Urbanisation of Ruislip-Northwood", I wrote as follows: Dear Councillor Rogers, I have been informed by Councillors in my constituency that Hillingdon Borough Council has arbitrarily and peremptorily altered the Hillingdon Draft Development Plan so as to permit the construction of very substantial amounts of social housing within my constituency. First it would have been courteous if the Council had informed me in advance. Secondly and much more importantly these proposed developments on important predominantly green areas within Ruislip-Northwood will seriously degrade the local environment and prejudice the important amenity areas for local constituents. The Field End Road and Sidmouth Drive recreation grounds are much appreciated by local people. Children have all too few areas on which to play and that the Council should deliberately curtail recreation space for children will be much resented and rightly, bitterly contested. Likewise the St. Vincent's Hospital site is a particularly beautiful semi secluded area on the edge of Haste Hill which an aesthetically sensitive council responsible to the feelings of local people would wish to preserve. It is clear that the Council has its own agenda to put as much open space as possible under concrete and brick. I believe my constituents will contest these thoroughly undesirable plans implacably and that they will organise to save our green fields from the clutches of inappropriate Council-sponsored developments. Coming on top of your publicly quoted observations in favour of a Warner Bros Theme Park on green belt land in Uxbridge"— in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), who is here supporting me and is president of the Metropolitan London Green Belt Council— it is clear that preserving the quality of life for local residents from undesirable urbanisation does not feature as a policy of Hillingdon Borough Council. A little bit of imagination and sensitivity to local feelings could preserve an attractive environment for generations to come. The Council clearly prefers to promote an impersonal urban sprawl. I give you notice that it will he fiercely resisted.

It is small wonder that local people have been incensed. They see elected Labour councillors, who should be the custodians of the local environment and quality of life, deliberately setting their face against them. The civic centre has been inundated with thousands of objections. Public meetings have been held on Field End recreation ground and Sidmouth drive playing fields, and protest handbills are displayed in countless windows nearby.

Local Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) who sent a message of support and has done much locally, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who is in his place, have been strenuous in their opposition, as have local residents' associations such as south Ruislip residents association in my constituency and Roxbourne residents association in Harrow, West. The Conservative councillors' group on Hillingdon borough council and responsible conservation groups, such as the Hillingdon group of the London Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Earth and the Sports Council have all protested in meticulous detail, itemising the environmental damage that would ensue from the plans.

Sir Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)

I fully support what my hon. Friend has said today. Does he agree that the general thrust of the modifications should concern the House and the Minister—that the plan seeks to contribute as far as possible to the Borough's identified housing needs by seeking to ensure the highest acceptable number of new dwellings are provided in the form of affordable housing". It takes no account of the need for other varieties of housing in the borough and is putting at risk green belt sites, green chain sites and other land locally.

The local authority has argued that the council has revised housing allocation, and is planning a 10 per cent. increase. That information came from the London Planning Advisory Committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say a word or two about that.

It has also been argued by council officers that the inspector considering the original draft development plan made a comment to the effect that Hillingdon should be more proactive in the provision of such housing. I challenged them to show me where those words appeared. They do not appear anywhere; they are an interpretation by the council's officers, as was admitted to me at a recent meeting.

Mr. Wilkinson

rose—

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wilkinson

I shall proceed for a sentence or two before giving way to my hon. Friend.

To his great credit, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment lodged his objections with Hillingdon borough council, which was an extremely responsible and unusual action and helped to concentrate the mind of the local authority. His action induced the council to bow to popular pressure and to withdraw the Sidmouth drive playing fields in my constituency from its plans for social housing development.

Mr. Dicks

Both my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) will recall that back in the '70s we had problems with the infamous Alderman John Bartlett, who wanted to turn Ruislip-Northwood into one massive council estate for political reasons. When the Conservatives took power in 1978—I was the housing chairman—I was presented with a waiting list of 10,000 people. It was completely false, because it contained the names of people who had bought their own homes or been rehoused years before. I am convinced that the figures in Hillingdon today have been falsified to justify what is called social housing—I call it council housing—and to turn even more of Ruislip-Northwood, parts of Uxbridge and parts of my constituency into council estates.

Mr. Wilkinson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings incomparable experience of great relevance to the subject. The question of density is crucial and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred to the lack of balance, which perturbs my constituents particularly.

Now that the crucial democratic precedent has been established over Sidmouth drive playing fields, the council should also withdraw its proposals to build social housing on Field End road recreation ground in my constituency. The surface of the recreation ground is currently pockmarked with large boreholes, dug at the behest of the council at the council taxpayers' expense.

I tabled four parliamentary questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about his commendable intervention. It is worth recording the reply yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister who has responsibility for London: Objections were made by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to twenty six proposed modifications. The objections were made to modifications that appeared to bring the plan into conflict with national or regional policies without good reason and where that was proposed would result in the plan lacking clarity such that it could cause great difficulties to users later. Twelve modifications concerned Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land; six modifications would produce policies or proposals that were unclear or imprecise; and three modifications conflicted with our preferred approach to planning and affordable housing. A further five modifications to which objections were made related to proposals for residential development on two recreation grounds. Objections to the published modifications in respect of the deposited Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan are addressed to the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. I would be pleased to provide a copy of the objections made by my right hon. Friend, but the approach in the first place should be to the Council. I have obtained a copy through other sources and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for London for their assiduous efforts to ensure that the interests of my constituents were safeguarded.

My hon. Friend the Minister continues: We encourage local authorities to meet with objectors to discuss objections. There have been no such effective meetings as yet, although on occasions there has been a dialogue of the deaf in the Ruislip-Northwood forum and elsewhere, but no proper reasoned dialogue. These informal meetings are helpful, not least to consider how the plan might be changed to meet the objections. Officials in the Government Office for London and those from Hillingdon have met recently to pursue the objections made by my right hon Friend. Further discussion is likely once Hillingdon's response to the objections they have received is known. In those circumstances, it is clear that Hillingdon borough council should act democratically and rescind its proposed changes to the draft unitary development plan. At the least, it should initiate a public inquiry, with an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. Following the inspector's report to the local authority, the Secretary of State could either direct appropriate modifications to the unitary development plan or call it in for his decision in its entirety.

My view is that the Labour Hillingdon borough council, which has clearly learnt nothing from the bad old days of socialist municipal vandalism at the hands of Alderman Bartlett 20 years ago, should waste no more council tax payers' money on proposals that have no public support, and should withdraw them totally at its unitary development plan sub-committee meeting on Thursday 21 November.

I reiterate my gratitude to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for allowing me to bring the matters to your attention. They may appear parochial, but they raise issues of national importance and planning questions of the utmost significance to my constituents.

It must be borne in mind that constituencies such as mine and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and for Hayes and Harlington are under special developmental pressure. I mentioned the horrendous application by Warner Brothers to build a theme park and film studios in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. It would have a crucial knock-on effect in my constituency. On top of that pressure we have the expansion of the motorway network and, of course, the potential fifth terminal at Heathrow airport.

The maintenance of pleasant residential areas, where it is possible to live happily and harmoniously in a balanced environment, is a crucial policy for any responsible local authority, which ours clearly is not. Luckily, it is a policy that I know that the Government support and that has received effective backing, throughout his tenure of office, from my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for London.

1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing this debate. He has received support from my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), and they are a formidable team. As has been pointed out, the proposed changes to Hillingdon's draft unitary development plan have caused considerable anxiety to the constituents of all three of my hon. Friends, and they have assiduously pursued those concerns.

The development plan—the unitary development plan in the case of Hillingdon—should under normal circumstances provide for rational and consistent decisions, and should give greater certainty about where new development will be permitted. In permitting plans, the right balance must be struck between the demand for development and the protection of the environment. In that way, plans have a key role to play in contributing to the Government's strategy for sustainable development. Plans help to provide for necessary development, but development should be sought only in locations that do not compromise the needs of future generations.

It is right that anyone with an interest in their area and the way it will develop in the future should participate in the preparation of the plan and help to influence the emerging proposals. Indeed, an objective of the plan-led system is to secure public involvement in shaping local planning policies.

More than two thirds of the London boroughs will have adopted plans by the end of the year. Until Hillingdon published its package of proposed modifications, it looked as if it too would be able to adopt its plan by the end of this year. Hillingdon has already taken its plan to public inquiry. The inspector's report recommended modifications to the plan where the modification would provide a definite improvement.

However, Hillingdon's modifications go further. They are numerous and complex. Several are at variance with the inspector's recommendations, and some modifications bring forward new proposals. While there may be occasions when local reasons support disagreement with an inspector's recommendation, the expectation is that authorities will wish to accept the inspector's recommendations in most cases.

Given what is included in Hillingdon's proposed modifications, the borough cannot be surprised to have received so many objections. I understand that it has received 4,000 or more, the majority relating to the proposals for affordable housing on the Field End and Sidmouth drive recreation grounds.

The modifications are controversial in other ways. For example, there are proposals that affect the metropolitan green belt and metropolitan open land, including proposals for housing. There are also changes in the designation of open areas currently identified as forming part of the green chains that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned. It is fair to say that we would prefer to let local authorities get on with their plan-making. However, we will object where the plan is at odds with national or regional policies without good reason, or where it is so technically defective that it could cause great difficulties to users later. As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, we have objected to several of the modifications proposed by Hillingdon. We have objected to significant changes to the green belt and metropolitan open land. Our policy is clear: the essential characteristic of green belts is their longevity. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead. Our planning policy guidance note on green belts—PPG2—advises that, once green belt boundaries have been defined, they should be altered only in exceptional circumstances.

Sir Michael Shersby

Does my hon. Friend agree that another principal aspect of green belt policy is the openness of land? So many people forget that openness is a key factor and that it needs to be borne in mind. Without openness, we have urban sprawl, we have development, we have towns joining together and we lose the benefit of living in a balanced, decent community.

Sir Paul Beresford

You can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend is well versed in green belt matters. As president of the London green belt group, he makes his expertise clear.

As my hon. Friends are aware, the principles of control over development in the green belt also apply to metropolitan open land. Other proposals brought forward by the Hillingdon modifications are clearly of local concern but do not necessarily raise issues that would warrant an objection from us. The changes to the proposed green chains are an example.

Although the modifications affecting the Field End and Sidmouth Drive recreation grounds were part of a proposed green chain, they raise different issues. Here Hillingdon has proposed to build on the recreation grounds. Open space and playing fields will be lost. I am not entirely sure how much open space or how many playing fields will be lost, because Hillingdon council has not made the modifications clear.

Strategic guidance looks to the boroughs to maintain and enhance the quality of all London's open spaces, particularly our parks. We expect to see policies in UDPs for the protection of open spaces. Our planning policy guidance for sport and recreation—PPG17—makes it clear that all playing fields are of special significance and that, if they are not required for their original purpose, they may be able to meet the growing need for recreational land in the wider community. Our expectation is that playing fields will normally be protected.

For these reasons, we objected to the modifications affecting the recreation grounds. Frankly, we also needed to object because what was proposed was far from clear. We do not know how much open space will be lost, how much development is proposed or whether it is necessary—in other words, the sort of questions that my hon. Friends and their constituents are asking.

It is apparent that local people feel strongly that a further UDP inquiry is warranted. In the first place, this is for Hillingdon to consider, but we have advised planning authorities that a further inquiry will be necessary where objections to modifications raise issues that were not examined at an earlier stage.

I understand that Hillingdon officers are preparing a report for their members' committee meeting to be held on 21 November, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned. I anticipate that the report will set out the options on the way forward—including, we hope, a further local inquiry.

I urge my hon. Friends—although I realise that I do not need to urge them—to continue to press their concerns with the local authority. We will keep a close eye on the plan and pursue our objections until we are satisfied that the proposals do not conflict with our policy guidance. It is, of course, too early to consider whether intervention in the plan is warranted. We must first wait to see what else emerges from Hillingdon's consideration of the objections that it has received. I hope that the council is receptive and responsive.

It being seven minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.