HC Deb 08 June 1998 vol 313 cc848-54

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

11.52 pm
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove)

I thank the House for this opportunity to talk about playing fields—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. Due consideration must be given to the hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate.

Miss Kirkbride

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

As I say, I thank the House for this opportunity to discuss the important issue of playing fields. I know from colleagues on both sides of the House that this issue affects many constituencies where there is concern about the pressure to develop playing fields, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I talk particularly about my constituency and our concerns about the threat to a playing field in Bromsgrove, which is commonly known as the recreation ground.

I should like to make clear the circumstances in which this debate has arisen. There is a proposal to build an arts and leisure complex on an area of ground known as the rec. It is in the very centre of town, and was covenanted in 1911 for the purposes of recreation. This green space has been used for those very purposes for the best part of a century. The Labour district council proposed to build the complex in its 1995 manifesto; we learned only subsequently that it was to be built on the green space in the centre of town.

I do not oppose the idea of an arts and leisure complex for Bromsgrove. As an ancient market town in north Worcestershire, we have been stripped of many of our services. They have gone to other towns in the area—especially to the new town of Redditch. It is important to the cultural life of Bromsgrove that we have an arts complex. Only a few weeks ago, I visited the local operatic society. It had been forced to hire part of the district council's offices, known as the Spadesbourne suite, at huge cost; and had had to install a tiered seating system to enable an audience to attend. Three thousand pounds, which is what it cost the society, is far too much for a small operatic company to expect to get in gate money—hence the need for such a local facility.

The campaigners believe, as I do, that the complex should not be sited on the recreation ground. The proposal is to use a site fronting Market street on the east, or town side, with Recreation road to the north and Churchfields to the west. The area under consideration has an Asda superstore to the south; in front of the superstore is a car park. The proposal is to move the car park to the green space known as the rec, and to build the arts and leisure complex on the area that is now the car park.

We object to the proposal first and foremost because the park is a green lung in the centre of our town. It is an attractive old market town, although more could be done to make it more attractive still. Building an arts complex in this location, however, would do a great disservice to the attractions of our town centre. The green space in the centre of Bromsgrove is used for all sorts of recreation: walking dogs, lunching on sunny afternoons out of office hours, and so on—all this in addition to the regular sporting activities held on the site.

The proposed plan would also cause severe traffic congestion. It is already almost impossible to move around the centre at teatime, when office workers are leaving for home. The new facility would only worsen the traffic problems, and prolong the hours of severe congestion. The centre of town is not well served by roads; most traffic is taken by the ring road outside, but for those who need to enter and leave the centre, the congestion is acute at certain times of day. I do not believe that the proposal will make that any better; nor is there any way in which roads could be constructed to alleviate the traffic problem if an arts and leisure complex were built.

Our third objection is that the complex could have a severe impact on the town centre itself. Like many small market towns, we have been severely affected by the growth in out-of-town shopping centres. I am not here to oppose what many of my constituents want—they like to shop in Merry Hill, and we all understand that it is easy to park and to shop there. The future for Bromsgrove is not to compete with what Merry Hill does, but to provide a different shopping experience, by giving resources and making improvements to the town centre.

As I shall be knocking my Labour council quite a lot during my speech, I should say that I was pleased to see in the local newspaper this week that improvements are to be made to the town centre to do it up a little. That is a welcome development, because we must cash in on our antiquity, our uniqueness and our having a high street which does not contain only predictable stores. It has niche stores which casual shoppers find more interesting and entertaining on a Saturday afternoon. The fear is that a rival centre, not based in the high street, will only add to Bromsgrove town centre's problems.

The recreation ground is used for sporting activities, and until last year, when the proposal appeared clearly on the agenda, goalposts were erected during the season on the recreation ground. It was mean of the council not to erect the goalposts this year as the precursor to the proposal to build on the ground, and perhaps in acknowledgement of the fact that the campaign to save the rec was gaining ground. The removal of the goalposts is disappointing to the teams that regularly used the ground for weekend sports. For all those reasons, we are concerned that the proposal should not be allowed to proceed, and I hope that the Minister has taken on board those objections.

Many thousands of objections have been sent in, although the district council disputes who, what and where, and active petitions have been raised to object to the plans. I should like to put on record the efforts of Dennis Norton, who has led the campaign to save the rec. He is a respected business man in Bromsgrove, and has a great love and affection for the town. He has left his collection of material relating to Bromsgrove for the benefit of the townspeople, and no one could suggest that his heart does not lie with the best interests of Bromsgrove. However, that kindness and love for our town has been repaid by those who object to his objections, with a high-handed and unsatisfactory response.

I do not wish to name all those involved in the campaign, but I should like to mention a dear friend, Lorna Priddey, who has acted as an unofficial secretary to the campaigners and worked to save the rec for the benefit of the people of Bromsgrove in her characteristic unstinting, dedicated and kind-hearted way.

Those of us who object to the proposals are unhappy with the way the council has treated us. Some high-handed letters have been sent to people who have sent in objections, and the discussions on the proposals for the recreation ground have, in large part, been held in private council chamber. I doubt that the new Government would approve of that, given their determination to have more open government. It is only fair to the people of Bromsgrove that such discussions should take place in more open proceedings.

There is also a sense of legitimate grievance that the two local newspapers that bear Bromsgrove's name were not used to advertise the plans, on the spurious ground that they did not cover the entire constituency. A paper that is not, perhaps, as well read was therefore given the notice, which caused offence.

I am sorry to tell the Minister, but it is true, that Bromsgrove has the misfortune to be served by a rather second-rate Labour council—unlike our new Labour Government—which is out of touch with what the people of Bromsgrove want. It is belligerently determined to continue with the proposal, despite the objections that it is receiving. I appeal to the Minister to listen to the wider views of the community, and to persuade his colleagues on the council to choose an alternative site for this development.

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)

Does my hon. Friend realise that the tale that she has told, which is fascinating and new to me, is replicated, almost word for word, by a case in my constituency of West Dorset, and, I suspect, by similar cases in the constituencies of many other hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the subject before the House.

Miss Kirkbride

I am very much aware that the use of playing fields for all sorts of schemes affects all hon. Members. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts, and those who have written to me about their experience in West Dorset, on a successful campaign to stop such a development. That is what can happen when an assiduous Member of Parliament is representing the people's interests.

There has been rudeness in the Labour council's dealings with those who have objected to the planning permission, including myself. It has been suggested that we are getting our facts wrong, but the council is refusing to admit that there is public hostility. I shall read a little from the letters that the council has received. People who live very close to the site concerned wrote: We would like to assure the council that the land is most definitely still regularly used for the purpose in which it was intended as an open space and recreation facility. We live opposite the field and feel we are in a far better position to know how often people play football, cricket, walk their dogs and generally use the area than councillors sat behind closed doors … If they came to the area regularly in particular on a Saturday or Sunday they would see for themselves. That letter is symptomatic of the objections and feelings of the people of Bromsgrove about the fact that their opinions have not been taken into account.

That letter raised another objection about the likely increase in noise pollution. It says: We would like to point out that we have suffered sleepless nights, caused by groups of youths playing loud music from amplifiers on the existing car park"— which is some distance from the houses— at 2 and 3 am", and it goes on to say: by moving the car park … nearer the houses this would again become a very real problem. That is what the people of Bromsgrove feel.

Clearly, I took up this issue before I had the good fortune of having this debate. I took it up with the English Sports Council. When I last spoke to the council, it had yet to proceed with the final acceptance of planning permission, and it is only at that stage that the Sports Council will be officially and finally asked for its views. As an interim—albeit pretty clear—indication of the likely response, this letter was copied to me after being sent to the chief executive. It states: The English Sports Council has considered the application in the light of its playing field policy … It is not considered that the applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that any of the identified special circumstances apply in this case and in the absence of a suitable justification for the development we wish to register our objection to the planning application. We know that the English Sports Council disagrees with the proposal.

I ask the Minister to address two issues on the record. First, if the sports council continues to disapprove of the development when the council has submitted its final planning application, can I be reassured—and may I reassure my constituents—that the matter will go to the Secretary of State for planning approval? Bromsgrove district council must not be allowed to act unilaterally: it must seek the final approval of the Secretary of State if the sports council objects.

Secondly, will the Minister amplify the Government's policy on playing fields? I understand that Labour's sports manifesto, entitled "Labour's Sporting Nation", states specifically that the Government will end the policy of selling playing fields. It seems likely that this Labour council will conflict with the Labour Government's policy. Labour's manifesto states clearly that the Government will not allow this sort of development of playing fields, yet for some extraordinary reason that message has not reached Labour councillors.

As this is a fraught issue, it has been suggested that I am wrong to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House tonight. I am aware that, if it becomes a matter for the Secretary of State, his judicial functions will preclude the Minister from stating clearly the Government's attitude to the planning procedure. We also face the problem—I do not wish to stray from the subject under discussion—of hospital cuts and closures in my area affecting the Kidderminster general and Alexandra hospitals. No one would suggest that I should not raise the difficult subject of hospital closures in the House of Commons until the decision is taken to close those hospitals.

Therefore, I point out to my critics that I am not willing to stand by and see the recreation ground developed without mentioning the proposal in every forum available, in an effort to stop the development before a final decision is taken. When that occurs, my constituents and I will have nowhere else to go to raise our legitimate objections.

12.12 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on her success in securing the debate, and on presenting the case on behalf of her constituents. I fully understand why she has raised the issue, but I hope that she will appreciate that it would be improper for me to comment on the merits of the case as it is likely to be referred to my Department. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State would have a quasi-judicial role in considering the matter, and it would be improper for us to prejudice in any way our consideration of the facts. That is why we must be circumspect in responding to the specific case.

I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that I am happy to respond in the spirit in which she initiated the debate by outlining the Government's policy on the matter, and what we are doing to protect playing fields.

Under the previous Government, local authorities faced considerable pressures on their resources, and many felt that they had no alternative but to look to the disposal of assets in order to generate additional resources. That led many authorities to sell off open spaces and playing fields.

The present Government believe that selling off playing fields and open spaces is wrong, and we have proposed that the practice should be subject to greater scrutiny. We believe that playing fields are vital for maintaining the quality of our communities. They provide an essential recreational resource for schools and the wider community. It is important that people have access to playing fields and open spaces close to where they live.

We therefore attach a high importance to retaining playing fields in urban areas. In recent years, too many have been lost, and grass-roots sport has suffered as a result. I entirely endorse the anxieties that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove expressed about people's need for access to open space for recreational purposes. That is why the Government made a manifesto pledge to stop the sale of playing fields that schools and communities need.

The current Government policy is contained in planning policy guidance note No. 17, on sport and recreation. That emphasises the special significance of all playing fields, and stresses that they should usually be protected. It advises local planning authorities that they should distinguish in their development plans between parks and other open spaces that need protecting from development, as against sites that are temporarily in recreational use, or unused open land which may be suitable for development.

PPG 17, which dates back to the previous Government, says that playing fields should not be developed for other uses unless it has been established that the sites will not be required, in the longer term, for school or community use. The emphasis is on identifying whether there are local deficiencies in provision, and protecting such facilities by policies in plans and showing sites to which the policies apply on the proposal map in the local plan. That is the current position under PPG 17.

As I have stressed, and as I believe the hon. Member for Bromsgrove recognises, despite the guidance in PPG17, there are growing pressures on the potential use of playing fields. Those pressures could well increase—for example, in light of our need to accommodate a growing number of households. On 23 February 1998, the Government issued their policy document "Planning for the Communities of the Future". The document stressed the importance of locating new development, wherever possible, in existing urban areas. That is common sense, in order to safeguard the countryside, but there is the difficult corollary that, unless development is controlled, pressure on open space may increase.

We want to make it absolutely clear that good-quality playing fields and open spaces will remain available in urban areas, and will not be swallowed up as part of the process of trying to accommodate increasing amounts of housing in urban areas. Urban quality should not be sacrificed, which means that open spaces and playing fields need greater protection.

Since 1 August 1996, local planning authorities in England have been obliged to consult the English Sports Council on any planning application involving the development of playing fields. We have carried out a review of the first year of operation of that new arrangement, which showed that planning permission was granted for 26 of the 35 applications to which the sports council objected. That strongly suggests that there are real grounds for concern.

Accordingly, we assessed 22 of the cases that were granted planning permission, to discover whether there were any significant problems. As a result of that analysis, on 16 January the Government announced how they would fulfil their manifesto pledge to stop the sale of playing fields that schools and communities need.

The initiative that we announced in January co-ordinates three measures, respectively from the Department for Education and Employment, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The object was to send a clear message to all local authorities to discourage them from selling and permitting the development of local authority-owned playing fields that are needed.

The Department for Education and Employment currently has legislation before Parliament which will require the prior consent of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment where the local authority, a governing body or a foundation proposes to dispose of a school playing field, or where a local authority proposes to change the use of a playing field. The DFEE will consult shortly on the criteria on the basis of which decisions will be taken.

With regard to our position, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would be tightening up planning controls in respect of development of all local authority-owned playing fields where the English Sports Council advises against the proposals. We are suggesting that a local planning authority will be required to notify the Secretary of State of any proposal for development of a local authority-owned playing field, where the English Sports Council has objected because it would have a detrimental effect on the provision of playing fields.

The notification procedure will be triggered where a relevant sports council has lodged an objection to an application because it is concerned that there is an existing deficiency of playing fields, or that the proposal may result in such deficiency. We consulted all local planning authorities about the proposed arrangements on 12 February, and there was overwhelming support for our proposals. We propose to issue a direction shortly under the general permitted development procedure order to bring the arrangements into operation.

The hon. Lady might reasonably ask—if her speech had not been completed—what we will do in the interim. We have advised local planning authorities to consider whether it is possible to defer making decisions, or alternatively to inform the local Government office of any contested cases that would meet the requirements of the new arrangements.

The Secretary of State has the power to issue a direction under article 14 of the general development procedure order that would prevent the granting of planning permission by a local planning authority, if the Secretary of State considered it necessary to use that power because the local authority was unlikely to refer the matter. However, we are advised by the Government office for the west midlands that the particular case will be referred to the Secretary of State. Assuming that that is correct, the hon. Lady has no grounds for concern.

As for the future, local planning authorities are required to determine planning applications in accordance with their development plans. For planning applications involving the development of playing fields and open spaces, local authorities must take into account the longer-term needs of the wider community and consider whether there is, or is likely to be, a deficiency of playing fields and public open space.

If the application is likely to result in local deficiency in the supply of playing fields, there should be a presumption in favour of rejecting it. If there is doubt as to whether there is deficiency or whether the application is likely to result in deficiency—in other words, where the local planning authority and the English Sports Council disagree—the application should be referred to the Secretary of State, who will decide whether to leave the application for the local authority to determine or to determine it himself.

I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady that the Government have acted and are acting in the interim to ensure greater protection for playing fields. That is our overriding concern. I am sure that she will appreciate why I cannot comment on the particulars of the individual case, which are likely to come, by one means or another, to the Secretary of State for final decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve midnight.