§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)I am pleased to have this Adjournment debate on an issue that some would say is, in a sense, history—a planning application in my constituency, one or two aspects of which were unique. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is familiar with the case.
The planning application was for an opencast coal site where work was completed in 1982—a long time ago—and which was reclaimed in 1994 for commercial development. Some 65 out of 90 acres have been reclaimed. The planning application was to use the first 20 acres of the site. I should add that next to the site is the Orgreave opencast coal mine, where there is a massive scheme—one of the biggest in Europe—to clean up industrial dereliction. When that work is finished, some 800 acres of land will be available for use—all of it ex-industrial or brown-field site land.
The local authority, Rotherham borough council, is working up a master plan for the whole site which may include business and industrial use, leisure, housing, a shopping centre, schools and open space. In effect, we are looking at producing a new community on the site.
The application was made by an American company, AMC, which, in a letter to the Government's regional office in January 1997, said:
AMC Europe is the subsidiary of AMC Entertainment Inc.. one of the largest cinema circuits in the USA, and we are considering a redeployment in the UK, where AMC pioneered the Multiplex complex in the mid eighties, thus initiating a spectacular growth of the cinema attendance (from 45 million tickets sold in 1985 to close to 130 million in 1996.) Our target within the next decade is to build approximately 10 4–6,000 seat–20–30 screen multiplexes integrated in full entertainment centres around the major metropolitan areas of the UK.It is clear that the implications go far wider than the application for the site in my constituency.The letter continued:
Our objective in Waverley is, by using the synergy between the cinema and the other restaurant and leisure activities planned on site, to generate a sufficient critical mass to turn the site into a true leisure destination, thus attracting customers from a much larger catchment area than a traditional multiplex".The plans that I saw proposed a catchment area from West Yorkshire to the middle of Nottinghamshire. The letter continued:The Waverley Park site is well adapted to the development of our concept, due to the large catchment area, the excellent access and relatively few competing leisure schemes.The letter said that the company had built a similar project in Portugal in December 1996, and that there was a clear demand for multiplexes.The leisure industry report for 1998 says that there are approximately 110 multiplexes in this country, which begs the question: how many more can the UK take before saturation point is reached? This is all relevant to the Secretary of State's decision on the project. Operators' opinions on how many more multiplexes the country could take differ, but the average seems to be between 80 and 100. The development plans of the UK's established multiplex operators clearly reflect the current strength. This is a big area for growth in the British economy. 335 AMC's application was submitted in 1996 and went on its journey through the Government regional office, which I visited in September 1996. I had been approached by the developers, and I was interested in the cultural change in activity in my constituency which, as hon. Members will know, has suffered from the rundown of its basic industries for more than a decade. To my knowledge, it was the only proposal for the site, and I was excited about it.
As ever with planning applications that are called in by the Government, the decision took a long time. I understand that, even after the general election, there were several meetings in the DTI about whether to call in the application for a public inquiry. Ministers asked for more information, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary asked for details in relation to planning policy guidance note 6—the alternative site test—and PPG13, concerning public transport.
That information was sent in by the planning authority in June this year, yet it took until September before the final decision to have a public inquiry was made by the Secretary of State—something that I did not want and had lobbied against. The decision was communicated to the developers by letter on 25 September. The time scale about which we are talking is from July 1996 until 25 September, when the decision was taken. That is a long time to ask someone who is preparing to invest millions of pounds into a project to wait.
The criteria laid down by the public inquiry were known by the Department. The Department had asked about PPG6 and PPG13 only a few months before, and had been given a comprehensive report about the tests by the planning authority. The Department also asked about accessibility by a choice of means of transport and the likely effects on travel patterns and car use; the likely impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres; whether there was a clearly defined need which could not be accommodated in or on the edge of existing centres, and particularly whether smaller-scale developments could be located in town centre or edge-of-centre sites; and whether there has been a proper sequential approach to site selection.
At the pre-inquiry meeting in March, my constituency office was represented by Sheena Woolley —who has worked for me for many years—and she took evidence, in shorthand, of what was said by the different parties who were called by the planning inspector. It became clear at that stage that the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive was not prepared to give evidence because
they fell between two groups.I assume that that meant that they fell between one of the principal objectors, Sheffield city council, and Rotherham borough council, the planning authority which wanted the scheme to go ahead. Both authorities sit on the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive.I would like to mention someone else who was at that meeting and who had done a lot of work in relation to the project—Rotherham borough councillor, Reg Littleboy, who had collected a lot of signatures in a petition from the local community to support the application. Reg gave evidence at the inquiry.
I attended the public inquiry twice during the four days that it sat. I gave evidence on the fourth day, and what I witnessed—and what was reported in the local press—was hardly about the wider issues in relation to the site. 336 It was more like a report of a bad neighbour dispute; in my 15 years in the House, I have always tried to avoid such disputes as they are so difficult to solve. Unfortunately, that was how it panned out in the media and during some of the discussions. I am pleased to say that the neighbours are now having constructive discussions about co-existence with one another, and I welcome the co-operation between the two planning authorities.
The inspector's report was clear—he rejected the application. Two issues were involved. The first was public transport and, on that, he seemed to look no further than the end of his nose. The single planning application was for a 20-acre site, but the development would eventually cover 800 acres. Planning law is restrictive in that one cannot look at the wider picture when deciding on individual schemes. Perhaps we should look into that. The inspector's overall conclusion was that
the proposed leisure park would be primarily reliant upon the private car",and I accept that. That is the reality for out-of-town developments, and I do not hide from it. However, the inspector gave no weight to the benefits of the park-and-ride scheme that had been proposed for the site. It is a cart-and-horse situation: do we get transport by planning for it, or by demand? I believe that it is demand led, and I am sure that public transport on the site will be more than adequate when that site is fully developed.I am well aware of what can happen with out-of-town developments. The Meadowhall retail complex is only three miles from the site. It was built in the 1980s without a public inquiry and with no objection from the planning authority, and it is still being developed. Meadowhall is an enormously popular place for people to visit and spend their money. The slogan in advertisements on regional television states that it has parking spaces for 12,000 cars. That is what sells it.
At present, the private car is the overwhelming choice of transport for the individual. We cannot use the planning process to force people on to public transport. One can lay down stipulations to improve access and a line has to be taken, but refusing planning permission is not the way to do it. We should consider other ways, and making the buses more affordable would be a good start. We must recognise that they now run for profit. Public transport is not what it was a decade ago. In my constituency, buses have stopped running to certain villages in rural areas because such services are not profitable. It is not the public service that it used to be. I do not know how the Government will square that, but it has to be done.
The South Yorkshire passenger transport executive should have given evidence on the public transport aspects. It decided not to do so and I believe that it was got at—by whom I am not sure. Its written representation to the public inquiry is recorded in paragraph 143 of the inspector's report, which states:
The South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive… was opposed in principle to the out of centre location of the proposal, which was contrary to the transport policies in the South Yorkshire Joint Transport Package Bid and to Government planning guidelines.That view contrasts with a letter that the PTE sent to interested parties dated 10 July 1997, which stated:I can confirm that the Transport Executive is now satisfied that your development proposals can be adequately served by public transport.337We note that in addition to the provision of public transport infrastructure, you have indicated your willingness to support late evening bus services and are prepared to enter into agreements for the allocation of certain parking spaces for park and ride use.The passenger transport executive was not hiding its head in the sand and wanted to use the site to improve transport where it could.After I gave evidence at the public inquiry and questioned why the SYPTE had not done so, I received a letter from the executive, dated 13 May 1998, which stated:
I had some feedback from my officers who were present at the inquiry regarding your own comments and also those relating to the PTE's initial objection …I am quite happy to meet with you to discuss your concerns".I was unhappy at the situation and did not take up the offer, but wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to tell him of my concern regarding the passenger transport executive's lack of action on the matter and the fact that it was not willing to give evidence about public transport. I received a reply from my right hon. Friend saying that, although he could appreciate my concern
SYPTE chose not to give public evidence at the Public Inquiry. However, I have to say there is no compulsion on third parties to do so and that is not a matter in which I could intervene.He suggested that I should pursue my concerns with the PTE.This is not a matter for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary today, but it is scandalous that a publicly funded quango, which is what the SYPTE is, was not prepared to give evidence at a public inquiry. Taxpayers pay for that organisation to have opinions on public transport. It is atrocious that contradictory messages have resulted because it did not take the stand to give evidence at the inquiry. Although this debate is retrospective, I should point out that the organisation has done itself a disservice by not doing so.
The other issue in the report is the sequential test on site selection. In paragraph 191, the inspector states:
In applying the sequential test, it was agreed that there is no single site in or on the edge of either Sheffield city centre or Rotherham town centre which could accommodate either the whole leisure park or the 24 screen cinema alone… However, to my mind the sequential test could always be thwarted if that was the correct basis for the assessment, by proposing development of such a large scale that it could rarely, if ever, be housed in or on the edge of a centre.I must agree with the inspector there. Developers could easily exploit the situation, saying that they needed to use a green-field site–20 acres of countryside—because they could not find comparable acreage in a town or city centre.The inspector goes on to say:
To satisfy the sequential test, I consider it to be necessary to examine whether the individual elements of the proposal could be provided for on city centre or town centre or edge of centre sites. That should include consideration of whether smaller cinemas could be accommodated on such sites.The following paragraph states:Applying the sequential test on that basis, a need for 24 further cinema screens could be accommodated in Sheffield city centre"—pretty conclusive, I guess. The inspector continues:The Castlegate and Heart of the City redevelopment sites have the capability to provide that number of screens in 2 separate cinemas …Neither site is likely to be available to the applicants in this case, as other developers are involved.338 The inspector states that the development should be in the city centre, but that the developers can forget it because they will not be able to build there.Paragraph 197 of the report states:
I have concluded that there is no clearly defined need for the development proposed which could not be accommodated in or on the edge of existing centres, provided that flexibility is applied to the form of the development, both in terms of the size of the cinema, and of the willingness to accept that the individual elements of the scheme could be built on separate sites.That reads like a page from the five-year plan of some centrally controlled state.We must recognise that leisure is the fastest growing industry in the United Kingdom. It is also the biggest. It is bigger than the whole of manufacturing industry and it creates more jobs than any other sector—one in five new jobs created in the next 10 years will be in leisure and hospitality.
If coalfield areas, such as the one that I represent, are to be regenerated, they will need a share of that jobs market. However, they will not get a share if the town and city test is the only criterion applied. Coal mining jobs were lost not in towns and city centres but in areas such as Rother Valley and the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), who are in the Chamber.
At the Labour party conference in Blackpool in October, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said:
You know the Tories ripped the heart out of the pit communities. We are determined to put the heart back into them, offering jobs and hope, instead of despair and the dole.I never thought that I would say this, but my right hon. Friend's words rang hollow for me and my constituents, who, a few days before, had lost a £30 million inward investment package that would have created 570 jobs.The more I consider this issue, the more concerned I am about the Government's approach to out-of-town development. That concern is shared by others. The Estates Gazette said in October that the Government had commissioned a consultant's report on the economic consequences of planning for the business sector and cited some negative comments about planning and PPG6. Mr. Huw Williams, the development policy manager for Sainsbury, said:
people had broadly understood the agenda and understood what the sequential approach was about, but now we're beginning to see new considerations being brought into play…It's as if someone had gone back to PPG6 and highlighted new bits such as car parking and the exact relationship between edge-of-centre and town centre.On 7 November, the paper carried an article headed "PPG6 upset in High Court". It stated that food store developers no longer had to prove need to obtain planning permission. It cited a partner at the firm Healey and Baker, who said that there had been a move over the past year or two to demand that developers demonstrated need. The article continued:
This watershed decision will reassure developers that they don't have to. It should give the government cause to clarify its policy and iron out inconsistencies in the way PPG6 has been interpreted.I recognise that some of those voices are laced with vested interest. Some people may say that I have a vested interest, too, but my interest is the good of my 339 constituency. My concern is that proposals to begin the regeneration of a coalfield area are blocked by unclear planning guidelines. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is reviewing planning matters, but how long is that process likely to take? I have been talking about one planning application for the site, but I hope that, now that that application has been blocked, there will be many more.Will my hon. Friend also consider the difficult and perhaps unique problems of the coalfield areas and fully recognise the wider social and economic problems there, some of which can be addressed by the flexible and sensitive application of the planning guidelines? I know that, next month, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make an announcement on the coalfields task force, but it is important that any review should recognise the great difficulties that coalfield areas face.
I recognise and support the Government's commitment to the regeneration of our cities and towns. I know that, with the local planning authority, they are doing a good job in transforming Rotherham town centre. However, if we are serious about the plight of former coalfield areas, a careful balance must be struck, so that the problems caused by the rundown of coal mining can be tackled.
I realise that I have not left my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary much time in which to respond—he may be grateful for that, as he will not have to comment on everything that I have said—but I should be grateful for an assurance that reviews will recognise where the markets are, and not focus solely on the needs of towns and city centres.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on his success in securing this debate. He has referred specifically to the refusal of planning permission for a large leisure development at the former opencast site in Rotherham district at Waverley near Sheffield. I know that he has taken a close interest in the matter and that he has been both assiduous and forceful in pressing the case for development, which he believed would bring substantial benefits to his constituents.
As my hon. Friend said, the case was decided, following an exhaustive public inquiry, by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The inquiry inspector, having carefully considered all the material considerations in the case, concluded that the proposed development was in fundamental conflict with Government policy as set out in PPG6 and PPG 13. My right hon. Friend concurred with the inspector's clear recommendation and refused consent accordingly.
All planning decisions are taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations—including national land use planning policies and policies on town centres, retail and leisure development and transport—suggest otherwise. The Government have a responsibility to defend town centres against large out-of-centre shopping and leisure developments that are likely to harm the vitality and viability of town centres. My hon. Friend will be aware that the recent Environment 340 Select Committee report on shopping centres recommended that Ministers took a tough approach on applications for large leisure developments, so that further damage to town centres could be avoided. In their response, the Government stated their commitment to ensuring that the approach in PPG6 to retail development is applied as firmly to leisure developments.
The criteria for assessing large out-of-centre leisure developments, such as that proposed for the Waverley site, include the likely harm to the strategy in the development plan, the impact on the vitality and viability of nearby town centres, accessibility by a choice of means of transport and overall travel patterns. There should also be a flexibly applied sequential approach to site selection, so that out-of-centre locations are considered only when the development cannot be accommodated in town centre or edge-of-centre locations.
All planning applications for major leisure developments must be considered against those criteria. Moreover, PPG6 states that town and district centres should be the preferred locations for developments that attract many trips and PPG13 states that, by planning land use and transport so that people can carry out their everyday activities with less need to travel, local planning authorities can reduce reliance on the car and contribute to reaching the environmental goals that are set out in the Government's sustainable development strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has forcefully expressed his disappointment about the Waverley decision. However, he would agree, I am sure, that it would be wrong to suggest that nothing is being done to support and regenerate the coalfield communities. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has given a high priority to action to assist those communities. The South Yorkshire coalfield areas have benefited from a wide range of regeneration activities, which have been undertaken with help, for example, from English Partnerships and the single regeneration budget.
My right hon. Friend was instrumental in setting up the coalfields task force in October 1997, with a remit to pioneer options for revitalising the former coalfield communities that were affected by pit closure programmes. The task force's report "Making the Difference", which was published in June 1998, contained recommendations for regenerating coalfields communities and was warmly received. My right hon. Friend gave the Government's initial response to the report in July. He said:
The Coalfields Task Force's vision was to set up a framework which will empower communities to create their own new start. This Government is committed to do its part to make this vision a reality. I want to put a powerful framework in place to deliver a comprehensive programme of regeneration for our coalfields communities.My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will launch the Government's action plan for the coalfields, and a detailed response to the task force report, at a second coalfields conference on 1 December at Peterlee leisure centre in County Durham. I understand my hon. Friend's disappointment at the Waverley decision, but I hope that he will agree that the Government are taking many initiatives to respond to the needs of the coalfield communities. 341 The process of reviewing and modernising planning is under way, and revisions to various planning policy guidelines will be issued over a period. There is a strong focus on speeding up the planning process, and I agree that we need to ensure that there is not undue delay in considering applications.
I will relay to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport my hon. Friend's comments about the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive not giving evidence.