§ 5. Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury)What representations from environmental groups he has received concerning the planning Green Paper. [36648]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble)Quite a number of environmental groups have written to Members of Parliament, who have passed on that correspondence to Ministers. In addition, there have been more than 3,000 responses to the consultation exercise, of which about 2,000 were from environmental groups or their members.
§ Mr. Stephen O'BrienWho in the Minister's Department will be available to assist in considering representations on the Green Paper from environmental groups, now that Jo Moore, Martin Sixsmith and Ian Jones are not available? More to the point, will she confirm whether Martin Sixsmith is or is not available, given that some dispute exists as to whether he officially resigned?
§ Ms KeebleI hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the consultation exercise arrangement has always been that the responses will be sifted and analysed by external consultants on our behalf.
§ Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton)Can my hon. Friend tell the House how many of the organisations that responded to the planning Green Paper raised issues about telecommunication masts and planning procedures relating to their location?
§ Ms KeebleWe have yet to analyse the responses. Most of them—about 2,500—have come in the past week, doubtless in response to the campaign by environmental groups. We receive many submissions about telecoms masts and they are always considered very carefully. We also take up matters directly with some operators.
§ Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)I entirely support the Government's approach to the sensitive environmental considerations associated with building 3.75 million new houses in Britain by 2011. However, how does the Minister reconcile that with a fast-track approach to major public building infrastructure works which downgrades 141 the environment and regards it as of little significance? How does she square those two approaches to the environment?
§ Ms KeebleThe Green Paper repeatedly emphasises the fact that we take environmental issues and the importance of community involvement very seriously. It contains a number 01 recommendations that benefit community groups and the environment.
The housing policies that are already in place will continue, including the use of brownfield sites. The infrastructure proposals will be the exception for major areas of infrastructure, and we believe that our proposals still enable community and environmental groups to have an input into the decision-making process. I underline the fact that we completely understand the importance of taking into account environmental considerations. I would argue that this Government's track record on protecting the environment is far superior to that of the Conservative Government.
§ Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons (Rochdale)Can my hon. Friend tell us whether there have been any submissions about the misuse of planning law by environmental groups when it is quite clear that the will of the people in an area is in favour of a development? Groups misuse planning law, especially on the village green issue, filibustering and wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, when what is wanted is much-needed industrial development.
§ Ms KeebleI thank my hon. Friend for that question. One of the aims of the planning Green Paper is to provide a system that is more transparent and is not held hostage by filibustering tactics, but that can be well used by community groups to enable them to put their views directly and not turn planning inquiries into what has been called a banquet for banisters.