Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Friday, 20 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill.


Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is something on which those advising us in Committee will be asked to bring their wisdom to bear. I am grateful for that helpful intervention. My constituents in Shirley have no redress. The council, in partnership with the developers, has approved their own planning application and the sale of the land. The matter was referred to the Secretary of State, who made the fastest decision that I have ever seen to approve the application, with no public inquiry. I have described the local situation in Solihull, but hon. Members on both sides of the House will probably have similar tales to relate. Only this week, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) has asked the Secretary of State for a public inquiry into the loss of half of View Lane park to development, the application for which was approved by Derwentside district council. I hope that he has more luck than I have had. Before I leave the first part of the Bill, I want to say a few words about trees. I feel very much the same about trees as I feel about green spaces. Their lifespan is longer than ours and we should be their custodians and, wherever possible, allow them to survive unmolested—particularly when they have already been around for several generations. Right by where the superstore that I have described is due to be built, there is an almost unique example of an oak circle. An ancient 350-year-old oak is surrounded by a circle of oaks, saplings that it has produced which have grown up. Trees can, supposedly, be protected by tree preservation orders. There is, however, an ironic story about our oak circle. I wrote to the council about the ancient oak and two other venerable trees in Shirley park, requesting that tree preservation orders be placed on them. The reply said that there was no need to have tree preservation orders for trees on council land because the council was a model custodian and would protect them. If ripping them up and putting a superstore in their place is an example of protection, I would not like to see what happened to something that the council did not want to protect. Trees are under threat from all quarters. Another example is where developers want to develop a piece of land with mature trees on it, and, knowing that the presence of the trees could constitute a ground for objection, fell them before submitting their application. We need a general duty of care on trees over and above the tiny proportion that are covered by tree preservation orders.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1132-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Appeals Community development Construction Housing Environment protection Land use Gardens Local government Planning permission Parks Sales Trees Greenfield sites
Legislation
Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk