Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jacqui Lait (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 24 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning Bill.


Planning Bill

The hon. Lady is right—and that concern is felt not just throughout the House, but throughout the country. The Minister mentioned a survey which, according to Earl Cathcart, refers to Bradford, Chelmsford and Tunbridge Wells. Those three towns, or cities, are very different, but they have similar problems. We in the outer-London boroughs have those problems too, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer). I am glad that the Government have promised us a review after all these years. I shall keep my remarks relatively brief, although there is much in regard to the Lords amendments that I want to put on record because the Bill is so undemocratic and badly thought through. There can be no substantive vote in Parliament for the national policy statements, which, in my view, means that they will go straight into the courts. That completely negates our basic reason for supporting them. The Infrastructure Planning Commission is equally undemocratic in removing Ministers' responsibility for making final decisions. The right to be heard in planning inquiries is still substantive, and the whole issue of the community infrastructure levy—with which I hope we will deal today—is unlikely to be considered in full. We want to discuss the subject of garden grabbing, even if we must do so relatively briefly. It is not just a case of the number of houses built on gardens, and it is not just a question of the number of planning applications for development in back gardens that succeed. According to the latest statistics, 21 per cent. of new dwellings in Bromley were built on former back gardens. The main point is that the nature of an area and a neighbourhood is changed by an increase in the density of housing. Areas are changed from—in my case—broad suburban streets with one house on a decent-sized garden to blocks of flats containing 48 people. That puts huge pressure on train services, health services, education services and roads, all because, sadly, the Planning Inspectorate has been bullied by the Government into making the decisions.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
483 c536-7 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Appeals Applications Construction Climate change Common land Design Delegated legislation Advisory services Brownfield sites Conservation areas Housing Fees and charges Land Infrastructure Land use Legal opinion Gardens Local government Low incomes Planning authorities Planning permission Planning Parliamentary scrutiny Public participation Property development Parks Parliamentary privilege Scotland Water Regional planning and development Sustainable development Renewable energy Urban areas Sewers Greenfield sites Local development frameworks Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Community infrastructure levy
Legislation
Planning Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk