Green Belt and Housing

Striking an appropriate balance between the sustainance of rural character and the allowance of urban growth is a particularly sensitive issue in the Meriden Constituency. Being situated between the cities Birmingham and Coventry and being a desirable location for commuters, there is great pressure on our green belt land.

I was elected with a pledge to try and defend the Green belt and find myself in a pitched battle with the Government's planning rules.
Housing Development

With a growing population and an increasing need for housing, the Meriden Constituency has seen the rise of ‘garden developments’ or ‘garden grabbing’, with residents in villages such as Balsall Common, Hockley Heath, Knowle, Marston Green and Dorridge seeing a rise in housing clusters being built in back gardens.

“Currently, gardens are not protected as ‘green space’, but are treated as ‘Brownfield land’ ”

The Government proposes to build 4.4 million houses across Britain by 2015. The unpalatable truth is that Solihull borough cannot escape some of these house building programmes. The problem has arisen from the Government Planning Guidance (PPG3) which directs the Council to encourage high density redevelopment of 'previously developed land'. By reclassifying 'in-filling' as Brownfield development, the Government has given the green light for developers to make money by paying inflated prices to acquire homes in desirable residential areas for redevelopment. This is the root of the problem - the Government's planning guidance does not differentiate between derelict land and family homes and gardens as Brownfield sites.

I introduced a Private Members’ Bill in Parliament at the end of 2006 which would protect these green spaces and adjust planning rules so as to take this need into consideration. It is due for further debate in the Commons on the 19th October 2007. As blocks of flats and housing developments continue to emerge in Meriden’s communities, the character of the area is being changed.

“One in five new homes is being built on land that was once a garden”

The problem cannot go on being ignored. The first speech I made as an MP in 1997 was about the threat to green space locally. Now, government policy still encourages reckless construction not in keeping with the surroundings. The Council has to meet the Regional Planning Guidance target of 6,000 new homes in the borough between 1998 and 2011 at an annual rate of 462. It is fighting back with what limited tools are at its disposal by using "inappropriate development" to block applications where they can. But the Government has them over a barrel. They face a legal challenge from developers and of course to fight this costs taxpayers' money. Even if plans are rejected, on appeal that decision can be overturned.

What is needed is clarification of the definition of ‘Brownfield Land’ to deter the inappropriate destruction of family homes and their replacement by developments which are out of keeping with the surrounding residential area. This is what my Private Members’ Bill seeks to achieve. Of course, the need for housing cannot be ignored. I propose a review of where construction should take place- focussing more, perhaps, on the industrially derelict sites inside Coventry and Birmingham- a project which would help both ease the pressure on our communities and regenerate the dereliction of these inner city areas.

“We will continue the fight against inappropriate development and Government planning legislation.”

The Conservative Party has launched a petition against “Garden Grabbing” which you can sign at http://www.conservatives.com/gardens

Telecommunication Masts

“You decide where they go”

As well as being an aesthetic eye-sore for residents, the recent surge in phone mast applications has highlighted the potential health risks associated with their construction.

People often come to my surgery as a last resort to protest about the imposition of a new mast near their home. It may surprise you to learn that the local authority has not got many powers to tackle this problem. The Government has decreed that as long as the mast is no more than 15 metres in height it does not require planning permission. In a stroke, this removes the power from the Council but also from us as residents to have a say in where these masts are located. There is a presumption in favour of development inherent in the current planning system, which overrides local, environmental and safety concerns.

“Residents and their democratically elected representatives should have more say in where these masts are put”

Local councillors have spoken up for local residents where masts have exceeded 15 metres in height and planning permission is required but they can do very little where it is not required. There is another important loophole which is if an existing mast is added to, no permission is required either. So the power and scope of your nearest mast may be increased without you realising it.

I am not saying that we don’t need any masts at all. However, I do feel that residents and their democratically elected representatives should have more say in where these masts are put. One of the reasons for the strong objection on the part of residents is not only the sight of the mast but also the fear that there may be associated health risks. In recognition of this, the Government commissioned a study from Professor Stewart and although he could not confirm definitively whether or not there are health hazards, he recommended a precautionary approach. This approach has been rejected by the Government and I have had to deal with strong protests across the constituency where masts have been proposed close to sensitive sites such as school grounds. My policy would see both a requirement for planning permission for every mast regardless of height and the adoption of the precautionary approach in regulations.

Green Belt and Housing

Menu