The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government have outlined their vision for how the right homes should be built in the right places at the right time with the right infrastructure. This is timely, because a number of residents have asked me recently for my own views on local planning matters. I’m very happy to answer but, before I write anything else, I should set the context for my comments. I write below to set out my honestly held views and you may, of course, disagree with what I am about to say!
It is important to be clear that, as your MP, I have no jurisdiction over planning applications or the Local Plan. Your District/Borough Councillors do. They have the ability to object to applications, call policies and applications to Council Committee meetings and seek support from their colleagues for the ‘right’ decision, as they see it, on your behalf.
MPs represent their constituents in Parliament, dealing with the national matters before the House of Commons, while your District/Borough Councillors are responsible for local matters, such as planning, which come before the Council – and they probably wouldn’t want a MP telling them what to do! Nonetheless, I am happy to offer my own opinion and I have made these views known to the Chief Executives of Hart District Council and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
I am a big believer in Neighbourhood Plans (NPs). NPs allow people to decide the future development of their area, including where new homes and businesses should be built. Around 1,400 areas representing 6 million people across England are already using their NP powers and I am pleased that many communities in North East Hampshire are now making progress in this direction. This is really important, because NPs allow local people to have their say in a referendum.
The Planning Minister has previously said on a visit to North East Hampshire that NPs can come ahead or at same time as a Local Plan and both approaches have been seen across different areas. If communities positively produce NPs, consistent with the overall requirement within a District/Borough, then local people will have a direct say on the future of their area. To my mind, this is infinitely better than top-down direction, whether that be from Ministers under the old system, or the District/Borough Council under the current system.
If NPs are not in place, however, the distribution of new homes across the area is a matter for your local Council. It’s not for me to direct your local Councils, nor the individual local Councillors who you elect directly, but I’ve always been clear that I support CPRE’s ‘Brownfield First’ campaign, as I believe unused and redundant commercial buildings should be brought forward for regeneration before any more greenfield sites are allocated anywhere in North East Hampshire. That includes Grove Farm, Hop Garden, Winchfield, the Urnfield – and any other greenfield site for that matter – unless a locally-led Neighbourhood Plan wants to build homes to meet local needs.
I’ll go further. I’m against these developments – indeed, this sort of large-scale top-down volume-led development generally – as I do not believe they are necessary to deliver the housing we need in our area. Looking at Hart District specifically for a moment, as the largest part of the constituency, I believe that the local housing demand can be met on brownfield sites. This has the massive advantage of, often, improving an area; instead of vacant office buildings on Fleet Road, for instance, why not have modern apartments for young professionals who can’t otherwise buy a home in our area?
In July 2015, the Chancellor set out in the budget that, to reinforce our commitment to making best use of brownfield land, legislation will grant permission in principle for housing on suitable sites identified in the new statutory brownfield register. (Interested folk might recall that Hart District Council was previously asked to create a register, but chose not to. There will now be one.) Brownfield redevelopment will also be supported by strengthened advice for authorities on the release of land earmarked for employment purposes where it is no longer needed. Whatever your politics, I hope you’d agree that the Government – while still protecting the rights of local Councils to determine the future of their own area – is being clearer than ever that brownfield land must be prioritised.
I’d even suggest, perhaps unusually for a Conservative, that Councils should be more active in their use of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) where brownfield sites exist and it is clear that it would be a good site for housing, but the landowner is standing in the way of development, or the site as a whole is currently in multiple ownership. Not only would this deliver properly thought through regeneration, maximising the potential of brownfield land but, done right, it would also be good for local taxpayers, as the receipts from such a scheme on the eventual sale or rental of properties would help to keep Council Tax low in future. Turning to the Borough of Basingstoke and Deane at this point, the Council has managed the ownership of much of the town centre and is doing just this, resulting in their council tax being around one-third lower than in Hart District.
Of course, the National Planning Policy Framework has always made clear that “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land)” and that local Councils “may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land”. I’ve spoken with Government Ministers and others about this policy, which applies across the country. I was pleased that the Prime Minister included a £1billion ‘brownfield regeneration fund’ in the Conservative Party manifesto, which will help make more brownfield regeneration happen, while now requiring Councils to bring forward 90% of suitable brownfield sites for housing by 2020, both of which will help protect our countryside. Beyond this, it sends a further signal from Government that we are serious about brownfield regeneration and local Councils need to respond.
We need this to happen – and I want our local area to benefit. I want to take a petition from the people of North East Hampshire to Parliament, calling for the Government to implement these policies as soon as possible. It is my strongly held belief that there is no need for further major housing developments on greenfield sites, if (a) brownfield sites in our constituency are maximised; and (b) local communities bring forward NPs themselves in the near future. Other Councils around us and across the country must be pushed in the right direction too!
It will still be for our local Councils to decide where homes go, but will you join me in supporting brownfield regeneration and NPs? If so, please sign my petition using the link at the top of the page and be sure to share this page with your friends and neighbours on Facebook and Twitter using the buttons at the top of the page too.