Yesterday Greg Smith MP spoke on the second reading of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill.
Greg writes...
With a time limit of just four minutes per speech, I couldn't raise every point I wanted to.
However I signalled my intent to work with colleagues to seek amendments to the Bill to ensure there is absolute and proper local control over planning matters—including how many homes should be built and where.
The Bill is positive, but it needs polishing. It includes a presumption of brownfield development; an end to the crazy zoning system; enhancements to the enforcement of planning controls; tackling the issue of land banking, and the digitisation of the planning process.
It was heartening to hear ministers talk of the importance of local decision-making in planning. But my focus is on how we ensure planning decisions are taken entirely locally, without national interference.
I raised the view that housing targets should not be mandatory, but advisory. For localism to work, only a local community should decide what ‘needs’ to be built: be that housing, commercial property or otherwise.
If targets really must persist, I argued they must be more focussed, and government must understand the geography of an area.
One of the key reasons we in North Bucks have seen such significant development over recent years is that the south of the County possesses large tracts of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) protections.
That is not fair when housing targets have been set on a county-wide basis: if less land is available for development, the targets should be for fewer homes. I want our countryside protected too—and indeed to favour a brownfield-only planning policy for Bucks.
I argued that food security considerations should be locked into the planning system, so that the impact on food production is taken into account in any planning decision—protecting agricultural land.
Having successfully persuaded the Government to drop the plans for the OxCam Expressway, concern remains about the 1 million home target for the Arc. It seems the whole Arc process is dead, but I asked for formal confirmation of this.
I also made a plea to remove from developers the ability to commission reports on scenarios like flood risk, biodiversity and travel impact. These reports are central to planning officers' recommendations, and any Planning Inspector ruling. It is right developers pay for them, but they should be totally independent.
We know from the case of Ickford—where “expert” reports said flooding was a once-in-100-year eventuality, though the area flooded multiple times in a few months—and Maids Moreton—where “expert” reports on the ridiculous 170-house greenfield development are disputed—it is not right for developers have a hand in who investigates the plans.
I also want to see much stronger powers in planning enforcement, not least to challenge the unacceptable behaviour we saw in Askett over the Easter weekend—where illegal development commenced, but immediate eviction action was not available.
Another area I will focus on is proportionality. Currently the system seems to favour large developments, but absolutely hammers modest development. As an example of this, farmers have been told they can’t build a single dwelling on their farm to live in—especially where there are now multiple generations on the farm. This applies too to conversion of a single barn to commercial use to diversify, which should be made much easier where appropriate.
Planning is a huge issue in Bucks, and I will continue to bang the drum for sensible reforms that keep planning control truly local.