| Draft Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limited (Revocation) Order 2004
|
|
Mr. Heald: In support of my hon. Friend, when the inspector, Mr Graham Eyre, first looked at the original Stansted project, he came to the conclusion that it would be possible to have one runway, but he was anxious that the environmental issues that he identified should not be ignored by the Government. He pointed to the large number of listed buildings and the special countryside environment around Stansted. In the light of the inspector's appreciation of those concerns, which my hon. Friend and I share, the protection that numbers could rise only if Parliament said they could was put in place. In those days, we Column Number: 12 talked of control of growth. I notice that in his regulatory impact assessment the Minister referred to stifling growth, but growth would not be stifled if the current protection remained.It is clear from paragraph 3 of the regulatory impact assessment that there are three options.Option B is to raise the statutory limit in line with the assurance that was given to us in our area that the decision would be made by Parliament. Growth would occur, but in a controlled way, and we would be content. We do not want much expansion, but at least we would feel that the Government had kept faith with the assurances given to people in our part of the world when Stansted went ahead. However, we are told that we cannot have that option because it may be a bit inconvenient for the Government and cost a few pounds more. We have to lose our power as Members of Parliament to influence the decision. This is a case of a Minister saying that Members of Parliament will not be allowed to represent their constituents' interests on something that is important in our part of the world. The matter will go to a local district council. As my hon. Friend said, Uttlesford district council does its best, but it is not covering the whole area of interest. Bishop's Stortford, which is the largest town affected, is in Hertfordshire. Beautiful areas such as the Hadham valley in my constituency are very badly affected, and we are in Hertfordshire. To try to explain that to the residents of Little Hadham, Braughing, Furneux Pelham or even as far up the A10 as Royston that we are losing the control that Parliament has always had over this matter is very hard. When one tries to explain that to people, they think that they have been cheated, and that is what is happening today. I support my hon. Friend and I hope that it will be possible for the Committee to divide. We would welcome any support from Labour Members who may still value the fact that, from time to time, individual Members of Parliament should be able to stand up for their constituents.
10.29 amMr. McNulty: This is not about the Government washing their hands, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) suggested. It is about putting one aspect of the planning controls among many back where they belong at the local level. I am sorry that he missed my substantive point about BAA, because it is not a question of whether it needs to put its voluntary unilateral section 106 agreement in writing. It has done, in full, to Uttlesford district council, and that was lodged last Friday. The only part of the process yet to occur is the formal registration of the section 106 agreement by Uttlesford in the local planning register, which is a simple technical device. There is no question of whether it is going to be done, or whether it is voluntary, verbal or in writing. It has been done, and simply has to be put on the local planning register. Let me deal with some of the important aspects that are germane to the order. I have no doubt, from experience and evidence thus far, that Uttlesford district council has the capability and capacity to deal Column Number: 13 with this dimension of the limitations. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that nothing in the history of Stansted has shown anything other than Uttlesford executing its responsibilities in a robust, professional and committed fashion. The same is true of its record on enforcement, although to be perfectly fair, there has been no recourse to enforcement legislation because of the breaking of agreements by Stansted since the inception of the airport.Uttlesford has shown its competence quite clearly by drawing up an extremely complex 106 agreement for the last planning application, which refers to the figure of 25 million. It is an extremely complex document, drawn up by Uttlesford in conjunction with BAA—I can show it to hon. Members if they like. It is a comprehensive, belt and braces planning application. I have no evidence thus far of anything other than competence and capability on the part of Uttlesford. Mr. Knight: I am satisfied with what the Minister has said about the legal status of the 106 agreement, but why should Members of Parliament whose constituents are concerned about the matter lose their locus standi because the matter has been transferred to a district council—on which Members of Parliament have no vote or voice? Mr. McNulty: I accept the former point, but not the latter. Local Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member who represents the area including Uttlesford and others, can and do have a significant voice in planning matters that affect areas close to or adjoining their constituency, but not necessarily including their local planning authority. I certainly have used that voice in the boroughs around my constituency, including parts of Hertfordshire. I liberally stick my nose into planning applications relating to the south of that district, which happens to be represented by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). I do not accept that within the context of the planning framework strategy, of which the order is but one part, that the revocation of the parliamentary limit and the consideration of the matter at a local level suddenly mean that there is no locus or focus for local Members of Parliament. I simply do not accept that. Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): Do not local Members of Parliament have a rather important and privileged position in connection with the matter, in that they can openly and fearlessly present their points of view and those of their constituents? Councillors, on the other hand, will be restrained by the planning procedures to ensure that beyond peradventure they are not seen as biased. Mr. McNulty: I do not fully accept that. My hon. Friend is right that members of planning committees are restrained beyond peradventure by their quasi-judicial position, but many other local councillors and back benchers at planning committees would doubt those constraints. I am sure that there are other ways in which local Members of Parliament can make their voices significantly known.
Column Number: 14 I say purely in passing that all the local MPs were sent consultation documents on the day of the launch six weeks ago, and we got no response. The hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who have spoken, were sent the documents, as was the Chairman of Ways and Means, who represents Saffron Walden, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and a number of others, and no response was forthcoming from any of them.Mr. Prisk: My comment was more about a little courtesy and knowing when the debate would take place to allow us to make the points; the order is of more concern. How will the people of Bishop's Stortford have councillors represent them in committee to discuss the matter? They will not, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that. How will they be represented when they live outside Uttlesford? If the only people affected were within one planning domain, there might be a logic to the argument, but the fact that there is one district authority and many areas outside it means that a significant number of people directly affected by the order will be removed from the opposition. Mr. McNulty: Given the significance of Stansted airport and any substantial planning application to extend it, the current planning system, and the new planning system under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, afford all surrounding local authorities the right to be consulted in full on such an application. East Hertfordshire and other local authorities outside Uttlesford with a locus will be and should be fully consulted, to the extent that they submit their views on the application to Uttlesford. They are material planning considerations of which we must take account. That prevails under the existing and the new planning frameworks. I was on the planning committee in the London borough of Harrow for some 11 years, and we regularly sent substantive comments on assorted developments that were just beyond our borders but large enough to have a significant impact on our community as well as others. Other local district councils will have that standing to intervene and comment on planning applications. I repeat that Cambridgeshire county council, Suffolk, Hertfordshire and Essex all responded and preferred option C, as indeed did Chelmsford, Braintree, East Hertfordshire, Uttlesford of course and Harlow. All will be impacted on by any substantive development at Stansted above and beyond Uttlesford and those concerns. Let me cite other interested parties that responded. North-west Essex and East Hertfordshire preservation campaign responded favourably, saying that control should go to Uttlesford. Saffron Walden and district Friends of the Earth said:
Column Number: 15
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 29 June 2004 |
