|
Yvette Cooper: Hon. Members must recognise that to deal with the problem we need a solution that will work. Many of the solutions that have been offered, albeit in good faith, could lead to other problems or have difficulties attached—exactly as I have explained in relation to the problem with the new clause. I recognise the problem that the new clause is trying to solve, but the solution that is offered is not appropriate and would cause all sorts of other difficulties, including around the subdivision of land for genuine agricultural reasons.
Column Number: 160
We must recognise that some times there are not simple, easy solutions for certain issues and that we might need to look further at what can be done. If there were a simple solution, we would all agree on it and there would be consensus in the Committee, as there has been on other issues where we have recognised that specific things can be done to remedy existing problems, whether within or without the planning system.
The new clause does not solve the problem we are talking about in the way that it needs to and it creates further additional problems. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw it.
Mr. Turner: The urgency of the matter has been demonstrated, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I remind the Committee that the problem arose not in 2001, but in 1993 when the proprietor of one of the companies was criticised in the House for his activities. I am sure that it is not only this Government that bears responsibility for not doing anything about that. However, it is getting worse. As I said before, there are 74 locations on the list that I have before me, which is dated 16 May 2001. Only one of those is in Yorkshire—at Oakworth. I do not know where that is, but I know that it is not near Pontefract or Castleford, because it is in West Yorkshire. [Interruption.] I am sorry. My geography is clearly awry. We do not know very much when we get north of the Solent.
There are many sites in the south and south-east of England and there is no reason why such activity should not spread to some of the parts of England that are almost as attractive as the Isle of Wight, such as Ludlow, Pontefract and Castleford. I believe that we must take advantage of the existing legislation, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold says, there is only one planning Bill every 10 years—unless we are extremely unlucky. Although I accept that the new clause may not be the perfect remedy, I am clear that the legislation is the right vehicle. To change the metaphor, it would be a great pity if the Minister were to miss the bus.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: For a Bill to be recommitted to a Standing Committee is an unprecedented procedure and given that it is likely to be submitted to their lordships, where it will be given detailed scrutiny, it is unlikely that it will be on the statute book this year. That will probably happen next year, so gives the Government time to do something, if they are so minded. May I join my hon. Friend in urging the Minister to do something, if the Government have the time and are so minded. The problem is getting worse and it needs to be solved.
Mr. Turner: I agree. It is not unreasonable to say such things in the terms in which both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh have said them. I accept that the article 4 direction needs to be explored by Ministers and that it might turn out not to be the right route. However, I urge that, if possible, that should be done in time for amendments to be tabled—if not on Report, at least in another place, so that our noble Friends and other noble Lords can examine the Government's proposals and hold them to account before the Bill completes its progress.
Column Number: 161
The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he seeks to press the new clause or whether he wishes to withdraw it?
Mr. Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause 3
'After section 57 of the principal Act (planning permission required for development) there is inserted the following section—
''57A Planning permission in areas of high environmental value
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 55(b) and (c) of the principal Act, planning permission is required in areas of high environmental value for road signs and street furniture (including street lighting).
(2) In this section 'areas of high environmental value' means—
(a) National Parks, as defined in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949;
(b) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as defined in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;
(c) Sites of Special Scientific Interest, as defined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
(d) Heritage Coasts;
(e) Conservation Areas, as defined in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; and
(f) Places of such other types as the Secretary of State may by Order designate for the purposes of this section.
(3) In this section 'Heritage Coast' is any part of the coastline of England and Wales that has been so designated by agreement between the local authority and the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales (Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru).''.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
3.45 pm
New clause 3 is about areas of high environmental value. I am pleased to say that the issue is slightly less technical than the matters that were discussed in relation to the previous two proposed new clauses. It is almost a matter of aesthetic judgment. However, the aesthetic judgment of planners, and of the population in general, is not shared as frequently as we should like by highway engineers. Highway engineers are not the only people whom I target here, but they are among the principal despoilers of the countryside—and of urban areas as well. I am indebted to the CPRE, now the Campaign to Protect Rural England, for its booklet on the cluttered countryside. It illustrates the kind of damage that can be done not only to the countryside but to villages and towns by ill-considered development that is not counted as development for the purposes of planning legislation. My purpose is to bring within the ambit of that legislation road signs and street furniture, including street lighting, in areas of high environmental value, as defined in subsection 2 of the proposed new clause.
As an example, Isle of Wight council is considering a number of applications for Tetra masts, some of which are approved under the general development order. Such masts are different from conventional telephone masts, and have different scientific properties. However, at the moment they are allowed under the general development order and can be put in
Column Number: 162
an area in which there is already a mast without any further permission.
I have here an illustration of the approach along the A303 road, west of Amesbury, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), to a world heritage site, Stonehenge. It is one of the few such sites in this country, yet some 30 road signs are visible to the motorist along the approach to Stonehenge on that route. I could name another example: the turning off the A303 from Andover for Salisbury. I am pleased to say that we do not have that many road signs in the Isle of Wight because there are not that many places to go, so this is not a complaint about my local highway engineers. Indeed, it is hard to get lost, because if one goes far enough one gets to the sea.
Another problem—
The Chairman: I am sure that hon. Members will realise that Hansard does not carry illustrations at the present time, so if the hon. Gentleman refers to an illustration, a good narrative is required to go with it.
Mr. Turner: I am most grateful for that and shall try not to detain the Committee for too long by narrating the nature of what I have to show, but I shall give another example from a conservation area.
I am holding up a picture of an approach to a village on which hon. Members can again see a large number of road signs, but also a suburban footpath. Pavements are provided for good reasons, but they can be provided in an urban manner or in a rural manner. It is appropriate that on the approach to a village a pavement should be provided in a rural manner, not an urban manner.
I have discussed some of those issues with the planners and engineers in my constituency, because in Cowes, where I lived until quite recently, Union road and Church road have recently attracted a residents' parking scheme. Initially there were four posts, each 4 ft high—I imagine that Hansard does not convey hand signals either, but hon. Members can imagine what those posts looked like—with signs on them that were something like 1 ft by 9 in , along with other signs of a similar dimension, fixed to the wall. Those fittings have been replaced by 11 posts that are 7 ft high, with signs on them that are something like 18 in by 8 in, in a very small area indeed—certainly smaller than the width of the river outside the Windows here.
To be fair, that example is not in a conservation area, but on the border of one. However, anyone who walks through a town or city can see the damage done by ill-considered bus shelters, litter bins, bicycle racks and signs of all description, some of which the local highways authority have erected and others that the Highways Agency has no doubt erected. Many comply with all sorts of regulations that are provided in detail by Ministers from another Department.
Such features spoil the effect and look of areas of high environmental value, which we have a responsibility to protect. That is the purpose of the new clause, which is simple and will, I hope, benefit those areas where the highways authority is one council and the planning authority is another. I am
Column Number: 163
fortunate that we have a unitary council on the Isle of Wight, although I do not say that that is the solution for all areas, because it is probably wrong for shire counties. Despite that, I can see that we have some advantage in my constituency in that highways and planning are nearer together than they would be were they in two different authorities. However, although there is scope for them to work together, they do not always do so, even within a single authority.
|
