(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is an honour to be here on one of the warmest Fridays of the year to enjoy and extend our time in the House for the final Adjournment debate of the week. I am delighted to discuss the Colne Valley regional park, which straddles London, Slough, Buckinghamshire, Windsor and Maidenhead —so many different constituencies. Its importance for infrastructure and as a strategic geographical location is second to none, which is why I secured this debate.
The beautiful south Bucks villages of Denham, Fulmer, Richings Park, Iver Heath and the Ivers are all part of the Colne Valley regional park. Its national significance is mainly due to its geographical location: it is in proximity to Heathrow; High Speed 2 goes right through it; and we have all the motorways. It provides the lungs of London, and the vital break of green belt between London and the counties outside it.
We get zero benefit from the ultra low emission zone—the Mayor’s restrictions on how we can go in and out of London—or from Transport for London. All we have is a bit of green space that gives us a buffer between London and Buckinghamshire. That is true for all the counties that straddle London along west London and the M25.
Our issue is that that little bit of green belt—some of which, Madam Deputy Speaker, is as small a divide as the area between the two sides of the House—which is our last remaining bit of green belt, and which separates us from London, is under attack. It is under attack from overdevelopment, the expansion of Heathrow, HS2 and motorway expansion.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The proposals for a third runway at Heathrow would take 900 acres of the regional park directly, not to mention the indirect consequences, including Colnbrook and Horton in my constituency, which would be irreparable. Does my hon. Friend condemn the Chancellor pressing the panic button and inflicting this irreversible damage on the Colne Valley park?
Joy Morrissey
I thank my hon. Friend, who has long been a champion of the Colne Valley regional park and the green belt in that area. It will impact us in such a negative way. I have fought to stop the third runway at Heathrow and to champion and protect our green belt. The problem is we have very little green belt there, and the expansion would increase the impact on that green belt, both with cars coming into Heathrow and planes taking off. The amount of green belt that would be consumed would be devastating to my area, as I am sure it would be to my hon. Friend’s.
This is a time for the Government to do something incredible. They can preserve the green space of the Colne Valley regional park, which provides the vital lungs for London, while allowing their infrastructure to flourish around it. It is important that this green-belt land is preserved. That is what must happen now.
There is no protection of this because it is an area whose ownership has passed between London, Buckinghamshire and Slough over the years. There are parts of it that have been owned by London councils and then by Buckinghamshire council, and vice versa. It has been going on for quite some time. Right now, there is no additional protection. It is not common land or an area of outstanding natural beauty; it is simply land that is green and that provides vital green corridors for wildlife and farmers and for wildlife conservation across the west London and Buckinghamshire areas. All that is under threat from overdevelopment.
Today, I want to focus on the wonderful landscape and countryside diversity that is at risk. In the words of the Colne Valley regional park itself, our countryside is in crisis. The team at the park have set out a call for action, and in this debate I want to set out my unwavering support for that call. I am grateful for all the community support for the Colne Valley regional park I have seen across Denham, Iver, Iver Heath, Richings Park and all the south Bucks villages.
Given its proximity to London, it is one of the most pressurised green-belt areas. It is the very epitome of the lungs of London, but it also epitomises why we must take action now. An avalanche of developments are being proposed across the park, which would divide it and cause the closing of the wildlife corridors. They would cause detrimental impacts for wildlife and for those who use and access the park. All that is happening while the park sits between two of Europe’s biggest infrastructure projects: HS2 and the expansion of Heathrow. All that development is happening while the Colne Valley regional park lacks any of the protections of an AONB. This is a cross-party issue, because the park crosses into London, Buckinghamshire, Windsor and Slough, and into Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative constituencies. It touches many political parties, because it impacts so many constituencies across the west London area.
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) could not be here, but he wanted to show his support for the Colne Valley regional park, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), who is rightly in his place to support it today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who has long been a champion for this area. Many other MPs would have liked to be here today; they told me to pass on to the Minister that this issue matters across the parties. It is not a political issue, but it is an issue that many Members from across this House care about deeply.
Without a plan, the development will happen around the park, and vital green corridors will be lost forever. The Colne Valley regional park has set out a five-point plan to influence local planning, restore the landscape, reform national planning, establish its status and protect nature. I will focus on two areas that explicitly matter to this House and the Government, and will touch briefly on funding.
Since arriving in Parliament, I have been advocating for stronger protections for the Colne Valley regional park. There is a real and urgent need to look at extending the Chilterns AONB to include the park. If there is not an extension of the Chilterns AONB, a specific designation for the park itself needs to be progressed. Will the Minister work with me to explore that opportunity urgently?
The Colne Valley regional park also represents an opportunity to show how we can plan for green spaces around the edges of cities. Any big infrastructure project will require the input of green space. Please will the Minister make sure that the green space that is required for any such infrastructure expansion is put into the Colne Valley regional park, so that we can work in tandem to provide what the residents and wildlife need, while the Government are still able to put in their infrastructure projects where they choose?
At the moment, our approach to national planning does not address the strategic risks, opportunities and problems that face the Colne Valley regional park. We have a unique opportunity to address that. The Colne Valley regional park spans many local authorities, yet is of national importance for the reasons set out. We have to think beyond boundaries and integrate areas such as the park, which lack national park status or AONB protection, into our national strategic planning. Will the Minister explore using the Colne Valley regional park as a case study and test case to explore just how we might do that?
We have an opportunity to plan strategically for our countryside in our national planning policy. For major developments around the Colne Valley regional park, and areas like it, the park should be an integral part of the planning process, not treated as something for side consideration. We can plan how green corridors for people and wildlife can sit alongside the major developments of infrastructure and housing that are planned around the London area. Will the Minister consider how the national planning framework can be developed urgently for just that purpose?
Finally, I will touch briefly on funding. The Colne Valley regional park relies on local authorities, grants and the generosity of corporate donors to fund its operational costs. I hope that I have set out clearly how effectively those resources are used for the good of our landscape, biodiversity and communities, but given the strategic development challenges that the park faces to its very existence, it needs funding support to enable a plan and to develop a response. Will the Minister consider ways in which bodies such as the Colne Valley regional park can be better supported financially in the context of a dramatically changing planning landscape?
Will the Minister speak to the Mayor of London to see whether some of the ULEZ contributions being made by drivers could be used for the park’s upkeep and protection? The park is very much impacted by infrastructure projects that are happening in London but receives no funding from London, so will the Minister speak to the mayor about some of those resources being reallocated to the park?
There are many more points that time has not allowed me to cover, so will the Minister agree to meet me, the hon. Member for Slough, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and others from across the House to discuss the issue of Colne Valley regional park in depth? The Colne Valley regional park matters to me and my constituents. It has importance nationally, for our wildlife and as a case study for how green spaces can exist alongside our major cities. It means something that matters to us all. It is time now to listen and act before it is too late.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) on securing this important debate. She and I disagree on many aspects of politics and policy, but no one can doubt the strength with which she speaks on behalf of those she represents.
The Government recognise the vital role that the Colne Valley regional park plays in providing access to countryside and green space for the millions of people who live in close proximity to it. We appreciate fully that it is highly valued by local communities. We also recognise its importance for biodiversity; as the hon. Lady knows, the park contains part of one special protection area, part of one national nature reserve, 13 sites of special scientific interest and seven local nature reserves.
I assure the hon. Lady that I share her desire to ensure that the Colne Valley regional park is protected for current and future generations to enjoy, and I hope that I can reassure her today that the Government’s commitment to delivering the housing and infrastructure growth that our country so desperately needs is not at odds with safeguarding the park for future generations.
It might be useful for me to set out the protections already afforded by existing national planning policy. As set out in paragraph 7 of the national planning policy framework, the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure, in a sustainable manner. The framework makes clear that sustainable development should be pursued through both the preparation and implementation of local development plans and the application of policies in the framework.
Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives: economic, social and environmental. To support its environmental objective, the NPPF sets out that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity or geological value in a manner commensurate with their statutory status—as the hon. Lady has made clear, the Colne Valley regional park does not have such status at present—or their identified quality in the relevant development plan.
To support its social objective, the NPPF sets out strong safeguards to prevent the loss of open space, making clear that such space should not be built on unless there is clear evidence that it is no longer required; unless equivalent or better provision is secured in a suitable location; or unless development of the site is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.
I turn now to green-belt policy, an issue on which the hon. Lady has strong views which she has expressed forcefully in the past. The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the Colne Valley regional park occupies the “inner” green belt on the western edge of London; I am well aware of how important the designation is to its integrity and future.
It is important to note that this Government have not changed the five purposes of the green belt set out in paragraph 143 of the NPPF, and we do not propose to alter its general extent. Nor is green-belt policy altered, in any way, by provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is currently in the other place. We did, however, act quickly to replace the piecemeal and haphazard approach taken by the previous Government to green-belt designation and release with a more strategic and targeted approach.
I emphasise that Ministers do not determine what, if any, green-belt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for local planning authorities themselves to determine whether exceptional circumstances justify doing so, and we expect them first to demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land; optimising the density of development; and working with neighbouring authorities to assess whether identified need might be sensibly accommodated elsewhere.
National planning policy and our recently published guidance on green-belt assessment are clear that release of, or development on, green-belt land should not fundamentally undermine the ability of the remaining green belt across the area of the plan from serving all five of the green-belt purposes. National policy makes it clear that, where it is necessary to release green-belt land for development, local development plans must take a sequential approach, first prioritising previously developed land, and then low-quality grey-belt land that has not been previously developed, before considering other green-belt locations.
Under our revised approach, the sustainability of green-belt sites must be prioritised, and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located. It is because we recognise the value that the public places on the green belt that we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on land released from it must deliver higher levels of affordable housing, the provision of new green spaces or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public, and the making of necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure. Our new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land released through plan making or subject to a planning application.
Although the hon. Member for Beaconsfield did not mention it, I want to touch briefly on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is pertinent to the environmental issues that she raised. When it comes to development and the environment, we know that we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery stall. As she will know, part 3 of the Bill will introduce a new nature restoration fund, which will unlock and accelerate development while going beyond neutrality to unlock the positive impact that development can have in driving nature recovery.
Environmental delivery plans, as proposed in part 3 of the Bill, will address any potential negative effects of development on protected sites and species, whether located in national parks, national landscapes or elsewhere. EDPs can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures is likely to outweigh the negative effects of development. Where that is not the case, existing environmental obligations, including those arising under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, will remain in place.
In addition, EDPs and the conservation measures they propose must be evidence-based and properly scrutinised before being put into place. EDPs may include back-up measures that can be deployed if monitoring shows that the environmental outcomes are not being delivered. Policy safeguards relating to the protection of national parks and national landscapes, including those set out in the national planning policy framework and relevant national policy statements, remain in place.
Having listened the hon. Lady’s contribution, I think that the bulk of her concerns stem from the fact that Colne Valley regional park does not have any statutory status. That is not something on which I can give her a commitment from the Dispatch Box today. She will know that, in other cases, such as the Lee Valley park, a specific Act of Parliament brought forward statutory status. However, I am more than willing to sit down with her and other hon. Members—I take the point that there is cross-party value attributed to the park—to discuss further how we can ensure that it is protected for current and future generations to enjoy. Although I have noted the concerns that the hon. Lady has raised, will reflect on them and look forward to that meeting, I am clear that appropriate protections are in place to safeguard the country’s parks and green spaces, and that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will unlock a win-win for the economy and nature.