Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Stuart Andrew

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I am keen to move the debate further north. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) represents the Birmingham metropolitan area, but I want to move us up to Leeds, as we have not been there so far. I take exception to the amendment tabled by the Opposition, which states that

“the Bill will not help most people struggling to buy their own home”.

The problem we face in Leeds is the ineptitude of the Labour-run council in getting on with putting a planning policy in place and allowing homes to be built. There is no doubt that there is demand for housing in our area, but the council is not properly consulting the neighbourhood plans or the people. A six-week consultation is taking place, but most of my constituents have no idea that it is going on. They have no idea how to contribute and, when they do, they find that Labour councillors, in particular, are not interested in taking any notice of what they have to say. That is leading to a failure of the policy that put the power in the hands of local people.

To turn around and say from a politically motivated point of view that this is all the fault of the Government, who want to build on green fields, is, quite frankly, a lie. It is nothing more than that. Yes, the Government want more houses to be built and the Bill empowers that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we have managed to get rid of more than 1,000 pages of planning law to simplify these matters. However, we are not telling the councils where to build that property. In fact, we are trying to be more helpful by introducing the brownfield land register.

Leeds City Council has said that it wants to build 66,000 homes. The debate has focused on London, where there is huge demand, but that is not the demand in Leeds. According to the latest data, there is demand for 44,000 properties, of which 39,600 could be built on brownfield land, but that is not the approach that the council has taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and I have spent hours, days, weeks and months arguing with the council and with inspectors about the actual demands and needs of the city, but because the council is pushing forward and saying that it needs the higher number, it has allowed the developers to say, “We can’t possibly build that on the brownfield land so we’ve got to go out to the greenfield.” That is especially so because the land is distributed equally between eight constituencies, leaving huge swathes of brownfield land in the middle of the city underdeveloped—it will not be touched, so the development moves outwards.

My hon. Friend and I face the ridiculous situation of having to take 12,500 houses in our constituencies. We do not have brownfield land; we are lucky if we have some windfall land. My hon. Friend has worked very hard on that because his constituency is much more affected than mine in this regard. If the council is building patches of 5,000 homes across a third of each part of the constituency, my hon. Friend and I believe that they should be built in one place. Do not give us death by 1,000 cuts by doubling the size of each village in the area with absolutely no infrastructure improvement. Adding 5,000 homes in just one third of my constituency would mean, on average, about 5,000 to 6,000 extra children. Where are they going to go to school? Where is the sewage going to go? Where is the water supply going to go? How is flooding going to be dealt with? None of those issues is being addressed. It is giving the developers the opportunity to get round all the loopholes and all the planning rules and say, “You’re quite right—we are going to build on that field.”

Unfortunately, until Leeds council comes up with a policy that is right, stops trying to blame the Government for building on greenfield land, and says, “We are a Labour party in Leeds who have been given immense powers by this Government, and we will use them responsibly and do something properly”, we will not see the volume of house building that needs to take place to ensure the provision of affordable houses.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the brownfield register will enable us to see precisely how many sites are not going to be regenerated? Is not that an absolute failure for the people who live in those communities and have to look out over these derelict sites while seeing the destruction of our valued countryside?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The council is playing with people’s lives. These are people who have moved into communities and are working damn hard to pay the mortgage and develop the life that they want, but they do not know what is going to happen. Saying that they want to be looking out on to fields and that they have paid for that is an important argument, but we also need to make the other arguments. Where are the children going to go to school? Where is the road capacity to cope with 400 houses here and 400 houses there, with no infrastructure improvements whatsoever? How do people get access to the doctor’s surgery? People have genuine concerns about how they can function in their daily lives.

I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look at these areas and say, “We’re giving you the power through a register of brownfield land. If you’re not going to develop that land, we want to know why. We want to know why you’ve decided that all this land in the centre of Leeds is going to be left derelict and you’re going to build on virgin land outside, whether it be green belt or greenfield.”

Housing Targets (Pudsey)

Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Stuart Andrew

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is right. I am trying to get across that these issues affect not only my constituency; planning applications in his constituency will also have a severe impact.

Just as we thought that things could not get any worse, we are now facing a new onslaught. Like many councils across the country, Leeds city council is currently developing its local plan. The core strategy sets out the council’s housing target. To my amazement and that of my constituents, the council has set the target at a staggering 70,000 houses during the next 16 years. In doing so, the Labour-run council has all but adopted the housing figures from the now-defunct regional spatial strategy, which is an unacceptable prospect for me and my constituents. As a base for that target, the council has used Office for National Statistics population growth projections from 2008. Those data are clearly out of date and inaccurate. More recent data, such as the census, show that growth has been some 43% less than predicted, which presents the first anomaly in the target.

Additionally, the council has based housing numbers on a large explosion of jobs in Leeds, which is good news. However, the council predicts that all the people who fill those jobs will need housing in Leeds, which, in an age of commuting, is clearly nonsense. Currently, only 66% of people who work in Leeds actually live there. Why else would Leeds railway station be one of the nation’s busiest? And why else would trains arriving at stations just within the city’s border, such as Guiseley, Horsforth and New Pudsey, be so crammed if so many people working in Leeds were not from neighbouring areas?

I attended the core strategy examination with Conservative councillors and community groups to argue that the target was too high and was based on outdated and flawed data. Sadly, our case fell on deaf ears and the target was approved. Since then, I have been warning that such a high target will pose a real threat to our green belt, which we will see, now that the council is seeking to identify the sites it needs for housing, but even I could not have foreseen how bad the threat would be.

On 4 January, the council announced a range of sites across the city that it is to consider for development, and there are sites in every part of my constituency. Shockingly, the majority of sites are in the green belt: fields on Ings lane that separate Guiseley and Menston; fields along Coach road that buffer the border with Bradford; and land in Rawdon along the Southlands estate that abuts important woodland. There are also the fields along the A65 from Rawdon crematorium down to the notorious roundabout at Horsforth, and land off Owlcotes road, Gain lane, and Rodley lane.

I recognise the need for house building, and across the city of Leeds there are masses of brownfield sites that need regenerating, particularly in the centre. An ambitious plan was proposed by Leeds sustainable development group for the south side of the city to transform old, derelict sites into good housing, schools and a park—in effect, creating a garden city. That is exactly the sort of development we should surely be encouraging, particularly given the excellent transport links, but again that proposal seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in Leeds, against the backdrop of facts and figures, the Labour-run council has shown scant regard in destroying our constituencies? My constituency of 41,000 houses is now expected to take 12,500 extra houses, and he rightly points out that there are huge swathes of brownfield land that should be used ahead of the green fields and green belt. Is he struck that this is just political menacing at the expense of people’s lives?

[Stuart Andrew]

I certainly agree. When it was set up, the whole point of the green belt was not just to preserve our natural environment; it was also to encourage regeneration. I am worried that sites in the city centre are being neglected. Worse, at the examination hearing we challenged the developers to be more ambitious and to adopt such an approach with city centre plans, but their response was simply, “It is not viable.” Is that an acceptable excuse? Are we instead to destroy our green belt and to let such brownfield sites fester, just because the developers say so?

The usual accusation of nimbyism will be bandied about, but that is most unfair. As I said at the start, we have seen every bit of every brownfield site in my constituency used: the High Royds hospital site; the Silver Cross site; the Springhead mills site; the gasworks in Yeadon; the Brook Crompton site; the electricity site; the Cornmill estate in Horsforth; the Broom Mills site in Farsley; the Newlands estate at Farsley Celtic; and the Waterloo road and Cemetery road developments in Pudsey. Those are just a few of the developments, and more are being built or planned. Some 550 houses have been proposed for the Riverside and Clariant sites in Horsforth. Our community has had to cope with the effects of the building of thousands of homes, so this is not nimbyism; it is about wanting sustainable development. Because of the use of all those brownfield sites, in many areas all we have left is the green belt, and building on that is simply not on.

Of course house builders want these sites—they are easier to build on and they are often in areas where the house builders will make the most profit—but the green belt in this area is special. We are not talking about scrappy bits of land; the green belt forms part of what is special and unique in our area—the rural fringe of a city that sits on the borderlands between the south Pennines and the dales, as we saw so effectively during the Tour de France. Green belt sites are important green lungs between our communities that help to keep the identity of those communities. They are used by walkers, horse riders, mountain bikers and farmers, and of course they are important for wildlife and heritage: bats, barn owls, deer, woodpeckers and historical medieval crofts and tofts

I have real fears, and members of the community are rightly angry. They have accepted brownfield development, and they now fear losing the green belt. In Aireborough alone there will be a further 1,600 houses, 79% of which will be on the green belt. A common complaint that I hear from residents is that they feel that planning is something that happens to them, but they have decided to take advantage of the new opportunities that have arisen. Organisations such as Aireborough neighbourhood forum, Rawdon parish council and Horsforth town council are working incredibly hard to develop considered plans that make the most of what we have, encouraging enterprise and building on the history of entrepreneurship that is the legacy of our area’s past. However, Leeds city council is throwing that away as it steams ahead with its ridiculous housing target, which is among the highest in the country and poses a threat to the unique nature of our area.

A complaint from many local bodies is that they are not being listened to. They feel that whatever they say is ignored, which causes more frustration, as the targets are also dictating the development of proposed conservation areas. In Nether Yeadon, the area proposed has been reduced from what independent specialists such as English Heritage suggested, because the site allocation is dictating the designated area. Surely it should be the other way around.

I pay tribute to all the residents who have engaged in the process: John Davies and Jackie Schmelt in Rawdon; Nigel Gill and the residents in Yeadon; Jennifer Kirkby, who has been working with the Aireborough neighbourhood forum; Clive Woods and David Ingham of the Civic Society; the Horsforth campaigners; the Farsley residents action group, which is fighting to protect Kirklees Knoll; Briony Spandler and Martin Fincham, who are working hard in Rawdon.

I have some questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. I have heard time and again that building on green- belt land should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances. My constituents want to know what constitutes exceptional circumstances. Is meeting a housing target an exceptional circumstance? If not, where is that clearly stated, so that we can present our arguments? How can neighbourhood plans be developed when the council plan is at odds with local views? How does that fit in with localism? How can he reassure my constituents, who have put in hours of work, that they are not wasting their time?

The green belt methodology has five criteria: checking unrestricted sprawl, preventing the merging of towns, safeguarding the countryside and preventing encroachment, preserving character and assisting in regeneration by recycling derelict land.

Leeds Bradford International Airport

Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Stuart Andrew

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is another constituency neighbour, and he is absolutely right about the traffic jams that go right through Greengates, which people try to avoid as much as they can. Adding a new link road up to the airport would do nothing to alleviate the traffic on that road. In fact, as I said, a new link road would make the traffic much worse.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest problem when assessing accessibility to the airport is that solutions have always been sought in and around the airport’s immediate vicinity, rather than across the whole region? Many people from my constituency also access the airport, so we must look for solutions on a much wider scale.

[Stuart Andrew]

Absolutely. I hope that the rail link to the airport is the start of a wider connection improvement across Yorkshire. The new rail link is the only option for me, because it offers an opportunity for greater modal shift, which will mean that we are better placed to cope with any future expansion. We need only look at other airports across the country that have direct rail links to see how successful they have been; I am thinking of places such as Manchester airport. A number of rail options are available to us. Some of them are gold-plated, but I would advocate going with a stage 1 approach that links the airport to the existing Leeds, Horsforth and Harrogate line. That would mean that a journey time of as little as nine minutes would be possible from the centre of Leeds, which is a pipe dream for anyone trying to achieve the same journey by road.

Children's Heart Surgery (Leeds)

Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Stuart Andrew

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

I entirely agree. I was about to deal with that point. I believe that there is a very strong case for Leeds. It has the capacity to expand, and is within a two-hour drive for nearly 14 million people. It has one of the highest population coverages among all the units in England, with 5.5 million people in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Leeds is, of course, centrally located in the north of England, and can accommodate patients from outside the current catchment area.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on an issue that is vital to the people of our city. Leeds is not only central, but has been described as the motorway city. It has excellent rail links as well, which makes speedy access to the hospital possible.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am beginning to think that some Members have already seen my speech. I am getting ahead of myself. We have the M1, the A1, the M62 and excellent rail links, which make Leeds very accessible. The Leeds Hospitals NHS Trust has centralised children’s services, which I think meets the requirements of the Department of Health’s critical interdependency report. On 18 February the British Congenital Cardiac Association, which is a leading support organisation of the safe and sustainable review, released a statement saying:

“For these services at each centre to remain sustainable in the long term, co-location of key clinical services on one site is essential.”

Leeds General Infirmary is at the forefront of work on inherited cardiac conditions, and has an excellent record of providing safe, high-quality children’s heart surgery. The Yorkshire region has significantly higher birth rates than other parts of the country, particularly the north-east, and there is no doubt that demand will increase.

The review is informed by the overall opinion that a reduction in the number of centres is the best way in which to secure a safe and sustainable future service. It is guided by four principles, and I believe Leeds more than meets their requirements. The first is quality. The paediatric cardiac service at Leeds General Infirmary extends from pre-natal diagnosis to the treatment of congenital heart disease in adults, with excellent clinical outcomes. It has high standards and a personal service, and, as I have said, is located very centrally.

During the assessment process, Sir Ian Kennedy and his assessment panel visited every children’s heart surgery unit in England. They produced individual assessment reports on each of the units two weeks before the presentation meeting at the joint committee of primary care trusts on 16 February. At the meeting, the four reconfiguration options were presented. They were based on a number of factors contained in the panel’s assessment reports. However, I understand that there are significant factual inaccuracies in Sir Ian Kennedy’s report on the Leeds unit, and that its representatives were given no opportunity during the process to comment or request amendments of the factual inaccuracies before decisions were made about the configuration of the options for consultation.

At a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on heart disease on 9 February, when asked when units would be able to challenge and amend inaccuracies in their reports, Jeremy Glyde, the programme director of the safe and sustainable review, said that that could be done during the consultation process.

The reports that the reconfigurations were based on contain fundamental inaccuracies, but they can be challenged only during the consultation period to decide which option is preferred. For Leeds, these inaccuracies include the following. Sir Ian Kennedy’s report documented that Leeds has no transition nurse and separate paediatric intensive care unit; neither point is factually accurate, to the extent that his assessment panel actually met, and talked to, one of the unit’s three transition nurses. The joint committee of primary care trusts advised at its meeting on 16 February that Leeds had stated that it could not do more than 600 operations. Again, that is factually incorrect— Leeds was never asked—but it was stated as the reason why two of the 14 options that were considered were discounted. The commissioners have acknowledged that this was an assumption and not based on what Leeds had said. In the pre-consultation business case for Leeds, start-up costs were reported as £2 million. That figure was not provided by Leeds, and is not representative of the accurate costs provided to the safe and sustainable review panel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I absolutely agree. For hearts, time is of the essence. We need to be sure that people can get where they need to be quickly. I met my hon. Friend’s constituent the other day, and she spoke very powerfully and emotionally about what that meant in her case. I cannot imagine how families in these situations must feel. It is imperative that there is a facility close by.

Returning to the reviews, there are also inconsistencies in the application of some of the principles. So, for example, Liverpool and Birmingham are in all the options because of density of population and access for patients, but the same does not seem to apply to the Leeds case. That is odd and I do not know why the Liverpool and Birmingham cases are different.

Not enough emphasis has been given to co-location. The facility at Leeds general infirmary is wonderful now—I am given to understand that it is the second largest children’s service in the whole country—so taking away its heart unit and the expertise that has been gathered there over the years is strange. This is not just about children’s heart services, because the process has failed to seek views from adult congenital patients. The doctors who operate on the children also operate on the adults and it appears obvious that wherever the children’s heart services go, so, too, will the services for adults. Will they have had an opportunity to be consulted on what was going to happen to those services? This is about a much wider point than just children’s services.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend may be coming to this issue, but could he comment on the fact, which has been put forward every now and again, that Newcastle is favoured because its facility performs adult heart transplants? We recognise that surgeons have equal skills and just because somewhere does the adult heart transplants, it does not necessarily mean that we should move the children’s heart surgery to that department.

[Stuart Andrew]

That is a very valid point and I shall shortly discuss something that was said the other day because it will comment on that.

I shall conclude now because I know that a couple of other Members have expressed an interest in speaking in this debate. I understand that this process is going to be difficult and that there is a need for a review. Severe problems have been experienced in parts of the country and it is right that a clinically led decision is made, but I want that decision to be made on the basis of facts that matter to local people and that are accurate. As I have mentioned, there are real problems with the assessment and the options that have been mentioned. Emotions will of course run high, because this is a very emotive subject. It is incredibly moving to listen to the families I have been speaking to since this matter first arose. They describe how their children and their babies were so close to death but how, thanks to the expertise that was provided at this location, which they were able to reach, their children are at least here and receiving the wonderful care that is provided, although they may be poorly.

There is a case to be made for the facility at Leeds in terms of geography, population and access. We like to tick boxes in this country and everything is ticked in this case for Leeds. I would be grateful if the process could be examined. Some powerful comments were made and cases were mentioned at a meeting held with parents and clinicians here on Tuesday. They are desperate for this unit to remain open. As someone said at that meeting, the doctors should move where the patients are; it should not be the other way round.

Localism Bill

Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Stuart Andrew

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Communities in his constituency and mine have faced these problems time and again.

In Leeds, the previous Government’s regional spatial strategy doubled the target for house building from around 2,500 a year to more than 4,500 every year. At that level, we would have created the equivalent of a new parliamentary constituency within a decade, which would have been completely unsustainable. These targets resulted in not only the brownfield sites in our communities being built on, but a significant threat to the greenfield sites. Time and again, developers came forward with plans for more building. In recent years, permission has been granted for thousands of new homes in Guiseley, but little investment has been made in the infrastructure to cope with so many new residents.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government’s push to allow greenfield sites to be used for housing completely undermined the regeneration in cities such as Leeds?

[Stuart Andrew]

That is an incredibly valid point. I shall say more in a moment about the problems experienced by the city of Leeds.