Yesterday in Parliament I took part in the Second Reading debate of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I agree with the Government that aspects of our planning rules need reform, and that we need to build more homes.
But this debate is about so much more that meeting a fixed target for house building, it must instead be about building sustainable communities, and protecting those that already exist. Not only improving availability of properties but also the infrastructure and amenities (roads, schools, health services, sewers!) that residents rely on.
My concerns over planning policy are well known and on record. I have consistently campaigned against development on green belt, especially our flood plains, highlighted the need to protect and enhance biodiversity, retain local input into planning decisions, and campaigned for stronger rules around planning enforcement, which was the topic of my own former Private Member's Bill campaign.
I believe the Government should aim to work with communities and stakeholders, not dictate to them. Yet this Bill is yet another example of the Government trying to control from the centre, ignoring the wealth of local knowledge vital to sustainable planning policy.
I will continue to campaign on these issues, but I used the opportunity of this debate to also raise serious concerns over the process for planning and delivering major infrastructure projects, such as the Esso Pipeline, M25/A3 works, and the River Thames Scheme. These projects are important, but the way they are managed needs urgent review.
From our local experiences alone we have ample examples of these projects taking too long to get off the ground, costing too much money. Once the projects get underway they consistently cause unacceptable levels of delay and disruption, have been characterised by poor communication, with no effective oversight or enforcement from regulators.
The Esso pipeline project ran roughshod over local residents, blocking access to homes, ripping up beautiful green spaces that were not repaired. I believe reform must ensure greater protections for communities affected by large projects, and a requirement to protect and restore our natural environment.
The M25 Junction 10 project is still ongoing, now facing a 9 month delay. At its worst people struggled to get to work, children to school and their exams, and the economic cost of people and goods spending needless hours in traffic has not been calculated. And the disruption continues today.
And the River Thames Scheme, designed to reduce flood risk such as that seen in 2013/14 floods, is still being planned more than 10 years later. We spend too much on consultants, too much time between stages. And now it must also address the challenges of local Government reform, which will affect the legal structures of the partnership underpinning the project, and potentially the funding commitments made by Surrey County Council.
I am raising all of these questions and more with Ministers, and will continue to call for planning reform which can deliver a sustainable increase in housing, built with effective infrastructure in vibrant communities, and that manages and controls the impact of major projects on local residents.
