Planning Bill

I rise to speak to new clause 38, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). As he said, it seeks to respond to a railway development by the side of Streatham Hill station in my constituency that has blighted the lives of many of my constituents who live in Sternhold avenue. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to refer to my constituency in the debate. The problem for my constituents arises from the construction in 2005-06 of five new platforms, three 300 m long canopies and eight new lighting columns at the railway sidings that immediately abut the rear garden walls of the homes in Sternhold avenue. Not only is there now cleaning and maintenance activity throughout the day and night at the sidings, but the sheer presence and visual impact of the columns and canopies is horrendous. The local topography means that the sidings stand on higher ground than the adjacent houses, so the canopies tower over the homes up to a height of 7.5 m, and at a distance from some homes of only 12 m. For all those poor residents, it is like having a highly modernistic airport terminal building at the bottom of their garden. The visual impact of the development means that it dominates the lives of residents and probably also reduces property values, yet the development was carried out under permitted rights without consultation and with limited scope for challenge by the local authority. Whether it was correctly carried out under permitted development rights is a matter of contention, although I suppose that it is arguable that, in drafting the new clause as an amendment to the law, the local Lib Dem councillors and the Lib Dem Front Benchers are tacitly acknowledging that the case was a permitted development and that the law needs to be changed. Unfortunately, of course, since the law does not work retrospectively, there would be no benefit to my Sternhold avenue constituents if the new clause were passed. Although I welcome the opportunity to raise this shocking matter in the House on behalf of my constituents, I am not sure that anyone would be helped by the new clause. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, its purpose is to require railway undertakings to seek planning permission when they want to install plant and machinery on operational land. However, the issue for my constituents is not the construction of plant and machinery on railway land, but the closeness of the development to their homes. That is why new clause 38 does not meet the case. I have looked in detail at the operation of the general permitted development order—indeed, I had responsibilities on it some time ago when I had the honour and privilege to be the nation's Planning Minister. On the whole, the GPDO works well as it is applied to the railways. When the working of the GPDO was last reviewed in the Lichfield report of 2003, only 5 per cent. of responding local authorities reported problems with class A of part 17, which is what we are dealing with. Only 2 per cent. considered class A's permitted development rights to be too loosely defined. Railway undertakings make about 1,000 applications under the GPDO each year, many of which involve plant and machinery. I accept that it would be an unreasonable obstacle to the efficient working of the railway and a big new burden on local planners if all proposals to construct plant and machinery were subject to planning consent. I repeat the fact that the problem for my constituents is not the presence of plant and machinery on operational land but the proximity of the development.