The Petition of people from the Mid Dorset and North Poole Constituency,

Declares the Petitioners' concern that the proposal for the construction of 700 dwellings in Corfe Mullen will lead to the destruction of a beautiful green valley in the green belt, increase traffic on already inadequate roads, put pressures on hospitals and other health services and on schools and endanger the heath lands. The Petitioners further declare that it is not an effective way to tackle the housing needs of local young people.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to respond to the views of local residents, elected councillors for Corfe Mullen and the Parish Council by removing the proposal for the 700 dwellings from the South West Regional Spatial Strategy.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Annette Brooke, Official Report, 20 October 2008; Vol. 481, c. 132 .]

[P000273]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

The Secretary of State acknowledges the concerns of the petitioners regarding her Proposed Changes into the South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in relation to housing development in Corfe Mullen.

As the process of producing the South West RSS is bound by regulation and propriety guidance, which seeks to put all interested parties on an even footing, I am unable to discuss the merits of the Proposed Changes or the Panel's report. These propriety matters apply in particular to any comments related to particular localities or development proposals.

The position in respect of the South West RSS is that, following the public consultation period which ended on 24 October 2008, the consultation responses are currently being analysed. In view of the large number of representations received, the RSS will not be published before the end of 2008 as envisaged and so the Government is currently discussing a revised publication date.

The Petition of people living in the Mid Dorset and North Poole Constituency,

Declares the Petitioners' concerns that the proposal to build 2,750 homes in the vicinity of Lytchett Minster village in the green belt will result in one urban sprawl and threaten the loss of individual identity for their villages and communities, increase traffic on already inadequate roads, put pressures on hospitals and other health services and on schools and endanger heath lands. The Petitioners further declare that it is not an effective way to tackle the housing needs of local young people.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to respond to the views of Purbeck District Council supported by Dorset County Council, local town and parish councils and many individual constituents by removing the proposal for the 2,750 homes in the vicinity of Lytchett Minster village from the South West Regional Spatial strategy.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Annette Brooke, Official Report, 21 October 2008; Vol. 481, c. 276 .]

[P000274]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

The Secretary of State acknowledges the concerns of the petitioners regarding her Proposed Changes into the South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in relation to housing development in the vicinity of Lytchett Minster village.

As the process of producing the South West RSS is bound by regulation and propriety guidance, which seeks to put all interested parties on an even footing, I am unable to discuss the merits of the Proposed Changes or the Panel's report, or take any representations or comments on board at this stage. These propriety matters apply in particular to any comments related to particular localities or development proposals.

The position in respect of the South West RSS is that, following the public consultation period which ended on 24 October 2008, the consultation responses are currently being analysed. In view of the large number of representations received, the RSS will not be published before the end of 2008 as envisaged. The Government is currently discussing a revised publication date.

The Petition of Robert J Kimmel, residents of Castle Point and others,

Declares that Castle Point is already overdeveloped for the infrastructure that exists and further development should be very carefully controlled and restricted and that the proposed development of 234 Benfleet Road in Castle Point is very much against the community's interests, and offends against material planning considerations including the overdevelopment of the site, an unacceptable imposition on the established street scene, inadequate garden and parking facilities and that it will impose an unacceptable burden on the general infrastructure and public facilities such as dentists and schools. We further record that this decision is the direct responsibility of the individual councillors who should decide this matter, rather than seeking to hide behind their officers.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make Castle Point Borough Councillors aware of this Petition and of the very deeply and widely held view of residents that Councillors should vote against this proposal.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Bob Spink, Official Report, 13 October 2008; Vol. 480, c. 644.]

[P000275]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is aware that two planning applications were submitted to Castle Point Borough Council in respect of the above development. She has been advised that the applications were both refused by the Borough Council on 31 October 2008.

Parliament has entrusted Local Planning Authorities with the responsibility for development control in their areas. It is for them, in the first instance, to decide whether or not a proposal should be given planning permission. In these cases, the two applications have been refused.

The Petition of residents in the vicinity of Exmoor National Park and others,

Declares that the authorities of Exmoor National Park wish to demolish Blackpits Bungalow, a perfectly habitable three bedroom home, built for local working people, together with the out-buildings, roadside fences, and banks; and further declares that the purchase of the bungalow (for £238,000) and the demolition of the property, do not represent good use of public funds.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to prevent the demolition of Blackpits Bungalow.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Official Report, 22 October 2008; Vol. 481, c. 415 .]

[P000276]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is aware that the Exmoor National Park Authority is to form a working group to discuss the future of the site. At present no planning application has been submitted for the site, the determination of which is primarily the responsibility of the National Park as local planning authority, and the Secretary of State cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of any application, or prospective application.

The Secretary of State’s her information is that the proposed demolition is part of a wider set of proposals being considered by the National Park Authority, which also includes the construction of affordable housing in another, more sustainable, location. She also understands that it is the Authority's intention that the package as a whole will reduce the overall environmental impact on the National Park, and add to the supply of affordable housing, without additional drain on public funds. However, she has no knowledge of the details which will determine whether these intentions are achievable, and it is for the Authority to consider those factors in the first instance.

The Secretary of State may decide to call-in an application for her own determination where she considers that it raises issues of more than local importance, but her policy is to be very selective about this. As it is possible that the instant proposal may, at some future date, come within her jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate to make further comment on the matter raised in the petition.

The Petition of Jo Grey, concerned Canvey Island residents, and others,

Declares that Castle Point Council is wrong to plan to build over 100 houses on Castle View School Playing field, that this is insensitive, inappropriate and will result in more homes built on a green belt, high flood risk site; believes that there is sufficient previously developed, brown land to build any necessary additional homes without selling off valuable school playing fields for that purpose, and that councillors should stand up for residents' interests and consider the impact of their plans on road congestion and safety for all Island residents, and reject the Castle Point Borough Council Core Strategy.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to press Castle Point Borough Councillors to speak out and act and vote against the plan to sell off a Canvey Island school playing field for yet more building.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Bob Spink, Official Report, 07 October 2008; Vol. 480, c. 248.]

[P000272]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

The Government understands the residents concerns about the future of playing field space, but it is the Government's general approach not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted planning with authority for day-to-day planning control in their areas as they are normally best placed to make decisions relating to their areas and it is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.

I should also mention that Government is concerned about the continuing loss of playing fields to development, especially where their loss would result in a shortage of playing fields in a local area, whether for schools or for the wider community. Government seeks to ensure that communities retain an adequate supply of playing fields to meet both their current and longer-term needs, in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility. Sport England is a statutory consultee for planning applications involving development which would have a detrimental effect on the provision of playing fields. Sport England is consulted on all applications for development which involve playing fields which are, or were in the last five years, in use.

I understand from Castle Point Borough Council that no planning application has yet been made to them in respect of this proposal. When an application has been made, the Council will be required to publicise it in order that the public and other interested parties may make known their views. Before reaching their decision, the Council must take into account: the provisions of the development plan for the area; any relevant views expressed by neighbouring occupiers, local residents and other third parties; and any other relevant material considerations which fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned. They should also be guided by the policies and advice set out in the Department's Planning Policy Guidance Notes, Statements (PPGs and PPSs) and planning circulars.

I understand through discussions with the Council that the site referred to in the Petition is identified within their Core Spatial Strategy for housing purposes. The Council has conducted several consultation exercises in relation to ongoing work that has/is being conducted in relation to this document. The most recent consultation exercise was in respect of the Core Strategy Further Preferred Options Report which concluded on 15 August 2008. There have also been a number of other consultations carried out since February 2006. Therefore, members of the public still have a chance to raise their objections to the proposals.

In the meantime the Secretary of State suggests that the residents raise their concerns directly with Castle Point Borough Council.