Chairman of the National Trust, Simon Jenkins, has an interesting piece in the The Guardian today, rather begrudgingly accepting that the final version of the National Planning Policy Framework (published yesterday) strikes a 'sensible' balance. It is worth a read here. The Telegraph also back the revised guidance, summarising the changes here.

There has been a lot of controversy in the papers about the government's proposed draft National Planning Policy Framework. I have made a formal submission to the consultation and took part in the debate on Thursday.

Development is one of the thorniest local issues. On the one hand, we are blessed with 57% greenbelt in this borough - and we want to protect our open spaces. On the other hand, there is an acute shortage of affordable homes.

The government's answer is twofold. First, to scrap the top-down housing targets (such as the notorious South East Plan) and replace them with a policy that allows local councils to set their own housing policy in consultation with local people. Second, to incentivize the provision of affordable homes, government will give councils extra investment for each new home built - to help pay for extra public services and infrastructure.

This approach makes sense. It allows the local community to determine the balance of development, and offers carrot not stick, to incentivize provision of new affordable housing - whilst remaining sensitive to the wishes of local residents. This week, I opened Wardur Court and House, 22 new homes in Walton built to blend in with the neighbourhood, to an energy-efficient design and available for rent and shared-ownership. This is the kind of new housing that will help us ensure young couples and key workers can live locally - which is important for sustaining a vibrant community.

(Dom opens Wardur Court with Wendy Pridmore of the Rosemary Simmons Memorial Housing Association)

Planning is a red hot local issue in Elmbridge, a borough which is 57% greenbelt. I have regularly posted comment on the need to protect the greenbelt, but also address the lack of affordable housing locally.

The South East plan imposed top-down targets of nearly 6,000 new housing units in Elmbridge. The newly elected government scrapped that strait-jacket target, and left councils to set their own policy in consultation with local communities. Elmbridge borough council is now actively seeking local views on a draft plan. The consultation lasts until 4 October, so I urge everyone with a view on this key issue to click here , to feed in your opinion direct to the council via their website and/or write to your local borough councillor.

Planning policy is a vital local issue. The new government has strengthened local democratic control in this area. So, this is the time and opportunity to have your say!

The new government has taken decisive steps to preserve our greenbelt and open spaces from concrete - scrapping the South East Plan and announcing plans to put communities (not Whitehall) in charge of planning policy. But there remains considerable demand for affordable housing in Elmbridge - households on the local authority register for social housing rose by 22% between 2002 and 2008. So, what is the government's plan?

The government proposes to expand shared ownership schemes for social tenants. It is reviewing the scope to give local authorities a greater share of the tax revenue raised from the sale of new homes - to incentivise the provision of affordable housing where appropriate. And, it is looking at scrapping stamp duty for first time buyers - an idea I strongly favour.

Today, I visited some of the existing and new social housing - being managed and delivered locally by Elmbridge Housing Trust - including at St Johns Wood, Thames Mead, Nelson House and Colnwell House. Demand remains high for rented and shared ownership - particularly amongst 'key workers' and first time buyers.

There is a tension between preventing urban sprawl and providing affordable housing - all the more reason to strengthen local democracy so that communities, not quangos and bureaucrats, get decide how to strike the right balance for them.

(Inspecting the Solar Panels on the new homes at Nelson House with Scott Baxendale from Elmbridge Housing Trust)

One of the legacies of the last government is John Prescott's disastrous stint in charge of planning. Whilst, the new government has made a fresh start - scrapping the South East Plan (with its arbitrary housing targets) and announcing plans to tackle 'garden-grabbing' and illegal traveller sites - it will not be possible to roll back all the damage done. However, this week I wrote to the Communities Secretary to ask him to review Prescott's 2005 approval of plans to build a service station off the M25, near Downside.

I have seen no convincing case for building this service station, in terms of transport or road safety. It tramples on both local democracy (Prescott overruled Elmbridge council's refusal of permission) and our green belt - and risks becoming a magnet for crime in the area. Generally, planning is a matter for the borough council - not the MP - and it is unclear what legal grounds there are for the Secretary of State to look at the planning permission anew. However, in these circumstances - where local democracy has been overruled, and our green belt is under threat - I believe it is right for me to intervene and request the government to look at the matter again.

Yesterday, the new ministerial team at the Department for Communities and Local Government appeared before Parliament. It was an important first opportunity for MPs to test the new government's commitment to strengthening respect for communities and local democracy - and the early signs are good.

I had been concerned that the Conservative pledge in opposition to review the local funding formula - that, under Labour, so neglected Surrey - might fall by the wayside. (The Lib Dems had campaigned on a pledge to introduce a local income tax, in place of council tax, which would have cost the average family in Elmbridge £2,500 extra each year.) So I put the question directly, and Communities Minister, Bob Neill, gave an equally clear commitment to review the formula. You can read the exchange here. We need a fairer deal for local funding, to fix the pot holes, provide enough school places and support lower income areas in Elmbridge and Surrey.

In other answers, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles also re-affirmed his commitment to scrap top-down housing targets, like the South East Plan, that threaten our greenbelt, and look at the case for returning more of the tax revenue raised locally from the sale of homes and business rates to local communities - to incentivise provision of affordable housing and local business growth.

It is early days. But I sense that the conversation between communities and government is at last beginning to change. I will continue to actively support the government in delivering stronger local democracy - and a fairer deal for Surrey taxpayers.

This week, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles announced that the government is scrapping all Regional Strategies, which impose top-down housing targets on local communities. Here in Elmbridge, the South East Plan had piled the pressure on our greenbelt, and other open spaces, by dictating the building of almost 6,000 new housing units.

Mr Pickles has written to all local authorities, including Elmbridge, relieving them of those arbitrary targets, and indicating that housing policy in the future will be set by communities. This is critical to protecting our greenbelt, but also signals a broader sea-change of approach. I will be pressing hard to ensure that this is just a first step towards much stronger local democracy over a range of bread and butter decisions that impact on community life.

One of the things I enjoy most about living in Elmbridge is being able to disappear off for an hour or so, jogging across the commons - from Claygate to Oxshott. We are blessed with wonderful greenbelt. It is easy to forget that the borough council work hard to keep our local commons - and the wildlife that thrives here - properly maintained, for example, by ensuring the right balance between woods and heath.

On Friday, Hamish White and Ian Burrows kindly gave me a tour of the commons (from Esher to Oxshott), and in the process a much better appreciation of what goes into protecting our local environment. My thanks to them, and councillors Jan Fuller and John O'Reilly who joined the tour.

This week David Cameron pledged that a Conservative government will protect Surrey’s greenbelt, through plans to radically strengthen local democracy over planning policy.

From the outset of the ‘open primary’ campaign, I made clear my commitment to preserving our greenbelt for future generations – in Elmbridge, Surrey and the rest of Britain. I am delighted that this will now form a major plank of our policy at the next election.

The Party’s Green Paper (click here for the full report), includes proposals to:
- Scrap the South East Plan and Regional Planning Bodies in the first year of a Conservative government.
- Remove the ability of unaccountable planning inspectors to amend local planning policy.
- Curtail the ability of planning inspectors to trump the decisions of elected councils on planning applications.
- Reverse the way planning policy is created – so that it is bottom-up, not top-down – putting local communities and councils in the driving seat.
- Encourage local provision of affordable housing - more carrot, less stick – by giving the council the financial incentive of 125% of the council tax raised per unit of housing built for six years.
- Put any national planning policy framework to a vote in the House of Commons, so your elected MP gets a proper say.
- Maintain Green Belt protection to ‘protect the character of our country’s landscape, stop unsustainable urban sprawl and preserve wildlife.’
- Strengthen powers to remove illegal traveller sites and other unlawful developments.

Hands up any Labour Minister who is an IMBY ? I ask because, last year, the best Margaret Becket (then Housing Minister) could muster when pressed on the arbitrary impact of housing targets on Elmbridge was “we have to put [them] somewhere” ! I suspect local residents might have a few suggestions – perhaps Derby South, Mrs Beckett’s patch. Funny how the charge of being a NIMBY (‘not-in-my-back-yard’) rolls of the tongue a bit easier than requests for development IMBY.

Over the last few months I have received briefings from the Campaign to Protect Rural England about the threats to the Surrey greenbelt, and Elmbridge in particular. This week I went for a closer look, listening to residents and hearing from a local planning expert. The specific threat is plain enough. Under the South East Plan, drawn up by regional quango and rubber stamped by Whitehall, a target of 5,620 new houses has been imposed, ‘top-down’, on Elmbridge. That target is arbitrary and presents a real risk to the greenbelt. What should be done?

This problem is at least partly ‘made-in-Whitehall’. The rising demand for housing which has fuelled development is the result of three failures. First, a concerted policy of ‘open-door’ immigration, which has put enormous pressure on public services and housing, especially in London and the South East. Areas that do not get the direct impact still feel the inevitable spill over from London. Second, the failure of the regulatory system to manage the unsustainable increase of personal debt that led to ‘boom and bust’ in the housing market. Third, the government’s strait-jacket approach of issuing top-down targets – like the South East Plan.

I mention these underlying causes, because they demonstrate the need for deeper reform, not a sticking plaster approach – including a cap on immigration, greater Bank of England oversight over debt bubbles, as well as a revolution in local democracy. Fine, but how do we protect Esher and Walton? Since the problems have been made – or at least made worse – by Whitehall, the answers must lie elsewhere.

First, I would like to see local authorities wrest the target-setting power away from regional government, and the current Elmbridge target scrapped. Given the way central government undercounts actual house-building in Elmbridge, there is a real risk of the current target being missed, which would mean inroads on the greenbelt.


















I looked for myself at the precarious position in some areas. The photo, above, shows how housing backs directly onto the greenbelt. It is just one area in Elmbridge that, because of its location, would be vulnerable to creeping development, if Whitehall’s boxes in the South East Plan are not ticked. The local residents I spoke to were understandably concerned.

The second answer is to curtail the ability of non-elected planning inspectors to trump the decisions of elected councillors on specific planning proposals. These rulings are often haphazard or arbitrary. Take the decision this year to allow travellers to live on greenbelt land in Hersham. The council rejected the application, but was overruled on human rights grounds. But why is an unaccountable planning inspector a better judge (than elected councillors) of the delicate balance between different groups in a community, not to mention the wider collective interest in preserving the greenbelt? Not only does this conflict with the democratic prerogatives of local councillors, it is a good illustration of the failings of the Human Rights Act. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights says nothing about travellers having privileged rights of this kind. The architects of the Convention never dreamt of expanding the right to private, family and home life to create such a special interest. Pernickety lawyers can read the negotiating history of Article 8 for themselves here ! This novel ‘human right’ has been conjured up through a mix of judicial legislation and political correctness – one more reason to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights.

Finally, we need a bit more carrot, and a bit less stick, from central government. If local authorities were given a greater share of the tax revenue derived from the sale of new houses, they would have a greater local incentive to work with residents to fill housing shortages.

This is just one of the many examples of how local democracy would directly benefit Esher and Walton. I believe in defending the freedom to run our own lives from authoritarian government, bureaucratic regional quangos and the steady stream of edicts from Brussels. As your candidate, I would champion the case for giving local people a stronger say over the decisions that affect their lives.