23/10/2011 The Politics Show South

In the South, if not in my backyard, then whose? We look at the

Government's new planning system. Aware deliver housing or concrete

over the green belts? After Dale Farm, what is going on

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1774 seconds

Welcome to the part of the show especially for us. I am Peter

Henley. Today, we saw the eviction from the Dale Farm travellers' site

this week, but controversy over travellers' sites is not confined

to Essex. We have had a lot of trouble from travellers' sites,

they leave it in such a terrible mess.

Warned that later. One thing the Government has been keen on from

the start is reform of the planning system. They did away with the

regional spatial strategies which detailed how much house building

needed to be done and where. They have just finished the consultation

of what will be put in its place, the National Policy Planning

Framework or NPPF. It has had plenty of claims attached to it.

That it will allow developers to build everywhere, that it will be a

nimby's charter or that it will empower local communities to say

what power -- development they want. It cannot be all of those things,

so to tease out what it might actually be, we have a range of

guests in the studio. We have someone from the Federation of

Master house builders, a Conservative MP and Leader of the

Opposition on Hampshire County Council.

We want houses, so prices continue to rise. I knew getting what you

would like to see from the Coalition Government? It is fair to

say that broadly, we welcome NPPF. It is not a question of the fact

that we want houses. The reality is that we need houses. And business.

But the country needs houses. in excess of 230,000 every year is

what is required from 2008 to 2033. Last year, we built just under

103,000. The ongoing disparity between new houses, new households

and the Net build affect means that by the time we get to the end of

this Parliament, we will need to build, in affect, enough houses to

create a new Birmingham. In excess of 500,000 households. Scrapping

those regional targets, that just slowed the whole process down,

didn't it? It is about getting a better system in freight -- place.

The point about pent-up demand is real. We are all meeting people who

come to see us at surgery he want homes, affordable homes, they want

to get onto the property ladder. No-one has got anything to fear.

The consultation has just finished. Select committees will be looking

at this in the autumn. We are open to sensible ideas for change. This

is about making the planning system more efficient. We want to make it

sustainable in the long term. going to be quick enough? I believe

it will be quick enough, although it will be difficult to say at this

stage. The test will come in practice. The National Trust has

been doing a bit of lobbying. You are concerned this is a rush for

development. We have concerns. We have from the outset been clear

about what our concerns are, and they are not that we are against

development. We have built hundreds of houses over the last couple of

years as the National Trust. What we have concerns about is that the

planning system will be turned into a primary economic development will.

The rest of the van system will be forgotten. Our concern is that this

will be run on short-term economic development. We have concerns about

that, and what we want to see is that the NPPF should look at all

sides of the sustainable development policy. Planning should

be for the Environment, it for social command and for profit. But

we should make sure the planning system is about people, not short-

term profit. One was that not bearing the first place? I think

that is some sloppy wording. I do not think this -- there was a fear

about an untrammelled development. I think there has been some

scaremongering about this document. Know. Not subtle. The National

Trust has been very clear. We are concerned about the two-thirds of

the south-west's countryside which is an protected. It is not about

areas are out -- areas of outstanding national beauty, but

about the unprotected two-thirds of the countryside. If you look at how

many officials, something like twice as many as officials from the

Treasury behind this paper than there were from Defra. You are

missing the point. It is about returning powers to local people.

No council in its right mind is going to allow development right at

the way across the countryside. If you have local control, you will

get the best decisions for local communities. The problem we have

had in the past is that planning has been centralised, it has been

about officials in Whitehall and Westminster. This is about handing

power back to local communities. It might not speeded up, but it would

get better results. In what speeded-up G that is a problem for

you. We do not know if it is going to speed it up or not. We will not

know until it is implemented. The consultation process has not

finished. I would make the point that we are looking at changing a

process. If those process changes - - that process changes, we are not

going to see banks suddenly turning down credit. Money will not

suddenly become available to builders. It is not going to be as

simple as that. That is a problem. This is about a dress in a system

which has become incredibly complex, come the Senate and out of control.

There are thousands of pages of guidance for certain things. The

one thing that it has been good for his membership of the National

Trust, which must be booming. because people care much about

protecting the countryside. people who care about protecting it

are those who live there. That is why a, if you return proper power,

people will not allow their councillors to come up with

inappropriate developments which are on the communities they live in.

Will they allow any development? One of the problems with the

planning system is that people do not trusted any more, because it

has not give them -- given them what they wanted. It should be

about local communities, meeting community needs. It also includes

jobs, schools, roads and everything else we need to make society work.

For example it, if you take the slowing-down since the general

election in planning. The result of that in my patch is that we have

saved green fields from 300,000 homes that would have been built on

the last Government's regime. We added to get those homes built in

the right places, in towns, in existing communities. We want to

see good development, I think everyone agrees on that. Will we

get it? That is the concern. What the NPPF does is allow developers

to make an easy run of things. What we are concerned about is that we

want to see the right development in the right place. Nobody yet has

really screwed down the definition of sustainable development. We have

had a couple of goes at it. We are wanting the Government to clarify

what they mean. Let us look at a real example. We are seeing our

town centres in depopulated of shops. It is not sustainable to

have lots of empty shopfronts in sound senses. That creates

vandalism. Local authorities can now give protection to green spaces

within urban centres, which they could not do the 4th. Last word to

the National Trust. Targets for brownfield sites are being

withdrawn from the NPPF. We have to draw that to a close. Thank you.

One bit of planning which has had a high profile this week is the

provision of travellers' sites. The eviction at Dale Farm brought it

into our living rooms. As our correspondent reports, it is not

just a problem for Essex. You cheated as! Dale Farm in Essex

this week. Riot police and bailiffs evicted protesters and residents

from the largest illegal travellers' site in the country.

Nobody will want is on their doorstep again. Gypsies will have

better rides from now on because no authority wants to see this.

Authorities are taking action out to avoid similar confrontations in

the South. Under the Housing Act 2004, all councils have an

obligation to identify sites suitable for use by gypsies and

travellers. In Dorset, all councils have chipped in one quarter live a

million pounds to draw up a shortlist of sight. Neither local

residents or borough councils are thrilled at the prospect. Across

Dorset, they need to provide 600 extra pitches. In Poole, the

borough council rejected all suggested size. Two of the sides

are right next to schools. We have got ain't long way to go with his

consultation. I am keen to explore the possibility of working more

closely with our neighbours, with Bournemouth and perhaps the

neighbouring Dorset authorities, to see if it is possible to come up

with a common approach. That might sound like passing the buck,

getting a neighbouring council to take more than its fair share of

new sites. That does not sit well with the strategy for the county of

Dorset as a whole. It is all done on the basis of how many pitches

are needed in each of the districts and boroughs. They each have to

deal with very own particular needs. It cannot be passed on from one

district to another. I did not in that is right. At a neighbouring

resort, three sides have been suggested by consultants, but none

have been universally welcomed. This these are scrubbed at

Lansdowne in Bournemouth is proposed as a transit site, but one

MP is quoted as saying that Bournemouth is full and that there

are no suitable sites. Local residents have formed a campaign

group, and in just one week, they have gathered 100 signatures on a

petition against the plan. Laings and carries a huge burden already

with homeless shelters, drug and alcohol centres and we have a huge

population of students and elderly residents. I'm trying not to be

prejudiced, but we have had a lot of trouble from medieval

travellers' sites, and they leave everything in a terrible mess. They

came here one Christmas and trashed it. With travellers' sites comes

trouble. I'm not saying they all did, but the majority do. We have a

small community here and you know everyone. You need to be

comfortable. As soon as you come across a lot of strangers you do

not know, it can be scary, intimidating and problems can come

from that. Travellers at the sides in pulled were reluctant to be

interviewed, but those who represent their interests say many

more pitches are required. travel and Romany community have

told us that the number of proposed sites and pitches will not be

enough to meet the needs -- needs of the community. Issues should be

able to be addressed better, because the welfare of the

community needs to be taking into account. How frustrating is it that

residence abject and councils reject schemes? It is frustrating

for all communities, because unless the issue is dealt with, it is not

going to go away. The major change perception is for people to talk

together, and that is not happening. If local residents and councils are

reluctant to engage in the consultation, where does that leave

Dorset's gypsy and travellers strategy? Is it merely

aspirational? I would like to think it is more than that. There is

always a degree of aspiration in everything you try to do in this

world, but I think there is a practical need to look at the

provision of sides. We could end up with those eyes at all, but we do

have to have a policy and we have to make sure that we can provide.

The consultations will run and sell early next year. Meanwhile, Dorset

police say they welcome any new pitches which make it easier to

evict groups from that lit -- illegal sides. They want to avoid

confrontations such as those seen at Dale Farm.

What you've been Dale Farm will do for the attitude of local councils

to travellers' sites? I think it shows the system does not work. The

issue of Dale Farm has set back a sensible debate about this policy

area by some distance, because people have moved into entrenched

positions. We should never have had to see those appalling scenes.

the moment, it is pass the parcel. Not always. I have got a site on

the board of Southampton which causes no difficulties at will.

Most people probably do not know it is there. But, and it is an

enormous but, the problems we have with illegal encampments cause

immense distress. We have got to find a solution. It means it

councils working collaboratively to find solutions and engaging with

the Gypsy Traveller community. is it not clear that councils can

or cannot work together to sort this out? It is clear at the moment

that they cannot. I have been to talk to the Secretary of State at

on this. Both members of the Coalition government agreed before

the election that we do as Kee suggests. Councils should get

together and remove the inquire much on individual authorities and

identify corporate sides which work better. We have not yet what --

done that and I want to know why. What is the answer? We are still

consulting. White residents do not understand why Bournemouth council

is going into consultation on this. The reason is that it is a

requirement laid down by the last government whose policy is still in

place. The Department for Communities and Local Government

are finding that across Dorset to the tune of �150,000. The other

thing they do not understand is why they councillors cannot speak out

against the sides. The reason is that it is speak out against

individual sides, they lose the right to participate in the

decision-making process. I am not so constrained. Eyes can say I am

absolutely opposed to any site, because it is wrong to Bournemouths

for Bournemouth. With inflation hitting a new high, many families

are struggling to make ends meet. According to a new report, the most

expensive way of getting alone our doorstep lenders, but they are

roughen the only people that the less well-off can go to for a loan.

There is a growing campaign to boost the profile and funding of

credit unions as a fairer and cheaper alternative. Earlier this

week, I met up with the chair are all highly -- All Party

Parliamentary Group on Credit Unions, N P Damian Hinds.

Credit unions are a way of keeping people's' local savings within it

area. It is a good way of helping the local community whilst still

getting a return on your savings. Is it not about doorstep lending as

well? Some of the huge amounts of interests -- interest that people

are paying... It can be a real problem for people. People can get

into a seemingly unending cycle of debt. We want to provide credit

unions, an alternative. There is a much lower cost alternative

available to people to borrow from a socially responsible source. They

have an interest in helping those people manage their finances and

helping them to get out of financial difficulty. In a sense,

is this not the wrong time to do this kind of socially aware

lending? People will be much more likely to default. Credit unions

are not just about lending, they are about saving. They are about a

good, local safe place to keep your savings. It is absolutely right

that we encourage a savings habit as well as a credit habit. This is

why the Government is being supported to the sector. They are

driving through what is called a legislative reform to help credit

unions expand. Does this apply in East Hampshire or is it Ervin G it

applies all over the place. model works in lots of places. If

you look at the United States, credit unions cover all areas. It

is important for credit unions to have a good mix of customers, so

you want people he was saving as well as people who are borrowing.

You want people at higher income levels as well as those that lowers

-- at lower income levels. You are doing something useful with in your