Fiona
Bruce emphasises the need for electrical safety in the colder months
With winter now
upon us and colder temperatures forecast, many older people are worried about
fuel bills and rely on portable electric heaters and electric blankets to keep
warm and cut the costs of heating an entire home. But it can be a risky
business.
Electricity
causes almost half of all domestic fires – most of which arise from electrical
products - with the over 60s at far greater risk from them than any other age
group. Almost 40% of deaths from portable heaters were of people aged 80 and
over during 2013-2014.And it’s been
estimated that damaged electric blankets are responsible for over 5,000 UK
house fires each year.
To get some
advice and support in highlighting the need for electrical safety for older
people, Fiona Bruce MP visited Electrical Safety First’s drop-in ‘surgery’,
which was recently held in Portcullis House, Westminster.
“As we
live longer and tend to remain in properties for longer, regular home safety
checks are often forgotten and electrical wiring and appliances tend to be
older”,explains Fiona.
“Electrical
Safety First’s campaign highlights how - by taking just a few moments to ensure
electrical sockets, wires and cords are in good condition and sockets aren’t
overloaded - can make a real difference to the safety of older relatives and
friends”.
The Charity has
regularly run a series of campaigns to increase awareness of electrical risk
but this is the first time it has offered a ‘surgery’ for MPs.
“This winter we have been encouraging
friends and family to check in on older people and look around for electrical
danger”,adds Robert Jervis-Gibbons, for the charity
Electrical Safety First.
The Charity has
been calling for a free, five-yearly electrical safety check for all households
with one person aged over 75 and statutory, five-yearly checks in all care
homes. It has also developed information packs to help keep older people
electrically safe this winter, which can be downloaded from
http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/guides-and-advice/for-older-people/
Fiona
Bruce arranges for Headteachers and Council Leader to meet Schools Minister in
Parliament on School Funding plans
Following her strong speech in
the House of Commons (attached) just before Christmas challenging the
Government to rethink the proposed new formula for school funding, Fiona Bruce
arranged for a delegation of Headteachers from Congleton, Sandbach and Alsager
to speak directly to Schools Minister Nick Gibb MP about the impact of these
proposals on local schools.
The meeting was joined by
Rachel Bailey, Leader of Cheshire East Council, Jacky Forster, Director of
Education at Cheshire East and MPs David Rutley Macclesfield and Antoinette
Sandbach Eddisbury.
Fiona
Bruce MP said “The
potential impact of these proposals putting schools in my constituency and the
wider Cheshire East area at the bottom of the schools funding league table if
they go ahead, required immediate challenge to Government to go back to the
drawing board and rethink them, which is why I arranged this delegation and why
the majority of High School Heads in my constituency travelled to London to the
meeting this week with the Schools Minister.”
Fiona
continued “The length of time
the Schools Minister gave to the meeting – far longer than usual for a
Ministerial meeting – and the manner in which he listened intently and agreed
to work further with local Headteachers on essential pupil funding levels,
shows that there is a case to answer for reviewing these proposals. The meeting
was a constructive start to making a case on behalf of pupils and schools here
in the Congleton Constituency and wider Cheshire East area.”
2.Photo
of the delegation meeting Schools Minister Nick Gibb in Parliament
3.Speech
by Fiona Bruce MP, House of Commons, 20th December 2016
1.Agreed
Statement
A
ten person delegation from Cheshire East comprising MPs, Local Authority, and
Headteachers met today (9th January 2017) with the Right Honourable Nick Gibb
MP, Minister of State for Schools to discuss the recent proposals from the
National Funding Formula.For historic
reasons Cheshire East has been poorly funded as a local authority for a number
of years.After vigorous campaigning
both as part of the F40 group (the lowest funded authorities in the country)
and as an individual authority,Cheshire
East Headteachers, Council Leaders and MPs hoped that the new national funding
formula would finally redress the legacy that had left Cheshire East pupils
receiving substantially less funding than the national average. However, the
new formula, released to consultation in December 2016, left Cheshire East as
the lowest funded authority in the entire country.
Fiona
Bruce MP spoke in the House of Commons in December and highlighted the
difficulties that schools in Cheshire East faced as part of the existing poor
funding and the truly devastating effect that the new proposed formula would
have on the quality of education across all schools in Cheshire East.Fiona also managed to achieve a very short
notice meeting with the Minister of State for Schools to allow him to hear
first hand how deeply damaging the proposed new funding plans would be on local
education provision.
In
attendance at the meeting were Nick Gibb MP; Fiona Bruce MP; David Rutley MP;
Antionette Sandbach MP; Rachel Bailey Leader of Cheshire East Local Authority;
Jacky Forster Director of Education and 14-19 skills; John Leigh Headteacher at
Sandbach High School, David Hermitt Headteacher at Congleton High School, Sarah
Burns Headteacher at Sandbach School, Richard Middlebrook Headteacher at
Alsager School and Ed O’Neill Headteacher at Eaton Bank Academy.
Rachel Bailey, Leader of
the Council says‘We will work together with our local MP’s
and schools to ensure that the Minister is provided with some practical
solutions which will protect the current outstanding education and skills offer
across Cheshire East.Our children and
young people have a right to at least the same minimum national curriculum
offer and opportunities which other similar schools and authorities will have
the funding to provide.’
The
meeting, at Portcullis House in Westminster, was very focused and productive,
providing the Minister of State for Schools with a range of reasoned
points.These included the inequality of
the proposed funding, the seriously damaging effect on curriculum provision,
the attendant drop in teaching standards, vastly reduced extra curricular opportunities
for children and the economic reality of the unsustainable financial viability
of schools in Cheshire East. The minister offered a long period of time to
discuss and listened intently, a reflection of how seriously he was considering
the concerns.Everyone connected with
education in Cheshire East had expected that the fair funding process would
rectify the imbalance, not exacerbate it.Nick Gibb, gave a clear commitment to work with Headteachers, the Local
Authority and MPs to explore a number of potential exceptional circumstances
that have created an ‘anomaly’ and civil servants have been asked to work with
the Local Authority and schools to model the minimum level of funding required
to operate schools of different sizes. The Minister was clear that this is a
genuine consultation and that there is an opportunity to influence the
proposals prior to the consultation closing in March.
Photograph
Photo shows
meeting in Parliament with Schools Minister Nick Gibb MP (centre) and l to r Richard Middlebrook, Head Alsager
School, Fiona Bruce MP Congleton, John Leigh, Head Sandbach High, Antoinette
Sandbach MP Eddisbury, Nick Gibb MP, David Hermitt, Head Congleton High, Sarah
Burns, Head Sandbach Boys, Ed O’Neill, Head Eaton Bank, Cllr Rachel Bailey
Leader of Cheshire East Council; David Rutley MP Macclesfield, Jacky Forster
Director of Education and 14-19 skills Cheshire East Council.
I want to speak today
about just one issue of great concern, which is how negatively the proposed new
national funding formula for schools will impact on schools in my Congleton
constituency if it is not revised. It is critical for the children of my
constituency that it is.
Prior to the
announcement last week, my constituency schools were already among the
poorest-funded in the country. We therefore expected a good funding increase.
After this announcement, however, headteachers tell me that theirs will be the
very worst-funded schools in the country. The most poorly-funded local
authority used to be £4,158 per head, but this will now be Cheshire East, at
£4,122 per head. Imagine my heads’ consternation last week when they discovered
that their funding will not increase, but actually drop. I use the word
consternation; they used the word outrage. No wonder that within 48 hours of
the announcement no fewer than five headteachers came to my constituency office
to express their utter dismay.
A year ago, I took a
group of headteachers to meet the former Education Minister, my hon. Friend the
Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), to ensure that he heard directly their
concerns on the poor funding for Cheshire East schools, and to implore him that
the new formula must address them. And this was after a similar meeting in the
previous Parliament, when Cheshire East local authority officers met his
predecessor for the same purpose. In addition, hundreds of my constituents
signed a petition for fairer funding. This issue is far from new, which is why
last week’s announcement was so shocking.
My headteachers are asking
how Cheshire East has become the most poorly-funded area, after they made such
a convincing case to the Minister at their meeting. They thought they had been
heard. I, too, find it difficult to understand.
What is particularly
concerning is that these are some of highest-performing schools in the country,
but there is a point at which their laudable level of achievement cannot be
maintained. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State said in this place that she
had been able to ensure that underfunded areas would be able to “gain up to 3%”
over 2018-19 and 2019-20. My schools are facing exactly the opposite—not a rise
of 3%, as the majority of my high schools face a reduction of 2.9%.
Before I relay some of
the unpalatable options facing headteachers in my constituency, let me set in
context last week’s announcement, because a number of other factors make the
funding reductions for my schools far worse. First, the National Audit Office
has said that schools face a reduction of 8% in funding in real terms by 2020,
due chiefly to unfunded increases in employer costs. That makes the average
savings to be found not over 2%, but over 10%. In addition, the reduction in
the educational services grant will mean a further hit for academies in my
constituency, which means all seven high schools. Even graver, there is still
no local plan in Cheshire East, which has led to hundreds of new houses being
built without additional funding for the proportionate increase in the number
of children attending schools. This effect of so-called “lagging” means that
schools are required to educate additional children with no additional funding.
What do headteachers
tell me will be the effect of this new formula on their schools? With reference
to the primary schools, Martin Casserley, headteacher at Black Firs Primary
School, says they will be forced into significant reductions, including
reducing support staff to help special educational needs children.
The high schools will
lose £800,000 a year between them. Eaton Bank alone will face losses of
£300,000 over three years. Headteacher Ed O’Neill says this would be “deeply
damaging” and
“the removal of the
educational services grant…and the NAO-calculated pressures mean that total
savings of 12% will have to be found.”
Richard Middlebrook,
head of Alsager High, who was nominated for headteacher of the year and is a
national leader of education, says that the only way to survive would be to
open for only four days a week, narrow the curriculum or close the sixth
form—all completely implausible.
Dennis Oliver,
headteacher of Holmes Chapel High, also a national leader of education, is
looking at the removal of all teaching assistant posts, or the loss of all
technicians, or the loss of eight non-viable sixth-form groups, or removing
heating and lighting for a year or removing general resources for children,
such as paper and books. John Leigh, head at Sandbach High and a
long-established Ofsted inspector, tells me he risks losing his school’s
“outstanding” status. He now has a £200,000 deficit as a result of lagged
funding, due to new housing in Sandbach. He believes that the only feasible way
to run the school would be to remove the rich programme of extracurricular
activities, reduce the curriculum offerand/or reduce the number of sixth-form classes. He
is already teaching 12 hours of maths a week himself to help balance the
budget.
Sarah Burns,
headteacher at Sandbach Boys School, has calculated that losing the entire
music, art, business studies or geography departments could achieve the reductions,
but that is simply not possible for a school that is a regional leader in music
and the creative arts. She is concerned about the recruitment and retention of
key staff while managing a reduction of 2.9% and she calculates it will
actually be 5%, taking other factors into account.
David Hermitt, chief
executive officer of Congleton Multi-Academy Trust, of which I am a patron, is
facing a reduction of 2.4% at Congleton High, but he tells me that in addition
he has been educating over 50 children every year for free for the last three
years due to the increased housing nearby, equating to over £200,000 per year
of missing funding in each of the last three years. This has depleted healthy
reserves. He says the school has made every cut it can to ensure that it has a
balanced budget. He says that,
“we have increased
average class sizes, removed some subjects from our post 16 provision,
increased contact time for teachers and reduced the amount spent on books and
computer equipment.”
I am proud to be patron
for this well-run multi-academy trust, which is already helping to drive down
back-office costs for the three schools in the trust by providing central
services of finance and human resources.
Middlewich High faces
even deeper reductions as a result of the change in funding for children with
special educational needs and disabilities, for which it has a dedicated unit.
It is a lead school for emotional health, and Members may recall that during
Prime Minister’s questions recently, I drew attention to its outstanding work
with the most vulnerable students and families. However, Keith Simpson, its
headteacher, has said,
“as Head I have no
option but to reduce staffing from this area in order to meet a minimum number
of teachers to provide a curriculum.”
He added:
“This is alongside the
shortfall in SEND funding for schools that maintain a truly inclusive intake.
This short-term view will only store up problems for society and other services
in the long term. I feel that the holistic support for children and families is
being sacrificed and has no educational value in raising standards for our most
vulnerable students.”
Those headteachers,
whom I know well, are utterly dedicated and professional, but the concerns that
I have expressed on their behalf today have been increasing for several years.
They have concluded that the proposed national fairer funding formula is not
fit for purpose, certainly in Cheshire East. They are asking the Government to
go back to the drawing board after listening to the outcome of the current
consultation, and I am asking for the concerns that I have expressed today to
be included in that consultation. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House
will refer them to the Schools Minister, and will convey my request for an
early meeting with him to which those headteachers will travel at short notice;
and I hope that the Schools Minister will not just hear but act, by reviewing
the impact of the new funding formula on the schools in my constituency.
Without such a review, there will be grave implications for the education and
life chances of the children about whom those headteachers care so deeply.
I wish you, Mr
Speaker, and all Members in the Chamber a happy and restful Christmas.
Fiona
Bruce MP attends gathering of family businesses in Parliament with Mike Roberts
of Roberts Bakery.
Fiona
Bruce MP attended the annual gathering of family business representatives in
Parliament, organised by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Family Business of
which Fiona Bruce MP is a member. This event brings together the Family Business
sector and members of Parliament to promote the valuable contribution family
run businesses make to society and the economy.
It
is little recognised that family businesses employ almost 12 million people
across the country and in the North West alone there are over 450,000 family
businesses, one of which is long standing bakery, Roberts Bakery, which began
as a grocers in 1887 and which now makes over 3.5 million loaves of bread,
bread rolls and teacakes each week, still in Cheshire.
Fiona Bruce said “Family
businesses make a strong contribution to our economy, providing as they do,
stable employment for many people, and working, not just for the short term,
but for decades, and even generations.They
often also make a considerable contribution to local community life Frank
Roberts and Sons Ltd, trading as Roberts Bakery, which has baked high quality
bread here in Cheshire for over 125 years, is an outstanding example of all of
this – so it is always a delight to welcome Mike Roberts, Deputy Chairman of
Frank Roberts and Sons Ltd, who is a long standing Governor of Sandbach Boys
School, to this important annual event in Westminster.”
Fiona Bruce
spoke out in Parliament recently, along with MP colleagues from the International
Development Select Committee, against the ivory trade and the killing of
elephants – full speech below.
On 24 September 2016, the third annual global march for elephants and
rhinos took place, with people from 140 cities worldwide uniting to call for a
ban on the trade in ivory and horn, and to demand that action be taken to end
the irretrievable damage caused by the acquisition and trade of ivory. I
commend the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for securing the debate
and support him in his call for Members to recognise the irrevocable damage
that will be caused both to elephant species and to individuals’ livelihoods if
action is not taken.
I particularly commend the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member
for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). She articulated so well how a near-total
ban on ivory trade is the way ahead. I very much support such a ban and, as I
say, she expressed very well how an “intelligent” differentiation can be
made, to use the word of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Victoria
Borwick), between museum pieces and genuine antique objects and other ivory, so
that we can not only ensure that there is that distinction but at the same time
put an end to and cut off the source of funding for the brutal killers who are
poaching elephants in Africa and elsewhere.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire mentioned, a survey on
elephants in August 2016—the great elephant census—showed the severe fall in
the number of African elephants. The figures that have been mentioned in the
debate vary, but it is clear that there has been a severe decline. If the
current level of poaching in Africa continues, elephants could be all but
extinct by 2030, and certain species will experience an extreme decline even
earlier. For example, the African forest elephant has declined by 65% since
2002, giving it only another decade before extinction. The gravity of the need
to act on the ivory trade is undeniable.
However, the different species of African elephants are not the only
victims of the ivory trade. I saw that on a visit to Tanzania about two years
ago, when I was privileged to be invited to go on a safari. We saw many, many
animals, but we saw no elephants, and the guide explained to us that the
decline in elephants was a serious deterrent to tourists visiting the area,
which would have an increasing impact on the jobs and livelihoods of the people
living in that area unless something was done.
Those of us on the International Development Committee —including my
hon. Friends the Members for Stafford and for Mid Derbyshire, and others who
are here today—know that this is a critical issue to be addressed in Africa
today, particularly for the younger generation. I particularly ask that the
Department for International Development considers whether there is more that
it could do to support those dealing with this issue in the countries in which
we are spending UK aid.
The responsibility that Britain must take in tackling the ivory trade
cannot be ignored. The domestic market means that there is a transition point
in the UK for the trading of ivory, with import and re-export occurring.
Between 2009 and 2014, 40% of seizures by the UK Border Force were of ivory
items.
There has been some progress. I am pleased to see the Government’s
commitment to doubling their £13 million investment to tackle the illegal ivory
trade and the endeavour to train a British military anti-poaching force. Those
are bold and leading measures to tackle the problem, but more must be done. I
join other Members in asking the Government to take further steps to close the
ivory market, in order to rid Britain of the status of a transitionary market
for the trade of ivory, and to impose a near-total ivory ban.
In recent years, international collaboration has been very encouraging.
I welcome the announcements by the USA and China within the past year regarding
the banning of the ivory trade, and more recently the announcements by Hong
Kong and France. I urge the Government to join that international movement and
to recognise the urgency of action on the ivory trade. Without a near-total ban
on the ivory trade in the UK, we will neglect not only to counteract the rapid
decline of African elephants but to support the livelihoods of many people in
developing countries who have been crippled by the ivory market. It would
be to the shame of our country, and indeed our Government, if we lagged behind
other countries that are currently taking a lead on tackling this issue.
Community
Speedwatch Team meets MP and calls for more volunteers
Fiona Bruce MP has
met with John Doyle who volunteers with the Congleton Community Speedwatch
Team.
The
team are calling for more volunteers to take part. All participation is done on
an ad hoc basis and there no need to commit to a particular time or number of
hours.
The main cause of deaths and injuries on the road is
excessive speed and around 70% of drivers break the speed limit in residential
areas so schemes such as Speed Watch try to alter drivers’ attitudes and
behaviour towards speeding
Community Speed Watch volunteers are
trained in using hand held speed detection devices, paid for by the Council,
and then the speed of vehicles is monitored at nominated locations - determined
by the residents. If a vehicle is recorded as speeding their registration is
logged and then the logs are passed to the police.
Community Speedwatch
volunteer, John Doyle said
“Our main aim is to help motorists
remember that they are in a speed limited zone.”
The
local contact for the group is PCSO Jessica Shore and if people want to get
involved they should call the police non-emergency number 101 to express an
interest.
Fiona
Bruce MP supports farming community in Parliament post EU Referendum
The
All Party Parliamentary Group on Eggs, Pigs and Poultry recently held a
reception at the House of Commons, attended by a number of MPs who support the
farming sector including Fiona Bruce MP.
Chair
of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, Neil Parish MP
highlighted how the UK is in a position to agree new trade deals with countries
across the world following the decision to leave the EU and that the UK had a great
deal to offer.
Responding
Farming Minister George Eustice MP, who campaigned to leave the EU, was buoyant
about the farming and food produce sector, emphasising that it can innovate
well and adapt quickly to change and that he believed that there are
opportunities to seize new export markets beyond the EU going forward.
Fiona Bruce MP said “I
have asked a number of questions in Parliament recently on behalf of Cheshire
farmers since whatever happens with the UK going forward we must protect and support
our agricultural sector. Farmers are the backbone of our rural economy and we
cannot allow them to be short-changed. They deserve all our support, particularly
bearing in mind the high welfare standards and quality produce in the UK which
we can all be proud of, purchase and promote. ”
The
event also gave Fiona Bruce an opportunity to thank George Eustice for his
swift action to ensure that raisins, harvested before 2016, could still be used
in food products – including, importantly, this year’s Christmas puddings –
following a change in EU regulations. This intervention was vital to secure
continuing production at Congleton food producers Mornflake and MorFruit.
Fiona
Bruce MP attends Holmes Chapel Guide Dogs for the Blind Event
Fiona
Bruce MP attended an event at St Luke’s Church Hall in Holmes Chapel in support
of the Guide Dogs for the Blind and said“I am always happy to support an event by
guide Dogs for the Blind. This is such an excellent charity and the dogs they
train are an absolute lifeline for blind and partially sighted people. Having
been taken on a blindfold walk by one of their dogs I can say first-hand that
your life really is in their hands! I congratulate all volunteers for Guide
Dogs for the Blind on their commitment to such an important service.”
Fiona
Bruce MP celebrates announcement that BBC World Service will broadcast into
North Korea
Following
a long campaign Fiona Bruce MP, Co-Chair of the APPG on North Korea, celebrating
the news that the BBC World Service will extend its broadcast into North Korea.
Speaking on the
announcement Fiona Bruce said
“The news of a BBC World Service for the
people of North Korea is something I and other MPs in the All Party Parliamentary
Group concerned about Human Rights in North Korea have been campaigning on for
years. It is a hugely positive step, and a great win for all those who have
consistently campaigned for this. It is heartening that the BBC has listened to
these calls, after initially saying this was neither technically nor financially
possible. We had a number of meetings with them in Parliament explaining the
importance of breaking down what is called the information blockade in North
Korea so that the oppressed people of North Korea can hear from other media and
information sources rather than exclusively from their own dictatorial
leadership..”
North
Korea is considered the most persecuted country on earth; as documented in the
recent UN Commission of Inquiry chaired by Mr Justice Kirby – pressing for this
was an earlier successful campaign by this All Party Group - hundreds of
thousands of North Koreans are incarcerated today in concentration camps, many
for speaking even briefly in opposition to their government. Torture is routine
such as electrocuting people, summary execution, chemical experiments on people
and literally working people to death – North Korea’s lack of any regard for
human rights has been called sui generis – in a category of its own.
Fiona Bruce said“Many
people ask my why I campaign in Parliament for the freedom of the people in
North Korea. The answer is that they are far and away the most oppressed people
on earth in our generation with their treatment, from their own Government on a
parallel with the holocaust.”
The
BBC’s example of unfettered free speech, and the picture of an outside world,
which the BBC can broadcast to oppressed societies across the world is
unparalleled, as is respect for the BBC, and has had real impact in helping
societies move towards democracy.
Fiona Bruce said “As
we have heard from testimonies of those who lived in the Soviet Union, East
Germany, Romania and Burma – broadcasting into those countries - when they were
closed and people there living under oppressive leadership - from the BBC
encouraged and inspired millions during their darkest days to understand what a
free society looks like, and educated many for future leadership and prompted
brave individuals to challenge their dictatorial governments.
Over recent years
advancements in new technologies mean that increasingly the information
blockade in North Korea which has enabled the Government there to keep a
stranglehold on their people’s understanding and thought-processes is cracking
as evidenced in the book “How the information underground is transforming a closed
society” written by Jieun Baek, which I had the privilege of launching very
recently in the House of Commons – and broadcasting by the BBC has the
potential to make this crack a huge fissure – let us hope it is the beginning
of the end of over sixty years of suffering for the North Korean people.”
Housing
and Planning Minister responds to Congleton MP's request to strengthen influence
of Neighbourhood Plans in planning decisions
Yesterday
in the House of Commons, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Gavin
Barwell MP, responded to a strongly worded speech by Fiona Bruce MP when she pressed
the Government to accept the work put in by local residents, such as those in Brereton
and Sandbach in the Congleton Constituency, to create and agree Neighbourhood
Plans and to strengthen their impact in the Planning system.
The
full text of Fiona’s speech is below.
In response the Minister
said
“The National Planning Policy Framework already says
clearly that, where aplanning application conflicts with a Neighbourhood
Plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally
be granted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton pointed out, the issue
here is that, where a local planning authority does not have a five-year land
supply, that is not a normal circumstance and the presumption in favour of
development in some cases—not all—overrides Neighbourhood Plans.
In the Written Ministerial
Statement, I made it clear that from yesterday, where communities plan for
housing in their area in a Neighbourhood Plan, those plans should not be deemed
out of date unless there is a significant lack of land supply—that is, under
three years. That applies to all plans for the next two years, and for the
first two years of any plan that is put into place. That will give a degree of
protection that has not been available. The message needs to go out clearly
from this House that local authorities must get up-to-date plans in place to
provide that protection for Neighbourhood Plans. I hope that that reassures
people. As I said, I have written both to the Planning Inspectorate and to
local councils on that issue.”
Speaking after the announcement
Fiona Bruce said “I am pleased that Ministers have listened to
my constituents concerns, both as I expressed in the Chamber of the House of
Commons yesterday and in recent meetings on this issue which I have had with
the Housing and Planning Minister and that, in response, Ministers reviewed the
planning impact of Neighbourhood Plans with immediate effect. It remains to be
seen how this will improve decisions to more fairly reflect the work which has
been and is being put in to Neighbourhood Plans in the Congleton Constituency.
There is also the question, now to be considered, as to whether Judicial Review
of any decision already made by the Planning Inspectorate should be applied for
in light of the fact that these regulations have come to effect immediately,
and that any Judicial Review would therefore be judged in the light of them.”
It is imperative that
Ministers act to restore the confidence of my Congleton constituents in the
status of Neighbourhood Plans specifically and in Localismmore widely. My constituents consider that the status and
application of Neighbourhood Plans is confusing, contradictory, inconsistent
and unfair. The area has no Local Plan and no agreed five-year planned housing supply.
For years, local communities in my constituency have been bombarded with a
barrage of inappropriate planning applications by developers gobbling up green
spaces, including prime agricultural land, and putting pressure on local
schools, health services, roads and other services. It is essential that
Ministers take action to give Neighbourhood Plans the full weight in practice
that the Government say they have in theory. It is for that reason that
residents in my constituency have in some cases taken years to prepare Neighbourhood
Plans. I respect the Government’s good intentions, but they are not being
carried out.
The
Government Factsheet on the Bill states:
“Neighbourhood
Planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their
neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of their local area. For the
first time communities can produce plans that have real statutory weight in the
planning system.”
That
is the theory, but let me tell hon. Members about the practice. The parish of
Brereton was the first area in my constituency to produce a Neighbourhood Plan.
It is a rural farming area mainly—just 470 houses are dotted about it. It
developed a Neighbourhood Plan over many years, and it was voted in with a huge
96% majority vote on a 51% turnout. It is a very intelligent document. It has
no blanket objection to development, but does say that development should be
appropriate in scale, design and character of the rural area of Brereton, and
that it should not distort that character. It says that small groups of one or
two properties built over time would be appropriate, supporting the rural
economy and providing accommodation for those with local livelihoods, which seems
reasonable.
I
warmly welcomed the plan when it was produced and when it was adopted. However,
the Brereton example is one of several in which planning applications that are
contradictory to the best intentions of local residents have been approved by the
inspectorate. Brereton is a parish of 470 houses. Within the last month, one
development of no fewer than 190 houses has been allowed on appeal. Another
application for 49 houses is coming down the track. That is more than half the
size again of the parish.
Because
Brereton has very few facilities—for example, it does not have a doctors’
surgery—nearby Holmes Chapel will be pressurised further. That village already
has hundreds of recently built properties or properties for which permission
has been given. The health centre is full, the schools are under pressure and
traffic pressures render roads dangerous. Unlike Brereton, Holmes Chapel has
not yet completed its local Neighbourhood Plan, but people there are now asking
whether it is worth the time and effort of completing one.
The
position is the same in Goostrey, another nearby village that is in the process
of developing its Neighbourhood Plan. A resident and member of the Goostrey Parish
Council Neighbourhood Plan Team wrote to me. He says that such decisions are “demotivating
when it comes to creating Neighbourhood Plans, and that they make encouraging
people to get involved in the Goostrey plan much harder”—he refers not only to
the Brereton decision, but to the inconsistency of two recent decisionsdown the road in Sandbach, where one application for a
substantial housing development was dismissed based on the Neighbourhood Plan,
and another, cheek-by-jowl down the road, was approved with the Neighbourhood
Plan carrying little or no weight, even though there was no five-year housing
supply in both cases.
I
have been told by local residents that what really offended people in Brereton
was the fact that
“at
the public examination of the Brereton Neighbourhood Plan in November 2015 at
Sandbach Town Hall, the Examiner insisted our Plan and its policies were
sufficiently robust to counteract mass housing development and protect the
rural character of the Parish. He asserted publicly that Brereton, as a rural
Parish, did not have a responsibility to provide mass housing towards the wider
strategic housing target—yet, the Appeal Inspectorate essentially has argued
the complete opposite. Why are Government representatives involved in planning
matters holding completely opposing and inconsistent views?”
Another
resident in yet another Parish who has worked for almost two years with
neighbours to develop a Neighbourhood Plan area designation has now resigned
from the Steering Group, in what the constituent calls “total disillusionment”,
saying:
“I do
not understand how this decision is either fair or reasonable…I conclude that
the Neighbourhood Planning Process is a Government-sponsored confidence trick”.
Those
are strong words, but they express how many of my constituents feel. Another
said that
“there
seems little point in producing a Neighbourhood Plan if it is considered
irrelevant.”
That is what I am
saying. Time and again, our constituents are being encouraged to produce Neighbourhood
Plans. About two years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford
(Nick Boles), then a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local
Government, came at my invitation to Sandbach town hall to talk to residents
concerned about the barrage of applications by developers to build thousands of
houses across my constituency. He said that the way to protect our local
communities was by developing Neighbourhood Plans. That galvanised communities
such as those that I have mentioned into working towards Neighbourhood Plans.
As others have said, some residents have put hundreds of hours into doing so.
My hon. Friend
describes a situation that I am sure we all recognise well. In my experience,
many local communities engage positively with their neighbourhood and local
plans to identify the housing need in their area, and then plan accordingly.
Does she share my frustration, however, that because of the robust protections
afforded to the Bristol and Bath green belt to the north of my constituency,
despite my communities having made plans in Somerset, much of the former’s
housing demand is being displaced southwards, so we end up having to absorb
that as well, outwith our planning?
I do very much empathise
with my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Another
resident says that unless Neighbourhood Plans are given significant weight—that
is what I and many colleagues have asked the Minister to ensure—their community
“would
advise others not to put the time and effort into what is increasingly looking
like a futile and wasteful exercise”.
Another
resident pointed out that the Factsheet I referred to states, in response to
the question,
“should
a community produce a Neighbourhood Plan where the Local Plan may not be
up-to-date?”,
that
through
“a Neighbourhood
Plan, communities can have a real say about local development…and protect
important local green spaces”.
It
also states that
“the
NPPF is very clear that where a planning application conflicts with a Neighbourhood
Plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally
be granted (NPPF para. 198)”.
Contradictorily,
in the case of Brereton, the inspector’s report allowing the appeal for these
190 houses stated:
“Reference
was made to paragraph 198 of the Framework, which provides that where a
planning application conflicts with a Neighbourhood Plan (as in this case)”—
he
acknowledged that—
“that
has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be
granted”.
So
far, so good. It goes on to say:
“However,
the position is not ‘normal’ in that as NP policy HOU01 is clearly a relevant
policy for the supply of housing, and is in conformity with Local Plan policies
which are themselves out of date”—
meaning
there is no current Neighbourhood Plan—
“only
limited weight can be afforded to the policy”.
As my
residents are saying, it looks as though the Department is saying that
an application that conflicts with a Neighbourhood Plan would result in refusal
of a planning permission, even though a Local Plan is not up to date—that is in
the Factsheet—but the Planning Inspectorate is saying that a Neighbourhood
Plan can be given only limited weight for the very reason that the local plan
is out of date.
In
conclusion, I ask Ministers to clarify the weight—the actual weight—to be given
to made Neighbourhood Plans in the absence of a Local Plan, and also to provide
increased weight to a draft plan because of the stage it has reached. Many of
these communities that are now in the process of developing plans have become
disillusioned, as I said. There are many months still to go before their plans
can be finalised, and they want to know whether it is worth continuing.
Let
me finally ask if we could have a fairer methodology for calculating a
deliverable five-year land supply, because the head of planning strategy at
Cheshire East Council has confirmed to me:
“If
we could count all our current permissions, the Borough would have a 5-year
supply as things stand.”
But
things do not stand there because the problem arises from the fact that
developers do not build out. They are tardy, and they are deliberately tardy
because they simply want to get more and more permissions. They are, as
colleagues have said, gaming the system.
Fiona Bruce
MP seeks more support for Arthritis sufferers at meeting with Health Minister
Fiona Bruce MP
met with the Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State at the Department of Health, David Mowat, at the Minister’s invitation after her
speaking on the issue in the House of Commons, to consider the impacts of
arthritis and press for more Government action on this vital issue. Alongside Jim
Shannon MP and representatives from Arthritis UK, they discussed prompt
and decisive action which might be taken, so that people throughout the UK
might no longer be forced to suffer due to this crippling condition.
They
talked over a range of issues, three key points of which were:
1 - There should be an acceptance throughout the NHS
that Arthritis is a long term condition and monitored on a regular basis as
with other similar conditions
2 - NICE Guidelines on Osteoarthritis, which set out
model questions for GPs, to ask, should be applied nationally and not just in
certain postcode areas.
3 - The number of Occupational Therapy or Physiotherapy
sessions recommended by a GP for an OA patient should be expanded from just 1
or 2 to as many as 6
Fiona Bruce MP said
“Talking to constituents and hearing
their stories has really given me an insight into the terrible pain, isolation and fatigue
suffered by millions of people throughout the UK on a daily basis, caused by
this dreadful disease”.
In fact, around
one in seven people in the UK live with arthritis, and three in four people
with arthritis and joint pain, according to a survey carried out for Arthritis
Research UK, say pain stops them living life to the full.
Fiona
continued
“Arthritis has for too long found itself
at the bottom of the heap, as far as acknowledgement of medical conditions are
concerned, with treatment and care too often inadequate or inconsistent. I hope
that this meeting with the Department of Health might be a positive step on a
long, but significant, journey towards ensuring those with arthritis are given
the help they need”.
The meeting follows a Parliamentary debate on the 20th
October, which for the first time in five years sought to examine the impacts
of arthritis. The debate received a great amount of cross party support, with
numerous MPs bringing the issue to the fore. In this debate, Fiona powerfully
told the story of a constituent, Christine Walker, a long-time sufferer of arthritis and supporter of the charity
Arthritis UK, emphasising the need for the Government to take action on the
issue.
In response to hearing of Fiona’s meeting with the Minister,
Christine said
“I hope
that by exposing people to the terrible impacts of arthritis, they may start to
listen up and view arthritis as the serious condition it is, which must be
tackled. The Parliamentary debate was vital in this, and I am so pleased to
hear that Fiona and other MPs have met with a Minister. I look forward to hearing
about positive and decisive action which might result.”
