(Eastleigh) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a presumption
in planning decision-making against approving quarry development
in close proximity to settlements; to require the risks of
proposed quarrying sites to the environment and to public health
to be assessed as part of the planning process; to provide that
the decision on a planning application for quarry development may
only be made by the Secretary of State; and for connected
purposes.
Let me start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Warwick and
Leamington (), who submitted a similar
Bill in December 2021. In that Bill, he raised the difficulty
that local people experience in resisting planning applications
that are favourable to the planning authority and to big
businesses that do not have a stake in the local area of concern.
That is what I will focus on today.
The unique geography of Eastleigh is both a blessing and a curse,
with the rivers Itchen and Hamble flanking the boundaries and
with access to the southern tip of the constituency and the
village of Hamble limited to a single arterial road, the B3397,
called Hamble Lane. Since 2013 an area of green space, the old
Hamble airfield—a former RAF airfield—has been allocated under
Hampshire County Council’s mineral and waste
plan as a potential quarry site for aggregate. Over the past
year, local residents and I have been resisting a planning
application by the company Cemex to open a quarry for the
extraction of 1.7 million tonnes of gravel by dozens of heavy
goods vehicles along that single arterial route.
What has struck me, and my constituents, is the stark inadequacy
of the planning process surrounding quarries, along with the
favourable advantage for companies versus the voices of local
people, and the fact that planning responses are not suited to
addressing the scale of the environmental and health horrors that
such quarries can bring, particularly when built so close to
schools, health centres and villages. Let me therefore set out in
very simple terms what the Bill seeks to achieve, using the
context of my constituency to explain why I believe that this
change is needed.
First, I believe it is necessary to amend planning regulations to
change the presumption in planning decision making to being
against approving quarry development close to local amenities,
schools and settlements. I was shocked to learn that the planning
application tabled by Cemex had been lodged with a request for a
quarry only 70 metres from residential properties and 100 metres
from local secondary and primary schools. Furthermore, the
village infrastructure in Hamble is already woefully overloaded
and subject to a large amount of congestion outside normal
rush-hour traffic.
During this whole sorry saga, the way in which Cemex has
consulted the people of Hamble has been shameful. It has
committed itself to the bare minimum of what is required during a
planning consultation, and has provided highways responses based
on outdated traffic data completed before the covid-19 pandemic.
I consider that an industrial quarry such as this—which gives
rise to various potential health concerns that I shall mention
later—should not have been looked on favourably by a local
authority, given that it is so close to existing settlements, GP
surgeries and schools, as well as a small village. Health
professionals, local businesses, schools and more than 2,000
local people have objected to the proposal, but have been
dismissed and ignored, despite the valid concerns that all of
them have raised, with poor responses to their factual findings
and to their own measured consultation responses.
The second issue, which is even more concerning to me, is the
lack of evidence and the lack of scrutiny on the part of the
highways authority about the risks of the proposal. When the
development is up and running, 144 lorries per day will be using
an already crumbling arterial route that has suffered chronic
under-investment while the building of housing and other
developments has been allowed to continue unchecked. That is why
I believe there is merit in my second proposal, which is to
remove the decision-making power on quarry applications from
local authorities and transfer them to the Secretary of State.
Such a change would ensure that the consultation and scrutiny
applied to such applications would be treated more seriously, and
would involve proper community consultation.
The latest highways data on this application has not relied on
physical road assessments since 2017, against the recommendations
of Hampshire County
Council but the application has been allowed to
continue with a highways authority response that fails to take
that into account. Areas such as Warsash, Sarisbury, Hamble and
Bursledon will be affected by the excess traffic. I also struggle
to justify to residents that the decision maker on this
application is the authority that allocated the site in its
minerals and waste plan in the first place. This is why all
future applications should be decided by the Secretary of State
and planning inspector.
The third proposal of my Bill is, to me, the most important. It
relates to the health and environmental impact of quarries close
to settlements. My Bill would impose a requirement that the risks
of proposed quarrying sites be assessed as part of the planning
process. Aside from the risks to road safety and access to and
from local schools for young people, this proposal will directly
harm the many small businesses in Hamble that rely on tourism and
local investment. I believe that the proposal represents a
material risk to the health of the local population through
possible contamination and water run-off into the River Hamble,
but I am especially concerned about air quality and the
scientific facts around airborne particles known as silica that
are created by quarrying. Scientific evidence has proved that
quarrying creates dust that pollutes the air around the areas of
operation.
Air quality has long been talked about as an issue. Since 1956,
Governments have openly been aware of, and legislated on, air
pollution and addressed the shocking risks to human health at the
time. Governments and politicians are actively talking about air
pollution and the effects on human health. As the hon. Member for
Warwick and Leamington has pointed out, on air toxicity, the
Environmental Working Group, a US-based body specialising in
research and advocacy, has already stated that
“ none of the air quality standards for silica are adequate to
protect people living or working near sand mining sites. The
danger of airborne silica is especially acute for children…Silica
air pollution has become a danger for residents near open sand
mining and processing. Children, older adults, and others with
existing disease are especially at risk.”
As a result, the group has concerns for any resident living
within 1,500 metres of an excavation site, where air pollution
can be 10 times higher than the recommended limit. This proposed
site is 70 metres from existing settlements, and therefore much
closer than those outlined by the group as being at risk.
I feel the need to point out that I am not against quarries in
principle, and this Bill does not seek to ban or stop the
development of quarries, which are much needed for building the
homes that we need across the country. However, I feel that the
planning system is now woefully out of date. My constituents in
Hamble, and in the wider Hamble valley, feel like they are
banging their heads against a brick wall. The Government have
previously made a great case, with which I strongly agree, that
local people should have a deciding say in the development of
their local area. They have raised their concerns, and I believe
that it therefore falls to the Secretary of State to make these
consequential decisions on whether to permit the establishment of
quarries in areas close to settlements.
I would like to close by thanking my constituents, particularly
the Hamble Peninsular Residents Group and Hamble Parish Council,
for organising meetings and responses to the consultation run
by Hampshire County
Council and for the overwhelming campaign that
those organisations have run. I would also like to thank my
colleagues who are supporting the Bill today, and in particular
the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, who introduced this
Bill a year ago. I am proud to promote this Bill and I hope that
it will be one step further towards protecting the health and
wellbeing of local residents up and down the country against
ignorant planning systems that do not align with local democratic
wishes or recognise the health risks as we understand them
today.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
This is the opportunity for anybody who wishes to oppose the
10-minute rule motion to indicate that they wish to do so. I have
had no notification of any opposition and I see none, so I shall
pose the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That , , , , , , , and present the Bill.
accordingly presented the
Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24
March, and to be printed (Bill 268).
