I am delighted to be able to raise a matter that pertains specifically to my Constituency. It concerns the way in which the Department of the Environment's planning appeals mechanism works in practice—which, to local residents, seems beyond belief.

Last year, a planning application in the name of Mr. I. J. Reed to run an amusement centre at 60 High road, Willesden, was refused by Brent council. Mr. Reed appealed to the Department of the Environment, and the appeal was heard on 4 April 1991. CETRA—the local residents' association, which is very strong and has the support and respect of all the local political parties—objected to the application on the grounds that the centre would add nothing to the environment or to shopping facilities, and that both the Willesden green plan and the unitary development plan discouraged such use in a primary shopping area.

On 31 May, the Department issued its findings—that such use would be allowed, on certain conditions. Mr. Reed stated that no person under the age of 18 would be admitted, although that condition had not been laid down by the Department. The premises now need a licence, issued by a Brent council sub-committee, and CETRA has submitted an objection to the issuing of a licence.

CETRA must show that Mr. Reed's other amusement centres are not complying with the conditions of planning permission and/or licensing regulations. His other premises are in Harlesden and Burnt Oak: he also has an appeal under way in regard to premises that he wishes to open at 10 Bank buildings, Harlesden.

At the inquiry, the Government and Mr. Reed seemed to be on the same side, as the inspector's report shows. According to paragraph 5, on behalf of Mr. Reed, it was contended that a range of complementary services are necessary to support the shopping attractions, and these can positively contribute to the vitality of shopping centres. Such uses include financial and professional services, cafes and restaurants and, increasingly, amusement centres. This view is in accordance with the advice contained in …Circular 13/87". Many of my constituents have still to be persuaded of the benefits that an amusement centre brings: certainly, those benefits cannot be classified in the same category as professional services, cafes and restaurants.

In quite a fair account, the report also gives the views of the council and the residents, who were in agreement: The Council considered that an amusement centre would be disruptive rather than complementary to the shopping centre. This was also the view expressed in most of the letters of representations. If there is an underlying ideology for the inspector's decision, it appears in paragraph 8, where he states: The centre would offer an opportunity for leisure and recreation for shoppers in the same way as a cafe or restaurant, providing a complementary function. I hope that the inspector will pop along to Willesden high road to see many harassed shoppers pausing to spend a few bob in the local amusement arcade before staggering backwards and forwards with their shopping in an area that is poorly served by public transport and that suffers from the most appalling congestion. Most people simply want to get in and out of the area as rapidly as possible and complete their purchases. I do not think that many people set out from the Willesden green area to spend a delightful half hour on the machines before flogging their way around Gateway supermarket. Perhaps the inspector does not do his own shopping.

The public's perception is contrary to that rather remarkable view. The reputation of amusement arcades is not such that they are an equivalent addition to the amenities of an area's financial services or restaurants. In many areas—I am not saying that this will inevitably happen with this proposed arcade—amusement arcades lead to a concentration of prostitution, where young people make their bodies available to people who are attracted in the knowledge that that service is freely available. In many arcades, drugs are distributed and they are constantly under surveillance by the police and are a constant source of problems to them. In addition, they tend to act as a magnet for local petty criminals. That is why all the schools in the area object to the arcade. In other areas of the country, the last thing that a local school wants is for an amusement arcade to open in the vicinity.

Uniquely on Brent council, all the political parties agreed. They unanimously rejected the application, as they have rejected several others in the past decade. To get the Conservative party, Liberal Democrats and the Labour party in Brent to agree on anything, other than that they do not like my criticisms of the council, is almost unique.

Such unanimity should count for something. The council's planning officer says that in his recollection the Department of the Environment has not refused an appeal against the council's dismissal of a planning application for an amusement centre in the past 10 years, with the result that six now operate in the borough. Some people would include the town hall and make it seven, but one does not have to pay to get in there.

The position is quite remarkable. The Government created the poll tax to improve local accountability, but they will not let a local authority decide whether a shop should he used as an amusement centre. One wonders what earthly point there is in having a remaining form of local government if it cannot be trusted to make a decision based on its intimate knowledge of the locality. The political unanimity resulted from that local knowledge, which is shared by all members of the local authority.

The Government have rightly made strict rules on the need to consult residents when councils draw up planning policy and district plans. The unitary district plan currently being drawn up by Brent firmly rejects amusement centres in primary shopping areas. Many local people at meetings that I have attended have said, "Why bother? What is the point of trying to mobilise arguments, of persuading the council and of trying to persuade the inspector when the Government decide to override the local authority?"

After discussion, the local residents' group, CETRA, has advanced what it thinks—I share its view—is a much more sensible approach, certainly to relatively small planning applications such as this. The Chapel End Tenants' and Residents' Association said: Would it not be possible for appeals to the DOE to be restricted in the same sense as an appeal in a criminal case would be, ie further evidence has to have come to light, or there has to be evidence of 'jury nobbling', or misdirection by the judge …planning applicants should not be able to go to appeal just because they don't like the verdict; if they can show that they were prejudiced against in some way, or the Officers withheld vital information from Councillors then that of course would he a different matter. There should also he an appeal system for us as the system is loaded against us at the moment. If Councillors have been 'nobbled' and approve a Planning Application that is contrary to the wishes of the Majority of people, we really have no right of redress. In certain cases we may be able to go to the Ombudsman but generally we don't have the same right to have the application heard again in front of an independent third party. That is a sensible approach when dealing with small and much less controversial planning decisions. I well understand that Secretaries of State find difficulty in calling in vast planning applications involving the South Bank or controversial matters that consume the interest of the nation. As one can see from the absence from the debate of most hon. Members, this issue does not consume the interest of the nation. If it did, the Chamber would be full. It is nonsense that these decisions are considered at this level of government rather than being left to local authorities.

The residents now can object only to the licence being granted on the narrow grounds that the person concerned is unfit to hold such a licence or the premises are unsuitable. Unless the residents operate their own policing system, they will find it difficult to investigate an applicant's suitability.

This brings me to a side issue which I raised in another Adjournment Debate—use orders. The residents state: Willesden High Road is full of premises with A3 use—every other shop seems to be a restaurant of some sort. Kilburn is now packed with what are ostensibly pubs but by my definition are nightclubs and the trend is working its way down Willesden Lane. We already have one pub in Willesden where no planning permission was needed …because it was previously two restaurants. Two premises may be knocked together and a pub may appear without local residents being able to object. The pub to which I referred has now applied for a licence until midnight, 7 days a week. As people are not queueing up to buy shops in the High Road, I"— CETRA—

predict that a number of them will become pubs/wine bars within the next year or so. The Government are still pondering the review of the A3 use group as the system is obviously not working. I hope that it will not he long before the report is published and there are further restrictions.

More pubs, wine bars and amusement arcades will mean the death of what is still a central shopping facility for a local, family community. Willesden high road has been badly affected by the recession over the past few years. One shop after another is closing. Often people purveying alcohol or running amusement arcades seem to be the only ones interested in opening in the face of the recession.

The area has suffered from the general rundown in grants to the local authority. It needs much spent on it to enable it to improve and to attract new jobs, yet traffic remains congested. The contemptuous way in which London Transport has ignored local residents and introduced one-person bus operation means that the street tends to be congested, with buses often causing long delays as people try to get on and the operator issues tickets, answers questions and so on. The area is declining. The last thing it needed was the Government saying, "Here comes the amusement arcade." That is another nail in the coffin and will be seen as such by every local trader. It is an unhelpful sign for a shopping precinct that is struggling to survive in the midst of a grim recession.

I conclude by raising an issue that I raised earlier: what is local government's role if we cannot trust local councillors to take such decisions? No one would deny that there must be a system of inspectors hearing appeals to prevent a completely unrepresentative, or even corrupt, clique operating a council's planning system for personal advantage. Generally, one thinks of the fraud squad dealing with such circumstances.

The idea of an inspector overturning local political opinion, the opinion of local residents and of local schools leads one to ask the fair question, would the inspector, Mr. Geoffrey Hill, want an arcade in his street? I strongly suspect that the answer would be, no. I suspect that if he were told that an amusement arcade was to be opened near where he lived, he would be one of the first to object to the local planning committee and to mobilise support against the idea. He would be right to do so because it would damage his area and would probably reduce property prices.

I strongly suspect that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), would not like one next door to his property any more than I would. If we do not want them next door to us or in our local shopping centres, why do we operate a nonsensical system which overrides all local opinion and which means that Big Brother Government decide that people must live with them, whether or not they want to do so? That is not a sensible planning system.

The Government should take on board the quotation that I read from CETRA. They should consider whether they operate the best system for conducting such appeals, a system that can be properly understood only by local people and in which local opinion should be paramount.