| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman, my parliamentary neighbour, is making a very cogent case for looking very carefully at projections. Does he agree that, if we over-provide, such over-provision--for any of the statistical reasons that he has enunciated--could become self-fulfilling?
Mr. Wills: Yes, I agree. That is one of the reasons why I am so worried about the apparent reliance on the figure.
It is clear from all the speeches in this debate that policies to implement the current figures will have a dramatic impact on this country. Surely there should be a more fully informed public debate on whether the people want their lives to be transformed in such a way.
Why cannot the Government produce a spread of scenarios based on realistic variations of key statistical factors, showing the impact of each scenario on the projected housing need and the resulting implications for the environment? With such a range of scenarios, we would be in a position to start making democratic decisions about whether we want to try to influence the key factors driving housing demand to produce a different outcome from the one we currently foresee. We are not helpless; there are all sorts of options. We have heard several in this debate--not least, encouraging the more efficient use of housing stock.
Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon):
Whether we can make better use of housing stock is a very important issue. The need for 33 per cent. of the 4.4 million homes is due to a change in behaviour, which would suggest that we could make greater use of conversion. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be looking at the tax
Mr. Wills:
I certainly agree. That is precisely the sort of measure that we need to factor into the figures to produce different scenarios for consideration by the people.
The Government have already signalled that they are prepared to make judgments and hard choices about the way in which people live for economic, social and health reasons. Should not we also be prepared to consider such action for environmental ones too? The election of the Government on 1 May revealed that people wanted to take their future back into their own hands. Now is the time for the Government to help them to do so over one of the most important issues facing the country. If we get this wrong, our children and our children's children will pay the price for generations.
A poet summed up the risk far better than I can--a man who contemplated Britain from his library in the town now represented in such a distinguished manner by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Philip Larkin wrote:
There would always be fields and farms.
For the first time I feel somehow
That it isn't going to last
That before I snuff it, the whole
Boiling will be bricked in
Except for the tourist parts
And that will be England gone:
The shadows, the meadows, the lanes,
The guildhalls, the carved choirs.
There'll be books; it will linger on
In galleries; but all that remains
For us will be concrete and tyres."
I urge the Government to heed his warning and look again at the figures.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere):
I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing a debate on this very important subject. He made a detailed speech about the statistics and analysis underlying the housing requirement. I do not propose to go too far down that route.
The hon. Member for Stroud will know that the previous Government received expert advice that there would be a growth in the number of households from 19.2 million to 23.6 million between 1991 and 2016. The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) cast some doubts on the statistics. It will be important for the Minister in his winding-up speech to say whether he agrees with the projection.
The figure is, of course, only a projection, which can always be revised. If it is revised downwards, we would all be pleased. None the less, the projection was
made on the basis of expert advice, so it is incumbent on the Minister to say clearly whether he accepts it or questions it in the way his Back Benchers have.
The previous Government received the expert advice from very good sources. I say to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that that advice was considered by the then Select Committee on the Environment, which did not question the projection. In fact, it said that there was a consensus among experts that the figure might be an underestimate.
When the Government receive such expert advice, they have to be responsible, act on it, and be open. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for his openness. He acted on the best advice available. For him, the question was not so much how many, but where. He set about planning in the most sustainable and environmentally friendly way. As the last Secretary of State for the Environment, he was a great friend of the environment. My speech will concentrate on the environment.
In meeting the housing requirement, it is vital that the planning system responds to the challenge and, if at all possible, steers development away from the green belt. I am very troubled, as a Member representing Hertfordshire, by the way in which the county and some borough authorities have responded to the planning process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, Hertfordshire county council has allocated for development 1,000 acres of green belt between Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage. That is of great concern throughout Hertfordshire. As the House will know, the green belt in Hertfordshire and the south-east generally is an extremely sensitive issue.
Ms Drown:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an incentive to build on green-field sites, since the cost of them--if one can get hold of them--is often much less than that of brown-field sites? Did the previous Government ever think about doing something about that?
Mr. Clappison:
As the House has already heard, the previous Government signalled to developers that they should try to avoid green belt sites. The House has also heard how very difficult it was to get permission for green belt sites from the previous Government. Indeed, the Opposition are a little troubled that the present Government have already given permission for a significant green belt development in Birmingham.
I return to the issue of Hertfordshire, which is important to me as a Member representing the county. I am concerned about not only the county development but the borough development in my constituency. My local authority first responded to its requirement of 4,600 new homes by issuing a draft local plan that identified three green belt sites. One was a particularly sensitive part of my constituency in Borehamwood--land known as Woodcock Hill north of Barnet lane in Borehamwood--where there are very strong green belt reasons for not allowing development to take place.
There was a significant campaign against development on the site in my constituency. I pay tribute to the Elstree and Borehamwood Green Belt Society and the Woodcock Hill Open Spaces Forever--WHOSE--campaign. They have persuaded the local authority to think again and, in the latest version of the draft local plan, part of the site has been removed--although I regret that part of it is still to be built on.
Unhappily, my local authority is now planning to build on another six green belt sites--building into the open countryside in some cases--against strong green belt considerations, in places such as Cherry Tree lane in Potters Bar and Watford road in Radlett, affecting the village character of Radlett and the green open spaces around Potters Bar. We value our green open spaces in Hertsmere. As hon. Members who have travelled through the area know, it contains the first green spaces on routes out of London.
The issues that I have raised are the responsibility of the local planning authority. Like many others, I have made my representations to it. I want the Government to give a strong signal to the planners, who are deciding how the housing requirement will be met. It is incumbent on the Government to send a clear signal that the green belt needs very strong protection.
I should like a strong restatement from the Minister of the importance of the green belt. One or two recent Government statements, made under the pressure of debate or radio interviews, have not put as strong an emphasis on green belt protection as they might have done. We know that appearing on the "Today" programme can put one under pressure. However, the Minister said in an interview on that programme that the green belt was
We also need a commitment from the Government to consider the targets for brown-field development. We have heard about the targets set by the previous Government. In 1995 we set a target of half of all new development taking place on brown-field land. We thought that that needed to be looked at again and revised upwards. We were considering moving up to 60 per cent. The Minister knows that we received good advice from the Council for the Protection of Rural England and from the Round Table on Sustainable Development that as much as 75 per cent. could be achieved.
"I thought it would last my time
The sense that, beyond the town,
11.54 am
"up for grabs in the sense that it is always up for grabs. There are planning guidances to say that you can build on green belt in certain circumstances."
The Minister was a little modest in stating the protection that Government policy affords the green belt. Under the previous Government, green belt policy was embodied in planning policy guidance 2, which says not simply that the green belt can be built on in certain circumstances, but:
"There is a presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt unless very special circumstances exist which outweigh the harm caused by the development. Proposals in draft plans that would result in releasing land from the green belt must be fully justified. The Government are committed to protecting the green belt and encourage the recycling of land in urban areas wherever possible to meet development needs."
We need a robust re-statement from the Minister of the importance of the green belt.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |