Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Supplementary Memorandum from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (EST 98C)

During the course of the Select Committee's hearing on the 23 June 1998, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions officials undertook to provide the Committee with further information on a number of points raised by Members

ELAND HOUSE, ASHDOWN HOUSE AND GREAT MINSTER HOUSE

The Committee asked for further information on:

(i)  the cost of rectifying faults and flood damage, in the Department's new buildings; and

(ii)  an indication of the Department's position in contesting responsibility for rectifying such faults.

  1. The Department suffered water leaks in Eland House in April and May of 1997 which caused the building to be partially evacuated. There were a series of events which led to the water leaking onto a number of floors and into the risers, affecting electrical plant and equipment. At the time part of the building was the responsibility of the fit out contractor (Mowlems) and part was the responsibility of the Department as occupier. The landlord (Land Securities) had used the same contractor (Mowlems) for the main building works but under a separate contract. The lease limits the landlord's liability to rectification of defects costing over £50k. Estimates of costs to be recovered range from repairing the defecting plumbing part (which is a small figure, far less than the £50k limit) to a comprehensive list of actions and costs, including compensation, with a figure in the order of £1 million.

  2. The precise nature of the events which took place, cause and effect, has been the subject of several investigations. Responsibility and liability are disputed between the parties. The matter is now in the hands of our legal advisers and PACE acting for the Department. It would be inappropriate to comment further on the detail because this is the subject of legal investigations and correspondence which will be followed by legal action in the courts if the matter (including recovery of cost) is not resolved to the Department's satisfaction.

  3. Lambert Smith and Hampton, PACE's Managing Agents for Eland and Ashdown House, have been asked to appoint a trouble shooter to review all outstanding works required to enable the building to run properly and to prepare a comprehensive, fast track programme. That will include putting right defective plant and equipment. Costs will be recovered, where appropriate, from one or more of the parties responsible for the original work.

ORDNANCE SURVEY

The Committee asked for clarification of the figures presented on page 143 of the Annual Report, with reference to Exchequer assistance to Ordnance Survey in 1998-99.

  4. The figure in the Annual Report of £3.8 million is the correct figure for exchequer funding for Ordnance Survey for the current year. However of that amount £1.4 million is ring fenced for early retirement which is why the figure of £2.4 million was quoted.

EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND

The Committee asked for a revised version of the map, Figure 5.k on page 37 of the Annual Report.

  5. A revised version of this map is attached showing more clearly the distinction between Objective 2 and Objective 5b areas.

RURAL TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FUND

The Committee asked for clarification on the relationship between the allocations to the Rural Transport Development Fund in figure 6.a, and allocations to Countrywide Action in figure 6.e. (DETR Annual Report 1998)

  6. The Rural Transport Development Fund (RTDF) was previously administered by the Rural Development Commission (RDC) on behalf of the former Department of Transport, with central government funding provided through Class V, Vote 5 (Roads and Local Transport). With the formation of DETR the RTDF budget has been transferred to the Countryside and Wildlife Vote (Class VI, Vote 1), with effect from April 1998. The RDC continues to administer the RTDF as part of its Countrywide Action programme. This change is reflected in Figure 6.e (page 47) of the Report where the 1998-99 planned expenditure figures of £7.6 million for countryside action comprises £1.6 million for the RTDF plus £6.0 million for the RDC's other Countrywide Action schemes.

  7. It was announced in the Chancellor's Budget Statement (just as the Report was going to the printers) that a further £4.2 million would be made available for community-based rural transport initiatives. This sum was added to the 1998-99 RTDF figure of £1.6 million, hence the plan figure of £5.8 million shown in Figure 6.a (page 44).

  8. At the time that the Report went to print, the means of administering the additional rural transport money had not been finalised. The additional £4.2 million was not, therefore, included with the RDC's expenditure plans in Figure 6.e. It has subsequently been decided that the RDC will administer this budget in 1998-99. The RDC's total Countrywide Action budget for 1998-99 is therefore £11.8 million (i.e., comprising the £7.6 million shown in Figure 6.e, plus the additional £4.2 million).

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee asked for a table showing the breakdown of research allocations across the Department.

  9. Two tables showing the research allocations to Environment and Transport are attached. These tables can also be accessed via the Department's Website under Research, Opportunities for Research and Development.

PLANNING

  10. Further to the evidence provided regarding Planning Policy Guidance (paragraphs 96-99 of the transcript), the Committee may find it helpful to have some further information on which PPGs may be revised.

  11. The Sub-Committee asked officials to comment on the fact that few Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) had been revised in 1997-98 despite the altered priorities of the Department. The Sub-Committee also asked whether it was intended to make revisions to PPGs following the publication of the White Paper on Integrated Transport.

  12. Sir Andrew Turnbull confirmed that apart from PPG12, where draft revisions were published in March 1998, no changes to PPGs had come forward in 1997-98. This is correct, however, following a review of the planning system, the Government published the policy statement "Modernising Planning" in January 1998 and a White Paper on planning for household growth "Planning for the Communities of the Future" in February 1998. And it is intended to revise a number of PPGs and Mineral Planning Guidance (MPG) notes in the light of these statements. Others may need revision as part of the follow up to the forthcoming White Paper on Integrated Transport. The Department also published a consultation on "The Future of Regional Planning" in January 1998, which, inter alia, proposed that a new PPG be produced on regional planning matters.

  13. During 1998-99 it is hoped to publish draft revises of the following PPGs and MPGs:

Planning Policy Guidance Notes

PPG3—Housing—draft for consultation Summer 1998

PPG11—(new) Regional Planning—draft for consultation Autumn 1998

PPG10—Waste Management (part of old PPG23)—finalised revision Summer 1998

PPG12—Development Plans—consolidated draft for consultation Autumn 1998

PPG13—Transport—draft for consultation by end 1998

Minerals Planning Guidance Notes

MPG2—applications and conditions—finalised revision Summer 1998

MPG3—coal—draft for consultation Autumn 1998

MPG16 (new)—stability in surface minerals working and tips—draft for consultation Summer 1998

TABLE 1
Planned DETR Expenditure on Environmental Science & Technology (£ million)
	Provision	Plan	Plan
Research Area	1997-98	1998-99	1999-00
Air Quality	9.7	9.7	9.7
Global Atmosphere	13.56	13.56	13.56
Radioactive Substances	0.88	0.88	0.88
Water and Contaminated Land	3.5	3.5	3.5
Chemicals and Biotechnology	3.0	3.0	3.0
Noise	0.45	0.45	0.45
Environmental Policy Analysis	0.45	0.45	0.45
Waste Policy	0.25	0.25	0.25
Planning & Minerals	3.7	3.7	3.6
Countryside	1.3	1.4	1.4
Darwin Initiative	3.0	3.0	3.0
Local Government	0.82	0.8	0.8
Housing and Regeneration	6.5	6.5	6.5
Construction	22.9	22.0	22.0
Environment Technology ETBPP & ETIS	0.25	0.25	0.25
Energy Efficiency	2.0	3.0	3.0
Administration	3.2	3.2	3.2
Total Research & Development	75.5	77.3	77.2
Transfer Technology
Construction	0.5	0.5	0.5
Environment Technology ETBPP & ETIS	2.5	2.5	2.5
Energy Efficiency	15.0	15.0	15.0
Total Science & Technology	93.3	95.1	95.0
TABLE 2
Planned DETR Expenditure on Transport Science & Technology (£ million)
	Estimated outturn	Plan	Plan
Research Area	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99
Land Transport	18.9	18.1	18.8
Road Safety	4.0	4.3	4.5
Vehicle Standards and Engineering	6.0	5.9	6.2
Urban and local Transport	4.9	4.8	4.8
National Roads Policy	2.1	1.2	1.3
Cross-cutting/central programmes	1.7	1.9	2.0
Civil Aviation Services	0.6	0.7	0.4
Transport Security	1.7	1.7	1.7
Highways Agency	12.2	12.8	13.2
Coastguard Agency	0.7	0.7	0.7
Marine Safety Agency	0.7	0.4	0.4
Administration	3.4	3.4	3.4
Total Research and Development	38.1	37.9	38.5

---

---

Prepared 17 August 1998