| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Sanders: Is not the problem that brown-field sites tend to be where people are migrating from and green-field sites are in the parts of the country to which people are migrating? That is true nationally and in Devon, where the brown-field sites are in Plymouth.
People do not want to move to Plymouth, however, and the green-field sites are in the county, which is where people want to live.
Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is being a little over-simplistic, but there is a problem of mismatch as he describes.
Let us judge the Government on their stated target. The problem is that rhetoric and reality have parted company. The Government's performance in respect of brown-field sites is still limping along on a figure of 53 per cent. That is not so much urban renaissance as a new dark age, with concrete being poured indiscriminately.
What has become of the draft consultation version of PPG3? The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), said on 3 February that it would be with us shortly. He is stretching the word "shortly" a little, but no doubt he will tell us when we will see it. What has happened to Lord Rogers and his task force? I am delighted to learn that they visited Stroud, and no doubt there have been other sightings of them; but when will they produce something with which we can grapple?
We hear a great deal about a "sequential" approach to planning, but that in itself may cause delays and problems. The Under-Secretary may be aware of a study published recently by the Civic Trust and the House-Builders Federation, which focused on 54 potential brown-field sites identified as long ago as 1986. The study discovered that only 39 sites--72 per cent.--had been developed at all in the intervening time, and that only 29, or 54 per cent., had been developed for housing on either all or part of a site. It concluded:
Mr. Nicholls:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
The Under-Secretary may also have seen "An Urban and Rural Renaissance", an excellent document produced by Shelter. According to the document,
In his remarkable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made an excellent point: he said that there should be an incentive for developers to build in towns,
and a disincentive for them to build in rural areas. I could not agree more; how sad that the Government, in the shape of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ducked the issue only yesterday.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary has noted, and will comment on, an excellent proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). My hon. Friend has suggested a system of tradeable tokens, whereby a developer who built a home on a previously developed site--a brown-field site--would be awarded a token and, as well as obtaining planning consent, those wishing to build on green-field sites would be required to produce two such tokens before they could do so. That would easily, and with minimal administration and costs, deliver the two-thirds target to which Conservative Members currently aspire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford):
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate, and on his persistence; he has raised this issue before. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) observed, his was a remarkable speech, in which he made a number of valid points with which I wholeheartedly agree. He produced a passionate defence of the case for building in cities and regenerating them for the urban renaissance, and for the use of brown-field sites. I entirely agree with him, and hope to say more shortly about what the Government are doing in that regard.
However, the hon. Gentleman showed a certain Jekyll and Hyde tendency, which was most obvious when he delivered what was probably the most emphatic endorsement of NIMBYism that I have ever heard in the House. I do not think that I have previously heard anyone describe "not in my back yard" as a good principle. I believe that I have quoted the hon. Gentleman correctly. He also slightly glossed over his own career pattern, which rather contradicts the course that he has urged on us. He wants us to ensure that there is no move towards green-field building, and to concentrate on brown-field sites. He forgets, however, that, as a former MP for a brown-field constituency in Liverpool, he has gone in exactly the opposite direction--to the green fields of Devon.
Mr. Steen:
Regrettably, the boundary commissioners completely destroyed my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree. Every one of my five wards went into a new constituency, which is now run by the Labour party. I would have stayed in Liverpool had I had that chance.
Mr. Raynsford:
I am tempted to say that I hope the hon. Gentleman will have an encounter with the boundary commission in the near future that will enable him to renew his acquaintance with brown-field constituents.
I am afraid that, in a number of respects, the hon. Gentleman did not fully recognise the extent of the changed agenda that the Government are already introducing, which is making a significant difference. I shall give the figures, but, for the moment, suffice it to say that Devon is a very good example of the flexibility of our new system--which, by the way, is "plan, monitor and manage": the word "monitor" got left out. It is working far better than the old predict-and-provide approach that characterised the last Government.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was no scope for local authorities to trade housing targets or housing levels. There is, and the new system provides a very good framework. The hon. Gentleman has a particular problem with the household projections. He also has a problem with how the housing situation in Devon could be better managed. I shall take each point in turn. As he knows, we have changed our approach to establishing housing numbers. Our new draft PPG11--which was entirely misunderstood by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)--sets out our proposals for improving the preparation and content of regional planning guidance. It represents an important step in the modernisation of the planning system, and reflects our commitment to decentralised decision making and integrated policy making to achieve sustainable solutions.
The new arrangements give more responsibility to local authorities, through regional planning conferences, in the preparation of regional planning strategies. They should lead to increased regional ownership of the policies, and increased commitment to their delivery. Instead of the Government, the regional planning body will be responsible for preparation of the draft regional strategy, which will include proposing the amount of additional housing that will be needed in the plan period.
"The Government's target of 60 per cent. of new homes to be built on recycled or brownfield land will not be realised unless action is taken to learn from past failings and the process is improved and strengthened".
The study helpfully lists a series of problems that arose in many of the case studies. It mentions the problem of contaminated land, and what it describes as
"a lack of flexibility, creativity, technical and market knowledge in some local authorities",
which, it says, can
"hinder . . . public/private partnerships".
The whole question of land assembly is often crucial to such developments. It is not a happy story.
"Current planning and housing policies are failing to ensure the provision of sufficient affordable housing".
Shelter makes clear just how many improvements in the planning system are needed to deal with the problems. All too often, that system fails us in terms of the identification and use of brown-field sites. Such studies are important, and worrying.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |