| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now turn to the next debate.
Housing (Gloucestershire)
1 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury): I am pleased to be able to introduce today's debate on housing projections for Gloucestershire, a subject that has occupied much of my time since I was elected almost two years ago. My postbag contains many letters from constituents who are concerned about protecting not only the villages and the areas where they live, but the entire county. They are not NIMBYs, but are genuinely concerned about ensuring that we pass on to our children at least some, and preferably most, of the beautiful countryside that we have inherited. We had the privilege of inheriting the countryside and we have no right to deny future generations such enjoyment and quality of life.
Let me make it clear at the outset that, in line with most Adjournment debates, I do not intend to make today's debate party political. I am not interested in scoring political points by arguing about which party wishes to build fewest houses or can boast the largest area of green belt. However, I shall first highlight some of the contradictions between the policies espoused by the Government and their actions and those of their inspector in respect of Gloucestershire. Secondly, I shall describe the nonsensical process that still occupies Gloucestershire county council and the inspector in attempting to agree a structure plan; and thirdly, I shall describe the effect that building a large number of houses in Gloucestershire will have on the environment and the countryside there.
I shall start with the contradictions. On 3 February this year, the Government tabled an amendment to a motion in the House. It was in the name of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Government emphasised their determination to protect the countryside and spoke of
The Government amendment also spoke of
Paragraph 63 of the Government's draft planning policy guidance, PPG3, states:
Furthermore, in the Government amendment and inthe new PPG3, the Government spoke of promoting development in existing towns and cities and building
60 per cent. of future houses on brown-field land, but what happens in areas with very little brown-field land such as Gloucestershire? Do the Government then approve building on green-belt land, on green fields and in the open countryside? What are the Government's policies in those cases? I would suggest that more clarification is needed. So too is a reappraisal by the Government inspector following his EIP report in Gloucestershire.
Gloucestershire county council's structure plan proposed building 50,000 houses by 2011. That meant 9,100 new houses in my Tewkesbury constituency. The Government inspector considered the structure plan and then--some would say led by developers--proposed 55,000 houses for the county. Due to his muddled thinking, that would mean 12,000 extra houses in Tewkesbury. How can that increase be justified? How can it be right when the area has so few brown-field sites? In writing his report, was the inspector--and the Government office for the south-west--not aware of the imminent publication of the revised household projections, which suggested that the south-west will require 49,000 fewer houses than was originally predicted? If so, why did he then propose 5,000 more houses for Gloucestershire?
The county wanted 50,000 houses, the inspector wanted 55,000 and the county council is considering the matter further. It has already put 100 modifications to the structure plan to public consultation and has suggested to the public that 53,000 is the right figure. I heard this morning that that figure is being amended to 50,000. What a complete farce. The problem is that despite the consultations, the people who live in Gloucestershire--the electorate--actually have a very limited say on the matter because the inspector and the Secretary of State have the power to overturn the decisions made by the democratically elected councillors and to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people who live in the area.
In other words, there is a gaping democratic deficit in the whole planning process. In addition, a great deal of taxpayers' money has been wasted in the course of the process in Gloucestershire--and it is nowhere near finished.
I therefore suggest that the Secretary of State use his powers wisely. If he did, he would properly educate his inspectors before sending them out into the country and allowing them to contradict the very policies that the Government are proposing. He would explain the meaning of sustainable development to his inspectors and he would ensure that a vast amount of taxpayers' money was not wasted on smokescreen planning processes. I would also suggest that the Secretary of State carefully consider the actual effect of his target of 60 per cent. of new housing being built on brown-field land. I appreciate that he has increased the figure from 50 per cent. and I applaud that, but the new target is of little comfort to the people of Gloucestershire, who will probably have to endure about 90 per cent. of new building on green-field sites, leaving only about 10 per cent. to be built on brown-field land. In Tewkesbury, probably 100 per cent. of new building will have to be on green-field sites. The Minister shakes his head, but I cannot imagine where houses will be built in Tewkesbury if it is not on green-field sites.
In other words, it is all well and good setting a national target of 60 per cent., but I would suggest that a target should be set for each county, thereby adding meaning and substance to what is at present mere philosophy. Again, PPG3 suggests that local areas should have such a target, but what does the Minister intend to do in areas which have very little brown-field land available, such as Gloucestershire? Will he allow them to build fewer houses? Again, the action should match the rhetoric.
The position in Gloucestershire needs reviewing for a number of reasons, including the shortage of brown-field sites in the county, the attractive countryside, the building that has already taken place, the fact that much of my constituency sits on a flood plain. There are many other reasons, not least the recently published household projection figures. For all those reasons, the inspector, or perhaps the Secretary of State, should be reducing the number of houses required for Gloucestershire, not increasing it.
I understand that only this morning, the county council proposed to reject the EIP figures and stick to the original 50,000 houses, as in its structure plan. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will take no action against the council because if he does, he will be acting against the people of Gloucestershire. That would fly in the face of democracy and common sense, and would further contradict the Government's stated policy of wanting to protect the countryside.
A high housing figure for Gloucestershire would put pressure on the borough councils to build houses in the most inappropriate places. In Tewkesbury, where the recently published local plan was based on a lower housing figure, the council proposed building houses in an historic town which already struggles with too much traffic and cannot take any more cars on its small lanes, in a village where permission was once refused because the land was deemed to be unsuitable, on hundreds of people's allotments, in two separate villages where such building threatens coalescence and, again, on green-field sites and in the open countryside.
People say, "Of course we need houses"--but we do not know how many. Already, the 4.4 million prediction is being shown to be too high, and who can tell whether the trends of recent years will continue? Couples may not continue to break up as frequently as they do now, and house sharing may become more commonplace than it is now. As the Secretary of State said, on 29 March, in a written answer to a parliamentary question,
I was born in a town in north-west England, and lived there for 33 years before moving to live in the countryside; so I feel that I understand the needs of both town and country. I feel also that I understand homelessness, as, before I was elected to the House, I ran a major project to help homeless women in London. However, homelessness has little to do with a shortage of houses--the issue is much more complicated than that. Therefore, even if we built too few houses, people would not become homeless because there were not enough houses.
Building millions of new houses creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which houses are built, house prices are therefore restrained and--hey, presto--people buy those houses. However, that does not mean that those houses
were needed initially. Therefore, I welcome another statement in the amendment that I mentioned earlier, saying that
Even if higher housing requirements are justifiably predicted, they cannot necessarily be provided--and definitely not in every single area of the country--if we are to retain at least some of the countryside and avoid causing great damage to the environment. More houses means more damage to the environment. It means more cars and more car journeys, which further damage the environment.
"the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including Green Belts".
Yet in Gloucestershire, the Government inspector, in his examination-in-public report on the county's structure plan, actually promoted the idea of building in the green belt.
"the Government's commitment strictly to control development in the open countryside".
It is poor English, I know, but even worse, the same Government inspector promoted the idea of a new settlement in the open countryside that the Government said they wanted to protect.
"The Government is not against new settlements".
So on the one hand, the Government boast of their commitment strictly to control development in the open countryside, yet on the other, they say that they are not against new settlements. Where do the Government think that those new settlements will be built if not in the open countryside? Where does the Government inspector think that the proposed new settlement in my constituency in Gloucestershire will be built if not in the open countryside?
"Such trends can and do change".--[Official Report, 29 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 471.]
"the Government recognises the need to replace the previous predict and provide approach to the issue of household growth".
I genuinely welcome those words, and look forward to welcoming the action. I should unreservedly welcome such action if I were to witness it. So far, there has been no change in the approach--although the Secretary of State, in the written answer of 29 March, also said of the "predict and provide" process that "That policy is dead." It is not dead.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |