Examination of witnesses (Questions 64
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 24 NOVEMBER 1999
MR TONY
BURTON and MR
ALASTAIR RUTHERFORD
Chairman
64. Can I welcome you to the second session
this morning? Could I ask you to identify yourselves for the record,
please?
(Mr Burton) I am Tony Burton. I am the assistant director
at CPRE and on my left is Alastair Rutherford, who is CPRE's head
of rural policy.
65. Do you want to say anything by way of introduction
or are you happy for us to go into questions?
(Mr Burton) We are happy for you to come straight
in.
66. What is your opinion of Professor Crow's
report and panel?
(Mr Burton) We were appalled by the report. It bears
very little relation to the strategy which has been agreed by
all 138 local authorities in the south-east, representing the
full range of the political spectrum and it presents a strategy
which, in a sense, we have not even had a chance to comment on,
because it was not really a subject for debate at the Public Examination.
There is no opportunity formally for consultation at the moment.
The strategy being suggested of expanded growth in the south-east
could have a devastating impact on the south-east, most notably
in terms of congestion and sprawl, but equally importantly it
would undermine opportunities for urban renewal and regional regeneration
in the rest of the country. The Urban Task Force's key conclusion
was that the Government's 60 per cent target for new housing on
recycled urban land could only be achieved if we did something
about overheating in the south-east. The household projections
in the south-east were at a level of development which could "not
be contemplated"; yet the Panel's report is suggesting something
like 150,000 more houses than the household projections. Last
but not least, it flatly contradicts a whole series of welcome
changes in Government policy, particularly on planning for housing,
but also transport, which have been supported and helped by this
Committee; on the abolition of predict and provide; on the 60
per cent target; on tackling traffic growth; on more even growth
around the country; and importantly on the importance of a more
inclusive approach, a more transparent approach, a more bottom
up approach to the process of preparing regional planning guidance.
All those policy commitments, all those welcome changes, are contradicted
by the report that we have been presented with.
67. He made the point to us this morning—I
think you heard him—that if these houses were not provided
in the south-east and the development opportunities for industry
were not in the south-east they would go to somewhere else in
the global economy rather than to the less affluent parts of Britain.
What do you say to that?
(Mr Burton) It is interesting speculation but I think
the issues are more serious and need more careful analysis than
that. Certainly there was no clear evidence of that presented
to the Panel in the evidence that we saw. The research that has
been undertaken by the Government about the role of the planning
system in terms of the international mobility of investment suggests
that the role of planning is not a major factor in encouraging
development overseas. What is needed, in our view, is a more proactive
approach from the Government to addressing the links between regions,
particularly the links between the roles of the new Regional Development
Agencies. We shall use the period of this plan, 20/25 years, to
actively reduce the disparities that we see across the country,
to recognise the problems of overheating in the south-east and
to share more of the investment which is available to bring positive
benefits for other parts of England.
Mr Brake
68. How would you respond to the charge that
if CPRE's policies were implemented in the south-east you would
exacerbate an already desperate situation as far as affordable
housing in the south-east is concerned?
(Mr Burton) CPRE clearly, in our evidence both written
and oral, wanted to see a substantial increase in the supply of
affordable housing in the south-east. We would reduce the overall
housing numbers whilst increasing the supply of affordable housing.
Let us not forget that it is not as if we have a shortage of land
earmarked for development at the moment. We are not in a position
of facing land shortages. There has already been allocated enough
land for 800,000 houses in the south-east today, as we speak,
so the adjustments which we are talking about are ones that can
be made well in advance of any tensions developing in the housing
market. The new plan, monitor and manage approach will allow us
to pick up those tensions and respond accordingly. Ours is an
agenda for delivering better housing for more people in the south-east
who cannot currently afford it and for delivering more of that
housing in urban areas where there are particular problems of
social deprivation and particular problems in the quality of the
existing housing stock.
69. If you are advocating increasing the proportion
of affordable housing, would you not thereby create an under-supply
of normal housing for purchase?
(Mr Burton) Not at all. There has been a fundamental
over-supply in the south-east of housing to meet market demands.
What we are talking about is ensuring that, within a provision
which meets the south-east's needs in the future, a greater share
of that is affordable housing.
Mr Randall
70. Do you think public transport in rural areas
provides a realistic alternative to the private motor car?
(Mr Burton) For many people it is not really a choice.
20 per cent of people do not have a car. 40 per cent of women
do not have a driving licence. The choice is not there for it
to be an alternative.
71. That is in rural areas?
(Mr Burton) Yes. Having said that, it is undoubtedly
true that the car will remain a central form of transport in the
countryside. What we need to do is make more of the opportunities
that we have for more innovative, more flexible ways of moving
people around, of which public transport is most obviously one.
There are a number of innovative schemes being developed, particularly
by the Countryside Agency—the Wiggly bus in Wiltshire, the
Wheels to Work scheme in Herefordshire - but at the moment these
do not add up to more than a few initiatives in a few places.
We need a more consistent approach and that is something we are
hoping the Rural White Paper will bring, along with some funding
to deliver it.
72. Do you think the implication of the Crow
Report would be an increase in private car usage?
(Mr Burton) There is no doubt that the proposals would
lead to substantial additional congestion. I cannot see a situation
where you can accommodate the levels of development in the ways
that have been suggested without substantial new road development
and infrastructure development. The lessons that we have learned
in transport policy over the last few years do not seem to have
been learned in the Panel report in terms of trying to build ourselves
out of the problem. It is not a strategy which is acknowledged
to be successful nationally and we do not think it has any place
in regional planning guidance either.
73. In your memorandum, you want to know about
how you can reduce rural speed and you put forward proposals.
Do you think that generalised speed limits on rural roads can
be effective?
(Mr Burton) Yes, we think it is the most effective
way. We already have generalised speed limits on rural roads and
we think reducing them further is an essential plank of any policy
to reduce the intimidation of traffic on country lanes; but also
to encourage more people to walk and cycle in the countryside,
not just for enjoyment but for day to day activity.
Mr Gray
74. Would you not agree with me that there is
something to be said for doing what they do in France which is
to say there should be a speed limit in a village the moment you
pass the village sign?
(Mr Burton) Indeed, we would. We believe that the
measures for indicating traffic management measures in the countryside
need to respond to the sensitivity of rural locations. We are
positively advocating the use of gateways in terms of signs of
that kind to be the indicators to the drivers of the change in
speed limit.
75. You must not do what Suffolk County Council
have done which is to put up a sign which says "Village",
just in case you did not realise it was.
(Mr Burton) And then have repeater signs which clutter
the rest of the road going through the rest of the village.
76. Absolutely. In your memorandum, you seem
to indicate that there are not too many problems in the countryside.
If that is the case, why do you need a Rural White Paper?
(Mr Burton) There are problems in the countryside
but there is not a generic rural problem which needs some sort
of generalised solution. Economically, rural areas are performing
pretty well and they are out-performing urban areas, but many
people are not benefiting from that. If you are old, poor, young
or ill, the countryside is not perhaps as good a place to be as
if you are not. There are obviously very serious environmental
problems which need to be addressed. Absolutely we need a Rural
White Paper to provide a sense of coherence, vision and shared
purpose for the role of the countryside in modern life. We need
a modern view of the countryside which identifies where it is
and what we want the countryside to be in 10 or 20 years' time.
At the moment, we have a fragmented approach to rural policy.
We lack a route map which joins the various rural initiatives
that we have seen today.
77. Surely what you are describing is mainly
spin or waffle. You rightly say that things that affect people
in my constituency in the countryside are education policy, health
policy, the economy and these things affect everybody everywhere,
whether in towns, the countryside or elsewhere. What is the purpose
of going to all this trouble of producing a document which just
says things like, "We believe that the countryside is a marvellous
place to be"? Surely this is all just general waffle and
spin?
(Mr Burton) There are ways in which the Rural White
Paper can address those issues. We are not saying the Rural White
Paper is the be all and end all of rural policy. Far from it.
It should not be the be all and end all of rural policy. What
it should do is inject a powerful rural, countryside dimension
across Government as a whole, so the Rural White Paper is the
start of the process which would then mean that future health
policy, education policy, competitiveness policy and transport
policy had stronger rural dimensions. We shall identify the role
of the countryside within those areas. We should provide new machinery
of Government to rural proof decisions and subsequent from the
Rural White Paper we should see a new Competitiveness White Paper,
new policy initiatives on education and new policy initiatives
on transport, coming forward with a much clearer rural theme running
through them.
78. I take issue with one point there where
you said the start of the process. I speak on behalf of a colleague
who sits in the public gallery behind you, who started the process
by drafting the last Rural White Paper which said precisely the
same things.
(Mr Burton) Absolutely. The key problem with the last
Rural White Paper was the lack of delivery. It corralled a lot
of the evidence; it provided a lot of very helpful analysis of
the issues, but it then lacked a proactive strategy to deliver
them and to carry them forward.
79. What specific policies would you like to
see in the Rural White Paper?
(Mr Burton) We could give you a very long shopping
list on that.
| 
