House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 15 Oct 2001 (pt 24)

Swanick Air Traffic Control Centre

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the Government's latest estimate is of the opening date of the Swanick air traffic control centre. [7840]

Mr. Jamieson: The planned operational date for the New En Route Centre at Swanick remains 27 January 2002.

Council Houses

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council houses were built in London in the years (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99, (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01. [7842]

Ms Keeble: A total of 103 council houses were built between 1995 and 1998 and since then no council houses have been built to date. A breakdown of actual figures by borough is given in the table:

Council houses built between 1995 to 2001

1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 Total 1995 to 2001

Barking and Dagenham — ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— 0

Barnet — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bexley — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Brent — 0 0 ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— 0

Bromley — 0 ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— 0

Camden — 0 0 0 0 0 0

City of London — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Croydon — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ealing — 0 0 0 0 ⁽¹⁵⁾— 0

Enfield — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Greenwich — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hackney — 22 34 ⁽¹⁵⁾— 0 0 56

Hammersmith and Fulham — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Haringey — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Harrow — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Havering — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hillingdon — ⁽¹⁵⁾— 2 ⁽¹⁵⁾— 0 0 2

Hounslow — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Islington — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kensington and Chelsea — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kingston upon Thames — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lambeth — ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— 0

Lewisham — ⁽¹⁵⁾— 0 0 0 0 0

Merton — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Newham — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Redbridge — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Richmond upon Thames — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Southwark — ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— 0 0 0

Sutton — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tower Hamlets — ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— ⁽¹⁵⁾— 0

Waltham Forest — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wandsworth — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Westminster — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total ⁽¹⁶⁾45 22 36 0 0 0 103

	1995–96	1996–97	1997–98	1998–99	1999–2000	2000–01	Total 1995 to 2001
Barking and Dagenham	—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	0
Barnet	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bexley	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Brent	—	0	0	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	0
Bromley	—	0	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	0
Camden	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
City of London	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Croydon	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ealing	—	0	0	0	0	⁽¹⁵⁾—	0
Enfield	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Greenwich	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Hackney	—	22	34	⁽¹⁵⁾—	0	0	56
Hammersmith and Fulham	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Haringey	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Harrow	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Havering	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Hillingdon	—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	2	⁽¹⁵⁾—	0	0	2
Hounslow	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Islington	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kensington and Chelsea	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kingston upon Thames	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Lambeth	—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	0
Lewisham	—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	0	0	0	0	0
Merton	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Newham	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Redbridge	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Richmond upon Thames	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Southwark	—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	0	0	0
Sutton	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Tower Hamlets	—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	⁽¹⁵⁾—	0
Waltham Forest	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wandsworth	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Westminster	—	0	0	0	0	0	0

Total	⁽¹⁶⁾45	22	36	0	0	0	103

⁽¹⁵⁾ Source: DTLR Housing Stats. Data not available because the LA reported for nine months or less

⁽¹⁶⁾ Total for 1995–96 sourced from DTLR Housing Stats 2000. Break down by each borough not available

15 Oct 2001 : Column: 889W

Infrastructure Projects

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce proposals for a statutory duty to consult local residents on major infrastructure projects. [6565]

Ms Keeble: The local planning authority already has a statutory duty to advertise major development in a newspaper and either issue a site notice or notify neighbours.

The new measures for streamlining the handling of major infrastructure projects announced by my right hon. Friend on 20 July 2001 will ensure opportunities for the public to make their views known through consultation about statements of national infrastructure policy, a right to object before Parliament considers the principle of major infrastructure projects, and at public inquiries into the detailed aspects of projects.

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what definition of a Crown development is used by his Department in relation to infrastructure projects. [6566]

Ms Keeble: "Crown development" is the common usage term for development by or on behalf of the Crown on Crown land, and as such is not defined in statute.

"Crown land" is defined in section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as land where there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest. "Crown interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to a Government Department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a Government Department. "Duchy interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall.

There is no special meaning attached to "crown development" in relation to infrastructure projects.

Correspondence

Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will reply to the letters of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire dated 26 July and 10 September about planning consent for a housing development in Duffield, Derbyshire. [7970]

Ms Keeble: The Minister for Housing and Planning replied to the hon. Member on 14 September and 5 October respectively indicating that the Secretary of State would take account of the hon. Member's concerns, and those of his constituents, in his consideration of whether to call in an application for housing development in Duffield.

Mr. Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will reply to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford's letter of 26 February regarding channel tunnel rail link blight. [6552]

Mr. Jamieson: Following a thorough review of the case of his former constituents, I replied to my hon. Friend on 26 September.

15 Oct 2001 : Column: 890W

National Homelessness Strategy

Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the responses to the consultation national homelessness strategy will be published. [7826]

Ms Keeble: A summary of responses to the consultation on the national homelessness strategy will be published on the DTLR Housing internet site on 7 December 2001. Respondents to the consultation will be notified of its publication.

Regional Chambers

Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the (a) expenditure in each of the last five years was and (b) budgets for the years 2001–02 and 2002–03 are with respect to the acquisition of property for use by, or with respect to, regional chambers. [7823]

Dr. Whitehead: The regional chambers were designated by the Secretary of State following the establishment of Regional Development Agencies in 1999. They have been established voluntarily by bodies representing the interests of each region. Their running costs are a matter for the chambers and their members. The Government have however, allocated £500,000 this year to each regional chamber, with an additional £1 million for chambers to use collectively, to help them establish a stronger strategic and scrutiny role within the regions.

Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

Linda Perham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. [7725]

Dr. Whitehead: My Department has undertaken a review of the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, which has been an Executive Agency since 1989. The review considered all the organisational aspects for the agency, taking into account its role and past performance, its fit with wider objectives, and the relationship with other bodies in the public and private sectors. Staff and trade unions have been consulted as part of the review.

The key findings of the review were:

There have been substantial improvements in the centre's performance over the last 5 years, with a 30 per cent. increase in turnover. Current performance is considered to be near the optimum for conference use.

Most of the centre's business derives from the private sector and associations.

The centre is seen as an important London facility, attracting considerable business tourism.

The review does not recommend contracting out or privatisation, which it considers may be difficult to implement, and would be poor value for money. It also concluded that any market interest in the site is likely to relate to redevelopment for uses other than a conference centre.

In the light of the review findings, I have decided that the public sector status and role of the QEII conference centre should not be changed. I have, however, asked

15 Oct 2001 : Column: 891W

officials, over the longer term, to keep under review options for ownership of the QEIICC within the public sector.

A summary of the review findings is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Next Section

Index

Home Page