| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Has the hon. Gentleman the permission of the hon. Member who introduced the debate and the Minister?
Mr. Lidington indicated assent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper) indicated assent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very good. I call the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
7.41 pm
Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can briefly echo the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) so eloquently expressed.
I am not opposed to all development. We cannot live in a museum-piece economy. There is a widespread recognition that there is a big demand for additional housing and that that demand will, in part at least, have to be met. My constituency will doubtless have to make a contribution to the process. My concern, based on the historical record, is that unless we receive cast-iron assurances to the contrary, we shall get the development without the accompanying infrastructure that is necessary for that development to be sustainable.
In case the Minister wonders why I have this concern, I inform her that I raised the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister when he appeared before the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government earlier this year. He expressed confidence that the infrastructure would be forthcoming. I challenged him whether, in the light of that confidence, he would confirm that the go-ahead for the development would not be given unless and until there were written undertakings about the infrastructure. He laughed and said that he was sure that I would like such a commitment, but that he did not intend to go down that road. I hope that the Minister will understand why I, on behalf of my constituents, am so concerned.
We do not want the additional air pollution, the greater traffic congestion, the increased pressure on hospital places and the problems in terms of inadequate school provision. We want to ensure that there are sustainable communities, a principle to which the Government are already signed up.
My hon. Friend dwelt in some detail on the important issues. I just want to reiterate the following. First, we need commitments on expenditure and on guarantees that the infrastructure will be delivered at the same time as the housing gets under way. Secondly, we want to be assured that if we are co-operative in the process, as Aylesbury Vale district council fully intends to be, we will be granted local autonomy in deciding which sites are most suitable for the additional development. Thirdly, we have to be sure that historic infrastructure
deficits are addressed, notably in the insufficiency of beds at Stoke Mandeville hospital, but in a number of other respects too.I underline to the Minister that there is a certain absurdity in generalised talk about plans for the east-west rail link phase beyond 2011 when very specific plans for large-scale housing that might get under way substantially sooner are being confirmed and championed by the Government. We need plans for the east-west rail link and a link between the A41 Aston Clinton road to the east of Aylesbury and the A418 from Milton Keynes because, after all, that is a spoke in the regional transport strategy. We also need many other commitments from the Government.
My hon. Friends and I are not taking a dogmatic view or engaging in ritualistic opposition, but trying to stand up for the legitimate interests of our constituents. I hope that the hon. Lady is sympathetic to that position and that she can offer some assurances in her reply.
7.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on securing the debate and choosing to discuss a subject that is so important to his constituents. I shall briefly set out the background to the current situation before addressing the points that he and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made.
The Milton Keynes and south midlands study was an independent study that was commissioned by regional and local partners in 2001 to examine the potential for growth in the area. The large study area covered all of Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire, Milton Keynes and Luton unitary authorities and Aylesbury Vale district council in Buckinghamshire. The study recognised that stakeholder engagement was critical when reaching its conclusions, and representatives from 147 organisations were invited to a series of meetings. The study concluded that there was considerable potential for further growth in the area, but that that should be concentrated on urban areas.
Further independent and individual studies were then undertaken at all the key towns in the Milton Keynes and south midlands study area, including Aylesbury. The studies endorsed the growth agenda required to continue the economic success of the area and also identified broad strategic areas for further growth and the infrastructure required for their delivery. There has been a detailed study, so the hon. Member for Aylesbury was wrong to say that the figures had been somehow plucked out of thin air. Extensive work and study has been done on the need for growth as a result of local and regional demands.
In February 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a programme of action—the sustainable communities plan—which made it clear that a step change was essential to tackle the challenges of a rapidly changing population, the needs of the economy and the serious housing shortages in London and the south-east. The action programme set out the policy, resources and partnerships required to achieve that change. It also set out the need for key growth areas such as the Milton Keynes and south midlands area, which was already demonstrating a dramatic capacity for economic success.
The progress report that was published in July identified the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area as a key link between the midlands and the south-east. It also made it clear that regional and local partners have launched proposals for public consultation on total growth, which would provide 134,000 new homes by 2016 in the main growth locations throughout the sub-region—and thus generate an additional 44,000 homes by 2016 above current planning targets.
Andrew Selous: Will the Minister kindly tell the House what is wrong with having a much larger number of smaller-scale developments integrated organically into existing communities rather than four massive areas around London, which will come with a whole host of social problems?
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need new developments with different kinds of housing and mixed developments whenever possible. We have strongly promoted such developments on brownfield sites in existing communities—that is the direction in which we are moving. Additionally, we have identified key growth areas where detailed local studies have shown that substantial further expansion can be supported and, indeed, where such expansion is required because of the extent of the need for additional local housing that is coming from London and the south-east and the genuine pressures that we must all recognise. That means that Aylesbury Vale district council's existing regional planning guidance allocation of 11,400 extra homes by 2016 will increase to 16,400 extra homes, and the three regional assemblies are formally taking that proposal forward through the planning process. The regional assemblies include local councillors. When completed, the planning proposals will alter existing regional planning guidance.
The planning consultation for the area was published in July, with the 12-week initial consultation period ending on 13 October. During that time, two public consultation events were held at Aylesbury in August. Given the understandable insistence on the need for consultation, I assure hon. Members that that stage was the first part of an extensive round of public participation undertaken before finalising the regional planning guidance towards the end of next year.
Before the proposals are finalised, there will be a public examination, run by an independent panel; that will be held in March 2004. It will scrutinise all the proposals, including those for Aylesbury. Further public consultation on the proposed changes will be undertaken later in 2004 before the alterations are finalised. We are still some way off the end of the consultation process. Once regional planning guidance is finalised, local development documents will cover the area and will involve consultation arrangements for the locality.
I stress that the proposals are draft proposals by the regional assemblies. They will continue through the process of public consultation for some time. The regional planning documents are not intended to be site specific, but to give a broad strategic view of the way
forward. It may reassure hon. Members to know that the Government's response to the current consultation is that the draft proposals are too site specific and that more strategic criteria are required to allow local communities to determine where and how the additional development is provided.The proposals present considerable opportunities to Aylesbury Vale district council and Aylesbury itself in terms of the role and functions it may develop. It might be possible to utilise the growth to deliver urban renaissance, especially in the town centre, and to attract higher-value inward investment. Opportunities are likely to be sought to promote urban intensification of existing residential areas and, through the redevelopment of redundant employment land, to minimise development on greenfield land. We should recognise that many of those areas have relatively low density of housing compared with other regions.
Hon. Members mentioned infrastructure. That is extremely important. The communities plan sets out that growth areas must not be dormitories; they must be communities. That also depends on providing good quality community infrastructure.
I recognise the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Buckingham about the historical record. New developments have taken place without the necessary infrastructure being in place. The purpose of the communities plan is to indicate a substantial change in that approach and to recognise the importance of infrastructure.
We have already provided additional Government funds of £11.4 million to pump-prime the delivery of growth in Milton Keynes and Aylesbury, showing our commitment to the area. Aylesbury Vale district council prepared a number of bids from the additional money. Its bid for specialist advice and a strategy action plan, together with a study for promoting and unlocking opportunities and areas for mixed development, were successful. We are considering the Kingsbury project, which would help to regenerate Kingsbury town centre. In addition, we are also funding studies covering the whole growth area, including one relating to health and hospital provision.
We are also considering transport infrastructure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 9 July a package of improvements worth £2.2 billion across the growth areas. That will support links from Milton Keynes to Aylesbury and public transport improvements that are being worked up in Aylesbury itself.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |