| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 Nov 2004 : Column 67W—continued
New Deal
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many personnel the Department has recruited under the New Deal in each of the past five years. [194854]
Phil Hope: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly) on Monday 25 October 2004, Official Report, column 1052W.
Park Homes
Mr. Purchase: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has had from park home site owners; and if he will make a statement. [194463]
Keith Hill: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently consulted on our proposals to follow up the provisions on park homes in the Housing Bill through subsequent secondary legislation. These are aimed at strengthening the contractual terms which are implied by law and which form part of the agreements that allow park home occupiers to place a park home on site and occupy it.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently analysing the 300 or so replies received, and will consider laying the necessary order once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Park-and-ride Schemes
Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's latest guidance is on proposed developments on designated green belt land, with particular reference to proposals for park and ride schemes. [195708]
Keith Hill:
National planning policy on development in the green belt is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 2. Policy on park and ride schemes is set out in PPG 13 (2001) on transport. This, at Annex E, updated PPG2 to take account of park and ride schemes. The key elements are that green belt locations should only be chosen where they are the most sustainable option, and they will not seriously compromise the purposes of including land in the green
1 Nov 2004 : Column 68W
belt. Park and ride proposals which fail to satisfy these and the other criteria set out in PPG2 (as amended by PPG13) will be inappropriate development.
Planning (Port Sunlight)
Mr. Ben Chapman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on planning proposals at Port Sunlight. [194143]
Keith Hill: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received five letters from local residents who are opposed to proposals for housing development at Port Sunlight. Those proposals are currently the subject of planning applications which are before Wirral metropolitan borough council.
Reviews (Lancashire and Chorley)
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the implications of the (a) Gershon Review and (b) Spending Review on the budgets of (i) Lancashire county council and (ii) Chorley borough council. [194625]
Mr. Raynsford: The Government looked with local authorities in the context of the Spending Review 2004 (SR04) at the pressures councils face up to 2007–08, along with the scope for efficiency savings. SR04 provides continued investment in local government services with £7.2 billion more in general grant for local government programmes by 2007–08 over 2004–05. The Gershon Review's expectation is each authority creates efficiency gains from existing budgets of at least 2.5 per cent., at least half of which is cashable. There will be no impact on authorities' overall budgets as there is no intention to increase or reduce planned budgets as a result of implementing the review. Efficiency gains made by each authority can be re-invested into front line local services. The provisional local government finance settlement for 2005–06 will be announced shortly which will be followed by a consultation period where authorities will be able to make written representations on the Government's proposals.
Social Housing
Mr. Alan Campbell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties are available for rent from Housing Associations in each local authority area in Tyne and Wear; and how many were available in 1997. [193342]
Keith Hill: Housing Association properties available for rent in each local authority area in Tyne and Wear in 2003, and 1997, are tabled as follows:
| Local authority | 2003 | 1997 |
|---|---|---|
| Gateshead | 4,441 | 4,374 |
| Newcastle | 7,365 | 7,595 |
| North Tyneside | 4,921 | 4,529 |
| South Tyneside | 4,135 | 4,138 |
| Sunderland | 39,145 | 4,711 |
Note:
Latest available Government figures.
Source:
Regulatory Statistical Return (RSR), Part O.
1 Nov 2004 : Column 69W
Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average price of a 25 per cent. stake in a (a) one-bedroom, (b) two-bedroom and (c) three-bedroom shared ownership property in (i) Tower Hamlets, (ii) the East London sub-region, (iii) London and (iv) England was in the latest year for which figures are available; and what the average (A) rent and (B) service charge was on the 75 per cent. stake held by the registered social landlord in each instance. [194674]
Keith Hill: The table shows the average price of a 25 per cent. stake, together with the average rent and service charges for the 75 per cent. stake held by the registered social landlord, broken down by the number of bedrooms, in Tower Hamlets, the East London sub-region, London and England in 2003–04.
Notes:
1. Because the buyer took a 25 per cent. stake the average price paid by the buyer represents one-quarter of the property.
2. The figures include the following schemes: Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership, Shared Ownership for the Elderly, Leasehold Schemes for the Elderly, Ordinary Shared Ownership Schemes.
3. East London sub-region is an amalgamation of the London boroughs of: Barking and Dagenham, Hackney, Havering, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest.
Source:
Housing Corporation, CORE sales
1 Nov 2004 : Column 70W
Youth Services (London)
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average expenditure per capita of each London borough on youth services was in each year since 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [194010]
Mr. Miliband: I have been asked to reply.
The information requested is contained within the following table:
Notes:
1. Data are collected at local education authority (LEA) level. Included here are the data for all London LEAs.
2. Recorded here is expenditure in relation to the authority's youth service. This includes provision at residential and non-residential youth centres, including activity, outdoor and urban studies centres related to youth service provision. Also includes development workers, advisors and youth leaders not based at youth centres. This excludes any capital expenditure.
3. The expenditure data to 1998–99 are drawn from the annual 'RO1' spending returns which local authorities submitted to the ODPM. Figures for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 were drawn from section 52 (table 3) outturn statements which LEAs submitted to the DfES. Figures for 2002–03 are taken from section 52 (table A) outturn statements.
4. The priority age group for youth services is 13–19 (although youth services can also provide support for targeted groups in the 11 to 13 and 19 to 25 age ranges). In order to provide a figure for expenditure per capita on youth services we have divided each London LEA's net current expenditure on youth services by the total population aged 13–19 within that authority. The population figures are estimated resident mid year population figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and these have recently been revised following the 2001 Census. Thus for financial year 1996–97 we have used the population estimate from mid year 1996 and for 1997–98 we used the mid 1997 estimate (and so on).
5. Data (cash terms) are as reported by the LEA at 24 October 2004.
1 Nov 2004 : Column 71W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |